1999-08-303914REPS932101999-08-30Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Delegation Reports9321932112:31:009321Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the meeting of the Asia-Pacific Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, held in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia from 26 to 31 July 1999, and seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report.Leave granted.ZT4Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAY—Mr Speaker, from 26 to 31 July I attended, on your behalf, the first regional meeting of the Asia-Pacific Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union held in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. The meeting was convened under the auspices of the IPU so that parliamentarians in our region could discuss and debate matters of mutual interest and also, as a geopolitical group, prepare for the conference to be held later in Berlin. Fifteen countries in the region were represented at this meeting. Australia and other delegations presented country reports as part of a general debate on the political, social and economic situation in the Asia-Pacific region. I have included these as an appendix to my report and, as they provide a comprehensive, current and insightful analysis of the Asian financial crisis and other major issues within the region, I commend them to honourable members.The agenda for the meeting addressed matters of real substance, and I was particularly pleased that much of the discussion centred on the impact and implications of the Asian financial crisis. It was encouraging to hear delegates from the region reporting that the adverse impact of the Asian economic crisis is abating and signs of sustainable recovery are emerging. It was particularly pleasing to detect once again an optimism and a confidence in the Asian economies. However, as one delegate eloquently observed, it is too early for all of us from the Asia-Pacific region to toast with champagne and celebrate our successes. There are reasons for us to temper our optimism. It was also heartening to hear from several parliamentarians in the region who recognise that economies in the region must adopt policies which strengthen financial systems, restore trade finance, accelerate corporate sector restructuring and restore investor confidence and a return of capital flows. This can be achieved by the introduction of sound financial systems, corporate governance and approved accounting, transparency and disclosure standards. It was recognised that the recovery must also be accompanied by initiatives that address the social impacts of the crisis.The agenda for the meeting also focused on regional security issues, with all delegates expressing considerable concern that the situations in India and Pakistan and on the Korean peninsular remain tense. Following discussions and debate, the meeting constituted a drafting committee to prepare a final communique for ratification by all delegates. I had the honour, Mr Speaker, of being elected to chair that drafting committee and, after considering several important but sometimes contentious and conflicting proposals, agreement was reached on the final draft. This draft, with two amendments, was adopted by the plenary session and was ratified by all delegates at the signing ceremony on the last day of the meeting. The joint communique is also reproduced in full in my report.I can assure the House that the meeting of the Asia-Pacific Group of the IPU in Ulaanbaatar was highly successful as it stimulated a productive dialogue between delegations from the region and forged important networks within the group that will be reinforced at the IPU conference in Berlin and beyond. The meeting provided a new impetus to further strengthen friendly relations and co-operation between member parliaments. The Asia-Pacific Group is an important forum for Australia within the IPU, and it is one that I personally want to strengthen and develop. Australia's participation at this conference was also very important as it confirmed our interest in and commitment to the Asia-Pacific region to the group and the IPU. I commend this report to the House.Committees93229322932212:36:009322Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, I present the committee's report entitled, Unlocking the future: the report of the inquiry into the Reeves review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 , together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.XU5Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMAN—It gives me great pleasure to table this report of the committee's review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. I hope that our report will assist Australians living in the Northern Territory to work together, as it puts forward practical recommendations which will lead to practical results that address the profound economic and social disadvantages experienced by many indigenous Australians.When it was enacted in 1976, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act represented a milestone in the recognition of Aboriginal rights to land. Twenty-five years later the act remains central and relevant to the lives of Aboriginal people. The act has been reviewed several times and minor amendments have been made over the years. Most recently, it was reviewed by John Reeves QC—the recommendations of his report, now known as the Reeves report, are the subject of this committee's report.The Reeves report was referred to the committee in December last by the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Senator the Hon. John Herron, whom I commend for his wisdom and insight in referring to the committee this report before he makes decisions and recommendations to his government. The minister asked the committee to seek the views of people who have an interest in the possible implications of the Reeves report. The Reeves report makes far- reaching and, at times, controversial recommendations. For this reason, the committee undertook to visit as many regional and remote communities as it could. In this way, members listened and talked with people, especially those most affected by the act, the Aboriginal people in the Territory.When reviewing the written and oral evidence before it, the committee focused its deliberations by firstly agreeing to core values and principles. The first of these is that Aboriginal rights to their land granted under the land rights act should be preserved. The second core principle is that Aboriginal people should have the same rights, opportunities and responsibilities as other Australian landowners. They should be given as much autonomy as possible to run their own affairs and be free to associate and organise in ways they see fit. The third principle is that the committee should be attempting to foster constructive partnerships between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people, between the Northern Territory government, land councils, the mining industry and others.The committee wished to ensure that the land rights act remain as flexible as possible. The act needs to meet changing circumstances as the focus changes from land claims to land management. In short, the act needs to facilitate rather than determine outcomes. Finally, and most importantly, this committee seeks to ensure that Aboriginal people are involved in decisions to amend the act. This principle is reflected in our first core recommendation. The committee also describes a process for its recommendations to be considered by Aboriginal people. It is after all their act, their land and their future.The involvement of Aboriginal people in a number of project teams to consider the committee's recommendations represents a new dynamic. The committee trusts that it will give Aboriginal people greater ownership of the act and a greater sense that they control their own destinies. The committee's other recommendations cover the issues addressed by the Reeves report. The committee recommends that the structure of the land councils be improved so that appropriate land council powers can be delegated to local regional groups of Aboriginal people. The committee also seeks changes to make it easier for new land councils to be established or even for Aboriginal people to do without the services of a land council altogether, if that is their wish.Members also considered the structure of the Aboriginals Benefit Reserve and the distribution of royalty money to Aboriginal groups. Members spent considerable time debating whether land council budgets should continue to be guaranteed a fixed percentage of royalty equivalent income. Members also considered the most appropriate ways for royalties to be distributed in areas affected by mining. Government and non-government members came to different conclusions on these important issues. However, all members of the committee agreed that there needs to be greater accountability for the expenditure of royalties and that both sets of proposals should be put to Aboriginal people through a project team. The Commonwealth Grants Commission could also be asked to assist to develop systems to ensure strong independent advice is available to achieve an equitable distribution of royalty equivalents.The committee also reviewed the mining provisions of the land rights act. The committee heard overwhelming evidence that the act as it stands restricts exploration and mining on Aboriginal land. The committee recommends that the act be amended so that agreements for exploration and mining between Aboriginals and mining companies be free of restrictions. There are two provisos to this recommendation. The first is that the rights of traditional owners to withhold consent for exploration remain as they are in the act today. The second is that any agreements be subject to general commercial law.The Reeves report recommended that the permit system in operation on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory be replaced with a strengthened Northern Territory Trespass Act. The committee accepts that Aboriginal people want the permit system to remain. However, the committee makes a number of recommendations to free up the process for granting permits and to encourage the use of specific area access agreements.The committee also reviewed a number of recommendations in the Reeves report that are strictly beyond the committee's terms of reference, but we commented on the role of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner and made recommendations to ensure that the interests of the broader community are always taken into account when land claims for the beds and banks of rivers are being examined.I am confident that the committee's recommendations will lead to Aboriginal people managing their own land at a local level and making decisions from the bottom up, targeting the expenditure of mining royalty equivalent money in a transparent and fully accountable way that is subject to performance measures so that Aboriginal people derive the full benefit from their land, and a reduction in welfare dependency, promotion of mutual responsibility, trust and enduring partnerships between all people in the Northern Territory and governments.It remains for me to thank the people who have helped the committee in the report and inquiry. Firstly, I thank my colleagues on the committee—Deputy Chair Harry Quick, Trish Draper, Barry Haase, Kelly Hoare, Bob Katter, Jim Lloyd, Daryl Melham, Warren Snowdon and Barry Wakelin. I would also like to thank our wonderful secretariat staff including James Catchpole, Sara Cousins, Jennifer Cochran and Claressa Surtees. The committee also relied on Hansard and Sound and Vision for their technical support in very difficult and challenging conditions in the outback—Karin Oldfield, Brian Lindell and Alan Savage, thank you. I would also like to thank my electorate secretary, Sandy Dalton, for her assistance.Of course, my thanks are extended to the many individuals and organisations, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, who forwarded submissions and assisted the committee in the inquiry. I particularly thank the land councils, the Northern Territory government, ATSIC, the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research and the many hundreds of Northern Territory people, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, who treated me with such courtesy and gave so much help to the committee.The title of this committee's report is Unlocking the future. The title is apt as the committee hopes that its efforts will unlock a better future for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people alike in the Northern Territory.12:44:009324Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—I speak here today proud to have taken part in this committee report, Unlocking the future: the report of the inquiry into the Reeves review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 . The task of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs was to go out into the Northern Territory and find out what Aboriginal people, as well as others with an interest in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, thought about the recommendations of the Reeves report and how it related to the act. The committee has travelled the length and breadth of the Northern Territory to isolated communities over several months. We flew in Caribou aircraft, which I can tell you was a real joy, and in light aircraft from the desert communities in the centre to the Tiwi Islands in the Arafura Sea. This was no easy task.The committee consists of members from across the continent and whose views vary across the political spectrum. The Aboriginal land rights act is no simple piece of legislation to master. It is complex and it is, and has been, the source of much heated debate and political division. Views held are very passionate. Further, the committee had to quickly come to terms with a world view of a culture with which it had had little experience. The Aboriginal land rights act is not just a piece of white man's law; it is essentially based on Aboriginal people's view of the world, particularly their laws regarding traditional land. For this reason too the committee's task was not a simple one.During the hearings and during the drafting of the report, members of the committee had differences of opinion. Yet, while we approached the consideration of the report from these different views, we listened to one another, we respected one another's opinions and we were ultimately able to reach a consensus. That is why I am proud to say that this committee has been able to table a unanimous report. This report is testimony to the patience and perseverance of the members of the committee, and I congratulate and thank them for it. Certainly, there are sections in the report that reflect the disparate views, specifically regarding the Aboriginals Benefit Reserve and distribution of royalties, and parts of the report are the result of give and take from both government and Labor members.I congratulate the chairman in that he has been able to accommodate those disparate views and that we have been able to produce a single, unanimous report. The Reeves review was a result of a political game on the part of the former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Shane Stone, in cahoots with the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Shane Stone and his government wanted to smash the land councils and emasculate the land rights act for their own reasons, and the Reeves review was their method of doing it.However, the vehicle was flawed and, while there is a need for some finetuning to the act, the committee was overwhelmed by the message from the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory that there should be no changes to the act without their consent. The major recommendations of the Reeves review have been rejected. The Reeves review has cost Aboriginal people and the nation more than $1.3 million, and the cost to the taxpayer of this committee has run into hundreds of thousands of dollars more. It has taken up a lot of people's time and emotions have run high.Once again—and how many times has this happened now—Aboriginal people have been left wondering what us white fellas in Canberra are going to do with the land rights act, an act which, after all, is meant to reflect a permanent state of Aboriginal law. It is a credit to the committee that it has rejected the easy political option and has gone instead for the overwhelming message it has received from the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory.This report shows that there can be a way forward. The report shows that the committee went out and sought people's views, that it listened and that it honestly attempted to reflect those views in this document. If the committee can do this, then why cannot the Prime Minister sit down and talk constructively over the various issues that have been raised here? I call on the government to respond positively to the recommendations of this groundbreaking report. The government has an obligation to do so. In closing, I would like to thank especially James, Sara, Jenny and Claressa and also the Hansard staff who have done a magnificent job under most difficult circumstances. I commend the report to the House.12:48:009325Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—The report before the House of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs is an important and definitive document in the struggle by indigenous Australians for justice and the recognition of their rights to land. The report is fundamental because it recognises and recommends that there should be no changes to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act unless they are negotiated with and agreed to by Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, particularly traditional Aboriginal owners. They must give their informed consent.This recommendation is unprecedented and is an acknowledgment that it is inappropriate and improper for non-indigenous Australians, and especially governments, to make decisions about Aboriginal land without the informed consent of the traditional Aboriginal owners of that land. Importantly, there is in the committee a unanimity of view about this first recommendation, which is the foundation and guiding principle of the report. It has precedence over and governs all other recommendations in the report. In making this guiding recommendation, the report rejects all of the central recommendations of the Reeves review.It is clear from the submissions received and the evidence taken by the committee that there is little support from any quarter for the recommendations of Mr Reeves. On the contrary, the overwhelming fact is that, among Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, the Reeves report and its recommendations are regarded as having been fatally flawed and based on wrong-headed and naive assumptions. In reaching its conclusions and making its recommendations, the standing committee demonstrated the preparedness to seek out and listen to the views of Aboriginal Australians who have been and are the subjects and beneficiaries of the Aboriginal land rights act, an act which is about their rights and their land.Submissions and evidence were given by others with an interest in the act and its operation, including the Northern Territory government. The land rights act is unique. It was and remains the benchmark for the Commonwealth in its recognition and acknowledgment of the rights of Aboriginal Australians to their land. It gives statutory recognition and protection to these rights.The report before the House reinforces the central role that the land rights act has in this regard, as well as the functions and responsibilities that the Territory land councils have under the act to advance and safeguard the rights of Aboriginal traditional owners, the custodians of their people's lands. The report rejects the proposal in Reeves for the breaking up of the territory land councils. The report makes many recommendations and it will be clear to readers of it that there are divergent views within the committee over some important sections of the report dealing with mining royalties and the Aboriginals Benefit Reserve.The Labor members of the committee are strongly of the view that their options, clearly identified within the report, offer the most desirable and workable way ahead in dealing with these matters. However, regardless of which options are preferred, the report demands that all of its recommendations should be subject to the basic principle of recommendation 1—that of informed consent.The message to the parliament and government from this report is clear. The way ahead requires dialogue, consultation and negotiation between governments and indigenous Australians. There must be a new attempt at building a partnership between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. This report and its recommendations challenge the government to adopt a new and radically different approach to dealing with indigenous Australians.It is clear from the report that the recognition of the rights, customs and beliefs of indigenous Australians is fundamental to our maturity as a nation and that they should not be subject to the tyranny of the majority as a matter of fiat without negotiation and without agreement. Nor should they be subjugated by those who seek to satiate their own philosophical, ideological, political or economic interest and desires at the expense of the rights and interests of indigenous people. The report provides a challenge to the Prime Minister and the government that will test their bona fides in relation to their commitment to reconciliation and the need for the nation to come properly to terms with the rights and interests of its indigenous peoples.In conclusion, I would like to acknowledge and thank those many Territorians who provided submissions and gave evidence with such patience and good grace. I also want to acknowledge the chairman, Lou Lieberman, and our colleagues on the committee for their companionship, good humour and willingness to listen and learn. Finally, I would like to especially thank James, Sara, Jenny and Claressa for their diligence and professionalism and their humour. I also thank the Hansard staff, who did a magnificent job in very trying circumstances. As well, of course, the RAAF crews were great hosts and are very good people. I commend the report to the House.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Indi wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?9326Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting, and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.9326932612:52:009326Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector, I present the committee's report entitled Fair market or market failure—review of Australia's retailing sector , together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.MP6Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRD—In supporting the committee's recommendations today, I would firstly like to acknowledge the cooperative support of the committee, particularly the Deputy Chair, Mr Harry Jenkins, the Hon. Ron Boswell, Mrs Kay Elson, Senator Jeannie Ferris, Mr Joel Fitzgibbon, Senator Michael Forshaw, Senator Andrew Murray, Mr Gary Nairn and Senator Chris Schacht.It is interesting that, despite the difficulty in producing this particular report, the committee maintained harmonious relations. The fact that we have a unanimous report is a tribute to the way in which the members cooperated. I would also like to pay special tribute to the secretariat of the committee, in particular Andrea Griffiths and Ross Kilmurray, who did an outstanding job organising the inquiry as well as implementing the research and drafting this report. I would also like to thank Mr Peter Taft and Ms Julie Wells for their involvement and the others in the secretariat team. The committee received over 332 submissions and heard evidence from 103 witnesses—organisations, companies and individuals. The committee in its deliberations visited every major capital city with the exception of Hobart.RH4KERRMr Kerr—What's wrong with Hobart?MP6Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRD—We visited key regional centres in Tasmania, as well as in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. It was interesting to receive such a wide diversity of submissions. The committee was greatly assisted also by the expert opinion of those in the ACCC, particularly Professor Allan Fels, Hank Speir and Tim Grimwade.The committee was asked to inquire into and report on the degree of industry concentration within the retailing sector in Australia, overseas development with respect to this issue and possible courses of action by the federal government. It is true to say that the committee found the market is heavily concentrated and oligopolistic in nature, where Woolworths, Coles and Franklins each have a significant degree of economic influence on market power. This has placed significant pressures on small, independent retailers which has led to calls by retail groups for legislative remedies to be imposed by government.Nevertheless, despite the growth of the major chains, consumers seem to have benefited from the competitive forces of the current market structure. The evidence has indicated that since 1986 prices have fallen in real terms for an average basket of foods and individual foods at supermarkets. The committee accepts that economies of scale have driven prices down in the supermarkets. Furthermore, the range of products in the average supermarket has never been greater, with some 40,000 products on offer in most suburban and regional supermarkets. The convenience of one-stop shopping and the significant extension of shopping hours throughout Australia has generally been welcomed by the Australian consumer. By its recommendations, the committee does not seek to invoke protectionist measures for small, independent retailers, but rather it provides for measures which will enhance competition in the marketplace.There was much debate as to the relative size that the majors—Woolworths, Coles and Franklins—have in the market. However, it was considered that, with a combined market share in relation to dry goods of 80 per cent, the chains enjoy a strong degree of market power. The market is enhanced by vertically integrated structures which enable the major chains to gain benefits of scale which are passed on to the consumer, but of course it gives them considerable market power over small retailers. They are provided with special advantages in terms of volume discounts, promotional discounts, electricity discounts, shelf placing and the convenience of one-stop shopping. Despite this consumer satisfaction, the committee was concerned about small retailers. Some of the evidence brought to the committee indicates that the behaviour of the big chains is inconsistent with their public image of being good corporate citizens.NARGA called for the market share of each major chain to be capped at 25 per cent with divestiture to occur within five years when one chain exceeds that figure. Australia would then be the only country in the OECD to actually impose such a figure. The committee decided not to recommend such a move because, firstly, Woolworths shares are owned by a significant number of Australians—some 340,000 people; secondly, Professor Fels's view is that a cap would condemn Australian consumers to being supplied by inefficient, high cost operators; thirdly, the cap would make it more difficult for the small retailers who wanted to get out of the market to sell to the majors, with a likely drop in the value of their stores; fourthly, there would be a great likelihood that avoidance measures would arise; and, fifthly, the sell-off would enable major foreign owned companies such as Aldi and Walmart to enter the Australian market.The committee did not find a compelling case for divestiture but concluded that, at some time in the future, provisions should be written into the Trade Practices Act to enable possible divestiture if market dominance continued and was shown in other retail sectors. It was the view of the committee that the problems of the small retailers could be addressed by other means at this point in time. That includes a whole number of key recommendations.Firstly, the committee recommends that the Trade Practices Act be amended to give the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission the power to undertake representative actions and to seek damages on behalf of third parties under part IV of the act. In the past, they have been restricted from doing that. The ACCC could take on cases on their own behalf, but the benefit did not flow to the small retailers. The committee also suggests that further funding should be provided to the ACCC to take on further representative action in the marketplace.The second recommendation is that the ACCC should consider heavily concentrated regional markets—such as those which exist in south-east Queensland—when assessing acquisitions or mergers under the provisions of section 50 of the Trade Practices Act 1974. That would mean you would assess not only in national terms or state terms but also in regional terms.The committee's third recommendation is for the establishment of an independent retail industry ombudsman through which small business can make complaints. A myriad recommendations came through to us, as did a myriad issues, some of which involve legal aspects which the ACCC could take on, but many of them require redirection to other groups such as state consumer bodies. We believe that that could short-circuit many of the issues and problems that currently confront the retail sector.Recommendation 4 relates to acquisition creep. One of the concerns of the committee was the way in which majors could acquire smaller businesses one by one and was not looked at by the ACCC. We are asking that the ACCC have the power for mandatory approval of each of the individual acquisitions that are made. As part of that, they should consult with local authorities and other relevant parties in order to make an informed assessment of the likely impact of such acquisitions on local businesses.Recommendation 5 is for a mandatory retail code of conduct by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to be worked out with industry groups and the ACCC. As part of that, the committee recommends that we should have like terms for like customers, greater transparency in vulnerable supply markets, product labelling and packaging requirements, terms to deal with contractual uncertainty in the marketplace for suppliers and also truth in branding where the ultimate owner of particular retail stores should be clearly identified through front signage of the stores, in advertising and stationery, et cetera. It is recommended that disputes falling under the code of conduct should not be limited to resolution by the retail industry ombudsman but to other groups as well.Recommendation 6 is that under section 51AC, which is currently limited to companies with a turnover of $1 million, the limit be increased to $3 million to give greater access for other stores. Recommendation 7 is that the uniform tenancy code be revisited. It was a part of the Reid report but it has not been implemented. We are saying that there is greater need for transparency in terms of the retail tenancy arrangements and that, as part of the retail sector, they should be reviewed.Recommendation 8 requires that the supermarket chains take note of the widespread community concern relating to the taking over of pharmacies and that further takeovers in this area be discouraged. The second last recommendation is that there should be mandatory notification to the ACCC of any takeover by retailers of wholesalers and vice versa. The final recommendation is that the committee should be reconstituted in three years time to look at the progress of the code of conduct and the other provisions in terms of these recommendations, and that other provisions should be looked at if further erosion of the market share of the small retail sector should occur.13:02:009328Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—All sectors of the Australian economy have undergone great change over recent times. The retail sector is no exception and, as in other sectors of the economy, the calls for protection come about. The fact that larger competitors have been gathering greater market share in the retail sector is indisputable. This is in line with developments overseas. As is outlined in the report of the Joint Committee on the Retailing Sector, the phenomena is under review in other countries, notably the United Kingdom.The challenge for the committee was to decide whether that market dominance had led to a form of market failure. The other thing that the committee had to deal with was that in the past the economic impacts of market share and market dominance had reigned supreme. We believe that, in deciding these matters, the social impacts are just as important. At the end of the day, the smaller players should feel that they have protection and therefore have confidence to compete. The committee's report is not about seeking to protect inefficiency or restricting competition but about enhancing choice and fairness in the sector.As the committee chair has said, we believe the major competitors have to realise that they should not only by action but also by perception be seen to be good corporate citizens. Too much anecdotal evidence and perceptions abound that their behaviour is beyond the pale and beyond what should be considered fair competition. To dispel whether these are just urban myth or reality, we believe that there should be greater access for competitors in the market to gain proper investigation of those allegations. That, in part, is the reason the committee has come up with the notion of an ombudsman that should be accessible to the smaller players and that should give more timely decision making to what is happening in the market.The committee has come up with major recommendations. It has decided that the ACCC should be allowed to take representative actions, therefore enabling the smaller players to gain some more muscle in the way in which these things are investigated. The committee acknowledges that if the ACCC is to be given these powers it requires more resources. The committee believes that, through a code of conduct which sets out the way in which the players in the market should behave, these things can be ironed out and, if it becomes a mandatory code of conduct, have the backing of the Trade Practices Act through the unconscionable conduct provisions.One of the terms of the code of conduct which we believe should be looked at by those players in the market should be the notion of like terms for like customers. There should be confidence that all those who are competing are treated equally—that is, for equal effort they have equal access to the same terms. Much of the evidence that came before the committee indicated that above line terms of trade were probably equal but there was some uncertainty about the things that are offered below the line. We believe that the ACCC should have the power to be able to look at those things if they are outside an established code of conduct.If this market is to operate properly it should be seen to be a level playing field. It should be seen to be a market where there is transparency. Therefore, again, the committee has revisited the recommendations of the Reid inquiry into retail tenancy. There were other matters that arose with the committee. Are the terms given by banks to smaller players the same as those given to larger corporations? These are the types of things that need to be up-front and transparent so that people can make a proper judgment about the way in which the market is operating.The committee has recommended that this matter be revisited in three years time. If in fact those players in the market have not responded to the notions that we put forward, and that we hope the government adopts, we should be looking at even more strengthening of the Trade Practices Act, perhaps including divestiture as a penalty and changes to the way in which the rebuttal notions of deciding these cases can be made. In conclusion, I thank the members of the committee for their cooperation. I congratulate the chair on his efforts in chairing the inquiry. I thank the committee secretariat—Andrea Griffiths, Ross Kilmurray, Peter Taft and Julie Wells—for the way in which they have carried out their duties.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for statements on this report has expired.9329Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting, and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. 9330933013:08:009330Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report No. 24 entitled A seminar on the role of parliaments in treaty making , together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.FB6Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSON—This report contains an overview of the main issues discussed at a seminar on the role of parliaments in treaty making, conducted in June this year by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in association with the Australasian Study of Parliament Group. The report sets out ideas for future action raised during the seminar and includes a full record of the seminar proceedings. The work of the treaties committee over the last few years has revealed a sense of unease in parts of Australia about the impact of international law on the community, especially on law and policy in Australia. Some people believe that treaty obligations represent a loss of sovereignty, and some even doubt the capacity of parliaments to control the process. The only way for these concerns to be resolved is for more information to be made publicly available and for our elected representatives to ensure that any international obligations that we enter into truly reflect our national interest.The fundamental purpose of the seminar was to explore opportunities that exist for state parliaments around the country to become more aware of, and involved in, the process of treaty making. It was very pleasing to see that the level of interest in these state parliaments displayed by the people who attended the seminar was very strong. The interest led to the development of a number of sensible proposals for greater parliamentary involvement in treaty making, which would basically see more information about treaty actions provided to the state parliaments and more effective community consultation on treaty making generally.The first proposal, submitted by representatives from Western Australia, called for treaty information to be routinely presented to state and territory parliaments and, further, for all state and territory parliaments to establish standing committees of their own dedicated to the task of reviewing treaty information and liaising with the treaties committee in this parliament.The second proposal, which is complementary to the first and was submitted by our own Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, is that all parliaments in Australia contribute to the establishment of an interparliamentary working group on treaties. This proposal builds on earlier recommendations from a committee of the Victorian parliament, the Federal-State Relations Committee, chaired by the Hon. Michael John MP. We envisage that the working group would comprise members from all the parliamentary committees represented at the seminar and any other committees that may over time become interested in treaty making. It would act as a forum for promoting wider public awareness of proposed treaty actions and, generally, better parliamentary scrutiny.Both proposals warrant serious consideration. They are not grandiose and would certainly not cost much at all to implement. Indeed, to borrow words used by the Minister for Foreign Affairs when addressing the dinner the night before the seminar, the reason behind government's reformed treaty making processes is to `ensure that the parliament and the general community are the ultimate arbiters of whether international treaties are in Australia's national interest'. This is also the reason behind the proposals that came out of the seminar.It is important to stress, though, that the measures described in the proposals will not happen unless the seminar participants and others with an interest in the process make them happen. It is really up to those of us who believe that it is important for local communities and their elected representatives to understand and be able to influence this treaty making process to take the initiative. I urge the presiding officers in each state and territory parliament to consider these proposals and take action to make them happen.Before closing, I would like to thank the special guest speakers at our seminar: the Minister for Foreign Affairs; Associate Professor Donald Rothwell; Professor Richard Herr; Professor Gillian Triggs; Mr Bill Campbell from the Attorney-General's Department; our parliamentary colleague from New Zealand, the Hon. Derek Quigley MP; and all of the state and territory parliamentarians who attended. Thanks are also due to all of the other seminar participants and to the secretariat of the treaties committee who did such a lot of work to make it happen. I commend this report to the House. (Time expired)13:13:009331Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—Treaties have long been acknowledged as fundamental instruments of international law and essential tools in dealing with issues of international concern. It is only recently that a broader appreciation of the domestic impact of treaties has developed. The report being tabled today is a result of the findings of a seminar undertaken in June this year entitled `A seminar on the role of parliaments in treaty making', which involved parliamentarians from all over Australia and New Zealand.As the Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties said, the report examines the main issues that we looked at during the seminar and sets out the ideas for future action. It is important that the rest of Australia know how treaties are made, who can be involved and that it is not just a few people making decisions in isolation. I believe it is very important that state governments be more involved, which means they need to be better informed of treaty actions and their impacts.While the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, of which I am a member, strives to ensure that the international obligations entered into truly reflect our national interest, it would be helpful, if not essential, to have more work done by state and territory parliaments. Standing committees similar to our Standing Committee on Treaties, the Treaties Council and ministerial councils should be mirrored in state situations to enable each regional area of Australia to deal with issues that are meaningful and important to them.Information that covers many of the areas being considered by the Department of For eign Affairs and Trade as well as the standing committee is available on the Internet. As a committee member, I believe it is important that we put out information regularly as to what we are doing and the results of our investigations. Public inquiries are going on at the moment—a particular one on Pine Gap is very important to Australia and our relationships with the US and others. Last year we had the Multilateral Agreement on Investment which has breached the public consciousness. Many Australians took the trouble to appear before the public inquiry and contact us with their views. Both the public and the committee were troubled by the consequences of such a treaty and have put it aside. The committee criticised Treasury for not being open enough. It was negotiated without transparency. Discussions in the seminar highlighted many issues on which we need to improve, and the seminar proved to be a very rewarding experience and is helping us set the agenda for the future.I believe the next stage should include mechanisms by which we can assist the tabling of treaties in the state and territory parliaments. I know many will say to start with that this is a Commonwealth responsibility and that they will not have the time nor the resources to review treaties. But the treaty situation affects all of us. We in Tasmania know only too well how international trade negotiations and considerations have affected our Tasmanian salmon industry. It is vital that each state and territory government be aware of the treaties that are being considered and has some say. Further, the suggestion to set up a working group of members from all levels of government to look at these issues is a good one and worth following up, but it needs to be put in place soon so that the enthusiasm from the meeting is not dissipated. I will be contacting my counterparts in Tasmania to encourage them to start off that process.I thought the seminar was very interesting, I was pleased to participate and I felt I gained a lot from it. Thank you to those who organised it—the secretariat for their hard work and effort, the chairman for his role, the Minister for Foreign Affairs for participating and other parliamentarians from all around the states and territories and, of course, New Zealand for coming along and contributing much in various ways. We must also thank those who came from government departments and instrumentalities who assisted in making the event very worth while. I look forward to developing the concept further and I commend the report to the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Wentworth wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?9332Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting, and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Bills9332r9019332Bill presented by Mr Kerr.13:19:009332Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—The objective of the Law Enforcement Committee Bill 1999 is to establish a single parliamentary joint committee on Commonwealth law enforcement. Currently, the parliament has one joint committee on the National Crime Authority and one joint committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organization. This bill proposes the establishment of a single committee to exercise scrutiny across the whole ambit of Commonwealth law enforcement, including the Australian Federal Police, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Australian Customs Service, the National Crime Authority, the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission and other Commonwealth agen cies having a law enforcement function which exist or may be established.Serious threats to Australian society now, and increasingly so in the future, include more than threats to our national security from other nation states. They include threats to the stability of our society and its institutions from those who pursue criminal objectives for profit. People smuggling, prostitution, the international drug trade and the illegal use of the intellectual property of others—such as pirate copies of music and film—are becoming the work of increasingly sophisticated and well-organised networks. These networks use our financial system to launder their illegal profits. They are hijacking the means of our economic growth—increased international trade, faster transport and rapid improvement in technology—to serve their purposes and increase their international presence. They profit at the expense of others—at the expense of vulnerable Australians or by duping other nationals with the false promise of a legal passage to our shores.To respond, Australia needs to more than match the substantial efforts of these organisations. To be effective in combating crime, Australia must have a sophisticated, cooperative, integrated, national and international approach. To be effective, law enforcement needs to know today what will happen tomorrow. This sophisticated, cooperative, integrated, national and international approach needs to be mirrored in our parliamentary process. Currently, it is not. What passes for debate on law and order is often short term, knee jerk, populist and uninformed. The previous Labor government made some progress to address a deficiency in this area. The Office of Strategic Crime Assessment was intended to provide an `over the horizon' annual report on crime threat assessment, but the demise of public annual strategic reporting from OSCA limited that initiative. The proposed parliamentary joint committee will be tasked to oversight all law enforcement agencies. It will inform the national parliament and build an extensive store of knowledge. It will play a vital role in the development of integrated tactical and planning strategies and processes.I do not want this bill to become just an excuse for another political contest. On issues to protect all Australians from the scourge of organised crime, there ought to be no room for claims for greater patriotism or resort to cheap politics. The parliament and the government must develop a model which allows for national oversight, a model which enables and provides the basis for good strategic planning. We must develop a mechanism to regularly receive and assess `over the horizon' crime threat intelligence to inform the process of decision making, and we need parliamentary scrutiny of all law enforcement agencies, not just the National Crime Authority. When we deal with defence issues we recognise the importance of long-term strategic planning. It is perverse that the parliament has no parliamentary process to oversight law enforcement when it has so many parliamentary committees tasked with significant national responsibilities.I believe that there is also a shared view of the magnitude and changing nature of the threat to our society from crime. Labor envisages that this committee will demonstrate that the national parliament accepts its responsibility to play a lead and effective role in the fight against crime. A single committee with a good understanding of the totality of our law enforcement needs will ensure that no political party is caught up in just short-term political debate about where funding ought to be directed. It will also strengthen the oversight role of the parliament and help guard against improper use of power by any Commonwealth law enforcement agency. Parliamentarians from all political persuasions know their work on such committees confirms that the things that bind us together are much bigger than our differences. I commend the bill to the House.Bill read a first time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—In accordance with standing order 104A, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills9333r9029333Bill presented by Mr Fitzgibbon.13:24:009333Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—I present the Fair Prices and Better Access for All (Petroleum) Bill 1999 . The bill that I am introducing into the parliament today proposes to do what the government promised to do but failed to do—that is, bring petrol prices down and reduce the outrageous gap separating city and country fuel prices. It will do so for the first time by giving service station operators the opportunity to shop around for their fuel. For too long, the major oil company oligopoly has controlled and manipulated petrol prices all the way from the refinery to the bowser. With the arrival of Woolworths and other independents, we have now seen the benefits of new competition at the retail level. It is now time to introduce that same level of competition at the wholesale level.If adopted by the parliament, the bill that I am introducing today will do just that. It will do so by allowing resellers who are covered by the yet to be finalised Oilcode to secure up to 50 per cent of their fuel supplies from parties other than their principal branded supplier. In other words, if a Caltex franchisee in Cessnock, Longreach or Dubbo is approached by Caltex and offered a price for his fuel, for any given week he will have the ability to go to Shell, Mobil or BP seeking a more profitable arrangement, which in turn can be passed on to consumers.The bill will deliver this right and protect resellers who choose to exercise it. It will deliver the first point by making all future contracts between those covered by the Oilcode subject to section 47 of the Trade Practices Act. It will protect resellers from retribution from oil majors by providing ACCC enforcement. The recent spate of petrol price rises has confirmed in the minds of motorists what they already knew—that is, that the government's so-called 1998 petroleum industry reforms have been a failure. Rather than seeking to curtail the ability of the major oil companies to manipulate prices, the government now wants to enhance their power by repealing the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act 1980. This act was a Fraser government initiative designed to address the vertical nature of the industry by restricting the number of service stations the oil majors may directly operate. But now the Howard government wants to remove that barrier. It wants to give the oil majors the absolute power to manipulate prices and take their economic rents wherever and whenever they can. That, of course, will be usually in rural and regional Australia.So at a time when we should be looking to curtail the control that the major oil companies have over retail prices, the Howard government wants to strengthen that power. The bill I am introducing today does the opposite. If supported by the parliament, the bill will put an end to the very cosy arrangements enshrined in contractual agreements which give the oil companies exclusive supply rights to resellers. Despite what Senator Minchin, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, the minister responsible, says, this is not a new idea. In fact, the then Trade Practices Commission was recommending the course of action that I am following today back in 1988. Indeed, my private member's bill embraces the principles which have been contained within Western Australian and Victorian state law since the early 1980s. Unfortunately, however, service station operators in those states have not been able to take advantage of the ability to shop around for their fuel offered by the state acts because the oil majors have been very quick to challenge such behaviour as constituting passing off.The Fair Prices and Better Access for All (Petroleum) Bill will deny the major oil companies the ability to entrench anticompetitive practices on those grounds. It builds on the very good work the member for Werriwa commenced in the last parliament when he was shadow minister for competition policy. In a desperate and unashamed attempt to protect the oil majors, Minister Minchin has derided my proposal by comparing my plan to allow petrol franchisees to shop around for their fuel with allowing McDonald's to sell Kentucky Fried Chicken. The things we say when we lack substantive arguments! Unlike the products sold by those fast-food chains, petrol is a homogenous product. The fuel you buy at a Caltex service station is exactly the same as the fuel you buy at a BP or Shell service station. Senator Minchin has also had a bit to say about the spectre of compensation matters arising out of my bill. My bill is prospective, in contrast to the regulations that the minister currently has before the parliament which do indeed offend the Constitution and in themselves could give rise to compensation matters.I am happy to take a bipartisan approach to petrol issues, particularly in regard to rural Australia, and I invite the government to support the principles of my bill. If the government is not happy to give carriage to my bill, I am happy for it to pick up those principles and embrace them within one of its own bills which we will be happy to support. (Time expired)8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I seek leave to submit the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Leave granted.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Bill read a first time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—In accordance with standing order 104A, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Private Members' Business9334933413:30:009334Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—I 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.The destination of the scientific journey of research can have a profound impact on our lives. The individual scientist cares most deeply about the journey itself. The public cares about the answers, the miracles, the cures. But at the heart of it a country's scientific policy of itself can, at least by implication, change the entire understanding of health or disease and the limits of the human life span.On budget night this year, the Treasurer made the dramatic announcement of a doubling of base funding for the National Health and Medical Research Council over a six-year period so that base research funding would increase from $165 million in 1998-99 to more than $350 million in 2004-05. The total investment in new money for that period will be $614 million, bringing to around $1.6 billion the total invested in NHMRC funded research. This was an unprecedented announcement. No previous Australian government has ever given health and medical research such a high priority.This announcement of a massive investment in health and medical research sends a clear and positive message not only to the community at large but particularly to our health and medical researchers and scientists. That message is that Australia will be focusing on health and medical research as a priority as we enter the 21st century. It says that we do recognise the proud tradition of health and medical research in this country. It says that we must pay tribute to our researchers and scientists who have received international recognition for their work. It says that we recognise that Australia is facing horrendous health care costs and that we need research to determine the most cost-effective and equitable approaches for prevention and treatment. To the undisguised excitement of many in the health and medical research industry, this announcement says that Australia wants to be at the forefront of health and medical research so that we can establish and capture the benefits of a biotechnology industry in this country. This is the underlying message in the budget announcement.This significant boost in funding has flowed, in part, from the recommendations of the Wills report. This is the most comprehensive report ever undertaken into medical research, and it is this report that is the subject of this motion before the House. The report of the Health and Medical Research Strategic Review Committee was formally presented to the government last April. The committee was commissioned by the Minister for Health and Aged Care 12 months earlier, in March 1998. Its terms of reference included a review of the future role of health and medical research up to the year 2010. In particular, the review was to identify the future likely developments in health and medical research in Australia, taking into account Australia's need to maintain a broadly based research capacity capable of meeting the evolving needs of the health system and ensuring Australia's capacity to contribute to and draw from international research. It is worth noting that, with 0.3 per cent of the world's population, Australia produces about 2.5 per cent of the world's health and medical research output.The committee was chaired by Mr Peter Wills and it produced a concise report which recommended a series of strategies for improving Australia's health and medical research work force and ensuring a continuing research capacity in Australia which is matched to need. The report confirmed yet again the clear link between our health and medical research capability and the delivery of cost-effective and equitable health care.The recommendations and proposed actions in the Wills report, if implemented, will allow Australians to share in the following benefits: an internationally competitive biotechnology-biomedical-pharmaceutical industry; improved health care and the prospect of disease prevention; a more cost-effective health budget in the future; and increased knowledge based job opportunities—an estimated increase of 10,000 to 15,000 jobs in five years in a sector that currently has 12,000. The Minister for Health and Aged Care has demonstrated his enthusiasm for the recommendations of the Wills report and the government has embraced a number of important recommendations. But there are more to be considered. We must not stand still.The government has allocated an additional $20 million over two years to a new capital grants initiative to bolster the high calibre of existing Australian independent health and medical research institutes. As well, the government has funded the development of an integrated biotechnology strategy to ensure that Australia can create and maximise new opportunities in the emerging field. Funding of around $7.6 million over two years will support the development of the national regulatory system through a gene technology office.The Wills report has been highly commended in many circles and positively celebrated in many others. We must not lose the momentum that has built up, particularly since the budget announcement. We must continue to review and assess the recommendations and pursue the reforms so that these issues are kept high on the national agenda.Without wishing to give priority to any one particular recommendation over another, I mention the Wills recommendations relating to the NHMRC, our peak funding and advisory body. Over the years, the organisation has faced significant challenges and its shortcomings have been highlighted over time. Currently the council has no full-time chief executive officer. The chair is notionally a two-day-a-week position, while the chairs of the principal committees are notionally one-day-a-week appointments. It would be impossible for the challenges and recommendations for change outlined in the Wills report to be achieved within the capacity of the current organisational arrangements. The Wills report recommends a high profile, eminent person be appointed full-time chief executive officer. It is envisaged that this would not only raise the NHMRC profile within government, the research community and wider community but also drive change in the organisation. Reading the report, it is clear that a great deal of faith is being placed in the appointment of a full-time CEO. I suggest that it is not misplaced in this instance.It is fair to say in general in public life the appointment of one individual to a particular position does not often make a huge difference. However, the appointment of the right individual to this position at this moment could turn out to be crucial—a historic match of person and opportunity. It may well turn out to be one of the more important legacies of this government.That has certainly been the experience in the United States, with the appointment of Dr Harold Varmus as Director of the National Institute of Health six years ago. Dr Varmus had neither political nor administrative experience. He had spent the previous 20 years as an increasingly celebrated medical researcher, sharing the 1989 Nobel Prize for his findings on cancer-causing genes. Under the stewardship of Dr Varmus, the NIH has become one of the rare government institutions that politicians of both parties actively praise. Since his appointment as director, the NIH budget has grown more substantially than any other category of federal spending. Last February, when the Clinton administration requested only a token increase for the NIH for the year ahead, members of Congress from both parties criticised the request as short-sighted.Dr Varmus extols a commitment to basic science, yet knows that scientists who begin this kind of work can never be sure where it will lead or how important their work will turn out to be. Often the results that prove most valuable are not the ones the scientists expected to discover. Dr Varmus is reportedly keenly aware that a governmental commitment to invest ever larger amounts of money in such unplannable, long-term research violates the basic principles of politics. But he has argued relentlessly for its importance in a stream of speeches, appearances at congressional hearings and informal meetings with politicians—and many senators and members now express the concept as if it were their own. If our NHMRC is suffering from a lack of identification and a need for rejuvenation, then we must act quickly to appoint a full-time director in order to give the NHMRC the focus, the vision, the optimism and the leadership that will be required for us to fulfil our objectives. If we are to ensure that Australia plays a leading part in the global advances in the research and technology that have the capacity to revolutionise our health care and, in doing so, revolutionise our lives, we must commit to the ongoing implementation of the recommendations contained in this significant report. It is my hope that, in years to come, we will be able to look back on the Wills report and recognise it as one of the stars by which we charted our course.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?RW5NELSONDr Nelson—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak at a later time.13:40:009337Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I speak today largely in support of the motion moved by the member for Curtin. However, I must make some comments in response to the motion and offer some additional thoughts about how research funding could also be employed. The Final Report of the Health and Medical Research Strategic Review Committee: The virtuous cycle—Working together for health and medical research is a report of major importance for the future health of the Australian community. In an era where approximately $40 billion is spent each year on health and where the costs are rising, the recommendations in the report should be closely noted. This is partially because the outlook of health and medical research lies in greater government investment.I am particularly pleased to speak on this motion because it provides me with an opportunity to pay tribute to the Australian medical researchers who, over the past 50 years, have done a tremendous job and have made significant breakthroughs in the areas of penicillin, AIDS testing, melanoma, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and many other diseases. Australian researchers have accomplished this under the pressures of low funding, the difficulties of maintaining a skilled and motivated work force given the low levels of salary and job insecurity, and a lack of community understanding of the returns of government investment in health and medical research. Australian researchers have managed to do this despite the extremely low investment that governments have placed in medical research.The subject report tells us Australia is spending only $28 per head compared with an average of around $66 per head in OECD countries and around $80 per capita in Japan and the USA. Despite the welcomed funding of $614 million over six years for the scientific community, it is obvious there is a severe lack of funding available. Dr Wooldridge counts us among only eight countries capable of a high level of medical research, but we spend the least. This injection of funds is welcome, but it will not close this gap to any great degree.I remind the members of this House of the Howard government's agenda of budgetary cuts against universities since 1996. These cuts, totalling around $840 million, have cut right to the heart of researchers. The percentage of Australia's gross domestic product spent on research of all kinds has shrunk since the election of this government from 0.75 per cent to 0.63 per cent. This is not good.Research in teaching hospitals is critical to understand how to treat complex medical conditions. As funding through the NHMRC has increased over time, funds from state governments have dried up for research in public hospitals. When a hospital is privatised, its new owners have no interest in subsidising research, and any activity without a specific Commonwealth grant withers on the vine.The NHMRC additional grant is good, but not enough. Australia needs money for research other than medicine—important as this may be.If we do not enhance consumer awareness and value of research in the public mind, and particularly our youth, then where is the new knowledge that will ensure best practice? Australian people do not seem to understand the value of research.One might ask: how many university courses contain a component of research education at the undergraduate level? For example, my sister, Associate Professor Anne Powell, began her research early in her academic career with the support of a `seed grant' of $2,500 from the University of Western Sydney Nepean that enabled her to engage in a rigorous project in collaboration with two senior academics at Sydney University. This money and support gave her a first chance at research. The outcome of her findings was ultimately distributed to the nursing and education professions. She then built on that experience to a level of research rigour that led to doctoral status. The conclusion that can be drawn from my sister's experience is that, with a relatively small amount of financial support together with the expertise of experienced researchers, a beginning researcher can be given a flying start.My senior electorate officer, Robert Balzola, is currently completing his Master of Laws in Environmental Law. Next year he embarks on his Doctorate of Philosophy by research. Mr Balzola has been advised that it is essential that he have completed a prescribed course in research methods. Training in research methods is by no means uniform throughout academic pursuits, generally being restricted to the natural sciences.He offers two solutions: firstly, give students in tertiary institutions, regardless of subject area, the opportunity to undertake first-year course work in research methods, together with fundamental sciences such as logic, reason, philosophy, theology and other core studies that prepare their minds for the capacity to think, reason and research. This essentially is the `freshman' approach to academic research.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 1.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Statements by Members933893389338Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—Today I want to talk about the Village Creek Primary School, Kambah, in my electorate. I was invited in September last year to the official ceremony of Greening Village Creek. It was a project that involved the renewal of part of their playground to create a modified urban forest and an outdoor classroom in the spirit of the Ngunnawal people, aiming for the area to resemble the environment of the days of the original inhabitants of the area, the Ngunnawal, and also, of course, to teach heritage and environment values to the school. The community spirit that day was quite remarkable, with many people, including me, having the honour of planting trees.The good news is that the school has now won the North Ltd Education Award for this wonderful landcare project. To the principal, Judy Bull, and to the ACT Landcare coordinator, Tony Bray, and to everyone at Village Creek Primary School, I give my warmest congratulations on a truly wonderful project that has brought together the school community at all levels and is particularly teaching the children in an outdoor setting and in an environment that is, both environmentally and heritage-wise, a very good example. I encourage other schools around the country to think of a similar project. This one is very worthy of our applause.93389338Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I was very pleased on Saturday to officially open the St Peter the Fisherman Anglican Church fete at Clontarf. The church has a modern, warm and friendly atmosphere and is a very welcoming building. I particularly enjoyed visiting the stalls—the magnificent patchwork quilt that was on display was something to rave about—and also buying some of the local produce of the day.Father Robert and Father Frederick and the church community really know how to start a fete with a bang. After I officially opened the fete, Elvis burst on to the stage in shining splendour. He was a little bit thinner than the original Elvis, so I think it is safe to say that sightings of Elvis at various 7-Elevens are off the mark. Nevertheless, he was quite a magnificent performer.On a personal note, I would also like to mention the terrific fete put on by the St Dympna School community in Aspley. The fete was a huge success and was very well attended. In the short time that I was there, the most popular stall had to be Rotary's hot chips and dagwood dog stall. It certainly had the longest queues. I particularly enjoyed the Italian food stall. The spaghetti, lasagne and cannoli were a great money-spinner as well.It was terrific to catch up with so many of the parents; and special mention must also go to Peter Stark, the P&C and the community for what was a really great function. I had a lovely day and I know that the funds from both those fetes will be used to forward the standard of education that the school is known to excel in. (Time expired)93399339Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—Today I want to raise a very serious matter which affects the Latrobe Valley in my electorate of McMillan. I refer to Eastern Energy's decision to relocate 35 Latrobe Valley workers' jobs to a centralised office in Melbourne. For most of these people, the option of moving to Melbourne is not an option at all and so Eastern Energy's callous decision means that they now face unemployment in a region of very high unemployment. These are ordinary working people, not millionaires. Two of the women who are affected are on maternity leave, and one woman who is affected is legally blind.Many of the workers who work at Eastern Energy's office in Traralgon have worked there for 25 or 30 years, and many of them have been known to me and my family since I was a small boy. How are these people going to afford to move to Melbourne, when the best price they can hope to get for their homes in the Latrobe Valley would not even cover the cost of a deposit on a house in Melbourne?I have been active in this campaign and have organised 2,800 signatures lobbying Eastern Energy to change its decision. I have confronted Texas Utilities Australia on this and have forced them to at least review the decision. People like Bob Shaphard, the CEO of Texas Utilities Australia, need to learn and understand that we in the Latrobe Valley are not going to cop this. We in the Latrobe Valley might not be a community with grand houses and lots of money, but we stick together in the valley and we look after our own. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, that if Mr Shaphard does not look after those 35 workers there will be hell to pay and he will pay in full. (Time expired)93399339Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—Unfortunately, I rise on a very sad note today in the 90 second statements. Members may remember the death at the weekend of a girl in Malaysia who fell 10 storeys from a hotel on Friday to her death. The girl was Emma Pateyjohns. She was recently married and was on her honeymoon. I know her as Emma Downie. She tragically died at the age of 22. She lived in my electorate with her family and was a member of the Liberal Party in my electorate.I rise to offer my condolences very sincerely to her family and to her brother Adam Downie, whom I particularly know well, and to wish them the best at this very difficult time. Emma was travelling around the world with her new husband, and they had been to the Himalayas and to other places and were enjoying themselves immensely. She suffered from an ear infection and also from vertigo, and they combined to cause her to lose her balance and fall over the side of the balcony.Her death is reported in the Advertiser today and is being greeted with great shock by the members of the Liberal Party in my electorate—and, I am sure, by this House—that someone so young and so full of life should lose her life so tragically. I give my best wishes and condolences to her family and, on behalf of the House, I send condolences from all of us.93409340Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTONYK6IsaacsALP00—I rise to congratulate year 9 and 10 Politics and Law students at Lyndhurst Secondary College, Cranbourne who, under the tutelage of their teacher Mrs Leggett, recently held a competition to draft a constitutional preamble. I offer my congratulations specifically to the winner, year 9 student Jacob Beaver who, in his entry, included these words:We honour the Indigenous people who graced this vast land long before settlement and we will always respect their ageless heritage and diverse culture. We also embrace the cultures of all our new Australians and remember the war time sacrifices made by so many, as we see past, present and future Australians living together in harmony.As runner-up, fellow year 9 student Jessica Green incorporated into her excellent submission the paragraph:We, as Australians have equal rights, heritage, identity, lifestyle, liberty, law and justice and unity, strength and honour of the Australian nation.Who really needs experts to draft the preamble when Lyndhurst Secondary College has year 9 students of this calibre? I congratulate this fine school and its students on this initiative and look forward to seeing many more such achievements in its future.93409340Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—I add my condolences to those of the member for Sturt to the Downie family. I did not know Emma Downie, but I certainly know Adam Downie, and I add my condolences.Today Mitsubishi Motors Australia announced a voluntary redundancy program for 300 employees at their factory site in Tonsley Park. This is a serious matter. There is no question that Mitsubishi Motors is operating in a very competitive international and domestic environment. They have taken the decision to introduce a voluntary redundancy program, which I have heard was well received at the factory this morning. There are just some questions about how generous the redundancy program will be.They have had to take this decision in order to be competitive and to ensure that the remaining jobs of their employees are secure. That having been said, and bearing in mind this will be a voluntary redundancy program, it is very important that those 300 employees are happy with the conditions they receive. The next 12 months will be important for the car industry. No doubt, they are looking forward to the introduction of tax reform from 1 July 2000, which will reduce the price of cars by six per cent and reduce business costs. (Time expired)93409340Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—Last week I said this government was `plain crazy'; this week I can say they are `train crazy'. In Saturday's edition of the Daily Telegraph , Malcolm Farr reports:Federal Cabinet will consider a breakthrough proposal to spend up to $15 billion on a Melbourne-Sydney-Brisbane high-speed train link to eliminate the need for Badgerys Creek airport.This would be in the order of a:"Snowy Mountains scheme on rail."Apparently, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services has ordered a three-month feasibility study of the scheme. Linked to that would be the removal of all regional airlines to Bankstown. The federal government has already pushed the Alice Springs to Darwin rail link. It has pushed an inland cargo link running right through to Darwin. It is now considering moving regional aircraft to Bankstown and then, instead of having a second Sydney airport, putting a train line from Melbourne through to Sydney to Brisbane.This is train craziness of the first order. The infrastructure demands of Sydney in regard to a second Sydney airport are known, clear, paramount and compelling. You cannot satisfy those needs with the simple substitution of domestic infrastructure to remove domestic flights from Sydney airport, and you cannot attempt to replace them by rail. The environmental impact statement recently brought down demonstrated fully that you could not service a second Sydney airport in that way, and you cannot do it in this train crazy way. (Time expired)93419341Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—The Department of Family and Community Services have produced a glossy brochure entitled Employ Ability to encourage employers to offer people with disabilities a job. This brochure is released at a time when the number of people receiving the disability support pension has jumped alarmingly. In June 1998 there were 553,336 people in receipt of the disability support pension. This increased to 577,720 people in June 1999, a 4.4 per cent increase. At the same time that the number of people receiving the disability support pension jumped, the number of long-term unemployed people receiving government assistance dropped from 380,299 to 352,360. Could it be that the government is hiding the long-term unemployed by paying them the disability support pension?I cannot believe the government is serious about helping people with disabilities find jobs while it is cutting funds and programs. This government has abandoned the disability panels that helped people with disabilities find work. Its Job Network works against people with disabilities getting a job, because of its competitive nature. The proposed corporatisation of CRS Australia will further disadvantage Australia's disabled people. It is time for the government to stop spending money on glossy brochures and to start spending money on helping Australians with disabilities find jobs. (Time expired)93419341Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I would like to speak today about the sugar industry working party that went to North Queensland recently to look at the serious deterioration in the cane price in the area from Ingham to Mossman. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Hon. Warren Truss, accompanied us. The trip, as I said, went from Mossman down to Ingham. The most severe problem facing the North Queensland sugar industry is a loss of CCS—in other words, a declining sugar yield within the cane. This is to be attributed to a number of factors—for example, spaghetti cane, sugarcane that is simply not suited to the high rainfall areas in the north. It also appears that, with their heavy speed and high horsepower, the harvesters are gathering up far too much extraneous matter and trash, which is taken into the mills. In some of the mills—for instance, at Tully—they estimate now that two weeks of mill time is spent in simply processing extraneous matter.Other difficulties in the northern sugar industry have been Cyclone Rona, heavy flooding, severe rat infestation and, of course, the low world price. The reason for the low world price is predominantly the fact that Brazil, with the relatively low oil price at the moment, is unfortunately putting its sugarcane on to the world market rather than into ethanol production. (Time expired)93419341Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I rise to congratulate the United Justices Association of Blacktown on their silver jubilee. Recently, Jan and I had the honour of attending a function at the Blacktown Workers Club in recognition of this event. I would particularly like to mention the current office holders: Ian McCrae, President; Carol O'Loughlin, Vice President; Rose Slater, Vice President; Nelia Sumcad, Secretary; Conchita Soriano, Treasurer; Doris Reveley, Registrar; Simone Kelly, Minute Secretary; Robert Machon, Publicity Officer; and June Olding, Assistant Welfare Officer.The United Justices Association had its humble beginning on 14 January, 1974. It was born out of the need to focus and concentrate on the needs of a specific area. While it was originally part of a group of justices who had been meeting regularly since 1968, the then Blacktown members felt the need to form a new association which would give a voice to and educate the justices of peace in their locality. Those present at the inaugural meeting formed the nucleus of the United Justices Association as we know it today.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 106A. The time for members' statements is therefore concluded.Ministerial Arrangements93429342Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I inform the House that the Minister for Trade will be absent from question time this week. He is travelling to South America to chair the Cairns Group Ministerial Economic Conference, and will undertake bilateral trade discussions in Brazil, Peru and Uruguay. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will, in his usually competent way, act for the Minister for Trade in his absence.Questions Without Notice934293429342Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer recall saying on 1 February 1995:I mean, look, my analysis is this . . . my analysis is that this is a government that has completely failed Australia on the current account deficit and produced the highest current account deficit ever, which is a total failure of economic policy. That's my analysis.Treasurer, can you confirm that today's current account deficit of $9.4 billion for the June quarter is the worst ever? What is your analysis of that?9342Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I am very pleased to have a question because I would love to give some analysis of that. The shadow treasurer stands up here, and I am not sure whether it is deliberate or whether it is ignorance, and talks about nominal dollars as if that proves some kind of point. By his analysis, he would be saying the highest GDP ever, in nominal terms; more jobs than ever in Australia, in nominal terms; highest wealth ever, in nominal terms; and highest household savings ever, in nominal terms. One thing we can say when we measure these things in proportion to the economy is that in 1990 we did have the worst current account deficit ever. In 1990 when, we recall, the Labor Party had the economy in recession, the current account deficit was at 6.6 per cent of GDP.I do not want to underestimate the current account deficit today, which is at 5½ per cent of GDP as forecast in the budget, but I would rather have 5½ per cent of GDP than 6.6 per cent of GDP. In 1990, when the current account peaked at 6.6 per cent of GDP, inflation was at 8.6 per cent. So, to peak a current account and inflation rate of 8.6 per cent, mortgage interest rates were at 17 per cent and unemployment was soon to go to 11 per cent. If we were to have pressure on our current account, I would rather do it on a one per cent inflation rate and I would rather do it on a seven per cent unemployment rate. But, more importantly than that, today's current account deficit showing a peak, as I forecast in the House last week, at 6.2 per cent, is the combined effect of a weakness in export prices and a strong domestic economy. The volume of goods and services exports remained the same but prices were down, by and large. As I said last week in the House, falls in contract prices for bulk commodities, which came into effect on 1 April 1999, were largely as a consequence of the East Asian downturn and the recession in Japan. The yearly current account deficit was, as forecast by the government, at 5½ per cent. And, whilst the government believes this quarter and the next quarter to be the peaks in the current account deficit, we expect the position to improve as Asia picks up during the course of the next year and as the world economy generally picks up in the course of the next year.It is important, at a time when you have pressure on a current account not caused by any domestic imbalance but by a weak external front, that the government maintains a strong savings position. The government is forecasting this year its third year of surplus, having rescued the national accounts from Labor's $10 billion deficits. We are forecasting lifts in productivity and, as the world economy picks up, we would expect this year to be the peak in the current account deficit with the current account deficit unwinding during the course of 1999-2000. It is important that we keep confidence in the domestic Australian economy. I note that the Australian Chamber of Commerce released today a statement in which its chief executive said that `business optimism continues to build'. Business optimism I expect to remain strong as the world economy recovers, helping our export prices.I want to conclude by saying this: the fact that during the biggest economic downturn of this generation, the biggest economic downturn since the Second World War, Australian exporters maintained their volumes is a massive credit to Australian exporters. We on this side of the House would like to pay tribute to Australian exporters who have, in the face of the biggest international downturn of a generation, maintained their export volumes, done Australia proud and helped contribute to the strength of the Australian economy in an international onslaught.93439343Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENT UT4AstonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister inform the House of the prospects for a successful ballot in East Timor today as part of a historic process to help decide the future of East Timor?9343Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Aston for his question and for his unstinting interest in the issue of East Timor and the work that he has done on this issue. As members of the House will know, today is indeed an historic day. Today is the day when the people of East Timor, after a quarter of a century of strife, have the opportunity to express their own views about the future of East Timor. We hope that the day will proceed smoothly and that the great problem of East Timor will finally be resolved through these democratic means.The polling stations opened this morning at 6.30 Dili time—that is, 8.30 Canberra time—across East Timor, so they have now been open for around six hours. The preliminary reports I have received, including a telephone conversation just before question time with Tim Fischer, the leader of the Australian delegation, have been encouraging—that, overall, the situation in East Timor is relatively calm. Apparently voters lined up this morning in great numbers, well before the polling booths opened, to cast their votes. There has been little sign so far of violence or intimidation, particularly in trouble spots such as Maliana. Mr Fischer told me that the voting procedures are operating very smoothly. Clearly, in terms of assessing the fairness of the ballot, the nature of the procedures is a very important component of that.The government warmly applauds the determination and the resilience of the United Nations on the ground in East Timor for bringing this ballot to fruition. I would single out two people—the leader of UNAMET, Mr Ian Martin, who has done an outstanding job, and the leader of the United Nations civilian police operation, our own Alan Mills, who has won the respect and admiration of all who have dealt with him in East Timor. He is one of many Australians who can be very proud of the role they have played in bringing this ballot about. We should also think of the large number of Australians who are involved in UNAMET—107 or 108 Australians are involved in UNAMET—and who have worked in very difficult circumstances. They have worked tirelessly to try to help the people of East Timor find themselves in the situation they are in today, able to determine their own future.This is an issue of very great importance to Australia and it is an issue of considerable importance to our part of the world. It will mean a great deal to us if it is resolved in a satisfactory and democratic way. Today is indeed a very historic day and we hope that, by the end of the day, the people of East Timor will have been able to express their views about their future. We will not know what their views are for quite some time as it is our expectation that the results of the ballot will not be announced until around 7 September. 93439343Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again addressed to the Treasurer. I refer to his previous answer in which he explains the record current account deficit as within budget forecasts. Does he recall telling the parliament on 30 June 1995 that:Members of the government should not come in here and tell us that they were expecting a disaster and that they have met their forecasts. They should not come in here and talk about how . . . they achieved their forecast. They should not come in here and say everything is going according to plan because everything is not going according to plan.Treasurer, why don't you own up to your utter failure on the current account?9344Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I am very happy to come in here and talk about how to meet the forecast, I thought I just did. The forecast is 5½ per cent of GDP and last week I said that this quarter it would be in the sixes. In fact, the markets received it as a good sign because it was less than they were expecting. If we want talk about forecasts: how about this for a forecast? `The budget is in surplus.' That statement was made by none other than the then finance minister during an election, when he knew it was $10 billion in deficit.After the 1993 election, when Labor had won an election by fraud—and I was very interested to read Neil Blewett's comments about what was happening in the Cabinet when they knew they were giving out tax cuts that could not be afforded—they commissioned a report by Mr Fitzgerald who said that the most important thing a government could do is build national savings. It was on the back of that that the Labor Party then said they had a mandate to break their election promises—did I say election promise? No, it was not a promise: it was l-a-w, a mandate to break the law, to take away those tax cuts.After they broke the promise about those tax cuts, and after they increased wholesale sales tax, what did they do to increase savings? In 1994-95, as part of an increased savings strategy, after they had taken away tax cuts, they produced a deficit of $17,000 million. In 1995-96, after they had taken away the income tax cuts and increased all wholesale sales tax, they produced an outcome of $10,000 million of deficit. That is a world record performance by the then finance minister—$27 billion in two years—and he said during the campaign that this was a budget in surplus. That is one of the most fraudulent statements in Australian history and the Labor Party rewarded him with its leadership.Since this government has come to office, building national savings to cushion Australia against the current account deficit, we have nearly got rid of the Beazley debt. We have nearly paid off $24 billion of the Beazley Labor debt. If the Labor Party would get out of the way, and let the country run, we could get rid of Commonwealth debt altogether. The one thing that the Fitzgerald inquiry and report made clear, the one thing that the Labor Party would agree with, is that building public sector savings is the best thing that a government can do in the face of a current account. There you had an experience of $27 billion of deficit and here you have an experience of $24 billion of surplus, with a plan to take Australia into the future and to cushion Australia.I ask this question: where would Australia have been throughout the biggest downturn in our lifetime if Labor had had its hand on the tiller running a $10 billion deficit? Where would Australia have been? The one thing that the Australian people recognise is that, in a time of external challenge, it is much better to have some economic managers in government than the people who brought nothing but fraud and completely false promises to the Australian electorate.93449344Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Can the Attorney-General inform the House of the result of Australian government action taken to stop Japan taking thousands of tonnes of southern bluefin tuna under the guise of an experimental fishing program?9344Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I thank the member for Grey. He has a significant interest in the matter since he represents the people of Port Lincoln and other significant fishing communities in South Australia. Late on Friday night, Australian time, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea handed down a landmark decision calling on Japan to stop its experimental fishing program for southern bluefin tuna. The decision is an important win for Australia in its attempt to conserve and protect the stock of this fish, and this is the first time the tribunal has made an order of this kind. It effectively stops Japan from unilaterally taking thousands of tonnes of tuna beyond previously agreed limits.Members will recall that Japan carried out a unilateral experimental fishing program for southern bluefin tuna last year and again this year, despite Australian objections. But, as I put to the tribunal when I opened Australia's case in Hamburg on 18 August, the experimental program is nothing but commercial fishing under the guise of science. Japan's action has the potential to adversely affect the southern bluefin tuna stocks, which are at historically low levels. In a great step forward that balances protection of the species on the one hand with legitimate managed fishing on the other hand, the tribunal has quite properly prevented Japan from unilaterally increasing its catch beyond the agreed limits.Australia's relationship with Japan is one of our most important international relationships and the government believes that the tribunal's decision will not affect the strength of the relationship, but our action in taking this matter to the tribunal has been vindicated by the tribunal's decision. In concluding, I would like to pay tribute to the team of advisers from the Office of International Law, from the Office of General Counsel within my department and from AFFA who prepared and ran the case.93459345Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Again my question is to the Treasurer. Does he recall his response to the record $1.2 billion January trade deficit as `This is in line with the forecasts, it's the kind of figures you would expect'? Does he recall his response to the record $1.3 billion February trade deficit—`this is the kind of outcome which we forecast'? Does he recall the Minister for Trade's response to the record $1.7 billion June trade deficit that the figure `was in line with budget forecasts'? What sort of a government is it that aims for failure and then claims credit when it succeeds? Is he not just trying to condition the Australian people for more of that failure?9345Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Can you see why we love him? We say that the current account deficit will be 5½ per cent and all of a sudden he has discovered that—guess what? When the results came out, it was 5½ per cent.Mr McMullan interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—Good heavens, isn't that a terrible thing to do! Just imagine if we had said the budget was going to be in surplus and it came out as a $10 billion deficit. Imagine all the fun you would be having then. This was a finance minister who, during a campaign in February before the March election, said the budget was in surplus.DT4CREANMr Crean—You don't like talking about this current account, do you?CT4Mr COSTELLO—Three days after the election, Treasury came to me and said the budget was $10 billion in deficit. I looked at them and said, `How could Mr Beazley have possibly said what he did?' and there was an embarrassed silence because nobody was ever sure that Mr Beazley knew what was going on in any event.In relation to the current account deficit, when you are running a strong domestic economy and you are in the biggest downturn of your time—meaning that export values are low—you would expect pressure on your current account. We forecast it. We do not control the prices for Australian commodities.DT4CREANMr Crean—I see!CT4Mr COSTELLO—Are you surprised by that, are you?DT4CREANMr Crean—No, I'm not. This is hardly a revelation.CT4Mr COSTELLO—In case you didn't know, we are not in charge of the coal price in Japan, nor are we in control of the steel price in Korea, nor are we in control of the nickel price—DT4CREANMr Crean—Nor are you in control of the current account at the moment.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I thought the chief of staff of the Leader of the Opposition would have had a few remedial classes to tell the Labor Party frontbench that we do not control these prices. So, in relation to international export prices, at a time of the biggest downturn in our generation you will get weak export prices. You could try to control your current account—and this was, for a time, Labor Party policy—by running your domes tic economy into recession. But how would that help people?It has been important to keep our domestic economy running strongly because of external weakness, not to run it down in the face of external weakness. For the Australian economy to be growing at plus four per cent at a time when Korea, Japan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Hong Kong, Singapore and New Zealand were in a recession is testament to the importance of running a strong domestic economy.DT4CREANMr Crean—You don't like this current account, do you? You do everything but talk about it. Talk about the current account.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition!DT4CREANMr Crean—He's avoiding the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Why is it that we forecast the current account to come down next year? Because the international economy will pick up. The Australian growth rate will be lesser but the international economy will pick up. That is why, as I said last week, we would expect quarterly current accounts in the sixes in this particular quarter and also in the next quarter but for the year's average to come down.I think any Treasurer would also say that the best thing a government could do at a time of international crisis, apart from keep their domestic economy strong, is keep their budget in surplus. We should never underestimate the importance of putting the Australian budget back into surplus in advance of the Asian downturn. It was one of the best financial decisions this country ever made. It was opposed every step of the way by the Labor Party, who took cheap, populist attacks in relation to expenditure restraint and then said after three years that they had always been in favour of a surplus budget—they just had not been able to produce one.93469346Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Minister, the Attorney-General has just indicated that the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea has granted Australia provisional measures to stop Japan's experimental fishing for southern bluefin tuna. What does this decision mean for Australia and for international fishing?9346Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the member for Page for this important question. This decision certainly has very significant implications for Australia and for international fishing. May I begin by congratulating the Attorney-General—the Hon. Daryl Williams AC, QC, MP—and his team on this outstanding win. With his characteristic modesty, he underplayed his own role in this very important decision, but he certainly led the Australian team with great dexterity and conviction.This indeed is a landmark decision. It is the beginning of a new era for international fisheries management, and I think Australia can feel well proud of its achievements in this regard. The decision certainly confirms Australia's view that southern bluefin tuna is subject under international law to conservation and management. The challenge for Australia now is to ensure that the fishery is managed in a sustainable way so the Australian bluefin tuna industry can continue to fish the species responsibly, as can other countries around the world which have a legitimate interest in bluefin tuna.The decision is also an important boost to Australia's reputation as an international manager of fisheries, and our standing in this area and our responsibility for managing the fisheries, particularly on the high seas, will be strengthened and become even more important in the years ahead. This decision is also important not just to those who are choosing to fish bluefin tuna but to others who fail to honour the spirit of the agreement in relation to the orange roughy fisheries in the South Tasman Rise and to others who are seeking to ignore the obligations that we all have to ensure that the world's fishing stocks are sustainably managed.No country in the future will be able to claim that they can take greater than their entitlement on the grounds of experimentation. Indeed, Australia will be looking to other nations—Japan, New Zealand and our other colleagues—to work constructively together to ensure that fishing stocks are managed properly in the future.One final comment I would like to make in this regard is that this decision gives new force to the United Nations fish stocks agreement which is currently open for signature. Later this week, I will be introducing legislation into parliament which will be the forerunner to Australia's ratification of this treaty. We will indeed have globally a new management regime in place to ensure that fish stocks, even on the high seas, can be managed sustainably in the interests of all fishing nations of the world.93479347Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer confirm that exports of Australia's high value added manufactures declined by five per cent in 1998? Can the Treasurer tell the House whether our high value added exports declined in any of the following years: 1983?UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—No.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—1984?UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—No.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—1985?UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—No.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—1986?UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—No.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—1987?UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members— No.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—1988?UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—No.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—1989?UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—No.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—1990?UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—No.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—1991?UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—No.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—1992?UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—No.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—1993?UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—No.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—1994?UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—No.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—1995?UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members— No.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Or 1996?UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—No.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The same rules as apply to government members in terms of chorus responses clearly apply to opposition members, and I intend to enforce them.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—In fact, aren't you the first Treasurer to preside over a decline in high value added exports for more than two decades?9347Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition could tell me when there was an Asian financial crisis. In 1983?UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—No.CT4Mr COSTELLO—In 1984?UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members— No.CT4Mr COSTELLO—In 1985?UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—No.CT4Mr COSTELLO—In 1986?UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members— No.CT4Mr COSTELLO—In 1987?UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—No.CT4Mr COSTELLO—In 1988?UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members— No.CT4Mr COSTELLO—In 1989?UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—No.CT4Mr COSTELLO—In 1990?UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members— No.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Mr Speaker, do you know the thing that really was the piece de resistance in Labor Party management? It was when they put the Australian economy into recession in 1990, put the unemployment rate at 11.2 per cent and blew the current account deficit out to 6.6 per cent. Do you know the Asian economic financial crisis in that year? It was a boom. The Labor Party produced a recession in an Asian boom. Imagine what they would have done in an Asian economic crisis!It would have taken consummate skill to produce a recession while Asia was booming, but it is consummate skill which did not overcome or go past the Creans, the Keltys, the Beazleys and all of the people who were sitting in the Blewett cabinet then reporting on it. Consummate skill: an Asian boom and an Australian recession. Imagine what these guys could have done in an Asian recession. Really, it absolutely defies the imagination. What was the situation of the Australian accounts when we came to office in 1996? After five years of growth, how big was the surplus? The accounts were $10,000 million in deficit.It would strike you passing strange, I would think, that when you can have commentary in the South China Morning Post talking about the strength of the Australian economy, when you can have Paul Krugman calling this the miracle economy of the world, when you can have the Economist—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. My question was related directly to the question of high value added exports. I might say in the years 1991, 1992 and 1993 they were all increasing despite a recession in Europe and the United States.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Treasurer's answer is relevant to the question and he has the call.CT4Mr COSTELLO—When Paul Krugman can call this the miracle economy, when the Economist can show that we are the fastest growing OECD nation outside small nations like Iceland and Belgium, when the ACCI can say business optimism continues to build, when the whole of the Asian region goes into recession and Australia booms, when our unemployment rate falls to a decade low, the only people who think the Australian economy is going no good are the genii on the frontbench of the Labor Party. I have often said this: people often say that the economic understanding of the Labor Party lies with the member for Werriwa. It is only by comparison. With a frontbench like that, even people like the member for Werriwa are beginning to look like they have understanding.93489348Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer inform the House of the net foreign debt figures released today by the ABS? How do they compare with historical levels of foreign debt?9348Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Mitchell for his question. In relation to today's net foreign debt figures, members of the House will have seen that net foreign debt in the June quarter fell from $234 billion in the March quarter to $228 billion in the June quarter. Of course, one has to be careful about these amounts, because they bounce around as a result of currency adjustments and the like, and one would not want to refer to nominal terms in relation to foreign debt. If one did, one would have to observe that foreign debt—Mr Beazley interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—Since the Leader of the Opposition interjects as he always does at the critical time, foreign debt in nominal terms between March 1983 and March 1996 increased by 662.4 per cent, but one would not want to rely on that. One should look at foreign debt as a percentage of GDP. The good news is that foreign debt as a percentage of GDP appears to have stabilised. When the government was elected, the net foreign debt to GDP ratio was 38 per cent. Now it is at 38.8 per cent. It is instructive to look at how foreign debt—Mr Beazley interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—He always interjects the loudest when he's going the worst.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will address the question through the chair and the Leader of the Opposition might care to refer to standing order 55.CT4Mr COSTELLO—When the government was elected, the net foreign debt to GDP ratio was at 38 per cent and it has increased to 38.8 per cent. In 1983, when the Labor Party was elected, the net foreign debt to GDP was 14 per cent and it increased over 13 years to 38 per cent.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Fourteen to 38?CT4Mr COSTELLO—Triple! To go back, the Fraser government was elected in 1975 and the debt to GDP ratio was three per cent and increased to 14 per cent under the Fraser government.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Who was the Treasurer though?CT4Mr COSTELLO—The Treasurer who presided over an 11 per cent increase was none other than the member for Bennelong. But let us ask a real question: who presided over a 24 per cent increase from 14 per cent to 38 per cent of GDP? These are not nominals; these are comparing debt to GDPs. What gave this country a problem with foreign debt was the increase from 14 per cent of GDP to 38 per cent of GDP. It was all done under one government. It was done under the government that brought you the recession, the highest unemployment rate, the biggest current account deficit, all measured in percentage terms—the Beazley-Keating Labor government.Having said all of that, there is some good news in addition to the stabilisation of foreign debt. Foreign investment in Australia is still continuing to increase. We would regard that as a positive thing. The debt servicing ratio is low by historical standards. The lowest was in the March quarter of 1999 at 8.8 per cent. Today's debt servicing ratio is about 9.1 per cent, which is well below the peak of 20 per cent in the September quarter of 1990. Having said that, I emphasise again that it is important for the government to build savings in this country. It is important that the government is in the business of savings at a time when there is pressure on the current account and at a time when there is a debt position, even at levels at 38 per cent.The best thing a government can do to build savings is to run surplus budgets. Nothing could be worse for Australia than for the Commonwealth government to be in the business of dissaving as it was from 1990 to 1996. At a time of growth with the budget now in surplus, we have the obligation to maintain our surpluses and to retire debt. We have an opportunity to retire all Commonwealth debt by the year 2003 and all it will take is one little stand of courage from the Leader of the Opposition to say that he will join hands to build savings. While he opposes the privatisation in relation to Telstra and while he opposes the balancing of the budget, the Leader of the Opposition is no part of the solution. The Leader of the Opposition is the problem.93499349Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I ask a question of the Treasurer. I ask him whether he recalls saying on the World Today program on 30 August 1995 when referring to the foreign debt in nominal terms:There is some very sobering news in today's national accounts,. . . the worst net foreign debt position Australia has ever had, a jump to $180 billion. That's $10,000 for each man, a woman and child. . . in Australia.Treasurer, doesn't today's $228 billion foreign debt now mean, according to your formula, a debt of $12,000 for every man, woman and child? Treasurer, if the foreign debt was important in 1995, why are you just trying to wish it away today?9349Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—As I have said on numbers of occasions, debt servicing ratios were, firstly, higher and, secondly, let's have a guess: was the government in the business of saving or borrowing in 1995? Let's all have a guess. What was the government doing in relation to debt in 1995?Mr Crean interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—As I recall, in 1995 the budget surplus was—DT4CREANMr Crean—Hypocrite!CT4Mr COSTELLO—The budget surplus, as I recall, in 1995 was minus $17,000 million. I repeat, Mr Speaker, minus $17,000 million.DT4CREANMr Crean—Hypocrite!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Mr Speaker, he was the man who was in a government which had a $17 billion deficit in the middle of a foreign debt build-up and a current account deficit. Here we have a government which has a budget in surplus and which is retiring debt. It has put $24 billion on the table and has a plan to wipe out Commonwealth debt.The record of the Labor Party defies belief. It defies belief that, at a time when they want to claim about foreign debt, they were adding to debt. They as a government added to debt through their budget position by $17,000 million and that had to be borrowed on domestic and foreign markets.What the Labor Party should have been doing in 1995—and the Leader of the Opposition knows it—is that it should have been doing what it said it was doing: putting the budget into surplus. That was the right policy. It was only the absolute deceit of the Australian Labor Party to pretend they could do it when they could not; to boast that they had done it when they had not; and then to fight the measures to get the Australian economy back into the situation when they did not.Let's not forget that in 1996 when this government said it was going to build a surplus budget, the Leader of the Opposition appeared with the then Leader of the Democrats in a ride outside Parliament House protesting against expenditure restraints; protesting against a balanced budget—the thing which was required to bring the Australian economy back into the stability which has seen it sail through the Asian financial crisis better than any other economy in this region.93509350Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the Minister aware of comments made relating to the development of Australia's vocational education and training system? What is the government's response to such comments?9350Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. I would like to acknowledge the tremendous work that she does in the electorate of Gilmore in helping young people get good job opportunities. The government has put a particular focus on building up the quality of Australia's vocational education and training system and in expanding opportunities. I am aware of recent comments on the government's achievements in this area. They have come from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which represents 350,000 businesses nation wide, including the top 100 companies. The chamber has publicly recognised the value of the government's reforms. Mark Paterson, the Chief Executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said:The new national training framework represents a major step forward for this country in giving business access to quality training.Mr Speaker, our record speaks for itself. Nearly 62,000 young people will be assisted through the government's Jobs Pathway program this year. The JPET program will assist 13,700 young people at risk of unemployment to get back to school to get the skills they need, particularly literacy and numeracy skills. The government has put a range of initiatives in place, particularly through the Australian Student Traineeship Foundation through its workplace coordinator projects. Of course, we have noted in this House that youth unemployment is now at its lowest level since records were first kept for teenage full-time unemployment in 1978.I am very pleased to be able to inform the House today that I have just received the latest figures for enrolments in the government's new apprenticeships. At the end of March 1999 there were 232,000 new apprentices in training, up from 204,000 at the end of December. That is an increase of 33,000 in the March quarter. That is some 87,000 more than when the Labor Party was in office.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—All credit to the minister.BT4Dr KEMP—Thank you, Prime Minister. That is a colossal expansion of opportunities for young people through the government's new apprenticeship system. This achievement is in stark contrast, of course, to what happened when the Labor Party was in office. As we know, in the last year of the Labor government the number of young people in apprenticeships and traineeships as a proportion of the work force was the lowest for three decades.The Labor Party, in conjunction with the trade union movement, set out to destroy the apprenticeship system by placing the trade unions in charge. They said to the small businesses of this country, `You can't take on a trainee or an apprentice unless you unionise your business', and businesses in this country were not prepared to do this. They knew Labor's shocking record on vocational education and training. We now know, of course, what the attitude of John Dawkins was to this. He knew the Labor Party was throwing out of school onto the unemployment queues young people who never had the opportunity to do apprenticeships and enter into apprenticeship training while still at school.This government has remedied these problems. We have addressed the huge policy failures that the Labor Party left us when we came to office in 1996. We have remedied the betrayal of a generation of young Australians by the Labor Party, and these latest figures confirm the success of the government's programs.93519351McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, have you seen the results of the report released today by the Australian Industry Group into trends in business expenditure on research and development in Australian manufacturing? Are you aware that this report found that total expenditure on R&D by manufacturing has declined by a further 15 per cent—the third consecutive fall since your government came to office—and that your cut in the R&D tax concession was a major consideration for many of the firms which cut their R&D effort in 1998-99? Prime Minister, where are next century's high value added exports going to come from when your policies are leading to a continuing, dramatic decline in business expenditure on R&D?9351Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable gentleman's question is no, I have not seen that report. But I am aware of the arguments that have come from the Australian Industry Group about measures relating to research and development, so I will, on this rare occasion, not to be taken as a precedent, accept the representation of the report by the opposition frontbencher without personally checking it. He asks: where are the leading edge exports to come from for the next century? I would say, first and foremost, that they will come from a strongly performing econ omy. They will come from an economy that follows pro-competitive policies.DT4CREANMr Crean—But they're not now!ZD4Mr HOWARD—He says they're not now. The most remarkable feat of the economic miracle that has been Australia over the last three years has been the capacity of Australian exporters to switch their exports from Asia as Asia went into recession to Europe and North America. That has been as a consequence of the skill of macro-economic management both by the government and by the Reserve Bank of Australia. Overwhelmingly, if you are to build export capacity, you want an economy which is strongly performing, a tax system that takes costs off exports, an industrial relations system that takes costs off exports and a business investment climate which encourages risk taking.The honourable gentleman is aware that, in giving consideration to the recommendations of the Ralph committee, we will want to ensure that we have settings of taxation policy—not only in relation to the generic levels of corporate taxation but also in matters relating to capital gains tax—that encourage risk taking and the accumulation of venture capital. I take heart from the honourable member's question because it means that the Labor Party on this occasion may be constructively engaging itself. It may exercise a hands-across-the-table exercise—Government members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—Well, I live in hope! I am in a very charitable mood. I was greatly warmed by Australia's victory on Saturday night in the Bledisloe Cup, and I am feeling very optimistic. All I can say in response to the shadow minister opposite in really saying in code, `We're prepared to sit down and make sure that we have the most pro-investment taxation system coming out of Ralph,' is that I would be delighted if that were his attitude, and I would be delighted to hear the views he has to make certain that we have the most pro-competitive taxation system in this country. The more competitive your taxation system, the greater will be your exports. That is why we brought in the GST, that is why you were wrong to oppose it and that is why you ought to rethink your negative attitude and join us constructively to have a look at the Ralph report.93529352Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. Minister, how is Work for the Dole underpinning the government's mutual obligation policy? Are there any alternative views regarding the mutual obligation approach? What is the government's response to these views?BV5ADAMSMr Adams—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would assert to you that this question has been asked four or five times over the last two months, and I believe it is out of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The obligation on the Speaker is to determine whether or not the question has been fully answered.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am not sure what the member for Hunter finds so highly amusing; but, in response to the member for Lyons's inquiry, I would indicate that I am conscious of the fact that the question has been asked before. I have also, as the House would be aware, drawn the minister's attention to this, and I have listened closely to his answers in the past. In every instance, they have answered some other aspect of the question.Opposition members interjecting—10000Mr SPEAKER—Order! I am giving a serious response to what was a serious point of order from the member for Lyons. The frivolity being shown is entirely inappropriate. I am quite prepared to listen to the answer, and I will rule if the minister is being repetitious, as I have done in the past.9352Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—We have had some good questions and some very good answers on this subject. I thank the member for Cook for his question and for his strong support for this great signature program of the Howard government, which is attracting increasing support from all around the community. `I like the scheme,' said a typical Generation-Xer in Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald . Not everyone is as glowing in their support for Work for the Dole as this particular lady, but I would like to quote from a letter recently sent to the member for Longman byMrs Karen Gryce as an example of what this program can do for young Australians. Mrs Gryce said of one of her sons:. . . had been out of work for 6 months and would just stay at home, sleeping-in till midday . . . His self-esteem and confidence was wearing away as he felt worthless and useless . . . She goes on to say:I would like to let you know—that is the member for Longman—what the program gave our son—he is now a happy, confident person who has not only got a full time job . . .Our son would not have been able to do that one year ago without the confidence and character building this program has given him. My husband and I hope this program can continue to help a lot of other people find their way in life, and just give them a chance.The member for Batman must be getting a lot of letters like this too because he used to call Work for the Dole evil. Now he says that Labor thought of it first. Labor did not think of Work for the Dole or mutual obligation. It thought of Working Nation and programs such as New Work Opportunities with their emphasis on inappropriate and demoralising training. These programs conned people. They conned people into thinking that they had a job when they were on them and they conned people into thinking that they would get a job when they had finished.Last week, my department released the request for tender for the next Work for the Dole tender round to be run by community work coordinators as part of the expansion of this great program to 50,000 places a year. This is part of a big increase in the scope of mutual obligation to cover 300,000 long-term unemployed job seekers every year. As part of this expansion of mutual obligation, school leavers who have been on a benefit for three months, under-25s who have been on unemployment benefits for six months and under-35s who have been on unemployment benefits for 12 months will be required to demonstrate that they are engaged in some form of useful community activity as well as simply looking for a job.Why are we doing this? We are doing it because the best thing that government can do for the long-term unemployed is to restore the social contract and re-engage these people in the mainstream of the community. That is exactly what is happening under this great policy and principle of mutual obligation.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, under the standing orders, could I ask the minister to table the letter from which he just read.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister has indicated that he is quite happy to table the letter from which he just read.93539353Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can you advise what action you intend to take concerning the 350 workers from the Selwyn copper and gold mine in Cloncurry and from two goldmines in Western Australia who have been sacked but have not been paid almost $6 million owed to them in accrued entitlements? Given your decision to legislate to assist the miners of Oakdale, will you now legislate to ensure that the Selwyn miners also get 100 per cent of their legally accrued entitlements?9353Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—My department has been in contact with Ferrier-Hodgson, who are the chartered accountants and, as I understand it, the receivers or administrators in respect of Selwyn Mine. The advice I have today is that it is highly likely, but not yet certain, that they will be paid their entitlements. We have sought confirmation from the accountants that the full entitlements will be paid. I can also advise the House that the member for Herbert has been involved in this issue, taking up the concerns of workers. We have had discussions with him and hope to get a resolution of that particular issue sooner rather than later. I should say that this particular mine is not in the coal industry, so it does not fall into the Oakdale situation where the long service leave fund is available for the entitlements.Lastly, I would also say that the government has, as it said it would, released a discussion paper on the question of a national scheme. This is the first time that any government has advanced the cause of workers to set up a scheme which would provide them with recourse to some of their entitlements. This is a policy direction that no Labor government in 13 years was ever prepared to do anything about. This government has seen not only more jobs for workers but also higher wages for low income workers. Now we are looking to put in place an extension of the safety net scheme, something that we on this side are proud of. We are proud of the fact that we have a government that has an economy working well—Mrs Crosio interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—looking after workers interests and providing an appropriate national scheme.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. The member for Prospect is an occupier of this chair and knows better than to be a perpetual interjector. I have already drawn her attention to the fact that she was interrupting the minister.93539353Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. Is the minister aware of recent polling in relation to the regional forest agreement process in Queensland? Can the minister report any progress in the long wait for a decision from the Queensland government about the structure of the proposed RFA?9353Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—Might I thank the member for Blair for his constant interest in his areas where there is substantial forestry interests. The Kilcoy council and others have been well represented in their concerns. The Maryborough Chronicle and the Courier Mail in Queensland have today reported on the Labor Party's UMR research which set out to survey some 1,200 voters—a very substantial sample—in the Labor held marginal seats of Maryborough, Glasshouse, Mount Ommaney and Springwood. The 1,200 people were asked, amongst other things, how many job losses they would be prepared to accept—Mr Rudd interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Griffith is warned!SJ4Mr TUCKEY—as a balanced outcome of the regional forest agreement process. In the marginal Labor seat of Maryborough, 52 per cent of respondents said that they wanted no job losses. Of course, that is in the context of a sustainably managed industry. Let me say that I can with confidence add another 80 people to that number of 52 per cent—they being my colleagues on this side of the House who also want to deliver regional forest agreements under the rules of the National Forest Policy Statement, and of course with no job losses. They are the circumstances that we will continue to follow.We find now that we have some new senators in the place, including the son of Mr Bill Ludwig, Mr Joe Ludwig from Queensland. He in fact is like some other members I wish to refer to who simply have one message for the electorate and another message down here. Senator Ludwig, prior to his arrival in the Senate, put out a series of press releases telling the workers how committed he was to their cause, but I note that he now is not only voting `for' in the Senate on Labor's unconstitutional amendments to the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 but also speaking, presumably trying to convince himself, about these issues—issues that the Australian Government Solicitor has quite properly identified as mechanisms to kill off the regional forest agreement—and portraying them as some way of trying to fix it. All they have to do is follow the advice of their own colleague the Deputy Premier of Tasmania and pass the legislation without amendment.In closing, let me further point out that in the Examiner newspaper, published in Tasmania on Wednesday, the 25th, the member for Lyons is also in this business of having one message for the electorate and another for this parliament where he sits in the caucus and votes one way while telling people he is voting in another. What I am talking about is:Lyons Labor MHR Dick Evans [sic] has broken ranks with his federal colleagues to express concern—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I go to the question of relevance. The minister was asked a specific question about RFAs in relation to Queensland. He has already misidentified the holders of at least two of those three seats. He ought to be brought back to the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has made his point of order and will resume his seat. The Minister for Forestry and Conservation is addressing the question of regional forest agreements, as I understand it, and I invite him to conclude his answer.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—I continue quoting:Mr Adams said that in Labor's Caucus room debate he opposed the proposed amendment that would enable the Democrat-controlled Senate to disallow future agreements.. . . . . . . . ."I am talking about future RFAs, and they are in for a rough ride in the Senate," Mr Adams said yesterday.Premier Jim Bacon—the Labor Premier of Tasmania—said yesterday that Tasmania had a legally binding forestry agreement with the Commonwealth and it would be honoured.93549354Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Is it a fact that, despite what Senator Newman says, the massive increase in the number of disability support pensioners over the last three years has nothing to do with disability in ageing and everything to do with unemployment? Are you aware of the internal departmental report which found `unemployment is the major determinant of disability pension receipt'? Will you now admit that your real agenda is to make the unemployment rate look lower than it is by shifting people onto the disability support pension and that, if you had not been so successful at this, the unemployment rate now would be 7.8 per cent?9354Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—I would like to thank the member for Lilley for his question.Opposition members interjecting—XJ6Mr ANTHONY—Obviously the opposition is not keen to hear the answer, because there is so much disquiet here. But the facts are that, with the disability support pension, the greatest growth rate in people on disabilities actually happened when the Labor Party was in government in the last three years. This is the whole irony: it went up 22.8 per cent, and in the last three years there has been a growth rate of 15.7 per cent—one-third less, Prime Minister, over the time we have been in government. This is the interesting thing with this great debate which is raging with the Labor Party about DSP: the Labor Party did absolutely nothing about it in its term of government. The great hypocrisy!We do recognise that there are a lot of people on DSP. We want to help these people to maximise their potential to move back into the work force. Indeed, not only will we be looking at encouraging these people through the Employment Assistance Program—and there have been a lot more people on that program in the last three years than when you were in government—but also we want to see those people maximise their potential to move back. There is no such suggestion that we are encouraging people to go on DSP to avoid unemployment. The facts show that, if you are on DSP and looking for work, you are included in the unemployment figures, Member for Lilley.93559355Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to ask a question of the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. The minister will be aware that recently the Bendigo Bank opened a community bank in my electorate of Mallee. I would be interested if the minister could advise the House what initiatives like this can mean for my constituents or any other consumers of financial services across rural Australia.9355Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I thank the member for Mallee for his question. The member for Mallee can boast of two Bendigo community branches in his electorate, and that is good news for the people of his electorate. The other members that can boast of it are the members for Ballarat, La Trobe, Flinders, Gippsland, Riverina and Farrer—and the member for Farrer particularly asks to be noted because he also has two Bendigo community branches. Before the Labor Party starts calling for the Auditor-General to investigate the Bendigo Bank, it has also opened up branches in some Labor electorates. The Bendigo Bank now has 13 community branches in both rural and metropolitan areas of Australia. They are opening five new ones in October and they expect to have eight opened by the end of the year.Bendigo Bank together with the credit unions that are opening up new branches across Australia are providing a valuable community service. They are responding to the needs of the local community. That is something that has been a fair allegation against some of the larger banks in Australia over the last few years. That point was made by the Hawker committee in its recent deliberations into the provision of financial services in rural and regional Australia. The good news in this statement is that we have a highly competitive banking environment, and the more competitive it becomes the better off the consumers are. We have a new arrangement involving a supermarket, Woolworths, which will have 650 retail outlets for financial institutions over the next few years.There has been a dramatic change in banking services to the community over the last 10 years. In 1989, there were 30,000 access points for Australians to banking across the country. Today, there are more than a quarter of a million access points for Australians. Saving products have increased from around 600 in product range to around 1,800 in product range. And, importantly, for all those battling home owners out there, in 1989 there were 26 mortgage based products and today there are over 1,700 mortgage based products. That is a dramatic improvement. The best way to do that is to have competition.It is this government that has delivered greater competition through the Wallis reforms, which have proven to be landmark and benchmark reforms and which have been adopted in London as world's best practice. We are delivering to Australian consumers one of the most competitive financial services environments across the world. In the new global environment, Australians can rest assured that access to local community banking can only get better and better.93569356Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Can you explain why Senator Newman has secretly axed the highly successful More Intensive and Flexible Services pilot which helped people on the disability support pension get work? Are you aware the internal departmental evaluation of the program found that `the pilot has the potential to assist in curbing the growth in the number of people in receipt of DSP' and should be expanded into a national program? Why is the government acting with such hypocrisy when it comes to welfare reform—axing the very programs that help people get jobs?9356Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—I would like to thank, as always, the member for Lilley for showing interest in this area. This is the report that he is referring to.83UCOXMr Cox—Will you table it?2V5SWANMr Swan—Table it.XJ6Mr ANTHONY—I will table it. But, as always, do not let the truth get in the way of good facts. He claims that this particular program had an 80 per cent success rate, but that could not be further from the truth. In April 1999 around 43 per cent of the people in this pilot program actually left the pilot program and only 4.5 per cent obtained work outcomes. You come into this parliament and talk about an 80 per cent rate. You could not be further from the truth. Of course we are looking to try to help people with disabilities and we will have more pilot programs. But we also want to ensure that the pilot programs are best suited to those people to ensure that they can reach their maximum potential.There is obviously this confusion within the opposition not only between the Left and the Right, between the old guard and new guard, but also within the Labor Party. I note that `Melba'—a very reputable column in the Australian—says, `Swan takes a dive'. We know there is this internal struggle between the member for Werriwa and the member for Lilley and maybe the member for Perth, but there is one even within the ALP. This par ticular article talks about a massive conference they are having. Guess who they are inviting? The shadow minister for family and community services, Wayne Smith—he is obviously making a big impact. And that is a publication from the Labor Party.93569356Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—My question is to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member will resume his seat. The Chief Opposition Whip, of all people, knows something about the standards that ought to be maintained in this House and will exercise some more restraint.3K6Mr ROSS CAMERON—Can the minister update the House on the levels of participation by ordinary Australians in share investment? What is this government doing to encourage new start-up investment?Mr Adams interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lyons is an occupier of this chair and he, too, will refer to standing order 55.9356Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I would like to thank the member for Parramatta for drawing to my attention a newspaper report which refers to `Sharing the nation: Telstra float rings in change for investors'. The best part about this newspaper report is the first paragraph, which states that lower income earners and young investors are set to make Australia the world's leading share owning nation.When the Australian Stock Exchange made its annual report recently, it reported that the number of 25- to 34-year-olds investing in the stock market has increased from 32 per cent to 42 per cent in the past two years. Importantly, it added that, over the past four years, the number of women owning shares directly has doubled. Now, 5½ million Australians own shares. That has doubled over the past five years. That means, of course, that we are the second highest share owning nation in the world.The member for Parramatta asked me what initiatives the government has that can further encourage share ownership. The first and most important initiative is that we are pursuing our privatisation program. Demutualisation and privatisation have had a profound impact on the level of share ownership in Australia. That is good news for people who live in the electorate of Parramatta. The hard work of the Minister for Finance and Administration continues to deliver record numbers of first time share owners. But the most significant initiative that we can put in place for share ownership is to abolish the stamp duty on the transfer of shares.Why is it that, every time we come up with an initiative that delivers more shares to Australia's battlers, the Labor Party opposes it lock, stock and barrel? Stamp duty on the transfer of shares? Labor wants it in; we want it abolished. Distributing more Telstra shares to the people of Australia? We want it in; the Labor Party wants to stop it. Every attempt we have made to increase share ownership to give greater wealth to Australian people has been opposed by the Labor Party. Their form is poor. Our form is good, and that is delivering greater share ownership to Australia's battlers.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice9357935715:16:009357Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Mr Speaker, during an answer to a question, I believe—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is the Treasurer seeking to add to an answer?CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—Yes, I am. I said that the budget was in deficit $17 billion in 1995. It was in deficit by $17 billion in 1992-93 and in 1993-94. In 1994-95, it was in deficit by $13 billion and, in 1995-96, by $10 billion. The $23 billion is the $13 billion from 1994-95 and the $10 billion from 1995-96. I table the page from the budget.Questions to the Speaker935793579357Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—Mr Speaker, I have a question to you under standing order 150.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Canberra may proceed.5K6Ms ELLIS—Could you please assist me in getting an answer to question No. 726, put on the Notice Paper on 9 June, to the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs.9357Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Yes.Personal Explanations935715:17:009357Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—On 26 August, the member for Fisher, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration, in summing up the debate on the Taxation Laws (Political Donations) legislation claimed I was under a misapprehension that the bill as originally introduced proposed a $10,000 threshold for tax deductibility. I was under no such misapprehension. On two occasions during the debate I clearly pointed out my concern at original plans to lift from $1,500 to $10,000 the amount above which the identity of a donor had to be disclosed. At no time did I mention that $10,000 amount in the context of the tax deductibility threshold.The member for Fisher also claimed I had declined an offer of a briefing from the government on the bill, suggesting I had missed the opportunity to understand the legislation. I had no need for such a briefing. I totally understood this further taxpayer subsidisation of political parties, as Hansard shows.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Calare must indicate where he is being misrepresented and not advance an argument.KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—I am quite happy to give the parliamentary secretary a briefing on my accurate interpretation of the bill.935810001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:935861183SBurke Anna MPTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of electors of Chisholm points out to the House our desire to see community pharmacists retain their unique position in Australia's health system.We trust and respect our local pharmacists and are opposed to any moves to allow supermarkets to compete against them. We believe that the community benefits from pharmacies being owned by pharmacists.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House heeds our wishes and allows our local pharmacy to continue to play a vital role in our health care.Ms Burke83SMs Burke(from 611 citizens)9358483YHoare Kelly MPTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of electors of Charlton points out to the House our desire to see community pharmacists retain their unique position in Australia's health system.We trust and respect our local pharmacists and are opposed to any moves to allow supermarkets to compete against them. We believe that the community benefits from pharmacies being owned by pharmacists.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House heeds our wishes and allows our local pharmacy to continue to play a vital role in our health care.Ms Hoare83YMs Hoare(from four citizens)93582181PG6Macklin Jenny MPTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of electors of Jagajaga points out to the House our desire to see community pharmacists retain their unique position in Australia's health system.We trust and respect our local pharmacists and are opposed to any moves to allow supermarkets to compete against them. We believe that the community benefits from pharmacies being owned by pharmacists. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House heeds our wishes and allows our local pharmacy to continue to play a vital role in our health care.Ms MacklinPG6Ms Macklin(from 2,181 citizens)935814ZJ6Barresi Phil MPTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:`That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.'We, therefore, the individual undersigned Members of Ladies' Group at the Uniting Church, Blackburn South, Victoria 3130, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray.Mr BarresiZJ6Mr Barresi(from 14 citizens)935816WF6Danby Michael MPTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:`That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.'We, therefore, the individual undersigned Members of the St Kilda Uniting Church, St Kilda, Victoria 3182, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray. Mr DanbyWF6Mr Danby(from 16 citizens)935938PG6Macklin Jenny MPTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:`That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.'We, therefore, the individual undersigned Members of St James' Anglican Church, Ivanhoe, Victoria 3079, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray.Ms MacklinPG6Ms Macklin(from 38 citizens)9359580KL6Andren Peter MPTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Government of Australia.The petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, draws attention to the House that there is widespread community support for the Australian Government to help ensure a safe and fair consultation in East Timor on 8 August 1999 by:. supporting a UN sponsored peace enforcement mission to be sent to East Timor. urging Indonesia to immediately disarm and disband paramilitary groups in East Timor. urging the Indonesian Armed Forces to conduct a staged withdrawal from East Timor.We also ask on the Australian Government to:. withdraw recognition of Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor pending the completion of a free and fair UN supervised act of self determination. suspend military aid and training to the Indonesian Armed Forces. suspend Australian aid, and lobby against further IMF funding to the Indonesian government, until it stops its military violence in East Timor.Mr AndrenKL6Mr Andren(from 580 citizens)93594477K6Entsch Warren MPA petition of certain residents of the Hann River area and travellers using the Peninsula Developmental Road in Cape York draws to the attention of the House that telephone services in this remote region are negligible and fall well short of Telstra's community service obligation.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House act to ensure that Telstra be directed to provide a 24-hour-a-day public phone service at the Hann River and that it be positioned on public land adjacent to the local roadhouse.Mr Entsch7K6Mr Entsch(from 447 citizens)935938N36Evans Martyn MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The Petition of Residents of the Edinburgh Caravan-Residential and Retirement Park Lot 1 Andrews Road and Lot 6 Bellchambers Road Penfield South Australia 5121.As residents we pay rent for the land only, and buy our own transportable homes and place them on the said land as a fixture. And can only be moved at great expense. We would like to apply for this rent to be GST free, as we are Aged Pensioners.We the undersigned would like you to give this matter your approval.Mr Martyn EvansN36Mr Martyn Evans(from 38 citizens)9359198K6Fitzgibbon Joel MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.This petition, by the following citizens of Australia, draws to the attention of the House that in view of the recent decision to grant Gold Card medical benefits to all men and women who served outside Australia during the Second World War 1939-45, it would be a fitting, benevolent and honourable act by Parliament to grant War Widow status to all surviving widows of World War 1 (WW1) Veterans who do not currently receive a War Widows Pension (WWP).The CaseOn 8 October 1998, Mr W.J. Stephens wrote to his local Member, the Hon. Philip Ruddock, requesting that he introduce a Private Member's Bill to grant War Widows status to all surviving WW1 widows. The request was prompted by a Legacy visit Mr Stephens had made to the widow of a WW1 soldier. She was a frail 92 year old. Her husband had been wounded at Gallipoli and in France. He was decorated with the Military Cross and the Legion of Honour. He died aged 98. Rather than introduce a Private Member's Bill Mr Ruddock made representation to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Hon. Bruce Scott MP.The Hon. Bruce Scott decided to take no action, on the basis that, `Any extension of the war widow's pension and related benefits to widows of World War 1 veterans who did not die as a result of their service would be a diversion from the principle on which this pension is based'—letter to Mr Ruddock from the Hon. Bruce Scott dated 8 December 1998.We submit that Mr Scott's decision lacks compassion. It is also inconsistent with the Prime Minister's rhetoric on the occasion of his 1997 Remembrance Day Address, in which he made it clear that he fully understands the unselfish sacrifice made by the men, wives and families, of the First AIF.Further, the reason given for the decision cannot be supported in fact. For the simple reason that war widows pensions are granted to the widows of ex prisoners of war (POW), regardless of whether their death is attributable to war service. For example, if an ex-POW died of old age his widow automatically receives a WWP. The same is true of Veterans in receipt of Special Rate (TPI) Disability Pensions, or Disability Pensions at the Extreme Disability Adjustment (EDA) rate.The results of the extremely harsh physical, and mental, trauma suffered by these men never left them or their families. The same is true of WW1 veterans who were subjected to the brutality of trench warfare.Thus, if a WWP is granted to the widows of ex-POWs, TPIs and EDAs on the basis of the longterm effects of war service on their husbands/families, it follows that the widows of WW1 veterans should also be afforded the same privilege, ie, War Widow status.Refusing to take action to grant an additional $150 per fortnight to a relatively few very old, frail, ladies as a belated mark of recognition cannot possibly be supported on economic grounds. Apart from the fact that they only number a few hundred, these ladies have very few remaining years.In recent times much has been made of the gallantry and sacrifice of the First AIF. It is said that we, as Australians, first came together as a nation on the beaches of Gallipoli.However, little consideration has been given to the loyal, and faithful support of the wives and families who made this possible. In addition, after the war it was the wives and families who provided the means whereby these men could return to civilian life to lead as normal an existence as possible considering the circumstances of their early adult life on the battlefields of Egypt, Gallipoli, France and Mesopotamia. Recognition of this fact by the Australian people/Parliament is long overdue.Your petitioners therefore request action, either by way of a Private Member's or Government-Sponsored Bill, to amend the relevant Section of the Veterans' Entitlement Act (which covers eligibility criteria for WWP entitlements) to include: widows of all World War 1 Veterans.Mr Fitzgibbon8K6Mr Fitzgibbon(from 19 citizens)9360783YHoare Kelly MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The undersigned citizens and residents of Australia call on you to:. Retain compositional and ingredient requirements for basic items so that meat pies still contain meat and jam contains fruit;. Prevent misleading labelling of low fat foods;. Keep responsibility for food regulation in the Department of Health;. Properly consider the impact on consumers and public health of any legislative proposals to water down ANZFA's powers and objectives and further deregulate the food industry;. Make no tax changes that discriminate against healthy foods.We are among the big majority (90% plus) of Australians who want all foods accurately labelled. It is our right to make informed choices on what we eat.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Ms Hoare83YMs Hoare(from seven citizens)936061FI4Morris Allan MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The Petition of the undersigned shows that:The Federal Government's childcare policies are reducing the quality of care and making it unaffordable.Fees have risen by up to $25 at some services and families are being put under pressure trying to meet the extra costs.The Government's cuts and changes to child care are forcing parents, often mothers, to reduce the hours they work or quit work altogether reducing family income and making it harder for families to meet weekly costs.The Government's changes are forcing some parents to choose unlicensed backyard care which could put our children at risk. Your Petitioners ask that the Parliament: make the necessary changes to ensure child care is affordable, quality care that is meeting the needs of Australian families.Mr Allan MorrisFI4Mr Allan Morris(from 61 citizens)936117FI4Morris Allan MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of electors of the Division of Newcastle draws to the attention of the House that a flat rate Goods and Services Tax across all goods and services is regressive.It is regressive because the same tax rate is paid by all people on their total consumption irrespective of their income or wealth.In fact, lower income people have a higher proportionate tax burden because they consume a greater proportion of their income than higher income people.We petitioners are totally opposed to this unfair tax because as well as being fundamentally unfair to the Australian community, it simply will not address the real issue facing Australia, namely jobs and job security.We, the undersigned, urge the Government not to consider a Goods and Services Tax, in any form, because it is fundamentally unfair to low and middle income earners.Mr Allan MorrisFI4Mr Allan Morris(from 17 citizens)93615FI4Morris Allan MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of the undersigned deplores the failure of the Government to appoint a judge, from the Newcastle legal profession, to replace Justice Renaud in the Family Court in Newcastle. We are deeply concerned about the delay in dealing with custody and access cases that this will cause.We believe that the profession in Newcastle has lawyers of the calibre required to fill this position and the inference, by the failure to appoint, is extremely insulting.Your petitioners request the House to strongly support the replacement of the judge at the Newcastle Family Court.Mr Allan MorrisFI4Mr Allan Morris(from five citizens)Petitions received.Private Members' Business9361936115:21:009361Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—I 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;(3) urges all Members of this House, whether they be monarchists, republicans or direct election supporters, to participate honestly in the referendum campaign; and(4) 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.Everyone in this House is aware of the referendum which is due on 6 November to determine whether we will become a republic and to vote on the preamble for our Constitution. The fairly heated debate over the final questions to be put is now settled. The outcome might not be exactly as we wanted, but it is time now to focus on the substance of the proposal and, particularly, on the conduct of the campaign, which is where this motion is directed.We are all aware that there is currently not a high level of awareness or interest in the community about our Constitution. It is largely not seen as a living or relevant document. Besides the fact that the Constitution is extremely technical and legalistic, I believe the community's lack of interest in it is partly because it often does not correspond with accepted views of ourselves, such as its current failure to reflect the degree of independence that we as a country all feel. This very issue is the one, of course, to which the referendum is directed. The motion that I am moving in the House today notes the importance of this referendum, which goes to our identity as a nation and our system of government. By its nature, this referendum is very significant. It does not go to such important, but narrow, issues as creating rights for a group of citizens or making a particular change to legislative powers; it is something that will affect all of us in our own experience of being Australian. It fundamentally affects what we mean and feel when we tell the world we are Australian. For me, it will be the freedom and pride with which I will swear allegiance to this nation and its people, not to the Queen, upon my re-election to parliament.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The honourable member will resume her seat. The member for Melbourne Ports should observe standing order 57 and give his colleague the courtesy of not walking between her and the chair.83KRoxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON—For me it will be the freedom and pride with which I say that I am Australian without attracting the bemused queries of overseas visitors about the role of the Queen or our ties with England; it will be the freedom and pride with which I will watch our own head of state meet on equal terms with the Queen of England, both strongly representing their own countries and meeting as true equals and strong friends; it will be talking to school children—maybe even my children—and teaching them that they and their friends are good enough to be our own head of state.It will, of course, mean for others different things—it may be the focus on the smell of our gum trees or the biting salt of our seas or the heat of the Centre. For others it might be the pride in our institutions of government and the courts, structured mostly on the British model but working well for us in this country. Maybe it will mean the eclectic mix of cultures, tastes, smells and religions that crowd all of our city markets or even a lazy Boxing Day at the cricket. But, whatever being Australian means to each and every one of us, the way we vote on 6 November will have a fundamental impact on what we create for ourselves as a nation.This motion notes that our stable democracy will continue and be strengthened if this referendum question were to be approved by the Australian people. We will have a workable, stable and secure system. The Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum was able to conclude this. What has given us our stability? Is it the Queen? No, the primary checks and balances in our system come from the Westminster system of responsible government combined with our bicameral system where the Senate is usually not controlled by the government of the day. A Prime Minister's action is always constrained by his dependence in the House on his party, the need for any changes to get through the Senate and, of course, regular elections—not a single one of these factors would be changed by the passing of this referendum.Our natural inclination when change is proposed might be to assume or fear that the change will upset such stability, and it is easy to play to these fears. This motion urges all members of this House—whether they be monarchists, republicans or direct election supporters—to participate honestly in this referendum campaign and to decline from playing up these fears. As parliamentarians, whatever our view on this matter, our desire should be to have people truly express their views on the matter, not that people should be misled.Whilst I am a republican and think that voting yes and becoming a republic gives me a chance to say why I believe it would be good for us, I do nevertheless respect the genuine monarchists who have a different view and want the opportunity to say that our ties with England and the Queen bind us in a way which positively defines our history and that they want to retain this link. It is not a view I share, but it is one that should be considered.Unfortunately, those who genuinely hold such views and want to argue them on their merits seem to be few and far between. Perhaps today on this motion we will have the benefit of some real argument on the issue. Most of those on the opposing benches who campaigned for the monarchy—they have been aptly named by my colleague the Member for Melbourne Ports as the `Queen Team'—refuse to mention the Queen, refuse to admit to their desire to continue with this institution and would rather like to focus on scare campaigns and boxing at shadow issues.Similarly, I know that there are genuine direct electionists, although I am not one of them. It defies logic for me, however, that anyone truly desiring a republic with a directly elected head of state would argue against this proposal in favour of a hereditary monarch. Any true republican could not in good conscience campaign for the maintenance of an inherited, sexist, religiously discriminatory monarchy—and that of another country, to boot—instead of an Australian head of state.And if we want to ensure the stability of our current system—as all of us do—we cannot take a further step to direct election without properly defining the powers, role and interaction with the Prime Minister of a new head of state in our political system. A directly elected President would have the moral and political authority of the nation. Our Westminster system and the interplay between the House of Representatives and the Senate would be forced to be fundamentally different. Direct election as a catchcry may seem attractive but, until we can be sure that such stability and protections remain, it should not and cannot be embraced. Our opportunity to take further steps down this path can come only if we vote yes to our republican status to start with.This motion deplores the misleading and mischievous scare campaigns that can be conducted on this issue, in particular the misrepresentation by many of the current powers of the Prime Minister to dismiss a Governor-General. This proposal, if accepted, does not create a new power for the Prime Minister to dismiss a new President. The Prime Minister has the right to dismiss the Governor-General now. The Queen does not provide a safety check. The Prime Minister is not required to give reasons, nor is he required to give an explanation. The Governor-General himself does not provide a safety check. To measure the issue of appointment and dismissal of the President fairly, one must compare the proposal in the bill to the total lack of process and accountability now in appointing a Governor-General. The Prime Minister has that total power. The Queen does not play any role or exercise any independent discretion. She has always acted on advice and, if we were in any doubt, that was made expressly clear after the Australia Acts were introduced. People are largely unaware of this—because the power is not abused and has not been abused by any of our prime ministers—but it is not the Constitution but political reality that stops the abuse of this power.In addition, the proposed section 62 of the amended Constitution will require even further accountability from the Prime Minister by requiring that a report be given to parliament within 30 days if the President is dismissed. This is not an unreasonable concentration of power in the hands of the Prime Minister, and it does not affect the current balance in our political system. We do live in a country where the Prime Minister and his government determine the priorities, policies and direction. It may be something that when we are in opposition we do not like to admit, but it is something that we should not be afraid of and it is a strength of our democracy.This motion also notes that the new constitutional changes will not be unworkable or undemocratic and that campaigning on such issues is greatly misleading the public. Senator Minchin has said that the republicans have not made any attempt to explain what was wrong with the current constitutional arrangements or how their republican model would be an improvement on what was a tried and tested system. The true advantage of what is being proposed is the beauty of allowing us to have both. It is not changing what is tried and tested; it is, in fact, a very conservative model.There is significance, however, in the symbolic change, and it does improve on some areas, in particular the public nomination process. This motion urges the House and the members in it not to understate the signifi cance of the public nomination process. Even a cursory look at the proposal before us shows the strength of a public nomination process, a nominations committee, the appointment of that committee, a short list being provided to the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister choosing from that short list with the support of the Leader of the Opposition and approval being required by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of both houses. Compare this to what we have now. We have nothing. We have no system. We have a one-man team where the Prime Minister decides who should be our head of state. These provisions are not just in the presidential nominations bill or an ordinary act of parliament; the key provisions are in the Constitution itself, if the referendum is accepted. This dramatically improves the selection process. We must also look at the non-partisan role that the parliament plays. Requiring a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of both houses of parliament is an extraordinary provision. We have only one other provision in our Constitution for a joint sitting: following a double dissolution. It is one way of ensuring that we truly will have a non-partisan political figure as our head of state.The importance of this upcoming referendum is something that this House should note, and the motion urges that. Destruction and negativity are always an easy course for us to take, but it is not edifying, there is no leadership and it provides nothing for us to take pride in. This is a chance for us to take a great step forward, but in a cautious manner. We have an opportunity to make this a great moment for us. I would like to quote Nelson Mandela, who said:It is what we make out of what we have, not what we are given, that separates one person from another.This equally applies to our nation. (Time expired)WF6DANBYMr Danby—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:31:009364Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—I note in the gallery the presence of representatives of the Australian Union of Jewish Students and, as the youngest member of the parliament to vote no on 6 November, I dedicate these remarks to thinking young Australians such as the representatives of the Australian Union of Jewish Students.In November this year we will be asked to vote not on the idea of a republic in abstract but on the merits of a particular republic endorsed by last year's Constitutional Convention. That model involves the appointment of a President by the Prime Minister, with the consent of the Leader of the Opposition and two-thirds of the parliament, following a public nomination process. The closest approximation to this which I can find is the Golden Logie award in TV Week. Every reliable poll taken over the past five years shows that, of those who want a republic, the overwhelming majority want the right to directly elect their President. In my own poll of the Parramatta electorate, 90 per cent of the 2,500 respondents indicated that if Australia was to have a republic they wanted to elect the President. The only other issue on which the consensus was so clear was a question asking whether taxes were too high.It is the view of the political elite that the Australian people do not really understand what they are asking for when they ask for direct election. They say it would not involve incremental but radical change, and they are right. Direct election of the executive would involve scrapping our Westminster style of government and rebuilding again from the ground up. The problem is that the Australian people are saying emphatically that they want direct election. This year's referendum cannot deliver that. The Turnbull-ARM republic we are being offered is a sop to our popular instincts. It is a throwing of the scraps of democracy from the table of the elites. This is a `we know better than you' republic. The illegitimacy of the model's conception by a committee of political compromise is reflected in the instability of the outcomes it will deliver.The republicans argue that Australia's consistently democratic government is based not on the content of the Constitutional document but on the consensus of democratic values that underpin it—a consensus that will presumably survive the changes now proposed. They are only half right. The approach underestimates the particularity of the conventions which attach to the Crown and the Crown alone—conventions which will not survive the changes now proposed. The most important of those are the conventions ensuring the separation of power between the titular head of state and the executive government—in our case, between the monarch and the Prime Minister in parliament. A clear understanding of authority and precedence, whether in a family, in a business or in a government, is a significant achievement and arguably one of the prerequisites for success. As Shakespeare observed:When two men ride a horse, one must ride in front.The central operating principle of responsible government is that the policy direction of the nation should be determined by those who have been through the crucible of electoral scrutiny; by those who have sought and received a representative warrant and who are answerable to the electorate for their performance.We benefit in this country from the 350-year struggle for ascendancy between the English parliament and the monarch. No fewer than nine Speakers of the House of Commons met a violent death on the journey from the divine right of kings to the sovereignty of the people through parliament. The execution of Charles by Cromwell's parliamentary forces marked an irreversible turning in the tide of favour of a sovereign towards a sovereign parliament and people.With the adoption in 1901 of the Constitution Act, Australians received all the benefit of that law and tradition in one stroke of the legislative pen. The role of our Governor-General and of state governors is purely ceremonial, with the exception of those rare situations, perhaps once or twice a century, when the monarch's representative can exercise reserve powers to avert a crisis. The position is clearly outlined in House of Representatives Practice, beginning with a quote from Quick and Garran:. . . parliamentary government has well established the principle that the Crown can perform no executive act, except on the advice of some Minister responsible to parliament. Hence the power nominally placed in the hands of the Governor General is really granted to the people through their representatives in the parliament. Whilst therefore, in this Constitution, some executive powers are . . . in accordance with venerable custom, vested in the Governor General, they . . . can only be exercised according to the will of the people.Former Governor-General Sir Paul Hasluck later observed:So long as the Crown has the powers which our Constitution now gives it, and so long as the Governor General exercises them, Parliament will work in the way the constitution requires and the executive—and this is the critical point—will remain responsible to Parliament.In general, the system has worked with beautiful predictability and efficiency, even accepting that 1975 involved a questionable exercise of judgment by Sir John Kerr. Importantly, exercise of the reserve powers involves a merely momentary restoration of executive authority to the Governor-General, followed by the calling of an early election in which the will of the people can again be tested and implemented. I am not convinced that the republic on which we will be asked to vote this year can deliver the same settled certainty of roles and precedence.We have witnessed a recent blurring of the executive conventions, and this republican model will see a rapid acceleration in that trend. Sir William Deane and his predecessor Bill Hayden have significantly increased the scope of vice-regal pronouncements on matters such as euthanasia, gay marriage, indigenous affairs and economic inequality. Some adventurous members of the judiciary—in particular, from the Family Court and, more recently, the High Court—have by their ex-curial pronouncements added momentum to this trend. Their indulgence is buttressed by the security of life tenure but, if we are struggling to constrain the judiciary from policy pronouncements under the weight of 350 years of convention, how do we ever expect to constrain an Australian President?These excesses are taking place even within the constraints of 350 years. Much of that cultural heritage will be lost under the Turnbull model precisely because, by cutting all links with the monarch, it will cut links with the constraints that bind the monarch. Two empirical factors sharpen my apprehension. The first is that Australians are saying, with unusual clarity, that if we are to have a President we want one clothed with democratic authority. The second is that the moral influence of the Governor-General, or the proposed President, is greatly increased by the absence of a government majority in an upper house. Without reformed Senate electoral processes, hung parliaments look set to become a permanent feature of the landscape in both state and federal parliaments. Successive presidents will find it irresistible to fill the power vacuum which those hung parliaments create.This would not be a problem if we went the whole hog and directly elected the President as leader of the executive government. Under the half-pregnant model we are being offered, it is a substantial problem. By giving the people some say in the selection of a President—but not all—we create a genetic hybrid which is neither purely symbolic nor an effective executive leader. At each point in the delicate negotiations between the Prime Minister and minority parties in the Senate, we will have President Ita Buttrose offering the benefit of the enlightened conscience of a good astrologer or President Charlie Perkins with the ancestral wisdom of the tribal elders. I do not doubt there is wisdom there—I simply regard it as a recipe for disaster in terms of efficient executive government.The republicans respond that the common sense of Australians will ensure that the system is workable, and there is some truth in that. If the yes case is successful, the sky will not fall in. The question is: will it deliver an improvement? Our neighbours across the Tasman recently embarked on a constitutional experiment involving multi-member electorates. New Zealand benefits from the same tradition of democratic continuity upon which our republicans are relying so heavily. Presumably, the Kiwis intended to improve their system of government. The experiment has been an abject failure and made New Zealand something of a laughing stock.I am not a direct electionist nor am I a flag waving monarchist. What I object to is the fiction that you can expunge the Crown without seriously eroding the conventions that bind the Crown. Recent erosion of those conventions of responsible government is an irritation capable of remedy. The Turnbull-ARM model will create a double-headed hydra. Prime Minister and President cannot both hold the reins of government. Therefore, there are only two real choices for coherent government—either you are a hairy-chested, American-style republican, with an executive President, or you stick with a purely symbolic, ceremonial, hereditary figure who has the great virtue of being an executive eunuch. In conclusion, I rely on Churchill, who knew a little of both history and government:The significance of the crown is not in the power it wields but in the power it denies to others.15:41:009366Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—I second this motion to express the distaste of many Australians for the low road that some opponents of the proposed republic are taking. I do not include the previous speaker, the member for Parramatta. I note, as the member for Gellibrand pointed out in an earlier speech, that those supporters of the current system do not seem—as the character in Fawlty Towers always inveighs against—to want to mention the war. In this case, they do not want to seem to mention the Queen. I respect the views of many people like him, who are constitutional monarchists.I agree with the member for Hindmarsh in her earlier claims that those seeking to scare the public that the Australian flag will be removed or changed as a result of the referendum are idiotic. Three days after her comments to the Liberal Party room a press release was put out by a parliamentary secretary in the government. It quoted comments by a Mr Harold Scruby and Natasha Stott Despoja as the evidence that the Australian flag would be changed. In his own press release, Senator Campbell points out that the amendments to the Flag Act 1953 allow the Australian flag to be changed by this parliament and that that has always been the case.One of the principal arguments of the monarchists opposed to the Australian President and a republic is to claim that under the new system the Prime Minister would have greater powers to dismiss a President. The weight of public testimony by constitutional experts to the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum, which I was on, was that the proposed system replicated the current situation. Former Prime Minister the Rt Hon. Malcolm Fraser undermined opponents of the referendum in public testimony to our committee, and now he and former Deputy Prime Minister, Doug Anthony, have written an open letter in which they seek to disabuse those who exaggerate the powers to dismiss the President under the prospective republic. On the Sunday program, Mr Fraser demolished the arguments of his former adviser, the Minister for Vocational Education and Training, in today's Age. A reporter asked Mr Fraser:But under the proposed system if the referendum goes through, the Prime Minister could just sack the president like that, couldn't he?Mr Fraser replied:Well, he could just sack the president like that. But then there are consequences. There's going to be a formal debate in the parliament, and there probably would, if somebody was sacked anyway. The Opposition would make sure that there was a debate about it. But under the proposal, the Prime Minister can't appoint somebody that he wants to appoint. He's got to secure thesupport of the Leader of the Opposition so that he'll get thetwo-thirds parliamentary majority. In other words, you know,having a straight political hack, having a stooge for the Prime Minister, somebody who'll do just what this particular Prime Minister wants, is not going to be possible.Mr Fraser added in his excellent interview on the Sunday program in response to this further question from Laurie Oakes:You're saying that the proposed republic model would be a more stable situation as far as hiring and firing the president, than the current situation we have with the Governor-General?FRASER:Yes, I really would. I don't think, in this context, that we really want to rake up old issues and old passions, but one of the problems in 1975 was quite simply that the Governor-General, he believed he could be sacked at the drop of a hat and that's why he did not consult with the Prime Minister in ways that many people believed he should have consulted with the Prime Minister of the day. Under our Westminster system of responsible parliamentary government, a Prime Minister had to have the ability to remove the head of state. In the old system, a Prime Minister can remove the Governor-General, as the former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser has explained. Under the new system, the Prime Minister could remove the President. This ability is deliberate and designed in the unlikely event of conflict between the Prime Minister and the President and is designed to remove constitutional impasse.It enshrines the supremacy of parliament, the elected representatives of the people, over the symbolic head of state. Moreover, the Prime Minister under the new republic will be constrained by having to bring the dismissal back to parliament within 30 days in having to convince the House of his actions. That is not there now.I want to conclude with one final point—that is, the shameful scare tactics of Mr David Elliott of the Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy comparing Australia to Weimar Germany. My father lived in Weimar Germany, and anyone who compares prosperous, peaceful Australia with Germany of the 1930s is using scare tactics that are not part of the legitimate and thoughtful debate that the Australian public expect us to display in this coming referendum.15:46:009367Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—Let me make it clear right from the outset that I do not agree with the change to the system we have at the present time, and that does not particularly make me a monarchist. But I asked Malcolm Turnbull at a hearing of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum in Sydney whether he could name one occasion on which our Constitution had failed us and he said, `Other than that we don't have an Australian as a head of state, no.' I would even question the fact that we do not have an Australian head of state, so I think the most important part here is an old country adage which sometimes the opposition do not like to hear. The country adage is: you do not buy a pig in a poke. To explain that to some of the younger members, `poke' is an old English term for `bag'.Ms Roxon interjecting—4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—I listened to the member for Gellibrand and, if she listens closely, she will hear my argument. One thing that we hear in this debate which seems to be a modern trend in democracy in Australia is that, if you do not agree with the thought police or the loud yellers from the other side, you are wrong, you are an idiot, you are a hypocrite. I thought we had a democracy where everyone is entitled to an opinion. I know the position of the Labor Party because they are not even giving their people a free vote. There are people over there who oppose this but they are not being given a free vote—at least we have a right to have an opinion.I want to address this situation where the supporters of the republic continue to say that there will be no change in the powers of the Governor-General and the President. There is no doubt that the evidence given to the committee, even from constitutional lawyers, could not explain the reserve powers, especially the royal prerogative, and the other powers that the Governor-General has at the present time. In fact, it was custom and practice in most instances it was raised as to how they might act.For anyone, even Malcolm Fraser, to say that there would be no change in the powers is only his opinion because it has never been tested. The most important point here is that, if it had been tested, we might have known. It has never been tested and, therefore, we cannot openly say there will be no change in the powers between the Governor-General and the President. If we assume that there has not been any change of the power and in fact we have this model and the President has the same powers as the Governor-General, it is almost like a scene from High Noon because you have the Prime Minister who can dismiss the Governor-General at will and you have a Governor-General with reserve powers who can remove the Prime Minister. It is who can draw the gun first in some constitutional crisis. I do not think that that is a form of government that Australia needs at this particular time.But, given the fact that former Prime Minister Fraser and even Doug Anthony have come out and said that they believe there would be no change in powers, for goodness sake, what was going on in 1975? Why did the Senate defer the vote on the appropriation bill? Why were they trying to deny supply? This was a grab for power. For former Prime Minister Fraser to say that he thought that the Prime Minister would just have to indicate that he wanted to remove the Governor-General and the Governor-General's powers would be null and void is ridiculous because he was angling to become the Prime Minister of Australia.So in that situation, if in fact you had a President whom the Prime Minister could sack immediately and you had a budget that had been denied in the Senate, where would you go from there? Would you expect the Prime Minister of the day, Mr Whitlam, to go and negotiate with the Senate? He was never known for humility. You have an absolute impasse, an impossible impasse, in a situation such as that.I think that we want to think long and hard. People tend to forget that in fact, from memory, the original Constitution took 10 years to negotiate. I am not opposed to change at all, but I want to think very carefully about changing the Constitution of this country. The Constitution of this country has protected the people with a lot of freedoms.The member for Melbourne Ports talked about the Weimar Republic. If he looks very closely at the Weimar Republic, it is not much different from the proposition we are putting forward at the present time. Do not kid yourself that a hundred years down the track you could not have an economic crisis similar to the crisis that occurred in Germany in the 1930s. Never forget that Hitler was elected as a very popular leader, an extremely popular leader, and he was still popular when he became a dictator. Look at how the world was treated by a dictator such as that. (Time expired)15:51:009368McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—What we have just heard is the thing that concerns a lot of people on both sides of the parliament about what is happening with this debate. It is a shame that the member for Page has made his contribution and then walked out. He obviously does not think too much about what he had to say himself.What former Prime Minister Fraser and the former Leader of the National Party—and obviously the member for Page would not have had much time for him either because he does not seem to have time for any Leader of the National Party—both said on the weekend were sensible things. They said that there is not the need for the scaremongering that we are starting to see come into this debate. It is an old tory, conservative ploy: if you can't win something or you can't stop it, put it off and spoil it.We have heard all sorts of things raised. Some spokespersons on the conservative side have said that all of a sudden the flag is going to disappear. You become a republic and you have to haul down the flag. That is rubbish and everyone knows that is rubbish. We all know that is rubbish, but that is still being raised by some people in this debate.We have had other people all of a sudden over the last week discover that the Queen's photo is no longer on our money notes. We have not had the Queen's head on our money notes for donkey's years, but all of a sudden they have discovered that. It is as if the day we become a republic, the currency will become worthless. It is madness, but that is one of the furphies that is being put around by people.One of the other furphies being put around by people is that the Royal Sydney Yacht Squadron will no longer be able to call themselves the `royal', or the `Royal Golf Club' will not be the `royal' any more. The Royal Australian Navy will not be the Royal Australian Navy; it will be the Australian Navy. But all those other organisations that want to keep the name `royal' in their title can do that. Nobody is going to stop them from doing that. In fact, the proponents of the conservative cause could change their first names to `Royal' if they wanted and they could all be `Royal' themselves. We are happy for that, but that is the sort of furphy we have got in this. The money is going to be worthless, the flag is going to come down and Royal Peter can't be Royal Peter any more.WF6DANBYMr Danby—And we're going to have Weimar Germany.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—As my colleague the member for Melbourne Ports just reminded me, we had the member for Page come in here and drag the red herring of the Weimar Republic: that we could have another collapse of Germany and Adolf Hitler would be here in Australia. My God, how could changing Australia to a republic do any of those things? The truth is, as all sensible people know, it will not.What we have heard in recent weeks is a lot of talk about important national symbols in this country. Symbols are important for a country. Symbols give you a bit of an idea about what you are and symbols tell other people what you think of yourself. I think we should be involved in this very important symbolic change at the beginning of the millennium. We as a country should stand up and say to the world that we Australians know who we are, that we Australians know what we are and that we can be quite comfortable being a republic because we are a mature enough country and a sensible enough people to be able to do that.So I just say this to all my colleagues on both sides and to all those others involved in this debate: let us have the debate and let us have an honest debate. Let us have an honest debate because the worst thing we could do is sell the Australian people so short that we find the only way one side or the other can win this argument is by telling furphies and lies. I do not think that is what we should be looking at when we are deciding this, and I think the Australian people are too smart by half for the people who come up with these furphies. Let us look at what we are as Australians, let us stand up for ourselves as Australians and let us become a republic. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I call the honourable member for Wannon. I am sorry, I call the honourable member for Sturt.15:56:009369Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—although it would be a proud day to be called the member for Wannon, my good friend Mr Hawker. I welcome today's debate and the member for Gellibrand's motion, most of which I can readily agree with and only a very small part of which I will disagree with. In the short five minutes I have to speak this afternoon, there are only a couple of aspects of the motion I would like to talk about, because it is a very comprehensive motion.Before I do that, can I correct the member for Page and the member for Melbourne Ports. The member for Melbourne Ports referred to Mark Elliott as the national campaign director for Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy. In fact, his name is David Elliott, so it is a small correction.However, the member for Page made a strong case in his five-minute speech that, under the proposal, there would be an impossible impasse if the President sacked the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister sacked the President. We would then have to go to the Senate to try to get supply through and we would not be able to guarantee supply as we had in 1975. What the member for Page has conveniently forgotten—and he is a good friend of mine as well—is that, under the proposal that is being put, the moment that a President is sacked by a Prime Minister, he would automatically be replaced without recourse to any house of parliament or document or Constitution by the most senior state Governor in Australia, and therefore we will always have a head of state at all times. So the suggestion that there would be an impossible impasse is, unfortunately, another furphy. I will take the opportunity to talk to the member for Page after this debate to fill him in completely on that aspect of the proposal. The motion states:That the House:. . . . . . . . .(4) urges all Members of this House, whether they be monarchists, republicans or direct election supporters, to participate honestly in the referendum campaign . . .We would all like to support that proper intention of the member for Gellibrand. One aspect of that which she raises in her motion involves:. . . the misrepresentation of the current powers of the Prime Ministerto dismiss a Governor-General . . . So delighted I was yesterday to be watching the Sunday program to see our urbane and sage former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser nailing that misrepresentation on behalf of those who are supporting the yes case. When he responded to a question about whether the Queen would act as a brake in the event that the President was sacked, Mr Fraser said:It would be a formality. It can't be a brake.Namely, the Queen supporting the sacking. He continued:You cannot expect a constitutional monarch living in England to protect Australia. It would be a gross infringement of Australia's own constitutional integrity, and that's the way it would be seen in Buckingham Palace. It's the way it would be seen in Britain. The Queen would accept the advice she was given.Later in the interview when asked about this proposal—the proposal to be put on 6 November—and whether there were any safeguards in that, he made the case very strongly. He said:But under the proposal, the Prime Minister can't appoint somebody that he wants to appoint. He's got to secure the support of the Leader of the Opposition so that he'll get the two-thirds parliamentary majority.Mr Fraser pointed out what we all know in this House: under the proposed model on which we will vote on 6 November, there are strong safeguards put in place to ensure that the Prime Minister cannot sack the President without due recourse to the parliament or indeed appoint a new President without the support of the opposition. As we all know, a two-thirds majority would not be able to be gained in this House without the support of the opposition. In fact, under this model, the powers of the Prime Minister are seriously curtailed as opposed to the current situation. Those people in the Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy who argue that the proposal strengthens the hand of the Prime Minister vis-a-vis the head of state are misrepresenting the current constitutional situation that faces Australia.In the short time available to me, I should point out that I do not support this referendum in order to be anti the Queen or to replace the royal family. I am a McGarvieite model Liberal. However, this is the proposal that has been put to us. If it fails to be successful, I am fearful that in 10 years time we will have a directly elected President. I am very passionate about supporting the Westminster system. I want to protect it from direct electionists. I will campaign for a yes vote to ensure that we have an appointed President who is answerable to the parliament rather than a directly elected President, which strikes at the very heart of our Westminster system. I believe in giving away 10 per cent of the current system to save 90 per cent; whereas if, as a conservative ACM supporter, you hang on to our current system, you are certain to have a directly elected President in the near future.16:01:009371Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—I welcome this private member's motion presented by my colleague the member for Gellibrand and I applaud her in defining each of the five points pertinent to this debate. Saturday, 6 November presents all Australians with a unique opportunity to determine our country's future. It is an opportunity to present ourselves to the international community as an independent and mature nation—an independent nation willing and able to unshackle ourselves and cut the apron strings which currently bind us to another country on the other side of the globe. As Richard Butler, a former ambassador to the UN, said on the weekend:This is what is at issue: to send a signal to the rest of the world that we are no longer in any way, shape or form a British colony, that we are a completely other country, that we have developed in different ways from our origin as six convict territories.The maturity of our nation will be defined as we present ourselves to the international community as a nation which can take ownership of its destiny through this referendum. Through the Constitutional Convention in February last year, Australians voted for and selected delegates to decide on the referendum question and the model to be put to electors. A major issue of currency in this debate is embodied in points (4) and (5) of this motion—that is, that we all participate honestly in the referendum campaign and that we deplore misleading and mischievous scare campaigns on such an important national issue.As the campaign has intensified over the past month or so, so have the misleading, ludicrous and sometimes just false claims made by those advocating the no vote. Some monarchists have said that the Australian flag will be replaced if the vote on 6 November is yes. This is an incorrect assumption. Any debate on the national flag is a separate issue, as was the debate in 1977 when the national anthem was changed. The advocates of the no vote are also proclaiming that an Australian President will have far-reaching and sinister powers beyond that of the current Governor-General, which, according to them, will rip out the central planks of our democratic system. The Constitutional Centenary Foundation, the organisation which has been delegated the task of objectively explaining what the referendum means and what the main issues are, states that `the Constitution will give the powers of the Queen and the Governor-General to the President'.Another sinister proclamation by the no vote advocates is that the President could be sacked by the current Prime Minister at that Prime Minister's whim. The republic model in truth has further checks and balances regarding the removal of the President as opposed to the current system for the removal of the Governor-General. At the moment, the Queen can sack the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. However, in the proposed republic, though the President can be sacked by the Prime Minister in writing, the Prime Minister must seek the approval of the House of Representatives.Some so-called republicans advocating the no vote would prefer a model of direct election of the President. A presidential campaign in a direct election system would ensure that the President is either supported and endorsed by a political party or has the wealth and resources available to mount an effective campaign. A direct election system could see Prime Minister Kim Beazley trying to maintain our stable democracy while working with President Reith, Costello or Howard.Many people have put forward William Deane's name as a possible first President. This would only happen under the model proposed. Sir William Deane would not nominate as a presidential candidate endorsed and funded by a political party. Only the community based selection process would ensure the nomination of an apolitical candidate of the calibre of William Deane.The no vote campaign relies on arguments which centre on the `fear of the unknown' concept: why change something which is tried and tested? Why fix something which isn't broken? Why upset the status quo? In other words, be afraid to make changes, be too scared to move forward, be too cowardly to take charge of our destiny and determine our own identity.The message from the republican side is clear: vote yes for a truly independent, democratic and mature nation. Vote yes to ensure that one of our children or grandchildren can aspire to becoming an Australian President. Vote yes so that all Australians born overseas can respect our head of state. Vote yes to admit that, although the British monarch has performed admirably over the past hundred years, the British monarch is no longer relevant to Australians as we head into the new millennium. Vote yes to ensure our next head of state is not determined by an accident of birth, by gender and to the exclusion of most religious beliefs. Vote yes on 6 November for an Australian head of state.16:06:009372Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—I rise to join this debate. I would like to start by picking up a point that was made by the honourable member for Watson. I agree with him about the importance of having honest debate, but I was curious about his reference to changing the Australian flag. The reason I bring that up is that I recall very well introducing a private member's bill here on a number of occasions and, on every occasion, the then Labor government refused to let the bill be voted on. The bill was simply to say that, if there was going to be a change to the Australian flag, it would require a simple referendum of all voters to approve of that change. When in government, the Labor Party refused that bill. I make that observation because I thought it was interesting that the member for Sturt came in and said, `Reference to the flag has nothing to do with this.'I would like to start off by saying that I find the motion put forward by the member for Gellibrand a little bit contradictory. On the one hand, it urges all members—whether monarchists, republicans or direct election supporters—to `participate honestly in the referendum campaign', and I agree with that. But, if we look at point (2) of the motion, it notes that `our stable democracy will continue and be strengthened' if this referendum question is carried. That is one of the fundamental points that is up for debate. We are not sure that that would occur, particularly under the model that is being proposed. Point (3) talks about the campaign. When we go to point (4), we see that all the claims there are one-sided. They are all very much pro the republic model, as indeed was the previous speaker, the member for Charlton. I honestly think that a number of those points could be debated as to whether they are correct and what they mean. On the one hand, this motion is asking for an even-handed approach; on the other hand, it is a very one-sided point of view. I think it is a slightly naive motion.I would like to reiterate the point that has been made—and no-one seems to have validly argued against it—that the current system works remarkably well. That is a very important point to remember. The central point is that we should not be changing to a different system unless we are very confident that what we are going to change to is as good as, or better than, what we have at the moment. I am not really convinced that the changes proposed in this referendum motion will do that. That is why I have put my name to a dissenting report.It is important to note that the current proposal did not even have the support of the majority of the Constitutional Convention. That is very significant. If it was that good, you would have thought it at least would have had the support of the majority of the Constitutional Convention. It did not. Therefore, it raises the obvious question: why should the majority of Australians support something when the majority of the Constitutional Convention could not even support it?The reason why I have signed a dissenting report—and I might add that there are four dissenting reports put in by the select committee on the question of the referendum—is the massive increase of the powers of the Prime Minister. I will list five of those—and I am relying on the Hon. Richard McGarvie, who made a very sensible contribution: (1) it was easier for the Prime Minister to sack the President than for the Prime Minister to sack his driver; (2) the creation of an alternative power base; (3) the question of whether we get the right calibre of person for a President; (4) the likely conflict of bringing the courts in in the case of a conflict; and (5) the process of the referendum. Which comes back to point (2) in the motion: if the referendum question were to be approved it would bring about greater stability. If you had a minority of states—say, two states—opposing the change, you would not be strengthening the Federation; you would be weakening it.In the short time I have available, I think the important point is, as Mr McGarvie said—and I have great respect for Mr McGarvie; he was an eminent Supreme Court judge and also a Governor of Victoria—(Time expired)16:11:009373Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—I want to leave it up to others to discuss the finer points of law and constitutional reform. Instead, I would like to present the emotional argument, the argument from the heart, the argument about where we could be in 2001. The referendum on 6 November is the most significant of our time and the most significant that any country could ever have. For me, this opportunity in my lifetime, and at the point of 100 years of Federation, to vote on the future of our nation cannot be overvalued by any means. It is the most important vote that I will ever cast.I have three children: a boy and two girls. My youngest daughter, Madeline, is a fantastic little girl. She is full of potential and a whole world is hers for the taking. She can aspire to be anything she wants to be, except Australian head of state. She cannot be Australian head of state because she is not a member of the English royal family, she is not in the Church of England and, worst of all, she was born in Australia. Our Constitu tion tells every little boy and girl growing up in Australia that to be head of state they must belong to a certain family, be born in England, be in the right religion and, to have the best possible chance, preferably be a man. Where else in Australia would we accept these selection criteria as legal or moral? What are we telling our children? Are they not good enough? Are we not good enough to choose one of our own to hold our highest office? Are we not yet ready to stand on our own feet? When will we be our own masters?It is ironic that some people are always telling immigrants that they should assimilate, that they should somehow forget the past, move on and embrace their new country. The majority have. They have become part of Australia and part of the very fabric that has made this country the bastion of freedom that it is today. While we should never forget our past, we cannot deny our future. Our history proves this. We have had 100 years of great federation. Our forebears had vision, courage and unselfish fortitude of spirit that led them to bring together the states to form a nation that otherwise would not be. If they had not, we would not be having this debate today. Of course, not everyone agreed—no-one ever does—but they got on with the job and thought about their country and the future of their children. On 6 November 1999, we will be in the same position. We have the same opportunity to make history and to be part of the real Australia.When you wake up on 7 November, do you want to be part of the future or barely clinging onto the past? I am not interested in the monarchists' views, because their campaign is one purely of scaremongering and is totally puerile. The view I want to influence is that of the republicans who are uncertain about the model and could vote no on the day. Let me remind them that this vote is not about rejection; it is about acceptance.If you truly support an Australian as head of state, then think carefully about your vote. The model may not be your preferred outcome, but it is safe and practical. It will not diminish the value of the position of head of state, nor will it diminish the value of the position of Australia. Make no mistake: the Queen of England is our head of state, not the Governor-General. He is only her representative and, by any measure, the Governor-General is Australian, but does not have to be to hold office. In fact, of the past 22 Governors-General, only eight have been Australian. Our Australian head of state should be Australian. It sounds a little bit silly that we are actually debating that an Australian should be our head of state rather than a foreigner, but that is exactly what we will be deciding on 6 November.Many people have tried to scare the community into believing that change is all too risky. Change is not about flags and coins; they are only icons of today. You cannot deny our history or change it. What we are today is a result of where we have been and that will never change, nor should it. The result of a yes vote will be enormous in terms of national pride and nationhood but will be minimal in terms of constitution and law.The comparative changes between the constitutional monarchy and the republic are minimal. In fact, if you have a look at the model closely, the current Governor-General is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister. One man decides who our Governor-General is, but on the other hand the President would be decided by a two-thirds absolute majority of a joint sitting of the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia and on a motion by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. On top of all that, it would be in the light of nominations by the public.Another matter that comes up for debate is the qualifications of a head of state. Currently, the Governor-General can be absolutely anyone. There are no qualifications. But under the new system, under the republic, that person would have to be Australian, and I think that is a pretty good starting point for a qualification. There is also a lot of talk about the removal of a head of state. Currently, the Governor-General can be removed only by the Prime Minister. Under a republic, removal by the parliament will be a much better method. (Time expired)16:16:009374St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—I enjoy listening to people on both sides debating this issue because, when I look at the member for Gellibrand's motion, I tend to agree also with most of the things in that motion, particularly when it comes to the importance of the referendum to the people Australia and the necessity for them to get it right and hear both sides of the debate.As most people know—and I have said it in this place before—I still believe that a system has not been put forward that is any better than the one we have. That is my view. But, in saying that, it is absolutely vital—and I take particular note of paragraph (1) of the motion—that people have both sides of the story. They have to look at it unemotionally and logically and they have to decide on 6 November what they really want to do.The beauty of the democracy in which we live is that in fact we can go to a poll and have a referendum on matters that stir most of us up and which are certainly emotional issues. Under our democratic process and in our society we can leave it to the people to have the choice. I, for one, can assure the House that when I wake up on 7 November I will be interested to see what the vote is. In my electorate of New England, as I have said before, there is confusion and to a certain degree stories are being told by both sides of the argument. I know that the people of Australia have the intelligence to be able to make the right decision.I do not believe that the referendum will necessarily change the identity of the nation. Our identity goes back to our forefathers who created this country, our sporting heroes, all the immigrants who have come into this nation and the working men and women who made this nation great. That is why I sincerely say that paragraph (1) of the motion is so important when it comes to the people getting both sides of this argument.When it comes to paragraph (2) of the motion—and both I and the member for Wannon raise the issue—paragraph (2) notes that our stable democracy will continue, and I do not have any doubts about that in my mind. The question of whether it is strengthened if the question is approved I do have some difficulty with. I am not sure whether it will actually be strengthened or not. However, I put both sides of that story in my electorate, and the people have to decide what they want to do.I do not believe that stable democracy will merely be strengthened because of the referendum. We saw that back in 1988 when I would have loved to have seen local government legally recognised in the Constitution. I have been a firm believer—and still am—that that should be the case. Yet it was defeated. Was it the will of the people? I am not sure. Was it scaremongering? I am not sure. But I am sure that it will strengthen the democracy by simply having a referendum. I really do firmly believe that. Paragraph (4) of the motion states:. . . urges all Members of this House, whether they be monarchists, republicans or direct elections supporters, to participate honestly in the referendum campaign . . . That is absolutely essential. I have read some of the profound statements that have been made from both sides of the camp and, quite honestly, I question whether their intent is right or wrong.It is up to the nation as to whether we become a republic or not. Any campaigning that is done by a member of parliament should be done because that is what they believe in. As a new member to this House I have certainly been pleased by the fact that we do have a free vote. We are able to go back into our electorates and put forward our personal view but, in turn, say to our people that, when they make their decision on 6 November, they must make sure that that is what is in their hearts, and that decision is what it has to reflect.In the few seconds remaining, I wish to quote from the Melbourne Age. I do not normally do this, but this article by David Kemp sets it up. He states:Our Constitution strikes a balance between the power of the governor-general to dismiss a prime minister, and the power of a prime minister to dismiss a governor-general.. . . . . . . . .Many of the world's worst governments are republics. Our Constitution should be changed only if an alteration would improve Australia's system of government. Again I ask: is it a better system than the one we have? The key issue is not whether we should become a republic but whether a proposed change will make our Constitution better or worse. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Grievance Debate9375Question proposed:That grievances be noted.937516:22:009375Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—There was temporary elation in the Liberal Party backbenches in the federal parliament and in the Western Australian government this morning with the headline in the West Australian of this morning `Tuckey calls it a day'. Unfortunately, it referred only to his role in Western Australian horseracing, where his main claim to fame was to denounce a day devoted to the Italian community and racing. That was perhaps not as serious as the previous day's comments in the Sunday Times about his role in forestry policy. Under the headline `Tuckey loses his way in the forests', the paper noted:. . . what Mr Tuckey needs to accept is that he is very much part of the problem.He is stirring up emotions and not playing the role of a minister.His comments are not doing either the timber workers or the conservationists any good. He is not listening to opinion polls.Over the last week or so, we have had a debate in the Senate in regard to RFA legislation, and one aspect of that is industry policy.In 1995, 84,000 Australians were working in the wood and paper products industries. The majority—over 50,000—worked in wood and paper manufacturing, producing paper and paper products and other wood products. A further 20,000 worked in the sawmilling and timber dressing sector and another 11,000 in forestry and logging. A key concern is our substantial trade deficit in wood and paper products. In 1997-98, our imports of wood based forest products exceeded exports by $1.46 billion—a very significant figure in the overall balance. While we had a trade surplus of $645 million in pulpwood or woodchips, we had a much greater deficit of $1.41 billion in paper products.Our wood and paper trade deficit is a classic example of Australia needing to reposition itself—to move away from being just an exporter of unprocessed wood to focus much more on value adding and downstream processing. We need to achieve this turnaround to both replace imports and capture new export markets. For the wood and paper industry, there are at least three alternative policy approaches on offer. The first approach—demonstrated and embraced by the Democrats and their allies—is to simply view the whole industry as a basket case and an environment headache that we can best do without. Such a view proceeds from an arguable historical concern that the level of harvesting of much of our native timbers has been unsustainable and indirectly subsidised by taxpayers as a result of poor state based pricing and royalty systems. And, of course, we had some fairly embarrassing figures on the Kennett government's efforts on those matters last year.From this starting point, the Democrats adopt the invalid conclusion that there is no such thing as sustainable harvesting of native forests and that, in the words of their spokesman Senator Greig in a media release last week, `the native forest logging industry is one which ought to be wound down as soon as possible'. While we in the Labor Party envisage a much greater role in future for plantations and farm forestry, and are strongly committed to protecting the conservation and recreational values of wilderness and old-growth forests, we do not subscribe to the lazy, doomsday approach of the Democrats.The second apparent approach is to simply remove export controls, provide industry with resource security, completely delegate forest management to the states and then let market forces run their course. This is the preferred approach of some sections of the industry and appears, obviously, to have been the strategy adopted by the previous Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism, Mr Moore. Such an approach is equally unacceptable because it downgrades our environmental and world heritage responsibilities and then unrealistically presumes that the least possible government assistance and intervention will produce the healthiest economic and trade outcome. It is an approach based on blind faith rather than actual experience. This approach also ignores that a great deal of our forests are publicly rather than privately owned, that some are harvested on a cut-price basis and the crucial role of innovation, research and development and skills formation in the global trading environment. It also naively assumes that the national interest will always equate with the self-interest of individual firms—even firms that are foreign owned and controlled.The third possible approach is to move in the direction put forward in the former Labor government's Wood and Paper Industry Strategy. That strategy sought to carry forward the industry development elements of the 1992 National Forest Policy Statement and complement the national regional forest agreements process and structural assistance provided via Labor's Forest Industry Structural Adjustment Package—known as FISAP. The Wood and Paper Industry Strategy provided a policy framework and supporting funding to encourage additional investment, value adding and jobs growth. It identified opportunities for Australia in a variety of areas. These included increased investment in both softwood and hardwood plantations and farm forestry producing replacement and sustainable wood supply; increased recycling of paper products and associated value added processing; import replacement, especially in pulp and paper manufacturing; value added speciality products sourced from native forests, especially from regrowth forests; and improved harvesting and production techniques leading to the manufacture of high value added and appearance-grade wood products such as furnishing components, boards and panels.All these opportunities were to contribute to a growth in skilled and sustainable jobs and improve productivity and innovation. While the current government remains nominally committed to the Wood and Paper Industry Strategy, it has clearly not been comfortable with its real intent. When it came to government, the coalition signalled its intentions by abolishing Labor's Wood and Paper Industry Council, the high level body that was supposed to drive the whole strategy. The then industry minister, Mr Moore, put in its place a low-key Wood and Paper Industry Forum which, in the course of his whole management of the portfolio, met only twice. Having abolished a committee that was driving the policy, and which had fundamental intentions in regard to investment and technology in the field, the industry committee that he set up—his solution, his replacement—met only twice.Since the election, the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, Mr Tuckey, has frequently signalled his commitment to the so-called `Action Agenda' for the wood and paper products industry. However, despite originally promising to complete his `Action Agenda' by June this year, the minister now says it will not be ready until next March. This is despite the constant use of our deficit all around Australia. In attacking state Liberal and National and Labor governments and ministers around this country, he constantly refers to the deficit as being a fundamental problem, he sheds crocodile tears for the destruction of rainforests in South-East Asia and South America and he says that he is a person who is interested in trying to counter these problems by developing our own value added industry.Quite frankly, his sincerity on the matter must be very much doubted because we just have not had action. As I say, the situation is that this minister might privately reassure the AWU and the CFMEU that, if he had his own way, if he had any power in the government, he very much would support an industry position but that really he is somewhat blocked, obscured, restricted by the Prime Minister. `You know how conservative and economic rationalist the Prime Minister is,' he tells the unions, `and I would like to deliver on these matters, but I really can't. But if Labor presses me hard enough then I might be forced to give you some kind of industry committee to do something about the state of the industry.'Despite the unanimous recommendation of the Senate legislation committee looking into the RFA Bill, the minister has been unwilling or, more likely, unable—and I would say it is more that he is unable—to re-establish the Wood and Paper Industry Council. Instead, on February 25 he issued a media release committing the government to `an appropriate and representative stakeholder consultative body'. There is still no sign of this. In actual fact, if you look at the amendments that the current government has dragged up to try to counter Labor's very broad and well-articulated committee, I think they run to a few phrases and leave it all in the hands of the minister, all in the hands of the never-never, all in the hands of a group of people who have shown historically in their management of this area since coming to government that they are not interested in industry policy.In the context of the Western Australian RFA, the Prime Minister has made much of his alleged commitment to the industry and to the jobs it provides in regional areas. He could better demonstrate that commitment if he ceased to object to the Wood and Paper Industry Council and guaranteed further funding for the Wood and Paper Industry Strategy.937716:32:009377Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise to draw the attention of the House to concerns raised by constituents in my electorate about items sold in the Granny May's Group of Companies, a well-known novelty goods retailer. The Miranda store displays all manner of sexually explicit material in its stores. I am no more prudish than the average person, and my political career can hardly be described as one of a morals crusader, but while I am not personally shocked or disgusted by the material I can well understand why parents would wish to keep young children from viewing it.I visited the store on 6 August, following a complaint by a constituent, to determine whether the store management had a case to answer. Most visible from the front of the store are products that are primarily marketed towards children—indeed, gifts that children might expect to get from their granny at Christmas time: Star Wars, South Park and other merchandise. Inside, most of the material is equally inoffensive, including key rings, cups, boxer shorts and posters, most bearing simple and supposedly humorous messages.Perhaps I had an old-fashioned granny, but I cannot ever recall receiving from her drink bottles shaped in the form of men's genitalia, sexually explicit bumper stickers, nude gift cards, T-shirts with frequent use of four-letter words and furry handcuffs—and this was only the material left on half-empty shelves when the Miranda shop was checked one week after my initial complaint. This material is kept on a shelf along the back wall of the store, alongside signs that warn patrons that the material they have no doubt just seen `may offend'. One would think that, if the products warrant such signage, certainly there is a case for that material to be put in a quarantined section of the store. At the very least, a sign should appear in the front window of the store giving the same warning.I rang the store manager that afternoon to put this to him and have since received a letter from Granny May's marketing officer. The letter states that they `endeavour to keep this merchandise in one area and/or out of the sight of children' and that it is `company policy not to sell this product range to children'. The letter also states that the products do not contravene the `Obscene Publications Act'. No such act exists on either the federal or the New South Wales government statute books.The legislation that covers the display of offensive material, however, is the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. The act is part of a Commonwealth, state and territory cooperative legislative scheme for the classification of publications, films and computer games and enforcement of classification decisions made under it. That act establishes the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board and provides the procedures for the classification of material. Complementary state and territory enforcement legislation contains offences relating to the exhibition, sale or hire of publications, films and computer games, both classified and unclassified, in the respective jurisdictions.Part 3, section 24 of the New South Wales state government's Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act requires that certain publications not be shown to minors, including what are deemed `submittable publications'. A `submittable publication' is an unclassified publication that, having regard to the code and the classification guidelines to the extent that they relate to publication, contains depictions or descriptions of sexual matters, drugs, nudity or violence that are likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult to the extent that the publication should not be sold as a `unrestricted publication'.As a rule of thumb, under the code, in terms of images, an unrestricted publication portrays nudity; a category 1 publication contains explicit nudity—for example, making external female genitalia visible—a category 2 publication contains explicit sexual activity; and a publication which is refused classification portrays prohibited sexual activity and sexual violence. In terms of language, an unrestricted publication has low to medium level language; category 1 publications contain high level language describing sexual activity in graphic detail; category 2 publications contain strong fetish material such as sadomasochism; and items that incite crimes, such as bestiality, are refused classification.An Office of Film and Literature Classification community liaison officer has conducted inquiries into three Granny May's stores and What's New stores in Queensland and New South Wales. The officer's findings were reported to the Office of Film and Literature Classification on 17 August 1999. He found similar items to those in my electorate store, and these included some fairly explicit material. It is not appropriate to describe these in full detail at this time, but they were fairly explicit. It is no wonder the marketing officer advised the Office of Film and Literature Classification that its policy for access to minors be restricted. I could see no evidence of such restriction in the particular store. Clearly, Granny May's adult range of products should be classified as unrestricted, based on the current code contained in the act. But the act measures what is acceptable for a reasonable adult, not what is acceptable for consumption by a young child. I recommend that stores which sell products which are classified unrestricted but which portray nudity or medium level language, like Granny May's, be forced either to segregate their adult section from the rest of the store or, alternatively, to carry a sign in the front window warning patrons that some of its products may offend.In bringing these matters to the attention of the House, it is not my intention to do a Fred Nile in the federal parliament but rather to exercise my concern at the impact on small children who frequent the store. It is the result of genuine concern by constituents in my electorate. Granny May's have every right to merchandise their product which to adults would cause no concern, but if there is going to be this displaying of material in a retail store then there should be some classification, in the same way as happens in the average newsagent where some of the publications are sealed and some of them are kept in different parts of the store.I believe that all members of the House who have a relatively open mind would still be concerned about the exposure of young children to some of this more explicit material. My intention in bringing this issue to the attention of the House today has been to point out that, while for adults this merchandising is not going to be an area of concern, this House should consider whether there should be some classification on the display of sexually explicit material in the stores. In providing that type of merchandise, either there should be a clear indication at the front of the store that that material exists so that parents may be aware of it or, alternatively, there should an adults only section which is available at the rear of the store. Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to bring this to the House.937916:40:009379Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—I rise today to deal with a matter which clearly exposes the deep contempt with which the Kennett government treats the people of the northern and western suburbs of Melbourne, and the incompetence the Kennett government displays in dealing with environmental issues and particularly the issue of hazardous waste. The Kennett government has for a number of years had a problem: the fact that the Lyndhurst landfill site, which is the major repository for toxic waste in Melbourne, has a limited life.A truly visionary government would have moved as soon as this problem became apparent to develop a new strategy to deal with this toxic waste—to move away from the old technology of dumping the waste in a hole in the ground, covering up the hole and hoping against hope that the leachate does not destroy too much of the surrounding environment and does not cause too many health problems. But, as we all know, the Kennett government is not a visionary government. Led by a man with an opinion on everything but a solution to nothing, in dealing with this problem, the Kennett government decided to revert to a tried and true strategy: when in doubt if you have to do something nasty, do it to a Labor electorate. So, instead of state-of-the-art environment policy, the people of Victoria were presented with state-of-the-art political opportunism.Kennett decided to fix his hazardous waste problem by dumping on two Labor electorates, the state seat of Werribee located in my electorate and the state seat of Niddrie. Kennett proposed to come to my electorate, to Werribee, and to turn a disused quarry into a new toxic dump. Never mind the fact that the site was within a few kilometres of housing and that Werribee is in a growth corridor with major new housing developments every year; never mind the fact that the site was adjacent to internationally protected wetlands; and never mind the fact that the building of such a facility would have destroyed the reputation and export capacity of our Werribee South agricultural precinct.The Werribee proposal had one thing going for it: it was in a Labor electorate, and that alone made it a fine place to dump 120,000 tonnes of hazardous waste every year for 15 years. But Jeff Kennett and his government made one fundamental miscalculation. They underestimated the people of Werribee, who fought for more than two years to stop the toxic dump. That campaign peaked with a rally of 15,000 people at the Werribee racecourse in the middle of winter last year.Finally, on 13 November we won. The developer of the site, CSR, caved in and settled Supreme Court litigation with the local council on the basis that CSR would not further proceed with building the toxic dump. This caused the Victorian Premier to berate CSR for pulling out of the proposal. Apparently, Jeff Kennett is only satisfied if communities are defeated and corporate bullies go on with their flawed plans. At the forthcoming state election, the people of Werribee will have the opportunity—by voting for Mary Gillett, who was a key campaigner against the toxic dump—to demonstrate to the Kennett government that they have not forgiven, they have not forgotten and they fully endorse Labor's environment plan to end toxic waste landfills.But, as I noted at the outset of this speech, Werribee was not the only electorate selected by Kennett as a dumping ground. Kennett also selected the state seat of Niddrie. This is not the first time that this matter has been raised in this place. My colleague the member for Maribyrnong has also had occasion to raise this issue. The Kennett proposal for Niddrie is a truly extraordinary one. He is proposing to turn the Niddrie quarry, which is located approximately eight kilometres from the centre of Melbourne, into a toxic waste dump. Residential housing is literally across the road. In order to get access to the site a public park has to be destroyed to create the access road.Understandably, this dangerous proposal is vehemently opposed by the local government and the local council. Despite this opposition, the Kennett government's planning minister, Robert Maclellan, has directed the council to issue a permit for the dump, and it appears the government is prepared to acquire the public parkland required for an access road on a compulsory basis.The question for us today is whether this belligerent, arrogant approach will be in any way tempered by the fact that at the heart of this matter is a potential illegality, a misleading and deceptive act by the developers of the Niddrie toxic dump, namely Quadry Industries. On 19 July 1996, Quadry Industries Pty Ltd made application for a planning permit in respect of developing the Niddrie quarry. I have a copy of that planning permit here, and it clearly shows that Quadry Industries says the cost of the proposed development is $4.75 million.As a result of giving the development this value, Quadry Industries paid a planning permit fee of $2,690—that is, the quantum of the planning permit fee is directly related to the value of the development, and $2,690 was the correct fee for a development costing $4.75 million. But is $4.75 million the true cost of the development? Or, put another way, was Quadry Industries honest when it filled in the planning permit application?To guide us in answering these questions, we have a state government document, and I have it here. This document was included in a report to the Kennett government planning minister, Mr Maclellan, from an advisory committee appointed by him—that is, this document was given to the planning minister by the expert body he appointed to advise him on the Niddrie quarry proposal. This document discloses a radically different sum for the cost of the project. Specifically, it puts the figure at $76.4 million, a far cry from the $4.75 million disclosed on the planning permit application.If, when making its planning application, Quadry Industries had disclosed this sum of $76.4 million as the total cost of the project, it would have been required to pay a planning fee of $13,450—fully $10,760 more than the planning fee that it did pay. It is this very planning permit which the Minister for Planning and for Local Government directed the relevant local council to approve—despite the fact it is inaccurate; despite the fact it is misleading; despite the fact the requisite fee was not paid.What is the legal consequence of the fact that the planning permit underestimates the development cost and that the developer, Quadry Industries, underpaid the fee? Is the permit void? Is it voidable? Can Quadry Industries be fined for its conduct? Can it be forced to pay the extra fee? Under the Kennett government's Rafferty's rules system of planning, it is not easy to answer these questions. Ministerial discretion and a desperate desire to ensure toxic waste goes to Labor seats seem to be the overarching principles—not fair, clear, understandable planning laws. But these questions require an answer from the Kennett government and they require it now.The people of Niddrie know, just like the people of Werribee knew, that the proposal to decimate their community is rotten to the core. They also know that their real fears are met with no more than dismissive contempt by the Kennett government. This clear contempt has been shown starkly in the past week by Kennett's Liberal Party preselecting as the Liberal candidate for Niddrie a person who has no view about the quarry issue. On the day her preselection as the Liberal candidate for Niddrie became public, she was interviewed on ABC Radio on the AM program.I will take you to some of the details of that interview. She was interviewed by Luisa Saccotelli, who asked her what one would have hoped was not such a difficult question: `What's your view on the dump?' The candidate replies, `At this stage I'm really looking forward to going into Mr Maclellan's office to have a discussion about it and find out some more.' Luisa Saccotelli again: `You've not made up your mind?' The candidate answers, `At this stage I can't comment.' If the newly pre-selected Liberal candidate for Niddrie is not competent to comment on the matter, then I am. The proposal for the Niddrie quarry stinks because it is bad public policy, because it reeks of political opportunism in dumping on Labor seats and because of the questionable conduct by the developer that I have raised today. If the Liberal candi date for Niddrie is not competent to deal with the issue, then fortunately the electors of Niddrie have a competent local member in Labor's Rob Hulls, who has stood up on this issue time and time again. I would suggest to the electors of Niddrie and those concerned about the question of hazardous waste in Victoria that the choices in this election could not be more clear: the choice between Rob Hulls and his opponent and the choice between Labor and Kennett's Liberal Party and its planning laws.938116:50:009381Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—On 16 August this year I attended the annual general meeting of the Berwick Benevolent Society in my electorate. May I say at the outset that it is a fantastic organisation. Off the top of my head, I think they spent approximately $110,000 last year helping over 11,000 people with food vouchers, Christmas hampers, toys and cash where necessary. It is a totally voluntary organisation, made up of some of the finest people in the Berwick-Narre Warren community—women and men who want to help those in our community who need a bit of extra assistance from time to time.I want to talk this afternoon about the visiting speaker at the Berwick Benevolent Society AGM, Reverend Ray Cleary. I understand that he is the CEO of the Melbourne City Mission. Using a combination of my own memory of comments that he made at that meeting and an article by Jim Mynard in the Berwick-Packenham Gazette of 25 August, I will comment on what turned out to be really one of the most negative speeches I have ever heard in my life.Reverend Cleary said that nothing has changed in the world of welfare in 150 years, as if it has always been negative and we have always had these huge problems. Government provided social security is a 20th-century phenomenon. It is ridiculous to say that nothing has changed in 150 years, because everything has changed in the last 150: age pensions, disability support pensions, carers pensions as well as unemployment benefits. There are more community based services, mostly jointly funded by church or com munity agencies and federal and state governments.Reverend Cleary said that in Australia 80 per cent of the wealth is owned by 20 per cent of the people. I do not know if that is true or not; it is very difficult to determine the accuracy of that blunt statement. Even if it is true in terms of ownership of wealth, it is certainly not true in terms of ability to earn income. He said that 10 per cent of the population, or half a million people, would not have benefited from the current economic boom. I do not know where he gets those statistics from either, but certainly most Australians not only are well and truly benefiting from the current economic boom but will also benefit from the tax changes that will come into place at the beginning of July next year.Reverend Cleary said that 200 people had overdosed on drugs this year and are no longer with us. Then he went on to say something about adults being hypocrites, and he immediately followed that with a statement about parliamentarians rorting their travel allowances. I assume that, by inference, Reverend Cleary was somehow linking parliamentarians rorting their travel allowances with 200 young people tragically dying of heroin overdoses. I did not appreciate the inference, and I must admit that my temperature rather rose at the time.Reverend Cleary said we were being faced with a threat of social division because of the widening gap between the rich and poor, but I got the impression that he thinks society is about to completely break down. At several points during his presentation he said that unemployment is increasing. That is patently not true. It is just a blatant, outright lie. Unemployment is decreasing. He said that in some suburbs—I think he said it was in the suburbs around the mission offices—35 per cent of young people between the ages of 16 and 21 are unemployed. What a patent lot of rubbish. The unemployment rate in that very localised area for young people might be 35 per cent, but that is 35 per cent of young people who want to work, not 35 per cent of all young people. So he has used the statistics in order to make a grubby point that I do not think impressed anyone.Reverend Cleary made the point that people are retrenched each time industry puts in new technology. I really do not understand this. He followed it up by saying that in the next five years we will see $7 billion worth of investment in the western suburbs of Melbourne, which means a loss of 40,000 jobs. In 1891, some 57.6 per cent of employed Australians worked in primary and secondary industries; in May 1999, 25.5 per cent of employed Australians worked in these fields. Technology, communications and hospitality are Australia's biggest employment growth areas. People are now employed in the motor vehicle and electrical goods industries and in communications, finance, property, computers and media—many of which did not exist 50 years ago, let alone 100 years ago. Sport and recreation now employs over 100,000 people in Australia.Reverend Cleary said that corporations will have their tax reduced from 40 to 30 cents in the dollar. This is not quite right. He says that we are told that this will trickle down to the poor, but that pensioners will not be better off in five years. Pensioners under the Howard government have had their pensions protected and guaranteed for the first time. The single rate pension is now set at 25 per cent of average male weekly earnings. Pensioners and all social security recipients will receive an increase of four per cent on top of the base pension from July of next year as part of the new tax system. Pensioners will also be able to keep more of the income that they earn, and 50,000 more people will be able to receive part pension and pensioner concession cards.Reverend Cleary said that we are looking at a situation of successive generations in families where people will never have worked. I know that the Minister for Employment Services at the table is doing everything in his power to make sure that that statement does not become a reality. If it does, I will say that not only has he failed but I have failed—that we have all failed. We are working desperately hard to try to make sure that there are no families where welfare entrenchment becomes such a habit that we have successive generations of Australians that do not know what it is like to experience work.Reverend Cleary said that if you are retrenched over the age of 50 you have a very slim chance of getting a job. That is just not true. In 1997, 141,100 Australians aged 50 years and over were retrenched. By July 1997, 63,500—which is 45 per cent—were re-employed, 30 per cent were either not looking, having given up or having taken early retirement, and some 25 per cent were still looking for work. He said that they—whoever `they' are—have set up a system of paying these people to take them off unemployment benefits so that the unemployment figures go down. That is also patently not true.Reverend Cleary made a statement that America's unemployment rate was not really 4.5 per cent but five per cent higher than that if you took into account all of the males in America's gaols. I did a really quick calculation, and 1.4 per cent of the adult male population aged 15 or over are in gaol in the United States—and it does have the highest incarceration levels in the world—but that would not make the unemployment rate go up even one per cent; it would be more like three-quarters of one per cent. So that is just blatantly untrue. He is trying, I guess, to somehow put some glamour on unemployment and the lack in the United States of a cushy social welfare state.Reverend Cleary said that the safety net of social services is disappearing. That is not true. The safety net, if anything, grows. But what we do wish—which I must admit—is that the safety net would become more of a safety net and less of a basket or a hammock. He stated the obvious, that if you are rich with assets you will do well, but if you have no assets in this new world you will struggle. I am not aware that that is a new truism. I would have thought that was far less true today than it was 100, 200, 300 and certainly 400 years ago, when almost all of the wealth was held in the hands of the very, very few. Education has helped make all of us more wealthy and more citizens of the world.Reverend Cleary said that security is breaking down in Australia. He says that 40 per cent of marriages will fail within five years. He says that we have a booming economy but that we have growing poverty and growing homelessness. As I say, it was one of the most negative speeches I have ever heard in all of my life. I do not know what it was meant to achieve, but it certainly did nothing to impress either my constituents or me.938317:00:009383Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I rise today to speak on the issue of globalisation. The impact of globalisation on the nation-state and its effect on working people is a subjective area of analysis. However, I believe that there are problems arising from an increasingly integrated international economy that can be identified objectively. But I also believe that states acting collectively can bring about changes to the current international system for the benefit of world citizens.Globalisation is, broadly defined, the breakdown of economic sovereignty of states and the deregulation of world market forces. Whilst nation states are moving towards the breakdown of protectionist policies such as tariffs and are embracing free trade, the reality is that most states are keeping some form of protection firmly in place. It is, for example, difficult to see the abolition of French or US government subsidies for agriculture. I believe, as argued by Robert Reich in The Work of Nations, that in a truly global economy national economic policy would give way to global economic decision making. There would be no national products, technologies, corporations or industries—in short, no distinctly separate national economies. Of course, this is clearly not the case. Globalisation may well be evolving, but is not yet complete or beyond regulation.The underlying reason for diminishing state sovereignty is the inability of states in a largely deregulated internationalised market to control the volatility and speed of foreign exchange markets. The recent economic crisis in Asia illustrates the diminishing authority of the modern state to control serious shifts of capital, and is a warning that should be noted by all governments. Financial markets are attempting to dictate terms to sovereign governments by perpetuating the belief that government spending crowds out more efficient market driven private investment. Emeritus Professor Russell Mathews of the Australian National University has gone as far as to argue that state sovereignty over economic policy has been handed over to gamblers. I certainly do not subscribe to the `I'm all right, Jack. Forget everybody else' school of international order which sees no role for the nation state in trade or investment policies. Surely even Mr Magoo could see that if our major export destinations are experiencing financial difficulties it will have a serious effect on the Australian economy as the purchasing power of our trading partners diminishes.Let me make this point crystal clear: globalisation offers enormous potential opportunities for the benefit of all. However, unchecked globalisation offers no protection to working people or to developing nations from the often exploitative practices of multinational corporations. It cannot be ignored that half of the world's largest economies today are corporations, not nations. Many of these corporations do not actually produce anything. John Ralston Saul pointed out on his visit to Australia this year that the sales of 200 transnational corporations represent 28.3 per cent of the world's GDP. There is nothing wrong with that, except that they employ only 0.75 per cent of the work force. The question has to be asked: how is this rational or sustainable? Just as states have assisted global economic integration via a single-minded policy, states have it in their power to regulate the global economy to ensure an equitable outcome for working people throughout the world. Make no mistake about it: if working conditions are poor in any one nation in today's globalised economy it results in downward pressure on working conditions elsewhere. It can, and does, often result in job losses.There are two proposals in the debate to regulate the global economy that I believe need further consideration. The first is a tax on international financial transactions, commonly known as the Tobin tax. The second is a proposal for a social clause to be linked to the World Trade Organisation. I will deal with them in that order. The Tobin tax is not a new idea and has been explored on previous occasions. However, the current global economic crisis has created conditions that the Tobin tax was designed to stop. This places the proposal back onto the political agenda. I believe that it is time for the tax to be given full and proper consideration. The idea for the tax was first published in 1978 and was the brainchild of Nobel laureate in economics Professor James Tobin. He advocated a levy on international financial transactions.The goal of the tax is to provide revenue to the United Nations or the World Bank to fund development projects while acting as a curb on currency speculation. The levy is intended to be low enough to avoid restricting trade and investment and high enough to curb the flow of hot money and its destabilising effects on sovereign economies. The main features are: the tax should be set as a fixed percentage of foreign exchange transactions—Tobin argued that a rate of approximately one per cent, or even as low as 0.5 per cent, would be effective, given that the current worldwide turnover has been estimated at greater than $US1,000 billion per day—the tax to be collected by national governments on all foreign exchange payments within their jurisdiction; the tax to be levied by all nation states on a coordinated basis; and the tax to be paid in whole or in part into a central international fund.In the past there has been no real incentive for developed nations to consider the tax. As an incentive for states to implement the tax they could be offered a percentage of the revenue collected for their own use. This could be determined on a needs basis, thus assisting developing nations with infrastructure projects and social and investment policies. Obviously the tax provides more for developing nations than it does for developed nations. However, developed nations should see its benefits as being an insurance policy as well as a revenue raising mechanism. As a further incentive for developed nations to implement the tax, I would propose that it be sold as a package that offers developed nations a social clause linked to the World Trade Organisation.Why do we need a social clause, and why should it be linked to the WTO? Internationalisation has seen the increasing mobility of capital at the expense of immobile labour. Relocation of capital and/or the threat of relocation to cheaper labour markets has caused downward pressure on basic wages and conditions around the globe. I firmly believe that a return to protectionism is not the solution to the problems of globalisation. However, protection of basic human rights must be secured. Although the International Labour Organisation has been largely successful in securing the ratification by states of core labour standards, unfortunately the ILO has virtually no power to enforce compliance with the standards. Its chief weapon to date has been to embarrass governments into compliance. This is hardly a satisfactory mechanism to ensure compliance, particularly when you look at the Workplace Relations Act of the Howard government which ignores the conventions of the ILO. The social clause is not about a minimum wage across the world, it is not about transferring the terms and conditions of developed nations to developing countries; it is about ensuring basic human rights.The core ILO conventions form the basis of the social clause and are minimum human rights standards that no state can afford to ignore. The seven conventions are as follows: Nos 29 and 105, freedom from forced labour and various occupational health and safety conventions; No. 87, freedom of association; No.98, the right to organise and bargain collectively; Nos 100 and 111, freedom from discrimination in employment and occupation and equal pay for work of equal value—this core ILO standard is at present being undermined by the Howard Government's ideological approach to youth wages—and No. 138, a minimum age for the employment of children.Many developing nations argue that to support a social clause would undermine their comparative advantage, which is their cheap labour. They argue that the effect of undermining their comparative advantage will be capital relocation to other markets. In short, an investment exodus. I do not necessarily agree with their analysis. But if developing nations have a greater percentage of a Tobin tax collected revenue this may very well offset the possible—I believe only slightly possible—negative effects of agreeing to a social clause.In a working paper prepared for the ILO last year, Robert Kyloh outlined the mechanism being proposed by the international trade union movement to manage the implementation of a social clause. This mechanism would provide all the elements of transparency, predictability and objectivity that an effective multilateral system requires. The recent global economic crisis highlights the problems of an unregulated market, and formerly stable economies are coming to the realisation that they are not immune to the problems of an unregulated market.International action is necessary and necessary now. An integrated global economy has plenty to offer but only if there are rules and laws that protect the most vulnerable. Australia's future prospects, and the prospects of working people and throughout the world, lie in taking a proactive position by initiating strategies that produce a more conducive international economic and social system. Under the former Labor government, Australia demonstrated the ability to form coalitions such as the Cairns Group and APEC. These coalitions provided an effective mechanism for advancing Australia's international agenda. The Tobin tax and the social clause require collective action to place them on the international agenda.The two proposals I have detailed here today have been the subject of debate for some time. To date, it has been difficult to have a social clause that is linked to the WTO considered by developing nations. Nations such as Australia have supported developing nations in their rejection of a social clause due to a perceived notion that trade relations may suffer otherwise. However, developing nations are open to the idea of a tax on international financial transactions. Both proposals, as I have outlined them today, have a greater chance of acceptance and of ensur ing greater global economic stability and equity if considered together.Both proposals sold as a package offer something for all stakeholders, with the exception of currency speculators. Why do we allow currency speculators to undermine sovereign economies in order to make a quick dollar? The fact is they produce very little of value. They too should pay their fair share. There will be political problems to overcome and sovereignty will be an issue, but I believe this proposal is worth consideration.938617:10:009386Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—Regardless of where we stand on the 6 November republic referendum we do appear as a country to be surrounded by the waves of a very important constitutional debate. I place on record my very strong support for the opportunity this government is giving to the Australian people to determine the form of government we should have as we approach the next century. The onus was always on those who advocate change to prove that as a nation we would be better off. They have failed dismally. I strongly urge a resounding no vote at the 6 November referendum.It is interesting that the latest entrant to the Labor Party's book club, Neal Blewett, informs us that Paul Keating only pursued a republic because he thought it would contribute to Labor's re-election. It would be ironic if such nobleness could turn him into the Thomas Jefferson of Australian politics! Inevitably, the republicans are urging people not to look at the details of the model but to vote on sentiment alone. Malcolm Turnbull had the hide to tell a meeting in Sydney this month that the 6 November referendum should be shorn of its constitutional and other complexities. Instead, he said it should be seen as a vote of confidence in Australia.The republicans' national campaign director said, `This is about sentiment. It is about people walking into the polling booth and saying, "It feels right."' Even the Leader of the Opposition has said, `Let's get behind it and get it through and worry about the consti tutional problems later on.' Those views are totally, completely and utterly irresponsible. If there is change on 6 November, it will be enduring change. If there are faults, as there are in the model of offer, they will be enduring faults. Our democracy is too important to be a hostage to sentiment. The detail does matter. The detail is significant. The detail is vital for Australia's future. A claimed pursuit of symbolism does not build a constitution but could well destroy one.We are told this is minimalist change. How on earth could 69 changes to at least 58 sections of the Australian Constitution be seen as minimalist? Almost half of the Constitution would require alteration. Blind assertions that the President would have no more power than the current Governor-General are brave indeed. The powers of the President under the Keating-Turnbull model on offer are non-justiciable. That means—regardless of the wording of the Constitution—at the end of the day, the President's powers are whatever he proclaims them to be. Also, if the republic referendum is carried most Australians, probably all, would have to endure a second wave of referenda at state level to turn the states into republics. It is by no means certain that would be carried and our country could be turned into a constitutional monstrosity—neither fish nor fowl—with part of the country monarchy and part of the country republican. I believe that is a recipe for absolute disaster.A look at the details of the model show very serious deficiencies, and the republicans are seeking to hide them and to paper them over. For instance, the nominations committee has been disclosed to be nothing more than a charade. At least half the committee would be politicians and, at the end of the day, the Prime Minister, in a politicians' republic, could ignore the recommendations anyway. The model for requiring the appointment of the President by two-thirds of the Commonwealth parliament is a vote for a compromise rather than a quality candidate. So the republicans are seeking to deliver to Australians a third-rate republic from day one.Let us also look at the provision that says that a person remains President for five years or until the parliament agrees on a successor. If the parliament does not agree on a successor, the President in office continues in office, and we could have a situation virtually where someone becomes a President for life. Most dangerously is the conferring on the Prime Minister the power to dismiss a President instantly without reason, without any provision for review. As Mr McGarvie said in Ballarat on the weekend:The failure for there to be a delay mechanism is not at all appropriate.In our Constitution, we need a system of checks and balances. We need to make sure that the protections we have in Australia continue, and, regrettably, the republic model on offer simply does not include those protection mechanisms. Malcolm Turnbull trenchantly opposed this dismissal mechanism in his considered The Reluctant Republic in 1993 when he said:If we have gone to all the trouble of electing a President by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Parliament, we shouldn't allow the Prime Minister to turf that President out with a phone call.Yet that is exactly what Malcolm Turnbull is calling on the Australian people to bring about if the referendum is carried on 6 November. The model on offer even failed to obtain a majority vote at the Constitutional Convention. So what we are voting for or against on 6 November is not whether or not Australia should become a republic but whether or not we should move to a particular republican model. I believe that that particular republican model is fatally and totally flawed.Also the republican campaign is falsely suggesting that any Australian could aspire to be head of state. They have a cheap slogan of `An Australian Resident for President'. Under the model being put forward, any person chosen as President must be capable of sitting as a member of the House of Representatives. Holders of dual citizenship will be excluded from being considered for the presidency.Opposition members interjecting—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—This means that between four and five million Australians holding dual citizenship are ruled out. Is that giving all Australians the opportunity to be our head of state? Let us look at the broader republican agenda. We all know about the republican agenda which is being voted for or against on 6 November, but I want to move to the question of the Australian flag.YK6WILTONMr Wilton—Nothing to do with it. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for introducing it.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—It is relevant. Technically, the Australian flag is not at risk in the 6 November referendum. But, if Australia were to become a republic, the pressure to change the flag would become almost irresistible. So a vote for a republic on 6 November will be a vote for a new Australian flag.YK6WILTONMr Wilton—Rubbish. That's a sordid tactic. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.H. Adams)—Order! The honourable member for Isaacs!0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—Changing the Australian flag is part of the wider agenda, and let us look at what Paul Keating said in 1992. He said the Australian flag should be changed. In June 1994, while finance minister, the now Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, said Labor would be working towards changing the flag around the year 2001.XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—The flag is enshrined by your Prime Minister.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The member for Dickson!0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—My friend, you ought not to interject because your party is promoting this constitutional change and you know that, if that goes through, the pressure on changing the flag will become irresistible.Only last week Ausflag director, Harold Scruby, acknowledged that there would be a `much greater push to have a new flag once we become a republic'. It is a very longstanding part of the republican agenda not only to junk our Constitution but also to junk the flag. So I also want to place on record my very strong support for our Australian flag, and Australians ought to be aware that, if they vote on 6 November for a republic, they will be voting to bring greater pressure on the Australian flag. Bob Ellicott, a very great jurist, in a recent speech said:Why when you enjoy full sovereignty, independence and freedom under a democratic constitution the majority of Australians will ask, would you want to change it?Notably, even republicans advocating a yes vote can see that our current Constitution has performed remarkably for a century and `the system works well'. To preserve our freedom, our stability, our way of life and our Constitution, it is really important that, on 6 November, the referendum is resoundingly defeated so that we are able to continue to be a country which has a system of checks and balances of which all of us can be justifiably proud.938817:20:009388Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTONYK6IsaacsALP00—I grieve today, first and foremost, for that small minority of Australians gullible enough to believe that a yes vote on the 6 November referendum will in any way pave the way for a change to the Australian flag. Nothing could be further from the truth, and those on the other side, notably the member for Fisher and the member for Flinders, ought to be condemned for stooping so low to suggest that that would be the case.Secondly, I grieve also today for the growing number of Australians who could best be described as being employed in crummy, casual jobs. Casualisation has received a fair bit of media attention in recent weeks, especially after the release of the Productivity Commission's findings which clearly positioned Australia as in fact the second highest employer of casual labour in the world.However, with a few exceptions, there has been, by and large, no serious discussion about what policy makers intend to actually do about this trend. As recently as yesterday, Age journalist Tim Colebatch wrote a similar article to the one that he wrote when the casualisation figures were first released a couple of weeks ago. In neither article did Mr Colebatch suggest what may be done about this emerging trend in the job market.It is not up to journalists, academics or for that matter any other commentators to act or even propose to act on this matter; rather it is up to those opposite and in particular the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Mr Reith. But the minister it seems has not and indeed will not act on this important issue because it suits the government's overall philosophy—and I employ the term rather loosely here—on employment and, more specifically, on the issue of workers.This government is not in any way for workers at any level, whether it be unfair dismissal legislation, inaction on sweatshop operators or the swell of employees subjected to poor quality, precarious, throwaway jobs. This government by and large turns a blind eye to the alarmingly high rate of casualisation because it suits its job figures, and thus it hides and conceals from the community this thinly veiled contempt for the workers of this country. That is why this government, despite the evidence that cites casual employment as the dominant form of job growth in the last 12 years, becomes mute whenever this issue is raised.For the benefit of the House, casual employment in Australia is broadly defined as employment without sick leave and annual leave entitlements. It is, nevertheless, a common misconception that this type of employment growth comes as a result of employee demand, particularly that of women re-entering or entering the work force for the first time hoping to achieve an agreeable balance between family and work commitments.This scenario could not be further from the truth. In fact, statistics show that the most significant increase in casual employment has been in prime, working age males. Furthermore, this growth has spanned all industry sectors, not just retail and hospitality—the sectors which have been subject to significant rates of what can best be called `feminisation' over the last 20 or so years. That was a term employed, albeit out of context, by yet another Age journalist Ross Gittins a week ago in a clumsy attempt to put a positive spin on casualisation growth.Just recently, a group of distressed employees from a local Isaacs-based entertainment venue sought advice from my office regarding their work arrangements. This group of 12 were employed casually, all worked in excess of 30 hours per week, were subject to roster changes without consultation and did not receive a casual loading. The uncertainty and stress associated with these types of work arrangements are by and large ignored by employers and government alike. Is it any wonder that there is a negative relationship between casual employment and productivity, as expounded in the Productivity Commission's report? Having no control over how or when my work is conducted would certainly not inspire me to go that extra length, work that extra half hour a day, work that bit smarter or demonstrate continuing loyalty to my employer.Why then does this government ignore this group of workers? Because in a similar vein to those who have been shifted on to disability payments by this government—as we saw during question time today—those employed in these crummy, casual jobs allow the government's number crunchers to spruik about falling unemployment rates as a consequence of the government's cynical fiddling of employment and unemployment figures. While these people—including those mentioned above—are employed in these awful jobs, the government does not need to count them in its unemployment statistics and can completely ignore them or, as appears to be the current strategy, pretend they do not exist. This government does not want to know what your conditions of work are like; it just does not want you on unemployment benefits.The government and the minister, Mr Reith, need to remove those blinkers before our work force deteriorates into two distinct tiers—the first group who are well paid and well provided for by employers and have a secure future, and the second group who unwillingly shift from job to job to job, accumulating no entitlements and receiving no financial or cumulative benefits along the way. By and large, they have come to be known in the US as the working poor.This issue does need to be brought to the fore before it too falls under the scrutiny of the International Labour Organisation, like the government's first wave of industrial relations legislation. The myth of teenagers working in supermarkets and mothers working two days a week in sandwich shops by and large needs to be dispelled. This issue needs to be treated with due seriousness, and this government's anti-worker policy ethic needs to be brought to account and scrutinised, as I said, very seriously.As I have stated before in other speeches in the House, Mr Howard, there are many thousands of people out in the work force who are far from relaxed and comfortable; the nineties casual workers are just one group. These people are suffering by definition, not only because they live and work by the phone but also because they are deemed to be casual because of the nature of the conditions or the lack of conditions their work arrangements force them to agree to. It is a growing class of people that we cannot afford to overlook, and I urge the government to act promptly to address the issue of portability of conditions and, in particular, the growing number of casualised people in the work force and what that really means to the Australian standard of living as we have come to know and appreciate it.938917:29:009389St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—There is a crisis occurring in our small towns in the federal electorates of New England and Gwydir which is having a profound effect on the residents of those small towns. Since time immemorial, nursing home type patients have resided in the hospitals of Walcha, Guyra, Tingha, Vegetable Creek, Warialda, Bingara, Barraba and Werris Creek. These hospitals which form an integral part of the small town community are under threat of closure by stealth. The New England Area Health Service has issued instructions to the managers of these hospitals that they will not allow further nursing home type patients to be admitted to these hospitals and have attempted to remove some of those patients out of the hospitals and therefore out of the small towns. In attempting to justify issuing this instruction, the CEO and the chairman have made, amongst others, the following claims: that New England Area Health Service receives no Commonwealth funding under the Australian health care agreements for nursing home type care provided in public hospitals and, in particular, no funding is provided for nursing home type patients—in other words, patients who have been admitted for more than 35 days and who have not been certified as requiring ongoing acute care; and aged persons who need this type of care should not be admitted to public hospitals or should be discharged to the first available nursing home placement.I have been involved in fighting for the small towns in my area long before I came into this place. I live in one of those small towns and I know first-hand how important the local hospital is to the future of that town and how absolutely essential it is not only to have proper medical services provided to the residents of that town but also to allow our elderly to live out the rest of their days in peace with their family and in their towns.I return to the claims made by the New England Area Health Service. Prior to attending two large public meetings in the towns of Warialda and Bingara on 21 August this year where there were some 700 people in attendance, independent legal advice was sought for my colleague the Deputy Prime Minister and the member for Gwydir, the Hon. John Anderson, by the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care under the Australian health care agreements. That advice, in summary, is as follows:. public hospitals administered by Area Health Services must —not might, not should but must—admit patients requiring non acute care. While these patients may be charged a fee after 35 days, public hospitals are still required to provide these services; and. the funding provided under the agreement does cover the provisions of care for such patients.As you can see, what the New England Area Health Service are attempting to do is in contravention of the Australian health care agreement but, more importantly, it is the heartless and appalling fashion in which they are going about this small town destruction that we are most disturbed about. In their drive to attempt to shift costs to the Commonwealth, they are playing with the very people who built this nation—our elderly. They should deliver the services for which they are paid.Talking about being paid, let me provide the House with some figures for the record on the funding arrangements in New South Wales. The New South Wales budget estimates for combined acute health services show that in the financial year 1998-99 New South Wales spent a total of $4,255 million. According to the New South Wales budget estimates this financial year, New South Wales has allocated $4,308 million for these services. This is an increase of 1.2 per cent or $53 million. Under the Australian health care agreements signed by the New South Wales government last year, the Commonwealth is providing just over $2,000 million to New South Wales for health services, an increase of five per cent over the previous five financial years, or $190 million. This builds on the increase from $1,609 million in 1997-98, the last year of the previous Medicare agreement. One has to ask where the other $42 million has got to.The New England Area Health Service produced a document called the NEAHS aged care report—December 1998 in which they state under 4.3.1, `Nursing home type beds':Nursing home type patients occupy the majority of the beds in all the community non-acute facilities in the Area (154 beds).They also said:If responsibility for these beds was transferred to the Commonwealth, the facilities would no longer be viable for the State.You can now see why we who live in small towns are going to fight this to the bitter end to save our hospitals.I now turn to a letter that was written by Dr Alf Rombout of Bingara on 25 August to the New South Wales Director General of Health. He sent me a copy. I would specifically like to read a section of that letter as it relates to an attempt by the NEAHS CEO to suggest that there are no long stay beds in the Bingara hospital—a small hospital but a vital part of the Bingara community. I believe this letter sums up the way that New England Area Health Service goes about its heartless business. The letter states:. . . [the] CEO of the NEAHS, has stated to me by telephone that the 14 beds at Bingara Health Services that we have always considered our long stay nursing home beds have never actually been that, and that I was mistaken, as were the Aged Care Assessment Teams that sought to admit patients there for high dependency residential care, in thinking that that is what they were. She asserts that all the beds at Bingara are acute beds, and that 14 of them have long stay patients in them, which she is no longer prepared to tolerate. That is to say no new long stay patients will be admitted.The NEAHS Board is mistaken. There is a plaque on the wall at Bingara Hospital that was affixed on 26/4/91 commemorating the opening of the Dr Hollinshead Wing. . . . . . . . . .This wing was constructed as a purpose built high dependency aged care facility conforming to the federal guidelines for residential aged care then required. In exchange for this wing, the local hospital board gave up its obstetric facilities, and shed 9 beds from various areas of the hospital. The wing cost $325 000, of which $150 000 came from Bingara itself. We then had 14 long stay and 7 acute beds. . . . . . . . . .The town was promised the new wing would ensure the viability of the hospital in the long term.It is a disgrace to see what has been going on in my electorate of New England and others by the New England Area Health Service. They have failed to effectively communicate with our small communities and uphold the agreement made with the federal government with regard to nursing home type patients in our hospitals. The communities of New England deserve much better than this from our area health service. Their performance has been poor, and I believe that a change of guard would see some positive changes to the health service provision in New England. The board, the chairman and the CEO have failed to uphold their responsibilities and know that independent legal advice has shown that the New England Area Health Service may be breaching the Australian health care agreement. The New South Wales Labor government should sack the lot of them.In the remaining minute or so, I would like to mention that another doctor has sent their concerns to me. They said that the ramifications for a community of the loss of hospital are both financial and social. In the New England health area and in those towns where there is a hospital, the health service is usually the major employer. This has not only a direct effect on local jobs but also a flow-on effect throughout the local community. Without a local hospital, most rural towns find it impossible to attract a doctor. After all, how can you practise satisfying and stimulating medicine if you cannot X-ray an injured ankle? Let me finish by saying: let the New England Area Health Service and the New South Wales state Labor government understand that we will not stand by and let our hospitals in our towns disappear on the whim of an accountant or at the stroke of an accountant's pen.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.H. Adams)—Order! The question is that grievances be noted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills9391Message from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bills: Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Bill 1999 Copyright Amendment (Computer Programs) Bill 1999 Committees9391939110000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.H. Adams)—The Speaker has received advice from the Chief National Party Whip that he has nominated Mr Lawler to be a member of the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services in place of Mrs D.M. Kelly.Motion (by Miss Jackie Kelly)—by leave—agreed to:That Mrs D.M. Kelly be discharged from the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services and that in her place Mr Lawler be appointed a member of the committee.SOCIAL SECURITY (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1999Cognate bills:Bills9392r828Billsr8309392Debate resumed from 26 August, on motion by Mr Truss:That the bill be now read a second time.17:42:009392Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I am pleased to resume my comments on these three social security bills. Before I was interrupted, I was speaking about the difficulties that are occurring with Centrelink. I remind the House in speaking about a specific issue—that is, the attempt by the government to reduce the time limits for notifying changes in circumstances—that this is not the first time the government has attempted to do this. Indeed, the government attempted to introduce a seven-day time limit in December last year in the Payment Processing Legislation Amendment (Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements) Bill 1998. On that occasion, the relevant provisions were withdrawn when it became clear that they would not be accepted by the Senate. For the sake of the many innocent Centrelink clients who will be tripped up by these changes, I hope that these draconian changes meet the same fate on this occasion. To this end, Labor will be seeking to amend these bills in the Senate.I now wish to address the issue of the changes to the time limits for review. Another significant aspect of these bills is the imposition of time limits for the review of decisions. These bills will bar people from appealing against Centrelink decisions outside the limits of 52 weeks for internal review by an authorised review officer and 28 days for review by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. The government has proceeded with these changes despite the advice of a number of agencies with expertise in this area. I would like to quote from a letter sent to my colleague the shadow minister for family and community services, Wayne Swan, from St Saviour's Neighbourhood Centre in Goulburn. It states:There are many reasons which justify providing adequate time for social security recipients to appeal decisions including:Many social security recipients have literacy, numeracy and language barriers resulting from little formal education, having a disability all being from a non-English speaking or Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background. It takes time to arrange translations into community languages or plain English.Not surprisingly, many low income people face situations of crisis—for example, homelessness, illness or domestic violence. Under these circumstances it is unreasonable to provide a short period within which to appeal.There is no clear reason for the changes being proposed yet again by the government in these bills. There are already restrictions on the amount of arrears a person can receive if they do not appeal in time. Currently, if a person appeals later than 13 weeks after the original decision, they can receive arrears only from the date on which they lodged the appeal. In a submission to the Senate Standing Community Affairs References Committee inquiry into these bills, the Secretary to the Department of Family and Community Services argued that these changes were necessary because of the requirement of the Archives Act that records be destroyed 12 months after a person stops receiving payments.It is important to note, however, that the Archives Act does not require records to be destroyed once they are 12 months old. They need only be destroyed 12 months after the person last receives social security payments. In the overwhelming majority of cases, people who are seeking review of decisions continue receiving social security payments of one kind or another. This means that the department would still have access to the relevant documentation. In situations where the department is recovering a debt from a person who is no longer receiving payments, the Archives Act allows for records to be retained until the debt is repaid. In most cases, debtors ask for decisions to be reviewed before the debt has been fully repaid; so, once again, the Archives Act in no way justifies a reduction in the time limits for review of decisions.The government would have us believe that time limits of 52 weeks for review by an authorised review officer and 28 days for review by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal are quite reasonable, but this simply shows yet again how out of touch this government is—and this minister is—with ordinary people. There are many cases where these time limits would cause grave injustice. For example, where a person receives a sizeable lump sum compensation payment, they may be precluded from receiving social security payments for some years. At the time a person receives a lump sum compensation payment, they are less likely to challenge a decision about a preclusion period as they have little need for social security in the short term. Several years down the track, however, their circumstances may be very different, and they may need that financial assistance. Even where the preclusion period was incorrectly calculated by the original decision maker and even though the person would have no entitlement to arrears, they would have no right to review of the original decision once the 52-week time limit had expired. Once again, these changes will punish the most disadvantaged—the homeless, those from non-English-speaking backgrounds, indigenous people and people who have had limited access to education.The Secretary to the Department of Family and Community Services noted that the changes in time limits for review of decisions were in line with the recommendations of the review conducted by Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. This is hardly a persuasive reason for such dramatic changes. It is in no way surprising that an inquiry conducted by a former Liberal Minister for Social Security came up with exactly the recommendations that the government was seeking—yet another example of the shoddy way that this government does business. And let us be very clear about what these changes mean in practice. These changes will mean that people who are entitled to social security payments will not be able to obtain them because of a legal trap set by this government. The opposition cannot in good conscience allow these changes to proceed without challenge and will, therefore, seek to amend these bills in the Senate to remove the time limits for review of decisions. Like the changes to notification periods, this is not the first time the government has attempted to impose time limits for review of decisions. The relevant provisions of the family allowance administration bill were rejected by the Senate, and I suspect that the similar provisions in these bills will meet the same fate.I also wish to address the way that the Social Security Appeals Tribunal hears appeals, which will be impacted by this bill. Along with seeking to restrict access to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal by imposing a 28-day time limit, the government seeks, through these bills, to make significant changes to the way the SSAT deals with appeals. Firstly, the government wants to allow the SSAT to determine appeals without hearing oral evidence from the parties. This will cause significant inequalities for it favours people who are able to express themselves clearly in writing. Once again, the victims will be the disadvantaged—people from non-English-speaking backgrounds and people with limited literacy. This hypocrisy comes from a government from which you hear a lot about the importance of literacy skills. You also hear acknowledgments by the government that there are many people in our society who unfortunately do not have those skills through no fault of their own.Allowing the SSAT to determine appeals without hearing oral evidence is an extraordinarily discriminatory provision. Even for those with good literacy skills, the idea of determining appeals on the basis of purely written evidence presumes that Centrelink clearly communicates the reasons for decisions and that people are able to understand the law well enough to respond appropriately. These assumptions once again demonstrate the government's ignorance of the circumstances of many people who require the assistance of Centrelink. The Social Security Appeals Tribunal is designed to operate in an informal manner—that is the whole beauty of it—with expert members from legal, welfare and administrative backgrounds so as to draw out the relevant information without expecting an applicant to present cogent, well-argued legal submissions. Applicants are clearly disadvantaged in any dispute with Centrelink officers who apply the Social Security Act on a daily basis. The only way to correct this disadvantage is to allow applicants to appear before the tribunal and present evidence in an informal setting. Any change to the current system of face-to-face hearings will clearly prevent some applicants from gaining their legal rights. Once again, Labor will seek to amend these provisions of the bills in the Senate.The second change to the way the SSAT operates is a reduction in the number of members required to hear each appeal. Normally, the tribunal for any given appeal consists of three members—one with legal expertise, one with a welfare background and one with a background in the Department of Family and Community Services. The current act requires that a minimum of three members hear each appeal, except in very limited circumstances. It also provides for a maximum of four members, originally intended to allow a medically qualified member to join the tribunal for appeals involving medical issues. In practice, however, a medical member normally takes the place of either a welfare or a legal member.The bills before this House propose to remove the requirement for a minimum of three members and a maximum of four and replace it with a limit of three members. There is no provision for the minimum number of tribunal members for appeals. The bill will effectively mean that most appeals will be heard by only one tribunal member. No longer will applicants have the benefit of a mix of legal, welfare and administrative expertise. Instead, they will have to put up with potluck determining what sort of member hears their appeal. We will see tribunal members with a background in social work determining appeals involving complex issues of law. We will also see members with a legal background dealing with issues of psychological trauma. This is just not appropriate be cause it is just not fair. These changes are bound to have a negative effect on the quality of the decisions made by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. Once again, the people most affected by these changes will be directly proportional to their level of disadvantage in society. And many people who are Centrelink clients come from those groups that are the most disadvantaged.I want to raise a further issue of concern that the Labor Party has with these bills—that is, the requirement of the SSAT to refer back to Centrelink any new evidence presented to the tribunal unless it is satisfied that the applicant had reasonable grounds for not providing the information to Centrelink. It is difficult to understand the rationale for this clause. The then Department of Social Security suggested to the Guilfoyle review that:. . . this would encourage applicants to disclose all evidence as early as possible in the process.But it is not clear how applicants are expected to know about this rule. Most applicants are new to the tribunal and therefore have no understanding of the legislation that determines the tribunal's role. Most people will find out about this rule only when they find their appeal being referred back to Centrelink, which is too late in the process. The only thing this change will achieve is more delays in finalising decisions, many of which involve people in dire financial circumstances who are after speedy, efficient and fair decisions. Making the process more complicated, bureaucratic and legalistic will only undermine access to justice and discourage people from exercising their right to appeal to an independent tribunal.I also wish to speak about the changes in these bills to eligibility for special benefit because they propose restrictions on the eligibility for this benefit. Currently, people who hold temporary visas in subclasses 820 and 826 are eligible to claim special benefit. These subclasses of visas are for partners and spouses of Australian residents who have been allowed entry to Australia and merely need to spend a period living in Australia with their partner before being granted permanent residence. These bills will remove the statutory right of such people to claim special benefit. Instead, only people who hold a visa of a type approved by the minister will be able to claim special benefit. In other words, we are moving from a statutory right to a right determined by the whim of the Minister for Family and Community Services, and there is not much faith out there in the community in the compassion of this minister. The Department of Family and Community Services claimed, in one of its submissions to the Senate Standing Community Affairs References Committee inquiry, that no person who currently receives special benefit would be disadvantaged by these changes. But that requires us to place our trust in the minister. That is more than the Australian Labor Party is prepared to do.I would remind the House that this is a minister who has doggedly pursued an agenda of preventing newly arrived migrants from having any access to income support. In March 1997, she introduced guidelines for payment of special benefit that sought to make it virtually impossible for any newly arrived permanent resident to receive special benefit in their first two years in Australia. Those guidelines caused enormous hardship to many new Australians. People who had been issued visas and welcomed to Australia on the basis that they had skills we needed suddenly found that there was no government safety net if they had trouble finding work upon arrival. Even if they needed only a few months of support in order to brush up their English skills—made more difficult by the government's cutbacks in areas such as the Australian Migrant English Service—this government's answer was, `Too bad.'Thankfully, the Senate disallowed the minister's special benefit guidelines in June 1997 and put an end to this inhumane treatment of people who had chosen Australia as their home. But this defeat only spurred the government on to find new ways of attacking assistance for new migrants. The next step was to prevent newly arrived migrants from obtaining health care cards, regardless of any financial difficulties they may be facing. This government has a history of attacking the entitlements of newly arrived migrants at every turn. Now we are being told that we can trust the minister to ensure that the changes in this bill do not restrict access to special benefit. The National Welfare Rights Network did not believe the minister, and I do not either. I hold grave fears for the enormous social and economic problems that will be generated by any further holes in the safety net for new migrants.In summary, these bills do nothing to simplify the social security system. They will create extra complexity, more confusion and greater injustice. In November 1998, ACOSS released a survey of the community services sector entitled `Living on the edge'. The survey produced startling findings about rising levels of poverty and need amongst low income and disadvantaged Australians. Findings released this month by the Australian Bureau of Statistics demonstrate graphically how the gap between rich and poor in Australia has widened.That survey was based on statistics for the financial year 1997-98. Its findings revealed that, of all income generated in Australia, the bottom 20 per cent of households account for just 3.8 per cent, the top 20 per cent of households account for 48.3 per cent and the bottom 60 per cent of households account for a measly 27.8 per cent. In real dollar figures, this means that the bottom 20 per cent of households are on gross incomes of less than $204 a week, the bottom 40 per cent are on less than $389 a week and the bottom 60 per cent are on less than $613 a week.It is definitely true to say that Australia's rich are getting richer and our poor are getting poorer. The ACOSS survey concurs with the ABS and adds that 65 per cent of community welfare agencies experienced an increased demand for their services over the last six months. Services were disturbed by the increasing poverty level of clients and the fact that an escalating number of people were unable to make ends meet on social security. When asked why the system is not coping with these increased levels of poverty and need in our community, 42 per cent of community sector organisations blamed this government's policies. In particular, they blamed the impact of economic rationalism and competitive tendering, especially in relation to home and community care, the new employment services market and child care.Australia is becoming more and more a nation divided between the haves and the have-nots. More than ever before, Australians need their government to guarantee the delivery of certain basic rights. All Australian families deserve the assurance that, if times are hard, they will never be homeless or hungry; that, as a civilised society, we are able to provide shelter, food, clothing, health care and education to all—and not because those in need must be given the Prime Minister's patronising philanthropy but because access to fundamentals, such as food, clothing and shelter, is a basic and inalienable human right.That is why it is fundamental for government to get social security legislation right—something these bills fail to do and something that this government has consistently failed to do. These bills will continue the trend, under this government, of targeting the disadvantaged in our society. I hope that one day even my colleagues on the other side of the House will come to realise that persecuting the disadvantaged does not save money or solve problems; it simply increases the financial and societal costs in the long term.18:02:009396Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—I listened with interest to the remarks of the previous speaker, the member for Grayndler, who is characteristically passionate. I wish only that his passion were matched by his reason.It gives me pleasure to speak on what essentially is a fairly routine housekeeping, but sensible and necessary, piece of legislation. The Social Security (Administration) Bill 1999 and associated cognate legislation is a sort of incremental development on the Social Security Act 1991. When you are dealing with a monolith like social security, which involves over 20 individual benefits, many with subclasses, and Commonwealth expenditure of about $43 billion a year which approaches 40 per cent of the total Commonwealth budget, it is inevitable that a level of complexity will be imported into the legislation. The bill seeks to remedy a particular defect of the one that preceded it, building on the Social Security Act 1991. In 1991 the legislative philosophy was that each individual benefit should be self-contained and that you ought be able to go to each benefit and see the entirety of the administrative provisions governing it. The consequence was to import into the 20 individual benefits a range of fairly generic boiler plate which was the same for each different benefit but repeated on 20 occasions. The consequence was a very unwieldy document. So it is particularly pleasing to see that this bill will be reduced in size by about 500 pages, and it is seldom that a new piece of legislation can boast such a reduction.The bill gives effect to recommendations of the Guilfoyle report and makes numerous technical amendments, none of which could be described as revolutionary in character. Most of them are practical, commonsense measures that hardly bear mention in this place. But debating this legislation does provide an opportunity to revisit some of the fundamentals of the way welfare is delivered in this country. I have to tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am standing here today with a feeling of considerable optimism. There have been certain trends, certain developments in recent times which I think should give all Australians some encouragement in that what this government is beginning to do is not simply to refine the manner in which existing welfare services are delivered but to actually challenge the welfare mentality in such a way that we can reduce the number of Australians who are reliant on welfare.It is particularly pleasing to see that the sort of policy direction that the government is taking in these areas, which have been broadly summarised under the heading of `reciprocity' or `mutual obligation', is receiving a warm echo from others on the other side of the chamber and from sectors of the community which traditionally have not been supportive of this type of policy change. In that regard, the member for Grayndler is considerably out of step with the more enlightened and progressive thinkers on his side of the parliament.I want to run through three or four of those areas before moving to the most critical, the most pressing, area of welfare reform in this country which relates to Australia's indigenous community. If we take this concept of mutual obligation and look at how it applies to the Newstart benefit, which is one of the 20 benefits that the bill addresses, we have seen the introduction under the Howard government of what is described as its signature policy—being Work for the Dole. We might debate about the merits of the name itself, but the program has received an overwhelming endorsement from participants and from the community organisations that administer the program.It is about building a partnership with the community. It is not, as characterised by the member for Grayndler, some kind of an attack on those benefit recipients. On the contrary, the doctrine of mutual obligation is designed to ensure that we do not create pockets of poverty which are fed by a welfare benefit but which never actually result in a change in the person's circumstances. In that regard, the very name `welfare' at times to me has an Orwellian overtone to it. We name a program `welfare' when in fact it can cause a corrosive, destructive impact on a person's life. For those who went under former programs for month after month, for year after year and, in many cases, for generation after generation never breaking the cycle of dependence, mutual obligation is a breath of fresh air. It is the government saying to these people: your life is important to us and welfare must do something more than feed you. Welfare, if it is truly to be true to its name, must actually empower you.In the area of employment benefits, I was recently in Japan and I met with a representative of the Democratic Socialist Party of Japan, which is the most left-wing party in Japanese politics with the exception of the Japanese Communist Party, and the member of the Japanese Diet asked me the question: `How long can a person remain on unemployment benefits in Australia?' I said, `Well, to date, they can remain indefinitely,' and she was frankly stunned by this revelation. She asked me, wide-eyed, `How do you ever get people off unemployment benefits?' I had to confess to her that we had a whole substratum of Australians across the age bracket who had never worked. She was offended by this policy on the basis that it was not serving the interests of the unemployed. I had to agree with her—with a critique coming from the left of Japanese politics—that we had to introduce a greater level of reciprocity into our unemployment policies.I was pleased to see the Minister for Employment Services today giving an account of the impact which the Work for the Dole program has had and the extent to which it has been taken up by literally hundreds of thousands of Australians. Reciprocity involves 14 different programs in which a person on a benefit can put something back into the community, can be re-engaged with the local community, rather than simply turning up every two weeks and picking up a cheque.I would like see us go further. It is my view that there is some wisdom in the approach taken by some states in the United States which say there is a limit on the amount of time that a person can receive an unemployment benefit. That for me is not so much a fiscal measure but, ultimately, poverty largely has to do with a way of thinking. What we must do is challenge that way of thinking.If you take the question of the sole parent benefit, another one of the 20 addressed by this bill, I am pleased to see this government's initiative in relation to vouchers for marriage counselling to encourage people as they venture out. I do not claim to be an expert on marriage, but the idea of underlining to newly married couples the desirability of staying together and of designing your welfare system around that desirable goal seems to me to have merit. Every time you see a family breakdown, you see a greater likelihood of reliance on the welfare system. And, sadly, once in that net, there are many people who simply never emerge from it.In some parts of the United States, benefit receipt for a parent is dependent on the child achieving a certain attendance record at school. In this problem of intergenerational welfare, we saw that often the children of welfare beneficiaries, for one reason or another, did not attend school consistently enough to attain basic levels of literacy and numeracy. In that area, I look from the Minister for Employment Services to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, and I salute his pioneering efforts in the areas of literacy and numeracy. It is pleasing to see a former Labor minister, Bob Collins, coming to the minister's defence in relation to his indigenous literacy and numeracy policy. An article in the Australian of 24 August 1999 states:Mr Collins said he had recently told Dr Kemp . . . "the package was absolutely on the mark" for indigenous people.He urged the government to press ahead with its plans to ensure that young indigenous Australians actually acquired a sufficient grasp of literacy and numeracy to take their place in the community.In relation to the age pension, today the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation gave a glowing account of increased investment by young Australians in the share market. This is characteristic of this growing spirit of self-reliance. Every person who makes adequate provision for themselves and their family today is a person who will not be needing to look to the age pension in a decade's time or a generation's time. It is very pleasing to me to see the level of share ownership in Australia grow from 15 per cent in 1991 to 20 per cent in 1994, to 34 per cent in 1997 and up to 40 per cent today—making us the second highest in the world with the genuine prospect of overhauling the United States as the largest share owning democracy in the world if the sale of the further 16.6 per cent of Telstra takes place as we anticipate. It was especially pleasing to see that people on low to middle incomes—those in the $30,000 to $50,000 income bracket—were the most highly represented among new share owners.If we go to the area of invalid and disability pension entitlements, again I am not addressing the concern from a fiscal expenditure angle. My principal worry is not the size of the deficit because, under the inspired leadership of Treasurer Costello, we have seen Australia for the first time in some decades return to a position of surplus. My concern is the actual impact of the policy on the life of the beneficiary.Just this week I visited one of my constituents in his home. He had been a lifetime public servant in the New South Wales government. At about the age of 55 he was subject to a deteriorating relationship with his manager in the government department, which created a stalemate between them. It is true that my constituent suffered from some ailments, but certainly nothing that had prohibited him from working over the previous 35 years. At that point, under the deal under which he left the department, it was simply arranged that he would get a permanent disability pension.The problem I have—aside from the equation of cost shifting from the state government to the federal government—is that the disability pension tends to validate the fear in the mind of the recipient that they have nothing to contribute. We have seen a worrying rise in the number of disability pensioners to 555,000 in Australia, and that is 2½ times more people on disability benefits now than in 1976—despite an improvement in the nation's health. The cost of supporting them has risen from $3 billion to $7 billion.83NHALLMs Hall—You are just covering up the number of long-term unemployed.3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON—The opposition has criticised the government in this area for using disability benefits as a mask for unemployment. Frankly, I confess that I feel some apprehension on this question. I am apprehensive that, where a person is struggling to find a place in the labour market, the disability pension is held out as a kind of cure-all, and we see more and more Australians in the situation—again it is like the Hotel California—where once you get on you basically never get off. We have got to work harder to find different options and different alternatives.I touched on the question of Aboriginal literacy and numeracy in the area of education. I note for the House that I had a discussion recently with my colleague the member for Blair, who has considerable experience in indigenous affairs, particularly in the Northern Territory. The member for Blair spoke to me about a school which was built for the 330 young people who lived in a town. They found that only 30 of the 330 children attended on any individual day, and the great difficulty for the teachers was that it was a different 30 each day.I recognise there are a whole range of complex cultural issues that impact on an outcome such as that. But clearly, when you have put down the infrastructure to look after 330 students and you find that you are only actually teaching 30 in a day, you have a serious problem. Attendance has got to be a critical focus of our energies in this regard. In my view, we should look at a certain attendance level being a mutual obligation for receipt of particular benefits.In the area of public housing, I see what is perhaps the greatest abuse. It is not difficult to give the speech on rights and on the fundamental right to shelter. But you see a situation where the number of total outstanding applications has grown from 140,000 in 1985 to 221,000 in 1997. The evil of the program is this. The Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs looking into housing assistance found that over 12 per cent of the applicants were waiting more than five years for public housing. In my electorate, it is routine to wait six or seven years for public housing. The problem is that you have to get under a poverty threshold in order to qualify for public housing. So we are saying to 221,000 people waiting five years to get into public housing, `Stay poor.' We are providing a powerful economic incentive for 221,000 people to stay poor. That is not enlightened social policy.I stand, as I say, for the first time in my life with a degree of optimism about indigenous affairs in Australia. I feel optimism because of a change in the tenor of the indigenous leadership themselves. We in this place benefited last week from a maiden speech, which will be remembered as one of the great maiden speeches delivered in this place, by Senator Ridgeway. He said in that speech:It is fundamentally important that the federal government move away from the surrogate role which undermines the achievement of self-sufficiency . . . It is vitally important to the concept of self-sufficiency that, in time, communities must reduce their dependence on government funds in exchange for increased political and economic rights.That speech by Senator Ridgeway followed another landmark speech by an indigenous leader, which I suspect may be remembered as the most significant speech delivered by any Australian this year. That was a speech delivered by Noel Pearson to the Brisbane Institute on 26 July 1999. He opened with the words:Like my elders and colleagues in Cape York, I am worried for my mob. We seem to just hold on to our ideals as a matter of philosophy and intellectual debate in the academies whilst the real society and economy unravels in front of our eyes, driven by the public policy ascendancy of those who accept that the growth of an underclass is the unfortunate but inevitable result of larger economic forces about which nothing can be done.It is the `give up' mentality behind much of our welfare which is the most corrosive aspect of it.Noel Pearson went on to say:Negative welfare is a mentality that accepts that welfare resources to able bodied people should not involve reciprocity. It should be provided as a matter of social right.He is really here articulating the view of the member for Grayndler. He goes on to say:It is a mentality that accepts that the capable, responsible, powerful state should serve programs to the incapable, irresponsible, and powerless people on the ground.The speech created considerable national comment. I refer, for example, to the response by Paul Kelly in the Australian , who said:Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson has blown the whistle on the failed Aboriginal policies of the past generation by declaring that his people want the right to work, not the right to welfare.Mr Pearson's recent speech to the Brisbane Institute is an assault on progressive Aboriginal orthodoxy and an attack on the urban based, Grayndler based—that is my insertion—political culture that has shaped policy and is an admission that the Aboriginal leadership needs to find a constructive basis for dealing with the Howard government. Nicholas Rothwell in the Australian observed:There is a new mood in Australia's relations with its first peoples. Federal and state leaders are responding eagerly to the indigenous voices explor ing the idea of a new compact—constructive engagement, not political confrontation; less dependency, more self-empowerment.Finally, Mark Latham has contributed very substantially to this debate, and I salute his intellectual leadership. He said:Two weeks ago in Brisbane, Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson fingered the central failing of Australia's welfare sector: it operates under the suspicion that the poor are hopeless.This government does not accept that the poor are hopeless, and neither should the rest of Australia. (Time expired)18:22:009400Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—I feel ashamed to be a member of the same parliament as the member for Parramatta. I have never heard such a mean-spirited speech in my life. It was a speech totally bereft of any compassion for human beings. It was totally bereft of any compassion for people who are disadvantaged. He showed a total lack of understanding of the issues that confront people on a daily basis. He really demonstrated his total commitment to economic rationalism in his speech on the Social Security (Administration) Bill 1999 .The member for Parramatta obviously has no idea of what it is like to be unemployed. He has obviously lived in a very sheltered, insular environment. He has only to come and visit us in the Hunter to see how difficult it is to get a job, how people are desperate to find work and how they would give anything to have a job rather than to be in receipt of benefits. It is not a matter of saying, `You have been unemployed for six months, so we are not going to support you.' Where is that going to lead us? What kind of Australia will that lead us to? If that is the way we in this parliament go, each and every one of us stands condemned. If that is the legacy the member for Parramatta wants to leave to the people of Australia, I think he really should be ashamed of himself.He talks about punishing young children because they do not go to school. They are, more often than not, young people who come from very disadvantaged backgrounds where there is poverty in their homes. When they do not go to school, what is the member for Parramatta's solution? To cut off financial support to their families. Where is that going to leave those children? What sorts of opportunities will they have for the future? How many more people will we have living on the streets? If that is the type of Australia the member for Parramatta wants, I think he should be condemned, and condemned by every member of this parliament. He has made an absolutely disgusting contribution to this debate.This legislation that we are considering in the parliament tonight is yet another example of the contempt this government has for those Australians who receive Centrelink payments and for the staff who administer the payments. This legislation will disadvantage both groups. It is legislation that will lead to injustice and create a more complex administration system, even though the government argues that it will actually simplify the act.On a number of occasions in this House I have accused the government of having 1950s style policies and of looking back to the 1950s for its inspiration. But, on this occasion, it has surpassed itself by reverting to 1940s style legislation. This legislation represents a move back to the Social Security Act of 1947, an act that was rewritten in 1991. The 1991 act located most of the provisions relating to a particular payment together in order to reduce the need for cross-referencing—in other words, making it simpler to administer and making it more user-friendly. This government is moving away from that and looking to increase the red tape.The government has argued that one aspect of this legislation is the simplification, as I just mentioned, yet it is separating provisions relating to the same payments. How is this going to simplify it? Tell me. You can just see the Centrelink staff in their offices. They have somebody come in with an inquiry about a benefit, so they have a look in the manual: `Yes, okay, that relates to family allowance. I will go over there and look in another part that relates to the family allowance.' By the time they have gone through all of the various manuals and pieces of paper they have to look at, they have spent twice as long on administering the payments.Will it benefit the Centrelink recipient? I cannot see how having to stand at the counter for a longer period, when they already have to wait, will benefit them. The way I look at it, it is not going to benefit anyone. I was in a shopping centre in my electorate on Saturday and I was speaking to a person who works at Centrelink. This person was complaining to me about how there is an increased demand on their time to administer all of the payments that are being put in place. At the same time that they are having this increased workload, they are having a decrease in staff. So, once again, it is harder for people who work for Centrelink and harder for the people who need to access the services of Centrelink.The government argues that the act will make minimal changes. I argue that this bill actually makes significant changes, changes that will have a very adverse impact on Centrelink clients. It actually allows the Executive Director of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal to direct that an issue be put before the tribunal by written submission. You might ask, `What problem will that create?' I can see it leading to injustice, particularly for the most disadvantaged clients of Centrelink. These are people who quite often have literacy problems, problems that make it difficult for them to adequately express themselves in a written submission.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m83NHall, Jill, MPMs HALL—Those people who will suffer the greatest disadvantage by being required to supply written submissions to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal are those people who are already disadvantaged to the greatest degree. It is not only those people who have literacy problems who will be disadvantaged by this requirement but also people who come from non-English speaking backgrounds and who struggle with literacy and sometimes with the requirements of our social security system, and indigenous Australians who live in remote areas. That requirement to provide a written submission rather than appear in person will really disadvantage them. The member for Parramatta was quite scathing in his attack when he said some indigenous children do not attend school, but it demonstrates his lack of understanding of the issues that exist in those areas. The requirement to supply a written submission will always disadvantage the most disadvantaged people within the community.Another change suggested within this legislation is a more strict time limit on appealing decisions. Currently, there is no time limit on the right of an authorised review officer to appeal. This legislation is looking at a time limit, of 52 weeks, except in `special circumstances'. Even though there is no prescribed time limit, effectively most cases do have a time limit, with a 13-week period being imposed on decisions to increase a person's payments. This legislation will put in place a situation where an authorised review officer cannot consider any issue after 52 weeks. You may say 52 weeks is a reasonable period of time, but you need to look at individual situations. What about a situation where a person is extremely disadvantaged? They may fit into the category of having poor literacy skills. They may be a homeless person or a person who has been struggling with a drug and alcohol problem. They may be somebody who has had a psychiatric problem. The people that will be affected by this legislation will tend to be the most disadvantaged people. They are people who change their address—people who go from one place to another. It may be a case of somebody who is a victim of domestic violence. We all know that students frequently change their address. If these people incur some sort of debt and do not appeal the decision within 12 months, that is it.The legislation fails to define `special circumstances'. What are the special circumstances? Is a special circumstance a situation where a person has changed address and has not received notification? Is a special circumstance a case where a person ends up in hospital or, as I have mentioned, a case where a person has had a drug and alcohol problem or suffers from some sort of psychiatric illness? At the moment Centrelink has a problem in notifying people of overpayments. Within the last month I have seen people in my office who have been advised of debts that they incurred prior to April 1998. Centrelink is in a position where they can now levy these debts on people. It has taken Centrelink over 12 months to work out that these debts are owed, yet they will not extend the same consideration to their clients who may, for some reason or other, have incurred a debt but have not got around to appealing the debt within 52 weeks. A number of issues come into play here. I do not feel that this legislation takes account of them, and I do not think it spells out what the special circumstances are. The legislation is designed to create distress and confusion amongst people in the community, and I think this is something that this government is particularly good at. Once again it is attacking the most disadvantaged people in our community.In addition, this legislation will require that appeals to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal be lodged within 28 days. You might say, `Twenty-eight days is a month, that's plenty of time.' Although the current time limit for lodging an appeal is three months, they are further limiting the time. They are taking away people's right of appeal and restricting the rights of the most disadvantaged people. Centrelink clients lose all right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal if they do not lodge an appeal with the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, so it is a double whammy—and, as I have already said, it affects the most disadvantaged people. Twenty-eight days is not long. If a family in receipt of family allowance is away on holidays, by the time they get back the 28 days could have expired. I constantly see people who come into my office and say—as I know happens in the offices of other members—that they have not received letters from Centrelink. We do not know why that is, but it does happen.It is also questionable as to whether the Social Security Appeals Tribunal will be able to consider new information. By not allowing new information to be considered when they are making their decision, even though it can be referred to the secretariat, it is removing the right of people to get true justice, and it is drawing out the process. This bill also reduces compliance times for some, not all, Centrelink clients. This change to their com pliance times means that they will be obliged to advise Centrelink of changed circumstances within seven days instead of 14 days.At present, pensioners and young people receiving youth allowance and families receiving family allowance have 14 days to comply with the requirement to notify Centrelink of any changes to their circumstances. For instance, under this new legislation, if they receive money through a compensation claim they will be required to advise Centrelink within seven days. On the other hand, if there is a change to an interview requirement or some such thing it will be 14 days. This is confusing, complicated and bureaucratic.People have difficulty contacting Centrelink. There should be no reduction in the compliance time whatsoever until somebody can pick up a telephone, ring Centrelink and know they will get through. At the moment, there are long waits when people ring Centrelink. They are constantly disconnected and it is by no means a user-friendly system. Pensioners are constantly complaining to me about how difficult it is to get in touch with Centrelink and how confusing it is when they are trying to use the system. It is designed to create confusion and it is designed to affect those people that are most disadvantaged.This legislation also moves the international social security agreements, currently scheduled under the Social Security Act 1991, to a separate act. It does not significantly change the operation of the international agreements—except by allowing agreements to be added to and varied by regulation. Once again, the question is whether the separation of the act simplifies it or complicates it, and makes it harder to administer. I believe it is another move toward a bureaucratic system. It is not a change designed to improve the system; rather it is a change designed to complicate it. It will increase the red tape and make it harder for staff to work with the legislation and with clients of Centrelink. At a time when their numbers are being slashed by this mean spirited government, it will increase the workload of Centrelink staff. This legislation may appear to be quite benign but it could significantly disadvantage some Australians in receipt of Centrelink benefits.We heard earlier from the member for Parramatta. In a mean spirited way, he attacked all people in receipt of social security benefits. He showed his lack of understanding of the problems faced by people who are unemployed and by families that struggle within our community. I believe he is symbolic of a lot of people on the other side of this House. This is a government that does not understand the hurt and pain that a number of its policies have caused. It is a government that does not understand ordinary, everyday people. It is a government that does not understand that, if you take money away from the families, you hurt the children. It is the children who will suffer and often they are children who are in the most disadvantaged families in the community. They are children who have to battle extreme conditions and situations of domestic violence. Yet a member of this government argues that those children should be punished.The member for Parramatta argued that indigenous children should be penalised if they do not attend school. He also argued that anybody who is unemployed and in receipt of social security benefits should have those benefits cut after they have been unemployed for a period of time. He showed a lack of understanding of the problems that ordinary Australians are facing each and every day of their lives. Legislation should be designed to help people get into work and help them improve their education. It should not be designed to punish the most disadvantaged people in the community. It should be legislation that is easy to administer and will help Australians.20:12:009403Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—I want to address a number of principles that underlie the administration of social security generally and some of the specific provisions of the Social Security (Administration) Bill 1999 . I understand this is a cognate bill, so I will address some broader principles to begin with. One of the most destructive arguments being advanced by a lot of conservative politicians and some commentators around Australia at the moment surrounds the con cepts of mutual obligation and welfare dependency. They are innocent enough—at least it may seem so—yet they have the potential to turn the contract that I believe exists between citizens and their government entirely on its head.There is a view abroad, amongst some of these people, that people on pensions and benefits do not want to work and will not make the transition to work without the threat and the imposition of penalties by the government. There are some—I am sad to say, especially in government—who seem intent on pushing what is essentially a punitive agenda rather than one which addresses the need to provide opportunities for all of our citizens, the contract that I talked about.In the provision of social security, we have seen a steady shift away from entitlement as a right once certain eligibility criteria were met to a position where payments are conditional on individualised, quasi-contractual arrangements between the benefit recipient and the relevant agency, and I think that causes problems for our society. This sort of quasi-contractual arrangement is most evident for the unemployed, particularly, as we have seen, for the young unemployed under the banner of the Work for the Dole scheme. It is supposed to turn passive recipients of unemployment benefits into active job seekers. We are seeing the language and logic of the market actively penetrating the provision of public services where I think they do not belong.One result of this is that the more familiar notions of citizenship and acting together—of collectivity, if you like—are devalued. As Brennan pointed out in 1996:They are about re-constituting citizens as consumers whose primary interests are personal and private . . . government is reinvented but citizenship, together with policies that bind us together in common cause with one another, is circumvented.And I must say I think that is a backward step. The problem, as with the industrial relations changes, is that this is a very unbalanced contract with little real power residing with the individual who is in receipt of benefits. Failure, or perceived failure to comply, is punished in a peremptory and often arbitrary fashion with appeal rights, as we see in this bill, being steadily eroded. On the other hand, any failure by the government—and there are many already—to deliver on its side of the bargain the mutual obligation does not attract any penalty at all. Indeed, there is often no public disclosure of these failures, unless by members of this parliament, and no public outrage either.The recipients of benefits are amongst the most disadvantaged in every sense, including access to the media, so their story does not get up. They are more likely to be pilloried than assisted. One of the ministers responsible for the labour market programs calls them job slobs and, with his colleagues, encourages the view that they deserve their fate somehow, that they are the undeserving poor, that they are losers—something that has been inserted into the Australian vocabulary from the United States—and which I want to totally repudiate.I am not opposed to the idea that recipients of taxpayers' funds have a responsibility to use those funds to the best advantage of themselves, their families and their communities. This should be true, I might say, whether they are sole parents, farmers in receipt of agricultural subsidies or businesses given tax breaks for investment purposes. They all have an obligation. We do not hear much about the last of those two groups. For unemployed people, clearly, this means providing for themselves and their families from the little they are given by way of cash payments—and it is little—looking for work and improving their education and skills to maximise their employment opportunities. I think everyone understands that. They do not need to be punished to make them understand it.On the other side of the ledger, the government side of the obligation, first of all there have to be jobs to take up and quality job training and education programs available to make people job ready. Neither is currently the case. Despite recent falls in the published unemployment figures, and I underline the word `published', there are still 10 job seekers for every one vacancy—we have to remember that—and probably many more who are so discouraged they do not identify themselves in ABS surveys. There are simply not enough jobs for everyone who wants one, particularly for unskilled older workers and inexperienced younger job seekers who will not be offered a job.The mutual obligation rhetoric is too easily used to make those on unemployment and other benefits appear to be responsible for the failings in our system which, of course, are beyond their control. These are the most powerless people in the community. In my experience, most people who are unemployed—and I am sure this is true of most members, if they think about it—are not willing volunteers to that condition. They do not want to be unemployed. Indeed, it is often the cause of great distress from which they would prefer to escape as soon as possible and do, given half an opportunity. Again, they do not need to be punished in order to make them seek work. They are keen to take any opportunity that becomes available. Most, and I think any of us would, clearly prefer to earn more than the unemployment benefit of between $86 and $163 a week, if they could. Only someone from a region with little or no unemployment and not a skerrick of empathy—like Mr Abbott from the electorate of Warringah—could describe these people as job snobs. He fails the Christian test, in my view, of being able to put himself in another's position charitably.Despite all the government's boasting, it is worth remembering that virtually all the jobs and all of the jobs growth have been in low paid, part-time and casual work. Even those in work often find themselves in poverty. As Michael Raper from ACOSS said in a recent speech:. . . social security benefits for low income and disadvantaged people are not causing dependency—when you look at those levels of income that I have talked about—they are keeping people alive.How else are they supposed to survive? A lot of the recent comment about increases in the number of people on disability support pensions, for example—and we have seen some of it again today—reflects a failure to understand that many of these people are the victims of the restructuring and downsizing of industries which formerly employed blue-collar workers, and many of them are getting on a bit. Their chances of employment now are realistically vanishingly small, especially if they have, after years of labouring—and I know plenty of them—illnesses and disabilities which prevent their working in many occupations and few transferable skills. We all know of discrimination against older workers or, if we do not, we should.Anyone with a disability, whatever level, faces substantial barriers to employment. If you are in receipt of a pension of this kind and are made to feel that you are somehow dissembling or malingering, that is a vicious and calculated insult. Indeed, the Department of Family and Community Services's own survey in 1997 found that, in addition to the disability itself, whatever it may be, factors inhibiting the return to employment of some of these people included: the lack of suitable work—a pretty important principle—discrimination on the basis of age or disability, and I might mention, too, pregnancy, as recently reported; the lack of suitable and affordable transport; the lack of appropriate education and training courses, which have been significantly cut in recent budgets; in many cases, especially with older workers and those with significant disabilities, the lack of skills for the work that is available; and, of course, in many cases, employer attitudes, which are of themselves a significant obstacle.Sadly, rather than assisting in overcoming these problems—which their own department has identified and which, frankly, you do not need to be a genius to work out—the government have cut dedicated funds and programs to assist entry and re-entry of those with disabilities into suitable employment or community activities. They are actually rolling back those programs.In my own state, for example, they have effectively gutted the very successful post-school options program for young people with disabilities. It took a lot of work to get cooperation between the state and federal governments. The program started in 1991 and it has been operating since then. It is suitable for all people with severe disabilities and takes them from school into supported work. At the moment, no new places are being funded, so the program will run down with those in existing places and new entrants will be accepted only if one of those in an existing place dies. That hardly helps those people with disabilities. Needless to say, the parents and the people themselves are very upset at that reduction in services.I think it is fair to say that at the moment, with the encouragement of the government, Australia's welfare system and, importantly, the debate about it are at risk of becoming very seriously unbalanced. In my view, there has been far too much emphasis on the obligations of the recipients—we hear it all the time—and their failings and not nearly enough emphasis on expanding opportunities for them and for the community thereby and on encouragement and involvement of those needing financial assistance in the design and implementation of appropriate measures. What about asking them sometimes what they think is a good idea?Ours, it has to be said, is already one of the most tightly targeted and conditional systems of social security in the world. Access, for example, is far more restricted than the minister responsible seems to understand, but for her and her colleagues the political benefits of bashing those on social security sadly appear to be irresistible—the classic `blame the victim' mentality. Blaming the victim instead of looking at the reasons for growing inequality and for the associated social problems will not only fail to solve the problem that has been identified but I think, most importantly, betrays those in the community who most need our intelligent commitment to policy, not to rhetoric or game plan.It also allows those, I must say, who have a disproportionate share of the community's wealth to avoid confronting the reasons for that maldistribution and what should be done about it. It is the easy way out. It is far easier for those who are, to use Galbraith's term, part of the `contented majority' to attribute continuing unemployment and poverty to individual shortcomings and a perverse refusal on the part of those unemployed to pull their weight than it is to attribute them to economic and social values and structures which we endorse which inevitably result in so-called social exclusion. They are the things we have to change—the values and the structures—not the behaviour of individuals in this case.This policy allows us to ignore the fact that as a nation we are rapidly becoming two societies—in income and employment. In the electorate of the minister responsible for many of these labour market programs, the unemployment rate is around two per cent, but in other parts of Australia it is as high as 25 per cent. Similarly, Gregory and Hunter's analysis of the economic distance between different parts of Australia showed that growing income inequality could be attributed in large measure to differences in rates of employment. As we all know and should not need to be told, unemployment is heavily concentrated in specific regional and rural areas where economic activity is in decline and/or the demand for unskilled labour is low. As Gregory and Hunter have suggested:It may be increasingly true to say that one half of Australia does not know how the other half lives.And the government apparently wants to keep it that way. Given the levels of unemployment and structural change both globally and nationally, I am amazed that there are some who still think such unemployment and such poverty can be fixed with policies which get tough on the dole bludgers, the welfare recipients. What is clearly needed, on the other hand, are imaginative policies which improve opportunities for people to contribute in some way to their society—and it may not always be in the paid work force—whether through paid work, supported employment, education and training or community participation. Some of those older people on disability support pensions probably cannot return to the labour market anymore, but I am sure they have things to offer our community. We should think of ways of employing them usefully in our society.Such programs need to be intensive—something that the government is apparently not prepared to do—well funded and based on principles, as I said, of encouragement and involvement, not of penalties and subjugation. In my view, it is the system, the economy, including governments, which have failed these people and not vice versa. These problems are being exacerbated, I might say, by huge cuts to employment programs and to Centrelink, which is often close to meltdown.GT4TRUSSMr Truss—Absolute rubbish, complete rubbish.XS4Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCE—Centrelink is often close to meltdown because it is under so much pressure from staff cuts and rapid, poorly planned change. The minister at the table says it is not happening, but I would have to say that, from the moment these changes were introduced, a steady trickle of complaints from Centrelink became a flood. Is the minister trying to tell me as a member responsible for a very varied electorate that all of these people were making up these difficulties, that the Centrelink staff who rang me in tears were making up these difficulties or that the number of resignations were being made up by these people? Centrelink, which employs some very good people but fewer and fewer of them, is in crisis and it is time the minister understood that.I will just give a couple of examples, since the minister apparently wants to suggest that there are no problems in this area. I think he needs to understand that the daily bread of any decent member's office is to deal with many of these problems. In one of the cases referred recently to my office, after referral from a Job Networker, a constituent moved nearly 100 kilometres to secure a new job. It looked like he wanted to get employment. His wife and his sick baby moved with him, away from the nearest children's hospital, I might say. The employer who was listed with a Job Network agency underpaid him and `lost his time sheets'. As a result, he left the job and moved back into my local area. He simply was not getting paid.Upon approaching Centrelink, he was advised that without a separation certificate—as if the employer would give him one under those circumstances—he would not be eligible to have his Newstart allowance reinstated. A little thoughtfulness should have prevented that decision. It was only after intervention by my office—when the fact that extenuating circumstances such as those can mean a separation certificate is not necessary—that his allowance was reinstated. This is the sort of person whose rights to appeal will be curtailed. My office has received a large number of similar complaints about Job Network agencies referring people to unscrupulous employers, something the minister should also address.To give another quite different example, a constituent twice informed Centrelink in writing that her fiance had moved in with her and asked for the appropriate forms to be sent to her so she could make the necessary disclosures. The new forms were not forthcoming. They were not sent and the constituent found that her family payments were cut off without any discussion or warning. On telephoning Centrelink—she did finally get through—she was advised that it was her problem that the forms were not sent to her because she did not follow the matter up promptly enough. So she should have known in advance that they were not going to arrive. Again, these are the sorts of decisions where appeal will be far more difficult under the circumstances of this legislation.I think it is time in Australia for a bit of a compassionate rethink, particularly by this government. I think it is time that they have a good hard look at the contract between the government and their citizens. I think it is time they made it possible for people to be encouraged rather than discouraged, to take part rather than sit at the margins; otherwise before too long this will be a society in which we can truly say we are two nations within one. That is not an outcome I think anyone in this parliament would want to endorse, although, given the comments of some members opposite, I sometimes wonder about that too.20:31:009407Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—I wish to focus my comments primarily on the Social Security (International Agreements) Bill 1999 and the issues surrounding that bill, although I will have something to say about the general social security situation. When you consider the size of this legislation—look at it; this is the size of the legislation—the second reading speech of the then Minister for Community Services on this bill consisted of just three short paragraphs. That is the total statement he had to make on this fundamental issue of social security and international agreements.If you were to consider that, you would think there were no problems in this area. You would think there were no problems about the issue of international agreements on social security. Of course, the minister would be aware that I have raised a number of questions on notice in relation to this matter, particularly about the fact that we appear to have slowed down completely in relation to these social security agreements, especially with certain countries we have been negotiating with for years and years to try to achieve a reciprocal agreement on international social security. But we have failed to do so.I have raised questions about Germany, Croatia, Greece and Turkey. They are not the only countries affected, but they are four countries which I have had a particular association with in terms of my foreign affairs involvement. In each of those countries, we have failed to make much progress on social security agreements. We then have the minister producing this document which says:. provides for the consolidation of existing social security international agreements into a separate Act;. provides for new social security international agreements to be added to the Social Security (International Agreements) Act (once enacted) by way of regulation . . . But he does not explain how we are going to overcome some of the difficulties and problems in this area. Let me illustrate this by talking about the social security agreement between Australia and Greece, which has been delayed now for about 15 years. I do not say that it is all the fault of the current government. There have been problems.GT4TRUSSMr Truss—That is generous of you.QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—Minister, I have been working on this matter both when we were in government and in the current context. I want to know when we are going to be able to resolve this issue and the issue of the three countries I mentioned. In relation to the situation with Greece, the fact is that the government has decided that it is going to change the provisions from those which were given to other European countries such as Italy. The offer which was made for a social security agreement with Greece is completely different from that which has been signed with Italy. Why is that the case? It is the case because the government decided that the agreement which it signed with Italy was one which it was not overly happy with.In fact, I understand—and maybe the minister can illuminate this for us—that there have been attempts to renegotiate or rediscuss the agreement with Italy on the basis that Italy received too generous an arrangement according to the current government, although I am not sure the Italian community thinks that way. Therefore, the provisions which were offered to Italy were not offered to Greece. As a result of that, the government of Greece decided that it could not understand why the provisions which were offered to Italy should not also be offered to Greece and the government of Greece has decided that it does not want to proceed on an agreement until the provisions which have been received by Italy are also offered to Greece.On 13 May this year, I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services a set of questions about the social security agreement with Greece. This followed my asking a number of questions about the agreement with Germany, the agreement with Croatia and the agreement with Turkey. The kinds of responses that we have been getting from both Ministers Newman and Truss on these matters have been such that they are not really dealing with the issue. For example, I asked:Is it a fact that the Australian Government is insisting on an agreement with Greece which is different from those with other European countries, in particular imposing a 49-year period rather than a 25-year period; if so, why?The minister answered:Australia desires a reciprocal Agreement with Greece. The same formula, as used with other European countries, would be applied to people leaving Australia to live in Greece after an Agreement is implemented. The only difference is that the combination of Australian and Greek working life residence will be used to work out the Australian rate of pension for people who have already resettled in Greece. This is necessary due to the limited coverage of Greece's social insurance scheme and because Australia wants to achieve the same level of reciprocity that has been achieved in Agreements with other European countries.If you can get through all that gobbledegook, it basically means that we are prepared to sign a social security agreement with some countries, provided they have a system of social security themselves which has provided substantial coverage for their people over the last 30 or 40 years. If, on the other hand, their social security system has not provided sufficient coverage from our understanding of the matter—or, more precisely, from the understanding of our bureaucrats in the department of social security—or the social security system of Turkey, Greece or Croatia is insufficient and does not provide enough in the domestic context, they say, `We'll use this as an excuse for demanding different conditions from those countries signing a social security agreement than we do with Italy and with other European countries.'This is going to create a situation in Croatia, Turkey and other countries around the place—and it has in the case of Greece, where they have been waiting for 15 years—in which we virtually make it impossible to proceed on social security agreements. As I said, the minister gives us this new bill, which is supposed to show how much the matter is under control, but then has nothing to say in the second reading speech about all the issues which are confronting us in this very serious area. Why is this a serious matter? It is a serious matter because, in relation to these agreements, we are talking about Australian citizens who have worked in Australia, many of them for 20, 30, 40 or 50 years, and have decided that they want to live out the last years of their lives in the country from which they originally migrated. They are looking at an agreement which allows for reciprocity in relation to pensions and benefits.If a person who has the pension goes from Australia to Italy, for example, there are many things which they are not likely to benefit from which they can benefit from in Australia. They do not benefit from the seniors card or various other concessions in Italy that they are able to gain in Australia. Basically, all they get is the pension and, in some countries, an agreement in terms of health provisions with the Medicare system. That is about all.This is a serious matter because, as you are aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, the current government has decided that it does not want to allow people's parents to come to Australia. We have a situation in the current immigration program where we have now limited the `elderly parents' category to fewer than 500 positions a year. There are 20,000 applicants in this area alone. Of course, many of them would be coming here under social security agreements, and the government of Italy or another government with which we have an agreement would be paying their pension. Those elderly people would come here and have their pensions paid by that government under the agreement. Where is the spirit of the agreement? The spirit of the agreement has been destroyed by the policy on immigration in relation to elderly people. Those 500 positions are not just for elderly people; they are also for brothers and sisters. You can just imagine—if we were to try to process all those people, it would take us about 40 years.Mr Kerr interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Kelly)—The member for Denison will restrain himself.QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—The member for Denison is supporting what I am saying. He knows what I am talking about.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Get on with it, please.QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—He knows what I am talking about because he was the shadow minister for immigration. The fact is that we sign these agreements in good faith and yet in our immigration program and in our visitors visa program—that is another issue as well—we do not show the spirit which is supposed to be behind these agreements for elderly citizens coming to live with their children here in Australia and having a social security pension provided by another country. There is a lopsidedness in the whole matter. The governments of Italy, Greece, Turkey, Croatia and Germany do not say that they are going to stop somebody from going back to live the rest of their life in one of those countries, which is what we are doing under the current immigration program.Unfortunately, in the last few years the immigration program has lost all sense of humanitarian obligation. This is one of those areas. I would like the Minister for Community Services, who is at the table, to tell me this: if you are serious about the signing of agreements with the countries that I mentioned, what progress is being made? Why don't you make a statement to the parliament about the progress in this area? Here was a golden opportunity to do so with this bill, and nothing has been done.The situation in the case of Greece and these other countries is stalemated. Let me tell you a little bit about the Croatian situation. There is no social security agreement with Croatia because it was decided that their social security system was somehow inadequate for us to have an agreement. But we did not tell the Croatian government that. We said to the Croatian government, `We'll talk about this.' However, the last serious discussion that took place on this matter—before I raised it in parliament—was in 1995. It was only after I raised it in a question to the minister that bureaucratic discussion suddenly took place on the Croatian matter. For a number of years, the whole thing had been frozen not only at a ministerial level but at the level of the bureaucracy. Nothing had been done in relation to a social security agreement, not even discussions of the groundwork between Australia and Croatia.In relation to Turkey, we are nowhere. We have not progressed the matter, notwithstanding the fact that we have an estimated 100,000 citizens of Turkish background, some of whom—because they are ageing and have made a contribution to Australia—wish there to be a social security agreement so that they can perhaps go and live the last part of their lives in Turkey. And what about those young Turkish people who are trying to bring their parents here to participate in a social security agreement with Turkey? Nothing is happening.In the case of Greece, we have had a huge and unbelievable saga. The last Minister for Social Security in the Labor government, Mr Peter Baldwin, put forward a number of proposals for the solution of the impasse in the social security agreement with Greece. Unfortunately, shortly after those proposals were put forward, we lost government. It is unbelievable what happened after we lost government in 1996, and I am not sure that the minister at the table is aware of this. Senator Newman decided to completely change the proposals that had been put forward by Mr Baldwin and to go back to square one and much tougher and totally unacceptable proposals were put to the government of Greece. This resulted in acrimonious debate between the government of Greece and the government of Australia. For two years, nothing happened in these discussions because the government of Greece was asking: how can you go back from the proposals put forward by Mr Baldwin?Just before the election, Minister Newman decided that there could be a bit of problem with this issue and with certain votes in the ethnic community. Therefore, she suddenly decided that the Baldwin proposals might have some substance to them. She decided to review the whole matter and went back to the Baldwin proposals—or, at least, to a version of the Baldwin proposals, because we do not know the fine print of the proposals. All we know is that the minister was prepared to go back to something like the Baldwin proposals. After two more years lost, and now another year lost since the last election, nothing has been achieved in terms of this social security agreement. Not only have some of the people who would have been eligible under this agreement not gained the benefits of such an agreement but many of the people are dying. Many people who contributed many years of their working lives to the Australian community are not getting the benefit of a social security agreement, and they are dying.Minister, I call upon you to update for this House the answer that you gave to me on 13 May in relation to the social security agreement with Greece and in which, in the fourth clause, you said:(4) The Australian Government would be prepared to discuss the issue at a ministerial level if neces sary, once the position of the Government of Greece is known.As far as I am aware, the government of Greece has made its position clear to the Australian authorities, and it is time to act on that agreement. It is also time to act on the agreements in relation to Germany, Croatia, Turkey, Lebanon and a number of other countries. We need to take action in this area. (Time expired)20:51:009410Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—I would like to thank all honourable members, including the previous speaker and the member for Parramatta, for their contributions to the debate on these social security bills. This package of bills gives effect to the government's commitment to implement a simpler and more coherent social security system. I am pleased to bring forward these bills to the House and am confident that all members will see the benefits of the simplified arrangements contained in the bills. This legislative package comprises three bills: the Social Security (Administration) Bill 1999 , Social Security (International Agreements) Bill 1999 and Social Security (Administration and International Agreements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 .As I have said, these bills serve to simplify existing social security arrangements. The Social Security (Administration) Bill 1999 will provide the means to relocate and consolidate existing technical rules for a range of social security payments into one clear and concise set of provisions. In effect, it will bring about a major reduction in the length and complexity of social security law. For example, under these bills there will be only one section dealing with payment claims rather than individual claim sections for each payment type and for other benefits such as concession cards.The Social Security (Administration and International Agreements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 amends and repeals the provisions of the Social Security Act 1991 consequential upon the enactment of the Social Security (Administration) Bill 1999. The Social Security (International Agreements) Bill 1999 consolidates existing social security international agreements into a separate act. The bill also provides for a new social security agreement to be added to the Social Security (International Agreements) Bill, once it is enacted, by way of regulation.I should also note that the package in the Social Security (Administration) Bill 1999 also gives effect to some of the recommendations of the Guilfoyle report. These include giving the Social Security Appeals Tribunal the ability to consider matters without having to convene—if it is not required—an oral hearing and also establishing a 12-month time limit in which customers may lodge an application to a Centrelink authorised review officer to appeal a renewable decision. At the same time, there will be scope to extend the time limit in special circumstances.While there appears to be general support for the bill, a small number of issues have been raised in relation to the Social Security (Administration) Bill 1999. I would therefore like to use this opportunity to state the government's position on a number of these issues. First, in relation to time limits on appeals, it does not surprise me to hear that the opposition is opposed to the introduction of both the 52-week time limit on seeking the review of the decision by an authorised review officer and the 28-day limit for appeals to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. However, it did come as a surprise to read that the opposition believes that A New Tax System (Family Allowance) (Administration) Act 1999 was amended to change both these periods in the Senate. The only time limit that was deleted as a result of amendments in the Senate was the 28-day time limit for appeals to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. This is why the government is seeking to amend the A New Tax System (Family Allowance) (Administration) Act 1999 to insert a 28-day time limit on appeals to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. The government is firmly of the view that the time limits should be introduced for the reasons given by Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. The government also believes that the power to extend the time limits in special circumstances will mean that the time limits will not operate to exclude the rights of review of various disadvantaged groups in the Australian community.Secondly, it is not intended that section 30 operate to exclude the availability of benefits to any person who currently receives them. It will be necessary to make a determination of the visas to be covered by that section so that it operates to the same extent as the current provisions of the Social Security Act 1991, and this will be done.Thirdly, there appears to be some confusion between those social security payments which are portable overseas and for which it is necessary to have the proposed section 51 to facilitate the payment of those payments overseas and those social security payments, such as special benefit, which have only a very limited portability. Payments for social security payments with limited portability are paid in Australia while the person is overseas. In fact, the application of the proposed amendment to section 51 by the Democrats may result in those people receiving their instalments once a month overseas instead of fortnightly in Australia. This could cause hardship to the recipients who have commitments to be met in Australia while they are temporarily overseas.Fourthly, the opposition is under the misapprehension that the government is reducing from 14 days to seven days the time allowed for notifying changes of circumstances. The Social Security (Administration) Bill 1999 has been drafted with great care to ensure that the 14-day notification periods in the Social Security Act 1991 that were inserted as a result of the amendments made by the Payment Processing Legislation Amendment (Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements) Act 1998 were retained. However, equally great care was required to ensure that the seven-day notification requirements for Newstart allowance that were not amended by the act did not become 14 days because this would have undermined the entire payment basis for that allowance.To receive Newstart allowance, a recipient has to give a statement that relates to the payment of their Newstart allowance in respect of a seven-day period. This has been a well-established principle. If the recipient does not give the statement, Newstart allowance is not payable and if, at a later time, a Newstart allowance becomes payable to the person an administrative breach reduction period applies to that person.A comparison between section 658 of the Social Security Act 1991 and proposed sections 66, 67 and 71 of the Social Security (Administration) Bill 1999 shows that the bill has in fact reduced the circumstances in which a notice can specify seven days to stimulus payment notices. The bill still provides for 14 days notice for all other notices, other than where a person receives a compensation payment.Similarly, the Payment Processing Legislation Amendment (Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements) Act 1998 did not alter time periods relating to the receipt of compensation payments. For example, the seven-day period provisions were specifically retained by amendments made in the Payment Processing Legislation Amendment (Social security and Veterans' Entitlements) Act 1998. While there may have been some 14-day periods in the Social Security Act 1991, the periods were standardised at seven days for all payments. Therefore, it is unclear why the opposition would be criticising the notification provisions aspects of the Social Security (Administration) Bill 1999.This package of bills meets the government's commitments to a simpler and more coherent social security system. A significant outcome of the package will be that there will be far less social security legislation—about 500 pages less—and it will be more consistent. I am sure that this will be of great benefit to community groups, Centrelink customers, Centrelink staff and the administration of social security law. The bill provides for legislation that, firstly, is consistent across payment types; secondly, facilitates movements between payment types; thirdly, is easier to administrate; and, fourthly, reflects the current and desired best practice in administration and customer service. I therefore commend the bills to the House.Question put: That the bill be now read a second time. The House divided. [9.05 p.m.](Madam Deputy Speaker—Mrs D.M. Kelly) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and ProceedingsQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.9412Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.21:10:009412Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—by leave—I move:(1) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 24), at the end of the clause, add: (6) Unless a contrary intention appears, a reference in this Act (other than a reference in section 244): (a) to this Act; or (b) to the social security law;includes a reference to regulations made under section 244.(2) Page 23 (after line 16), at the end of Division 1, add:Subdivision J—Special provision for claims by persons in gaol etc.34A Special provision regarding certain claims by persons in gaol etc. (1) A person who is: (a) in gaol; or (b) undergoing psychiatric confinement because he or she has been charged with an offence; may make a claim for a social security pension or benefit or for a crisis payment not earlier than 3 weeks before the person's expected release day. (2) A day is a person's expected release day for the purpose of subsection (1) if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person will be released from gaol or psychiatric confinement on that day.(3) Clause 36, page 26 (after line 17), insert: (6A) The Secretary must determine that a claim made in accordance with section 34A for a social security pension or benefit or for a crisis payment is to be granted if the Secretary is satisfied that: (a) the claimant: (i) is in gaol; or (ii) is undergoing psychiatric confinement because he or she has been charged with an offence; and (b) the claimant is expected to be in gaol or undergoing psychiatric confinement for at least 14 days; and (c) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the claimant will be released from gaol or psychiatric confinement on or before the day that is the claimant's expected release day for the purposes of subsection 34A(1); and (d) either: (i) in the case of a claim for a social security pension or benefit, the claimant is qualified for the pension or benefit; or (ii) in any case, the claimant is expected to be qualified for the pension, benefit or payment immediately after the claimant is released from gaol or psychiatric confinement; and (e) the pension, benefit or payment is expected to be payable to the claimant immediately after the claimant is released from gaol or psychiatric confinement.(4) Clause 46, page 32 (after line 22), insert: (1A) If a claim for crisis payment is granted because of subsection 36(6A), the Secretary may pay an amount equal to the amount of the crisis payment to the claimant before the claimant is released from gaol or psychiatric confinement if the Secretary thinks it is necessary to do so in order to ensure that the claimant, on release, will not suffer severe financial hardship. (1B) If an amount is paid to a person under subsection (1A), the amount is taken, after the person's release from gaol or psychiatric confinement, to be a payment of crisis payment made in relation to the claim referred to in subsection (1A).(5) Clause 50, page 34 (after line 29), insert: (1A) If: (a) a claim for a social security pension or benefit is granted because of subsection 36(6A); and (b) the Secretary makes a determination under subsection (1); the amount payable by virtue of that determination may be paid before the claimant is released from gaol or psychiatric confinement if the Secretary thinks it is necessary to do so in order to ensure that the claimant, on release, will not suffer severe financial hardship. (1B) The operation of subsection (1A) is not affected by section 1158, 1162 or 1162A of the 1991 Act.(6) Clause 62, page 44 (line 14), after "applies", insert ", other than a person to whom subsection (2A) applies,".(7) Clause 62, page 44 (after line 25), insert: (2A) If the Secretary is of the opinion that a person who is receiving, or has made a claim for, a newstart allowance should: (a) attend an office of the Department; or (b) contact the Department; or (c) attend a particular place for a particular purpose; or (d) give information to the Secretary; the Secretary may notify the person that he or she is required, within a specified time, to: (e) attend that office; or (f) contact the Department; or (g) attend that place for that purpose; or (h) give that information; as the case may be.(8) Clause 62, page 45 (line 3), omit "a newstart allowance or".(9) Clause 62, page 45 (line 5), omit "newstart allowance or".(10) Clause 62, page 45 (after line 9), insert: (3A) If: (a) a person is receiving, or has made a claim for, a newstart allowance; and (b) the Secretary notifies the person under subsection (2A); and (c) the requirement of the notification is reasonable; and (d) the person does not comply with the requirement; a newstart allowance is not payable, and if, at a later time, a newstart allowance be comes payable to the person, an administrative breach rate reduction period applies to the person.(11) Clause 62, page 45 (after line 23), insert: (5A) The Secretary may notify a person for the purposes of subsection (2A) by sending a written notification by prepaid post addressed to the person at the postal address of the person last known to the Secretary. This subsection does not prevent the Secretary from notifying the person in any other way.(12) Clause 62, page 45 (lines 24 to 31), omit subclause (6), substitute: (6) The Secretary may determine:(a) that a social security payment that was not payable because of paragraph (3)(f) or subsection (3A) is payable to a person; or (b) that an administrative breach rate reduction period does not apply to a person under paragraph (3)(e) or subsection (3A); if the Secretary is satisfied that the person had a reasonable excuse for not complying with the requirement under subsection (2) or (2A), as the case may be.(13) Clause 62, page 46 (line 3), after "subsection (2)", insert "or a notification under subsection (2A)".(14) Clause 63, page 48 (lines 1 to 10), omit paragraphs (h) to (k), substitute: (h) if the person is a person referred to in paragraph (1)(e), (f), (g) or (h): (i) newstart allowance or youth allowance, as the case may be, is not payable; and (ii) if at a later time, such an allowance becomes payable to the person, an administrative breach rate reduction period applies to the person; and (iii) in the case of a person referred to in paragraph (1)(f), the person ceases to be exempt from the activity test under Subdivision BA of Division 1 of Part 2.12 of the 1991 Act; and (iv) in the case of a person referred to in paragraph (1)(h), the person ceases to have a temporary incapacity exemption under section 542A of the 1991 Act.(15) Part 4, Division 1, page 102 (line 3), omit the heading, substitute:Division 1—Effect of Part(16) Part 4, Division 1, page 102 (after line 9), insert: 123A Decisions by officers under instruments For the purposes of this Part, a decision made by an officer under an instrument (other than regulations or a disallowable instrument) made or issued under this Act or the 1991 Act is taken to be a decision under the social security law.Division 1A—Internal review(17) Clause 124, page 102 (line 12), omit "and section 125".(18) Clause 141, page 116 (line 12), after "under section 124", insert "or 134".(19) Clause 235, page 169 (line 5), omit "subsections (3) and (5)", substitute "subsection (3)".(20) Clause 235, page 169 (line 8), omit "but in spite of subsection (5)".(21) Clause 235, page 169 (line 22) to page 170 (line 4), omit subclauses (5), (6) and (7).(22) Clause 244, page 173 (line 17), after "this Act", insert "or the 1991 Act".(23) Clause 244, page 173 (line 19), after "this Act", insert "or the 1991 Act".(24) Clause 244, page 174 (line 10), omit "this Act", substitute "the social security law".(25) Clause 245, page 175 (line 11), omit "(Administration) ", substitute "(Administration and International Agreements) ".(26) Clause 248, page 176 (line 15), omit "(Administration) ", substitute "(Administration and International Agreements) ".(27) Schedule 2, clause 4, page 188 (after line 9), insert: (3A) Subclause (3) does not have effect in relation to a claim for a crisis payment or for a social security pension or benefit.(28) Page 222 (after line 14), at the end of the Bill, add:Schedule 5—Provisions consequential on the enactment of the Commonwealth Services Delivery Agency Act 19971 References to the Secretary and the Department—requirements etc. by delegate (1) If the Secretary delegates to the CEO or an employee of the Agency a power under the social security law to require or request a person to give the Secretary a document or information, the delegate may, in exercising the power, require or request the person to give the document or information to the CEO instead of the Secretary. (2) If the Secretary delegates to the CEO or an employee of the Agency a power under the social security law to require or request a person to give or send to, or lodge with, the Department a document or information, the delegate may, in exercising the power, require or request the person to give or send the document or information to the Agency, or lodge it with the Agency, instead of the Department. (3) A person who: (a) gives a document or information to the CEO; or (b) gives or sends a document or information to the Agency, or lodges it with the Agency; in compliance with a requirement or a request by a delegate of the Secretary is to be treated for all purposes as if the person had: (c) given the document or information to the Secretary; or (d) given or sent the document or information to the Department, or lodged it with the Department; as the case may be, in compliance with a requirement or request by the Secretary. (4) A person who: (a) does not give a document or information to the CEO; or (b) does not give or send a document or information to the Agency, or lodge it with the Agency; in compliance with a requirement or request by a delegate of the Secretary is to be treated for all purposes as if the person: (c) had not given the document or information to the Secretary; or (d) had not given or sent the document or information to the Department, or lodged it with the Department; as the case may be, in compliance with a requirement or request by the Secretary.2 References to the Secretary and the Department—directions by Secretary (1) Subject to subclause (3), if: (a) the Secretary delegates to the CEO or an employee of the Agency all or any of the Secretary's powers under the social security law; and (b) the delegation makes a reference to the Secretary, the Department, or an officer of the Department, in another provision of the social security law inappropriate, whether for administrative reasons or any other reason; the provision has effect as if: (c) the reference to the Secretary were a reference to the CEO; or (d) the reference to the Department were a reference to the Agency; or (e) the reference to an officer of the Department were a reference to an employee of the Agency; as the case requires. (2) The Secretary may direct that a provision to which subclause (1) applies is to have an operation different from that provided for by that subclause. (3) If the Secretary gives a direction under subclause (2) in relation to a provision, the provision has effect in accordance with the direction while the direction is in force. (4) A direction under subclause (2) comes into force on the day on which it is notified in the Gazette , or on such later day as is specified in it, and remains in force until it is revoked. (5) A direction under subclause (2) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 .I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum.21:11:009415Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—I thought I should rise as the former Minister for Justice who commissioned a report from the Administrative Review Council—the independent body charged with the oversight of administrative law—which is called Better Decisions . I would ask the government for some explanation as to why the thrust of that report has been ignored in respect of these amendments.I particularly ask why the recommendations in Better Decisions about the SSAT process, which recognised the importance of there being a number of participants in the decision making process, have been ignored. Secondly, I ask why the efficiencies and the simplicity of the system by which a person could simply turn up and present their case straightforwardly will now be diminished by the fact that submissions are essentially going to be required in writing. Provision of claims in writing is not something that most applicants for social security benefits are particularly strong at. What was previously a simple, straightforward process seems as though it will now be dragged back—for the convenience of this government in trying to diminish the number of opportunities that people have for a proper review of their cases—to a process which is not in line with the independent advice that this government has received. I would ask the Minister for Community Services for some explanation of that decision.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.9416Bill (on motion by Mr Anthony)—by leave—read a third time.Bills9416r8289416Consideration resumed from 3 June on motion by Mr Truss:.That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.9416Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.Amendment (by Mr Anthony) proposed:(1) Clause 3, page 2 (lines 5 to 10), omit subclauses (2) and (3), substitute: (2) A reference in this Act (other than the reference in section 4) to the social security law is a reference to this Act, the Social Security Act 1991 and any other Act that is expressed to form part of the social security law. (3) A reference in this Act to a provision of the social security law is a reference to a provision of this Act, the Social Security Act 1991 or any other Act that is expressed to form part of the social security law.21:15:009416Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—I was going to be more modest in my contributions but, having asked a question and elicited absolutely no reply from the government, I have to say that I am pretty shocked. I am shocked because it seemed a pretty reasonable sort of request to make when the government has before it advice from the Administrative Review Committee, which reviewed the whole conduct of administrative law, and when the Attorney-General came down with a response broadly welcoming its recommendations and indicating that that would be the course and direction in which the government would be proceeding—and not the Labor Attorney-General but the current Attorney-General.It does seem a reasonable point to ask of the government why it is that in this area the government is determined to deprive those who go before the Social Security Appeals Tribunal of what would be an expeditious and proper process for the hearing of those matters, whereby they can bring their evidence in oral form without it being required to be put in writing, in a simple forum which is convenient for them to access. I am going to ask that question again and, if this minister does not have the wherewithal or the wit to provide an answer to that, that is obviously a black mark in respect of his carriage of this legislation.This government has to recognise that, when it is charged with the responsibility of administering the Social Security Act, a multitude of decisions are made which affect people in a very direct way. The time periods that affect people now in terms of decisions are extending out. The member for Grayndler has mentioned that it is taking up to seven days for constituents in his electorate to even receive an appointment. When people do get adverse decisions, they want a simple, expeditious, cheap and effective opportunity for review. Now why can't they have it?What public interest is there in damaging the effectiveness of an organisation that essentially has been without any substantial criticism in the whole process of administrative review? Indeed, when the ARC looked at these processes, it said that there would be an advantage in an overall approach in administrative law which could comprehend the SSAT type of process; it recommended that as one which was efficient, effective and simple and which provided an opportunity for good, simple review.We do not need complex processes. We do not need lawyers. We do not need all the complexities that go with some of the other areas of administrative law. We want to have a process that is straightforward, cheap and accessible. So we would like to have an answer. We are puzzled as to why the government is proceeding in this way. It seems superficially completely against both the policy directions that this government has committed itself to and the objective interests of those in the community who run up against difficulties in their dealings with the social security department. Do not tell us that there are not people who run into trouble with the social security department. There are a number of people who have had very significant problems, and any minister with any wit will accede to that proposition.What is the way to deal with it? The way to deal with it is to have a simple and effective mechanism for determining how to deal with those complaints. It is not sufficient to say that we are now going to change the nature of the tribunal so that we do not have a range of expertise there, nor is it sufficient to say that people now have to present their complaint in writing, as if it were some form of pleadings—which has so bedevilled the whole legal system.The nature of the review process in the SSAT has always been intended to be simple. It is meant to be that, even if a person is not particularly able to command the English language as effectively as people who do in the ordinary court system—because often they are the people who are the subject of Social Security decisions—they are able to get a fair go. So why are you interfering in a process that has worked so well and diminishing those rights of review?21:20:009417Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—I am delighted that the member for Denison is showing so much interest in this and I acknowledge some of the work that he has done before. There was a review done—the Guilfoyle report—which looked at the SSAT, the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and made some significant recommendations. Firstly—and it is not unreasonable at all—if you do have a particular grievance with Centrelink, there should be a time limit placed on that. We have said in this legislation that there should be a 12-month time limit. If you have a particular case that you are unhappy with, we want you to bring it to Centrelink within 12 months rather than in one or two years, as is currently the open-ended nature of it. That is not unreasonable at all.That then goes to a Centrelink authorised review officer who will look at your case. If you are unhappy with the result of that case and you wish to take it to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, we are saying that we would like you to do that within 28 days. It is quite logical and quite methodical, to ensure that the customers of Centrelink who do have a problem with a particular ruling can have the case dealt with within a reasonable period of time.An interesting fact is that, even with the previous legislation, the ANTS package, the new tax system act that went through the Senate, this was actually considered in quite some detail in the Senate. It is quite reasonable. It puts balance back into it but also gives customers of Centrelink who have a particular grievance the opportunity to appeal within a reasonable period of time.21:22:009417Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—The Minister for Community Services has answered only one of the issues raised in questions from the member for Denison. It is quite disappointing that in introducing the Social Security (Administration) Bill 1999 the minister only spoke for a few minutes and that in response to the concerns raised in this debate about this legislation by the Australian Labor Party he gave only a very short response which did not address the very real and practical problems that we see. So I ask the minister to address some of the other issues which we have raised, which he has failed to give a response to.The first is the changes to the composition of the group who will sit on hearings of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. At the moment there is a minimum requirement of three members. That is for very good reason. That is so that you have a broad range of views represented. There is normally someone with a legal background, someone with a welfare background and a representative of the Department of Family and Community Services. That is for very real and practical circumstances.The bill will allow just one member of the SSAT to hear an appeal, and that is inappropriate. Unless you have that breadth with a minimum of three members, you could have someone from the department or from the welfare sector hearing an appeal which is based upon legal matters of consideration which they do not have the expertise to consider or you could have someone with a legal background sitting on an appeal of someone who has severe psychological trauma. That is why when the Australian Labor Party was in government we made sure that the SSAT had a minimum of three members. In fact, we allowed for an extra member to sit on it as well—a fourth person, a health expert—where a matter was to be determined in which health was a primary issue.The issue of oral evidence before the tribunal has not been addressed at all by the government. It is a discriminatory provision. The whole basis of the SSAT is to introduce a level playing field, not to introduce a tribunal whereby those who are more articulate, who are able to put down their arguments in writing, are able to get better representation than those who may be from non-English speaking backgrounds, who may be disadvantaged, who might not have the literacy skills and capacities which we hear a lot from this government about. Here is a very practical issue. The government says it recognises that not everyone in Australia has adequate literacy skills, yet here we have a tribunal which is allowing oral evidence—a very important factor in the efficient running of the SSAT.We also have heard no justification whatsoever from the government for the requirement that the SSAT refer new evidence back to Centrelink. We have the government saying that it needs a seven-day time limit for one thing, a 28-day time limit for another and a 52-week time limit for something else. The minister has gone off to find out the answers. The minister should have found out the reasons for the legislation before he introduced it, not during the consideration in detail stage. But here we have the appallingly inadequate performance of the minister trying to find out the answers to these very real questions.We have had no response from this government during this debate about the changes to eligibility for special benefit or about why this government is pursuing the changes in this legislation. We hear from the minister that this is just about a few administrative arrangements. It is not. There are massive changes in this legislation, and that is why the ALP has raised through a number of speakers on the floor of the House the problems that we have and why we have foreshadowed the amendments that we will be moving in the Senate. As yet we have had absolutely no response from the minister. In fact, he has walked away. I am not quite sure where he is. I am about to sit down, but I ask that he answer the questions which I have raised.21:27:009418Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—I thank the member for Grayndler for his valued contribution. One of the points, though, that he did raise in his earlier discussion in the House was the notion that it takes four days, five days, seven days to get an appointment at his local Centrelink office. The fact is that that is totally incorrect. If you want to get an appointment in a Centrelink office at the moment and there are mitigating circumstances or it is an emergency, you can get an appointment on the same day. The average right across Australia is no more than three days.Regarding some of the points regarding the tribunal currently, yes, there is a limit of four members. We are proposing that that go to three members. If someone is appearing before the tribunal and the tribunal feels that it is not necessary for them to be there, then it is important that the written documentation is adequate. For many people—particularly those in my constituency in regional Australia—who are happy to provide the written evidence, not being at the tribunal is a major cost saving, and they are the customers. Even the High Court usually convenes with three members, so the notion that the opposition are using that there will be some kind of reduction in the quality of assessment that people will get from the SSAT is incorrect.21:28:009419Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—The minister quite clearly has not read the legislation. He speaks about three members. That is our point. This legislation allows the SSAT to hear cases with just one member. At the moment it is a minimum of three—that is the whole point that we are making. Your job is to tell this House why that change in legislation is occurring, why it is that just one person will be able to hear appeals. Your job is also to explain how one person can possibly consider appeals, given the different backgrounds which are there, and it is to explain why the Australian Labor Party's approach, when in government, of ensuring that there were three people—one with a legal background, one with a welfare background and one from the Department of Family and Community Services—was wrong. That is our point. In answer to our questions we do not expect to get a justification for what we did in government. I agree with you that three is the correct number, but this legislation brings it down to one.21:30:009419Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—I return to the point that we raised about the inconsistency of the approach that the government has taken with respect to this legislation and the fundamental commitment of the Attorney-General to the approach advocated in better decisions.I am troubled by the quick reference to the reasons for facilitating hearings by the presentation of written documentation. It is almost inevitable that, in a process that was initially designed to enable people to appear before an informal, simple tribunal, made up of a group of people from the community—often including legal practitioners, but with social workers and others who were aware of the diversity of the issues that somebody was confronting—they would then tease out from that person the actual nature of their complaint and have the matter resolved. It was not a process that was intended to be operated as a normal court of law where there are, in a sense, pleadings and definitions of issues and where, if you do not get it stated in an absolutely accurate form, you have your case dismissed on a matter of procedural technicality. The idea was to get substantive justice from an informal process which would then be the subject of further review if legal issues were thought to arise.Whatever the view of the administrative law review committee as to the approach of a pyramid system of administrative review, what they did commend was the straightforward system at the base level. The SSAT has, I think, been almost universally commended by members. I think very few members in this parliament would not have had occasion to advise constituents to go before a SSAT if they believed that there was some merit in a proposition. Normally, they would be able to say, `Well, you can be confident that you will have a reasonable hearing before people who will not approach this with undue technicality.' The constituent would be able to have their day before that tribunal, knowing that they had an independent and simple process where they were not trapped by weasel processes that they did not understand.As soon as you get to a situation where you start to substitute that informal face-to-face process with an expectation that there are written documents setting out the nature of the case in sufficient detail that it can be heard and determined by a tribunal, suddenly you move from an informal face-to-face oral process where the issues are teased out by discussion to one which essentially has a much more legalistic framework. That is not something I think that this parliament should pass upon lightly. This is a very low-level review process. We are not talking about hearings before the High Court or the Federal Court; we are talking about a first level administrative law review, before a tribunal, of issues affecting the welfare and the income support of ordinary citizens. They should be entitled, whatever their state of literacy or how ineffective, to go before the tribunal.The minister at the table says he thinks it will help his bush constituents to write a letter saying, `Well, here's what I rely on.' The truth is that many of our constituents who get into some difficulty before the social security department do not know the technicality of the law, do not know what to put in a letter, and need to tease it out in front of a tribunal which does understand those issues and can at least explore whether there is a way through it for that person. Often there will not be—many of these cases are dismissed because the law has been correctly applied—but the advantage of having this informal process is that people get a fair go. I can see a lot of the minister's bush constituents finding out to their detriment that his assurances were not worth a pinch of the proverbial cockie's.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.9420Bill (on motion by Mr Anthony)—by leave—read a third time.Bills9420r8309420Consideration resumed from 3 June, on motion by Mr Truss:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.9420Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.Amendments (by Mr Anthony)—by leave—agreed to:(1) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 24), at the end of the clause, add: (6) Unless a contrary intention appears, a reference in this Act (other than a reference in section 244): (a) to this Act; or (b) to the social security law;includes a reference to regulations made under section 244.(2) Page 23 (after line 16), at the end of Division 1, add: Subdivision J—Special provision for claims by persons in gaol etc.34A Special provision regarding certain claims by persons in gaol etc. (1) A person who is: (a) in gaol; or (b) undergoing psychiatric confinement because he or she has been charged with an offence; may make a claim for a social security pension or benefit or for a crisis payment not earlier than 3 weeks before the person's expected release day. (2) A day is a person's expected release day for the purpose of subsection (1) if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person will be released from gaol or psychiatric confinement on that day.(3) Clause 36, page 26 (after line 17), insert:(6A) The Secretary must determine that a claim made in accordance with section 34A for a social security pension or benefit or for a crisis payment is to be granted if the Secretary is satisfied that: (a) the claimant: (i) is in gaol; or (ii) is undergoing psychiatric confinement because he or she has been charged with an offence; and (b) the claimant is expected to be in gaol or undergoing psychiatric confinement for at least 14 days; and (c) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the claimant will be released from gaol or psychiatric confinement on or before the day that is the claimant's expected release day for the purposes of subsection 34A(1); and (d) either: (i) in the case of a claim for a social security pension or benefit, the claimant is qualified for the pension or benefit; or (ii) in any case, the claimant is expected to be qualified for the pension, benefit or payment immediately after the claimant is released from gaol or psychiatric confinement; and (e) the pension, benefit or payment is expected to be payable to the claimant immediately after the claimant is released from gaol or psychiatric confinement.(4) Clause 46, page 32 (after line 22), insert: (1A) If a claim for crisis payment is granted because of subsection 36(6A), the Secretary may pay an amount equal to the amount of the crisis payment to the claimant before the claimant is released from gaol or psychiatric confinement if the Secretary thinks it is necessary to do so in order to ensure that the claimant, on release, will not suffer severe financial hardship. (1B) If an amount is paid to a person under subsection (1A), the amount is taken, after the person's release from gaol or psychiatric confinement, to be a payment of crisis payment made in relation to the claim referred to in subsection (1A).(5) Clause 50, page 34 (after line 29), insert: (1A) If: (a) a claim for a social security pension or benefit is granted because of subsection 36(6A); and (b) the Secretary makes a determination under subsection (1); the amount payable by virtue of that determination may be paid before the claimant is released from gaol or psychiatric confinement if the Secretary thinks it is necessary to do so in order to ensure that the claimant, on release, will not suffer severe financial hardship. (1B) The operation of subsection (1A) is not affected by section 1158, 1162 or 1162A of the 1991 Act.(6) Clause 62, page 44 (line 14), after "applies", insert ", other than a person to whom subsection (2A) applies,".(7) Clause 62, page 44 (after line 25), insert: (2A) If the Secretary is of the opinion that a person who is receiving, or has made a claim for, a newstart allowance should: (a) attend an office of the Department; or (b) contact the Department; or (c) attend a particular place for a particular purpose; or (d) give information to the Secretary; the Secretary may notify the person that he or she is required, within a specified time, to: (e) attend that office; or (f) contact the Department; or (g) attend that place for that purpose; or (h) give that information; as the case may be.(8) Clause 62, page 45 (line 3), omit "a newstart allowance or".(9) Clause 62, page 45 (line 5), omit "newstart allowance or".(10) Clause 62, page 45 (after line 9), insert: (3A) If: (a) a person is receiving, or has made a claim for, a newstart allowance; and (b) the Secretary notifies the person under subsection (2A); and (c) the requirement of the notification is reasonable; and (d) the person does not comply with the requirement; a newstart allowance is not payable, and if, at a later time, a newstart allowance becomes payable to the person, an administrative breach rate reduction period applies to the person.(11) Clause 62, page 45 (after line 23), insert: (5A) The Secretary may notify a person for the purposes of subsection (2A) by sending a written notification by prepaid post addressed to the person at the postal address of the person last known to the Secretary. This subsection does not prevent the Secretary from notifying the person in any other way.(12) Clause 62, page 45 (lines 24 to 31), omit subclause (6), substitute: (6) The Secretary may determine:(a) that a social security payment that was not payable because of paragraph (3)(f) or subsection (3A) is payable to a person; or (b) that an administrative breach rate reduction period does not apply to a person under paragraph (3)(e) or subsection (3A); if the Secretary is satisfied that the person had a reasonable excuse for not complying with the requirement under subsection (2) or (2A), as the case may be.(13) Clause 62, page 46 (line 3), after "subsection (2)", insert "or a notification under subsection (2A)".(14) Clause 63, page 48 (lines 1 to 10), omit paragraphs (h) to (k), substitute: (h) if the person is a person referred to in paragraph (1)(e), (f), (g) or (h): (i) newstart allowance or youth allowance, as the case may be, is not payable; and (ii) if at a later time, such an allowance becomes payable to the person, an administrative breach rate reduction period applies to the person; and (iii) in the case of a person referred to in paragraph (1)(f), the person ceases to be exempt from the activity test under Subdivision BA of Division 1 of Part 2.12 of the 1991 Act; and (iv) in the case of a person referred to in paragraph (1)(h), the person ceases to have a temporary incapacity exemption under section 542A of the 1991 Act.Bill, as amended, agreed to.9422Bill (on motion by Mr Anthony)—by leave—read a third time.Bills9422r8669422Debate resumed from 30 June, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.21:37:009422Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—The A New Tax System (Taxation Laws Amendment) Bill (No. 1) 1999 seeks to implement two essentially administrative reforms which, nonetheless, are of vital importance to taxpayers. They are the amendments to the pay-as-you-go system, the PAYG, and the amendments to the running balance account arrangements. Labor does not oppose either of these proposals in principle. But, as the second reading amendment which is being circulated by the opposition states, we are concerned about the process relating to the legislation. This is really part of the business tax reform process and should therefore be dealt with in conjunction with other parts of that process. The most important elements are obviously those areas which have been reviewed by the Ralph committee. The government has now been sitting on the Ralph committee final report for a month. Why hasn't this report been released? Labor has consistently argued for its disclosure and an opportunity for consultation on the important issues contained therein—full consultation, that is, not narrow and secretive consultation. For all of his bravado on tax reform, the Treasurer's silence on the process associated with Ralph is deafening. Labor's position on the process of the Ralph report is straightforward and sensible: release it, consult on it, negotiate with Labor on it and identify the common ground, which will lead to speedy passage of agreed legislation.It was interesting as well as refreshing to hear the Prime Minister today in question time saying, `We are prepared to sit down and make sure that we have the most pro-investment taxation system coming out of Ralph.' He also said he was supportive of a `hands across the table exercise' with the opposition. If the Prime Minister wants hands across the table, why won't his Treasurer respond to correspondence from me seeking negotiations on the Ralph report and its recommendations? I sent correspondence to him, and to the chairman of the committee, John Ralph, three weeks ago seeking a briefing on the Ralph report so that we could analyse and be prepared for what we hoped would be the consultation period. We sought a comprehensive briefing and a commitment to negotiate the common ground but we have had no response.Here today we have the Prime Minister and the government posturing about dialogue but smirking in their hubris, having failed to productively respond to requests made weeks ago. This is the height of arrogance. I said to the House last week that 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. It also determines the extent of any Senate inquiry. We will judge the government's intention by their actions on this issue. The alternative will be another mad GST scramble at the end, with all of its imperfections.The government will not serve the business community, our competitiveness and the economy well if they pass up the opportunity for bipartisanship. The choice is still with the government but they should decide now whether they want a cooperative process or a repeat of the earlier experience. The Ralph process has been a good one. It was the process that Labor said it would follow. Stakeholders were involved in consultations with the committee and were able to have an input into and comment on the various discussion papers released over the months that the review was undertaken.Why are we departing from that formula now? As soon as we get to the business end of the process, to the time when decisions are being made, suddenly the secrecy of the government takes over. We know from the Federation Fund scandal that this government are afraid of scrutiny. We know that they will try to rort any proper process. They are afraid of open government and they run away from operating transparently. But this simply is not good enough in the current context. Businesses have a right to input into a process which will fundamentally affect them. Why should they have to wait in the dark until they are told of what is in store for them?The Ralph final report should be released—with the exception of market sensitive information and that is a judgment we recognise the Treasurer may want to make—immediately. In fact, it should have been released a month ago. The proposals in the report may come into operation as early as 1 January. That is only four months away, yet nobody knows what they are. What sort of a government are you running? There is no point in arguing the need for this comprehensive review and then ramming it through without any opportunity for people to contribute. Minister, what is the point of secrecy if you are not going to get the best outcome?It is a very difficult, if not impossible, timetable to meet, even if business knows what the government has in store for it. But it is arrogant in the extreme to simply say, as the Treasurer is, `We will release the report when we are good and ready and not before.'DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—That is right.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—It is right, the minister says. This is the way the Treasurer and his sidekick want to operate—arrogance, hubris, no effective consultation and no genuine commitment to bipartisanship. What is it that you are hiding? The Ralph report is an advisory report to government. It is not the government's proposals; it is the recommendations by an expert group. That is what it is. The public has a right to digest what the experts have to say and then to evaluate the government's response.So the current process is seriously deficient. If we add to this the fact that there is additional legislation both before the House now and supposedly coming in the future, we see that all proposals have to be considered together. That is our view. We should be treating them as a whole, as a package. We should be understanding the full implications of the totality, not piecemeal, so that the whole system can be evaluated properly.There are also other elements of the PAYG system which are not covered in this bill. We are told by the government that we will have to wait for a later piece of legislation to cover some vital areas of pay as you go, especially the reporting requirements of employers to the Taxation Office. This also simply is not good enough. Labor's position on this proposed process is summed up in our second reading amendment, and 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 calls on the Government not to proceed with the bill until:(1) the final report of the Ralph Committee, except for market sensitive information, has been released by the Government;(2) full consultations have been undertaken with relevant stakeholders regarding the report's proposals; and(3) matters directly related to this legislation (namely the reporting requirements of PAYG withholders to the Taxation Office which are critical to the proper evaluation of this legislation and are to be included in subsequent legislation) are before the House, so that the House can evaluate the full effects of this bill."I will be seeking to talk to this amendment when this bill continues to be debated. Australian businesses which already face the GST and the Y2K circumstances over the next 10 months are entitled to have some certainty about business tax. The motion I have just moved is aimed at providing that certainty, and it ought to be supported by this House.I want to go now to the specific provisions of the bill and, first of all, to the pay-as-you-go system. The bill proposes to introduce some of the provisions concerning the so-called PAYG system, announced by the government in its package last year. It deals with two categories of administrative issues.First, there are the withholding systems where payers, for example employers, are required to keep—that is, withhold—a certain amount of payments that they make to other persons and then send them to the ATO, the Taxation Office, on behalf of payees. The most well known of these systems is the pay-as-you-earn system for employees, but there are many differing types. Second, there are the payment systems, which are the arrangements by which tax instalments are sent to the Australian tax office by companies and individuals who are not employees. The withholding system will apply to payments made on or after 1 July 2000. The instalment system will apply for the 2000-01 income year and later income years.The Taxation Administration Act 1953 will be amended to enable the 11 existing payment and reporting systems—for example, pay-as-you-earn, the prescribed payment systems, the reportable payment systems and other withholding systems as well as the provisional tax and company instalment systems—to be abolished or replaced. The new pay-as-you-go arrangements will incorporate the following two systems.First, a pay-as-you-go withholding system will replace the PPS and the RPS systems and incorporate the main elements of the current pay-as-you-earn system. The remaining withholding systems which cover various payments—for example, dividends, interest and royalties—will also be standardised and become part of the new pay-as-you-go withholding system. Second, a pay-as-you-go instalment system will replace the current provisional tax and company tax instalment systems. Broadly, under this system, taxpayers will make payments in arrears, generally on a quarterly basis, that reflect their current trading and investment conditions or are based on last year's tax, and some small taxpayers will be able to choose to pay an annual instalment.The trouble with the legislation is that it is not complete. The House is being asked to approve a major new system which will completely alter both the withholding obligations and the tax payment obligations of all business taxpayers. This is of critical importance in the day-to-day operations of all employers. They need to know how the system will work in its totality, but the government is not telling them. Indeed, it may be that it does not know yet what the whole system will look like. Perhaps that is why we do not have the full proposals. But, either way, it is not acceptable.First, the amendments in this bill do not include the critical areas of recovery, procedural and evidentiary provisions to facilitate the commissioner recovering debts under the new pay-as-you-go withholding system. Australian businesses will have to get across the detail of this legislation and implement it perfectly from day one, or they potentially will face financial penalties and/or recovery action from the tax office. The government says in the explanatory memorandum that these further amendments will be introduced in a later bill as generic recovery rules for those debts and debts arising under other acts administered by the commissioner.If you are setting up your business systems in order to comply with the new arrangements, one of the key design features is the documentary trail that the system will generate. Obviously, this documentation will be critical in dealing with any inquiries from or disputes with the tax office.The only way that business can be certain that their new system will be adequate to comply with the new arrangements will be to know what the new provisions, such as the evidentiary provisions, will be. At the moment, they cannot be certain because the government has not yet made its proposals public. This would be bad enough in a normal taxation environment, but in the context of business having to cope with, firstly, the Y2K bug and its aftermath and, secondly, the massive complexities of implementing the GST it is unacceptable. This is not the only area where the bill is deficient.But the legislation before us today is critically deficient in terms of the integrity of the pay-as-you-go withholding provisions. The government claims that the new arrangements are supposed to assist in clamping down on the cash economy. It is a worthy goal and one that is supported by Labor, but it takes more than just words to make the tax system fairer. What it takes is a determination on the part of the government to make it happen and action to put in place the right legislative and administrative arrangements.Critical to this is the information system dealing with payments which constitute income. If there is no effective system in place to deal with this information, the integrity of the new system will not be guaranteed. But the bill before us today is silent on the key issue. Again, the government's answer is that contingent legislation will be introduced some time in the future with amendments detailing the reporting requirements of withholders to the commissioner. So business has not yet been told what its obligations will be in advising the tax office of the amounts that it has withheld from payments nor the details of amounts that it has paid where it has not withheld any tax.This bill deals only with the reporting requirements of withholders to payees. Standardising withholding arrangements is supported by Labor. If done properly, it should lead to lower compliance costs for business and administrative costs for government over time. That said, there are always transition costs in moving to new arrangements. This is especially so in the context of the GST being introduced at the same time as the Ralph business tax process.Labor indicated before the election that we would pursue this type of standardisation policy because of the potential for efficiencies and simplification. This is really building on the law simplification process started by Labor, known as the Tax Law Improvement Project, where we are systematically upgrading the law, simplifying it and standardising provisions where feasible.In addition, the proposals in the bill fill in a significant gap in the current withholding systems—that is, the treatment of workers employed by labour hire contractors. Workers employed by labour hire firms will be treated as employees and brought under the pay-as-you-earn net under this bill. This is a very important reform, as labour hire firms are growing very strongly and may soon employ a large proportion of the work force. It would be unfair to grant labour hire firms a competitive advantage over traditional employers by having a different rate of withholding for their employees compared to the employees in traditional employment roles. So this is an area that can be called reform, and Labor is happy to support this principle of equality.However, Labor has significant concerns about another aspect of the proposed withholding arrangements. The reason for concern is that there is currently a significant trend towards employees being reclassified as contractors, even though for all intents and purposes they work as if they are employees. These people are known as `dependent contractors', as they generally only work for one employer. They are contractors in name only, and they are often forced to change their status by employers.Unbeknown to these dependent contractors, they can lose many of their industrial rights when they cease to be employees. They can lose leave entitlements and other important conditions, such as workers compensation coverage. Even if the law covers these situations, very often the practice does not. Employers pursue this course for industrial purposes and they use the system as an inducement. This benefit to employees is largely tax driven and has the potential to severely erode the PAYE base.This tax benefit has two aspects. First, less tax is withheld when the payment is initially made. Twenty per cent is the general rate, which is much less than the comparable PAYE rate in well-paid occupations. Also, independent contractors are able to claim many more deductions than those available to employees. These claims are then made by dependent contractors as well. As news of these types of arrangements spread, obviously workers become interested in pursuing this option, as it can effectively be sold as a net pay rise. But the problem for these workers is that, if they are found out, they will cop the big tax bill, not the employer who has facilitated the arrangement.So the employers win by reducing their costs, with the employee losing entitlements and sailing close to the wind for taxation purposes. This so-called PAYE tax base erosion is estimated by the tax office to cost the system between $½ billion and $1 billion per year. It was estimated in the Buchanan report at over $2 billion per year, and it is growing as employers pursue contracting more vigorously.The problem with this bill is that it proposes that the PPS system be abolished. This will increase the tax incentive to change into a dependent contractor, as the current 20 per cent PPS rate will reduce to nil. Clearly, this will provide an even stronger incentive for dependent contractor relationships to flourish. It is true that those dependent contractors who enjoy the nil rate will have to be registered for GST purposes. However, this is still considered to increase the incentive for employees to convert to contractors.Without seeing the anti-avoidance provisions nor the employers' reporting requirements to the tax office, it is very difficult to argue that this system will in fact help to clamp down on the abuse of the PPS system. On this basis, Labor says we should not support the abolition of the PPS system, which at least normally collects 20 per cent of the payment, until we are satisfied about the integrity of the new pay-as-you-go system. We cannot be certain about that until we have the contingent legislation which I have mentioned before. Consequently, Labor is concerned that, in the absence of a comprehensive regime to match and cross-check the new proposed arrangements, the threat to the PAYE tax base can be expected to increase, not to decrease.Mr Hockey interjecting—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—The minister at the table says that I am a hard man. I am not. I am looking for fairness, and this government should not baulk at it. In addition, if the company tax rate is cut to 30 per cent, Joe, this will also increase the incentive for high income employees to operate as contractors through companies. This is a very difficult issue to address legislatively as obviously we do not wish to hamper the activities of legitimate small business contractors.Labor sponsored a Senate motion, which was carried, which requested that John Ralph's committee examine the issue in his review of business taxation. It is unclear if this in fact has occurred. We would like to know if it has. However, it is also expected to have been given some consideration in the Ralph committee final report. This is simply another reason why the government should release that report now so that the proposed solutions can be debated and evaluated. The revenue neutrality demand for the business tax exercise provides an opportunity to secure bipartisanship for this issue to be fairly resolved with an anti-tax avoidance measure. The resultant revenue would then be available as part of the tax reform process.Business has indicated privately to the opposition a commitment to look favourably at addressing this and other anti-avoidance mechanisms in the context of meeting the revenue neutrality test. We should remember that the substantial revenue associated with this bill, which is almost $5 billion over four years, cannot be taken into account in the revenue neutrality equation. Why? Because these measures were announced in the ANTS document and the revenue from them is not therefore available for the business tax reform process. These funds were used to partially fund the unfair GST tax package. They cannot be double counted in the business tax exercise.Labor supported this proposal without a GST prior to the last election. The main political issues in these administrative matters are the bringing forward of the timing of payments of company tax and the abolition of provisional tax. Currently, companies enjoy a benefit relative to pay-as-you-earn individuals in being able to pay some of their income tax liability after their income is earned. Pay-as-you-earn individuals on the other hand have amounts withheld when they actually earn their wages. Labor reduced this preference for companies considerably when in office. However, this company tax deferral benefits companies by billions of dollars per year. There is no equity case to continue the current arrangements. However, there will be some cash flow costs imposed on business in the transition to this pay-as-you-go system.This parliament should be mindful of the concerns of business about further costs being imposed on business. There are complicated transitional rules to attempt to ameliorate the effects. However, the objective is for the Commonwealth to obtain its tax revenues earlier and, by definition, this must impact on business cash flow. This disadvantage to business is not a reason to oppose the measure but should be borne in mind in careful consideration of the detail of the proposals. My colleague the member for Canning, who ran a small business prior to entering this place, will also be focusing on this aspect when she addresses the matter.Pay as you go will facilitate the abolition of provisional tax. This is a much hated impost by some who have to pay it based on the generally incorrect notion that provisional tax is a prepayment of tax. It is generally not. Provisional tax was introduced to try to roughly equate the timing of tax payments between pay-as-you-earn employees and non-employee individuals who, up until then, did not have to pay tax until after their income year had finished. This broad equivalence is achieved for most individuals by requiring them to pay an estimate of their tax for the year after nine months of the year. Thus, the taxpayer gets up to nine months deferral on paying most of their tax but must pay the rest three months early.While most taxpayers who have to pay tax will support getting rid of provisional tax, many will in fact be worse off under the quarterly pay-as-you-go system which will replace it. Many people in the community will think that they will get a great benefit from those proposals, but they will not. What they will get is a much more complex system which provides some marginal benefits to some taxpayers which are more than offset by the cash flow disadvantage that will be imposed on other businesses. It is interesting in the context of Ralph that there is talk of changing the taxation base by broadening it, either through the so-called cash flow option or through restricting specific tax expenditures to fund the cut in the corporate rate. It is just another reason why this bill should be held over until the Ralph report is released.Running balance accounts is the other area covered by the legislation. This refers to the process where the different taxation liabilities of business—that is, their own income tax and fringe benefits liabilities—are merged into a single account, the RBA, to simplify both tax compliance and tax administration. This merging process has started as an accounting practice of the ATO, but administration is still legislatively handled discretely in different areas of the ATO. The RBA will merge all tax liabilities and tax assets of the taxpayer and the resultant running balance will determine either the net amount that the taxpayer owes or is owed at any point in time. Labor is not opposed to this as it would provide benefits to both taxpayers and to the Commonwealth.In conclusion, whilst not opposing the thrust of the bill, we seek deferral of its consideration until the final Ralph report is released, consultations are held with stakeholders and related contingent legislation dealing with reporting requirements to the ATO is before the House. The matters dealt with are complex. Business should be given the opportunity to comment on the myriad specific proposals. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?83VEMERSONMr Emerson—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.22:07:009427Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise to support the government's measures in the A New Tax System (Taxation Laws Amendment) Bill (No. 1) 1999 . In following the member for Hotham, it is particularly interesting to see that after 13 years of Labor government they come in and say, `We need more time to examine this whole proposal—the pay-as-you-go tax and provisional tax provisions.' They had 13 years to fix the proposals and did nothing. The government has taken the initiative and has this as part of the new tax system proposals, which is quite a significant change. It will be a great plus for small business and is welcomed by the business community, yet Labor members say they want more time because there are discussions in place with the business community about other initiatives that are being considered by the Ralph report.Mr Deputy Speaker, you and I know that, during the 13 years that Labor was in power, many considerations were brought to the government as to how they could improve business taxation overall. But did they implement any to assist the corporate sector or the business sector generally? The answer is no. Yet we have the most significant, far-reaching reforms by way of taxation changes that this parliament has seen since Federation. We have introduced these proposals into the House and have them before us as part of the ancillary requirements for the bill, yet they are saying, `We need to look at what else you are thinking of.' Not only is this `can do' government looking at the whole aspect of changing the relationship between the states and the Commonwealth and providing incentives for exporters, tax cuts for the average salary and wage earner and real incentives for the people of Australia but it is also considering a whole range of other taxes.Mr John Ralph, who has been chairing the committee, has been considering other proposals. This government has introduced the most significant changes that we have seen to the new tax system, and it should not rest there. We should also be looking at other proposals. How else can business move forward? What other incentives are required to ensure that the economic miracle in Australia continues by way of our economic progress? How else can we ensure that we have four to 4½ per cent growth in the economy continuing at least for the short term and into the future?The member for Hotham is saying, `We want to know it all.' It is quite clear that this government have an agenda of reform and change and they are implementing that. The member for Hotham sits there on the sidelines and says, `If only we had had this initiative. If only we had had this vision of where we want to take this country.' You do not need to be an economic Einstein to understand the provisions before us. We are simply making a number of provisions simpler for the average businessperson to understand. Any small businessperson would know that one of the key tax requirements they must meet is provisional tax. It is quite an imposition each year: they suddenly have to meet a large tax bill.This is going to change all that. In the past you were faced with having to pay tax once a year—before you actually earned your income; this is a real pay-as-you-go situation. You will have this four times a year based on the income that you earn, then you pay the tax. It is not something that you pay up-front, where you can earn a lot more or, in some cases, a lot less and you bear the penalty as an individual self-employed businessman or businesswoman. These proposals take account of that. Instead of having to go to the tax office 22, 24 or 25 times, which is the average for the small businessperson, you need to go only four times. Everything is brought together in one simplified proposal in the provisions before us.For the average businessperson, this is a great revolutionary step. They look forward to the provisions of the Ralph report. As an individual and as somebody who has contact with the business community, I look forward to that as well. I am sure that we would all like to see a 30 per cent tax rate. Many in the community are advocating that. I am sure that if we had a tax rate of 30 per cent we would see many more businesses getting going, establishing in Australia and saying, `This is the place where real business opportunity exists. This is the place where government provides the incentives that we need.' With these provisions the government is looking after the businessman and woman in Australia.If we look at the provisions, firstly, there is only one income tax collection system. The new PAYG will replace provisional tax, company instalments, pay-as-you-earn tax, prescribed payments and reportable payments. It also draws together in one system all the other withholding arrangements like non- resident withholding, tax file number withholding and withholding from mining and natural resource payments. It is one income tax collection system.Secondly, all businesses will pay tax instalments at the same time. In the past, a small business person paid it up-front. A large corporation paid it after they got it. In these proposals, a single activity statement reduces the frequency of contact between the Taxation Office and businesses. At the moment, there are five different payment arrangements for businesses. Individuals must pay earlier than companies and before all of their income is earned. Companies pay later, after the income is earned in most cases and well after the end of the income year. Most businesses and investors will pay PAYG instalments on the income they receive each quarter. I do not think it could be fairer than that. You do not need to run out and say, `The sky is falling! We need more time.' It is a simple approach: you pay it each quarter, and everyone is the same. I can see various members in the House. We often advocate the proposal that like companies pay like tax. All businesses will pay the same tax every quarter.The next provision is that individuals paying their tax quarterly will pay after the quarter. Currently, most taxpayers pay a percentage of last year's tax, and individuals also pay an uplift factor. PAYG instalments will be based on actual income. What is fairer than that? It is not based on the estimate of last year and a projection carried out. It is based on what you earn. That has simplified the previous arrangements and is a much fairer provision. Taxpayers will pay less when they earn less and more when their income increases.The next provision is that the instalments will be based on income actually received in the quarter, which is a much fairer system. It takes account of fluctuations in earnings, which are quite common for many individuals and organisations. It will also be clearer which payments a business should deduct withholding tax from, making it easier for businesses to comply. There will be less need for an employer to make a difficult judgment about whether their payee is an employee or an independent contractor. The no-ABN withholding will also impact on the cash economy, making it more difficult for tax evaders.The member for Hotham was talking about the black economy and how we want to move on these tax evaders. Surely this system will make it easier to do so. It will be possible for businesses and their contractors to choose to enter into a voluntary agreement. Under these agreements, the businesses will withhold and, in most cases, the contractors will not have to charge GST. Finally, the new no-ABN withholding tax will impact on the cash economy by making it harder for unscrupulous operators to evade their fair share of tax. I think all Australians would say that that is appropriate and totally fair.There have been a number of criticisms of this bill, and I have heard the member for Hotham talk about some of them tonight. There is a criticism that the 200 pages involved in achieving reduced compliance costs by removing uncertainty and reducing the amount of paperwork and the number of payments will achieve the opposite. This is totally incorrect. The new clear English guidelines evolved in accordance with the policy we took in introducing the new tax system to ensure that people do not have to be taxation lawyers to understand how to comply with the new tax system. This is a simple approach. It is set out clearly in clear English guidelines, and this criticism of the papers that are needed is a total furphy.There is a criticism that this is adding to the Australian Taxation Office's burden. This complaint is totally erroneous. A company may have to contact the ATO up to 32 times per year to pay sales tax quarterly, PAYE every month, company tax quarterly, fringe benefits tax quarterly and so on—all on different dates. From now on, instead of these individual contacts for each aspect of the taxation reporting that they need to make to the ATO, they need to make just four reporting dates each year. The suggestion of an extra burden on the ATO is simply erroneous.The next suggestion is that the government should wait until businesses are acquainted with the new GST before introducing PAYG. This was the line that the member for Hotham was trotting out. It is very easy to do this. You were a do-nothing government when you were in power. When you are confronted with a can-do government, your reaction is, `We need more time. It's all too hard. Let's wait and see how it works out, what this other committee is doing over here and what they're doing over there. We can't cope with what we will say to the trade union movement overall.' This is nonsense. It is a simple solution; it is entirely integrated within the new tax system. It makes sense. The business community supports this proposal. It means that individual business people are going to be better off. They will pay according to their tax rates. It is an equitable system overall. The whole concept of the member for Hotham saying, `Let's delay it and wait and see what the Ralph report has to say, let's wait until the GST system is in place,' is total nonsense. It is all part of the total package that we have.Some commentators have suggested that corporate Australia is heading for a cash flow squeeze as the PAYG legislation brings forward $5 billion in corporate tax collection. The bringing forward of revenue has always been openly stated in the new tax system. The government has not avoided that. At present, companies are paying later in the year than perhaps they should. In lining up payment dates, we have ensured that it will be done in instalments. All but the largest companies will receive cash flow benefits which are more significant than the negative features of the PAYG in this regard. The Labor Party are constantly saying, `Let's hold onto the old system,' in the same way they want to hold on to the wholesale sales tax with all its inequities and overcosting. This is a process where the great majority of companies are going to be significantly better off.Finally, the government is aware of some definitional problems with `payments under labour hire arrangements' and is moving to tighten up this area of the bill. It is not the intention to include such relationships as those between solicitors and barristers. I have heard the comments of the member for Hotham about contractors or consultants whom the company has contracted out and questions of classification. That is an area that needs review, and the government has clearly said that the question of relationships needs to be more closely defined.Overall, what we have in these provisions within the A New Tax System (Taxation Laws Amendment) Bill (No. 1) 1999 now before us is a sensible proposal. It will assist small business throughout Australia; it will recognise the various ups and downs of business income—of cash flow variations—which will give real incentive to small business; and it will provide assistance in paying after the event for small business, in that it will not be a once-off up-front payment where they need to have to then relate to the tax office with a myriad compliance taxes and reporting.There will be one basis of reporting and payments will be made four times a year, after the event, according to the income of that particular individual and that particular company. Nothing could be fairer. It is equitable and comparable, whether you be a very large company or a small one-person operator in Australia. It is part of the government's total reform of the taxation system in this country. I am sure that all Australians would say, `Let's get on with the task and not go on with the total nonsense that the Labor Party is talking about, which is delaying it for delaying sake.' This is real reform that makes economic sense and is the type of incentive that business in Australia certainly needs.22:24:009430Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I have to say that I was mightily amused to hear the member for Cook referring to the clear English guidelines for this legislation. I wonder whether he has actually had a look at the explanatory memorandum to the A New Tax System (Taxation Laws Amendment) Bill (No. 1) 1999 . At paragraph 2.104 on page 69, for example, it uses expressions like:An entity that pays quarterly PAYG instalments based on the Commissioner's rate and their instalment income, may choose to use its own instalment rate instead of the Commissioner's instalment rate when it works out the amount of its instalment for an instalment quarter. We have this sort of stuff for over 100 pages, so I am sure that small business will be delighted that the member for Cook has been looking after them in that way. Indeed, I think the issue of complexity is one of the critical issues we need to confront when we are looking at this legislation because this is part of what the government has trumpeted as `not a new tax, but a new tax system'. Try telling that to small business once they have had the opportunity to have a look at it and appreciate just how complex the new PAYG instalment system is in practice.The government claim that this new system is simpler than the current arrangements. The A New Tax System (Taxation Laws Amendment) Bill (No. 1) 1999 is one which is supposed to embody a simple new system. But an examination of the explanatory memorandum shows just how hollow that claim is. It takes no fewer than 38 pages to explain this simple new pay-as-you-go system. Just how are busy small business people supposed to get across this kind of detail when they are trying to run their own business? The only viable option is for small business to consult their accountants to try to help them through this new maze. That means additional cost and more time taken off running and hopefully growing their business. Remember that this is a government that promised to cut the paperwork burden in half for small business. In fact, it is a government which is doubling it. Not only has it reneged on that commitment—presumably a non-core promise—but it is also actively making things worse.We already know that the GST is starting to impact on small businesses. They are starting to get invoices which include GST—in respect of insurance, for example. Some small businesses are also already having to start charging GST where contracts span 1 July 2000 and, indeed, many of these businesses are not aware of these obligations. I notice this as I am talking to small businesses myself. Some of them are aware, some are asking questions and some are blissfully ignorant. Some will get a rude shock next year when they get a tax bill for contracts when they have not charged their clients. They will end up with that tax liability, that GST liability, themselves.As they are trying to come to grips with the complexities of the GST, they will also have to come to terms with the PAYG system in this bill. They will have to know which types of payments should have amounts withheld from them or face the consequences if they get it wrong. They also have to know how the new instalment system is going to work. I ask the question: how many government members, including the member for Cook who spoke before, can explain the intricacies of this bill to a small business person? Which member opposite would back themselves to accurately advise people on the difference between the following concepts contained in this bill? First, you have notional tax; second, adjusted tax; third, adjusted assessed tax; fourth, GDP-adjusted notional tax; fifth, adjusted taxable income; sixth, adjusted withholding income; and seventh, adjusted assessed taxable income. I invite members opposite—and indeed any member in the House—to get up and guarantee that they can tell us and get all those right under pain of financial penalty. Because that is how it works for small business. All Australian small businesses will face either getting these things right or having to pay those penalties if they get them wrong.Debate interrupted.Adjournment943110000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.943122:30:009431Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I rise to restate my opposition to a 24-hour international airport at Badgerys Creek. In so doing, I will refer to views expressed in a well-balanced speech which was presented recently to an anti-airport rally at Penrith by Clover Moore, the Independent member for Bligh in the New South Wales parliament. Clover is also a member of the federal government's community forum which was established to relieve the inner city of aircraft noise and pollution. In her speech Clover Moore said:As the representative of an inner eastern Sydney electorate which has been assaulted by jet noise for the first time following the introduction of the so-called long term operating plan for Sydney airport and the political manipulation of flight paths, I am committed to ridding inner Sydney of the jet noise assault which is so destructive of residential amenity.But in doing so I don't support pushing noise onto residents in other parts of our city. I am here today to support your opposition to the construction of Badgerys Creek airport because:. I do not believe that any Sydney resident should be subject to the noise impact and risks of a major airport in the metropolitan area; and. I do not believe that a second airport will provide any real benefit for inner city residents since Kingsford Smith would remain a busy and expanding airport.The only solution which guarantees peace and quiet for all Sydney residents, and provides for Sydney's future air traffic needs, is a replacement airport outside the Sydney basin, in an environmentally suitable location, with investment in the infrastructure to make it viable and accessible.The point of Clover's address was that two airports in the Sydney basin would result in continual expansion of both Badgerys Creek and the Sydney airport to cope with the predicted doubling of air traffic in the next 10 to 15 years, and its tripling over the next 20 years.The issue of employment opportunities for people in Western Sydney has been put forward as a reason for the airport to be built at Badgerys Creek. I believe this is an excuse rather than a reason. The main reason that the Badgerys Creek site was selected in the first place was that, at that time, the site was far enough away from major residential areas not to be a major environmental concern yet close enough to Sydney CBD to minimise infrastructure costs. Certainly the former argument no longer stands up.It should be remembered that employment opportunities go to people with the skills, not necessarily to those who live under the flight paths. Any net job growth that would arise from Sydney's second airport would be available to all citizens irrespective of where they lived. There would also be a transfer of some existing staff from KSA to Sydney's second airport. The aircraft industry itself is a highly technical industry rather than being a labour intensive one. Over time there is likely to be an increase in the technical side of the industry and a decrease in the labour force.What should be understood about employment in the aircraft industry is that much of the maintenance work on aircraft can be performed overseas. Qantas currently has a large jet maintenance facility at KSA and there are a number of maintenance and servicing facilities at the Bankstown airport. If forced to relocate to a second Sydney airport, Qantas could move its maintenance facilities to Brisbane, Melbourne or Auckland. Australia does not build international aircraft, and all equipment for aircraft is imported. The maintenance of aircraft could be transferred to a number of major overseas locations.The creation of a large retail outlet at international airports does not result in a net increase of employment opportunities for local residents. The effect is that local retail activities are sucked into an international airport complex similar to the effect that major suburban shopping complexes have on local strip shopping centres.The figures used by the pro-Badgerys Creek lobby group to predict employment growth as the result of a second airport at Badgerys Creek are greatly exaggerated. Due to globalisation, the aircraft industry would appear to be an unreliable source of increasing employment opportunities in Australia. The very fast train project linking Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney and Brisbane has the potential to create more employment opportunities than expanding our aircraft industry. By the year 2019, Western Sydney will have a population greater than that of the rest of Sydney.The final question I put to this parliament is: if the federal government were looking for the first time at a suitable site for Sydney's second 24-hour no-curfew international airport, would it put it in the middle of Sydney's fastest growing residential area? Undoubtedly the answer would be a very loud and emphatic no!943322:34:009433Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—Unaccustomed as I am, I rise this evening to pay tribute to one of my constituents and a great Australian. The Fathers Day Council of New South Wales last Friday awarded its prestigious `Father of the Year' award to veteran singer, songwriter and balladeer, Slim Dusty.With his accepting of the award at a harbourside luncheon in support of the Shephard Centres for deaf children, what struck me most about Slim was not the trademark hat nor the warm face that is lined by a lifetime of trekking our continent but the man's humility which he wears as comfortably as he does his guitar. Though not everyone will be a fan of Slim's music, the man is truly an Australian `icon' where the word is these days much abused. The affectionate respect he attracts is rooted not only in the millions of recordings he has sold over a 50-year career but also in his contribution to our culture and his leadership as a father and a family man.At a time when Australians are considering what we will leave in this century and take into the next, Slim Dusty remains one of those few figures who are held extremely closely to the national heart. His songs not only have given us a sense of belonging and pride in our country but also have forced us at different times to examine our failings, to examine who we are and where we are going.Slim and his wife, Joy, are `mates'—and Joy told me that she, for one, was a little disappointed that the term was removed from the preamble to the Constitution. Their children, Anne and David, grew up travelling Australia in a caravan, performing as a family whose love of one another is no less infectious than the tunes that chronicle our nation's development.It seemed appropriate also that Slim be recognised in a week that saw a giant step being taken towards Aboriginal reconciliation. A generation ago, when such concepts were less fashionable than they are today, Slim sang a song called Trumby, the story of a loyal, hard-working Aboriginal ringer who died drinking from a poisoned waterhole because of his inability to read the sign warning of poison. Slim prodded the national conscience at the time by asking why, despite all our sophistication and advances in Australian society, `a man should die because he could not read or write?' One wonders in this regard whether some things ever change.The rock musician and indigenous rights crusader, Peter Garrett, told me a few months ago when I congratulated him on his 1998 musical tribute to Slim that he had not appreciated what the man had done for Aboriginal people, nor how popular he is amongst indigenous Australians, until Midnight Oil's 1985 `Blackfella, Whitefella' tour. The Dusties have performed to numerous Aboriginal communities free of charge, including writing songs in honour of them and their unique love and celebration of the land which we now share. The Plains of Peppimenarti is a very good example of the commitment that Slim Dusty, Joy Kirkpatrick and their children have to indigenous Australians.As we look back on the 20th century to those values and the people who made us who we are today, Slim Dusty stands alongside Donald Bradman, Henry Lawson, Dawn Fraser, Weary Dunlop, Robert Menzies, Ben Chifley and Fred Hollows, amongst others—those people who defined what it means to be an Australian through much of the latter half of this century. But, arguably, his greatest achievement has been to show us that professional success and family love are not incompatible, nor are our heroes people who make themselves the centre of their own years.Thank you and congratulations to Slim and Joy. My generation and those to come owe you a debt we can barely define, let alone repay. As happened late last year when Slim Dusty suffered his ischaemic heart disease, we saw only a fraction of what will be the national outpouring when eventually Slim passes on, many years from now, perhaps to the next world.943322:39:009433Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—I would like to bring to the attention of the House this evening the wonderful work of those people associated with the ACT Down Syndrome Association. The aim of the association is quite clear and specific:To provide support and information to families with a member who has Down syndrome, to promote improvements in the quality of life of persons with Down syndrome and to stimulate, within the wider community, an awareness of the very real abilities and needs of people with Down syndrome.While the members of this association work tirelessly, endeavouring to meet these stated aims, I would like to share with you the story about a unique project the ACT Down Syndrome Association has devised, which goes all the way in meeting those aims.During this last month, I had the pleasure to attend the presentation ceremony for the winners of the photographic competition called `On the face of it. . . ' This was the second year the competition has been held, and its aim is to promote public awareness in the broader community regarding Down syndrome and those people who suffer from that syndrome.Photographs submitted must show people with Down syndrome in non-stereotypical and positive images. The photos I saw this year included young people with Down syndrome playing a wide range of sport and community activities enjoyed by all of us. One young lady aged nine, Kimberley Adams, was photographed firstly in her first pose as a ballerina and the second shot was riding a trail bike—how diverse could one be! It is a wonderful view into their world, which is in fact our world. All the photos exhibited are kept by the ACT Down Syndrome Association and are used in a variety of displays throughout hospitals, public areas, libraries, community festival displays, and so on.This year's major winner was Megan Reeder, a young photo-journalist who works in the local print media in Canberra. Her winning photo was a most wonderful portrait of Evelyn Scott and her daughter Kylie, who is 19. Coincidentally, Evelyn won an award herself, an Australia Day honour, earlier this year for her work with the Down Syndrome Association.The Governor-General, Sir William Deane, and Lady Deane both officiated at the inaugu ral competition and display last year. The association was, of course, thrilled when Sir William and Lady Deane accepted their invitation to again officiate this year. The Tuggeranong Community Arts Centre, where this display has been held, proved yet again to be a wonderful support and assistance to the association and provided the perfect venue for this remarkable community project.Of course, the work of the ACT Down Syndrome Association does not stop there. The Seventh World Congress on Down Syndrome will be held in Sydney from 23 to 26 March next year. It is the first world conference specific to Down syndrome to be held in the Asia-Pacific region. I understand the program will be centred specifically around the interests of people with Down syndrome and their families, and with opportunities for the presentation of cutting edge scientific and medical research. I understand the association will play a role, attending and consulting, and doing all they can to represent the views and aspirations of those they represent so well.The photographic competition `On the face of it. . . ' has, I believe, become a permanent appointment on our calendars in Canberra. It is a wonderful way to celebrate the lives of those people with Down syndrome and to recognise the love and dedication of their families. It is also a perfect way to present their lives to the community at large. I am sure many members of this House will share with me these views, as I am sure many of us have similar experiences in our electorates whenever we come across people with Down syndrome.My warmest congratulations to everyone concerned with the ACT Down Syndrome Association for all their hard work, dedication and belief in themselves and, of course, in their wonderful children. Thank you to all of those people for sharing with all of us the joy and love that comes unquestioningly from those people and younger children with Down syndrome. This really is the most remarkable photographic exhibition. I will be taking it upon myself to remind all members of the House prior to next year's competition that it is on, where it is on and when it is on, because I would like to share with all of you the experience that the Canberran community is getting out of observing such a marvellous contribution to our community.943522:44:009435Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I would like to raise a couple of issues tonight concerning Australia's largest tropical city—I speak, of course, of Townsville. Townsville is currently going gang busters. It has a lifestyle that is just wonderful.3E4SULLIVANMrs Sullivan—It has a great federal member.HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—Thank you. It has a lifestyle that is wonderful but it can do better. There are a couple of issues I would like to raise in relation to the port of Townsville. There are two great opportunities there at the moment which I think the Commonwealth of Australia and certainly our local community should be exploring. The first issue is the development of a cruise ship terminal. Currently, Townsville is a very desirable port for a cruise ship terminal to be built: it is a very desirable port to be visited and it has an excellent harbour—one of the three deep-water harbours on the eastern coast of Queensland.There is an opportunity on the western breakwater of the harbour right next door to the Sheraton Casino and the entertainment centre—where, incidentally, we fill 6,000 seats for every game of National Basketball League—to build a cruise ship terminal right at that site. That particular site also has direct access to the main street of Townsville. Where else in Australia could you build a cruise ship terminal adjacent to the main street of a major city in this country? That opportunity is certainly there, and we need to seize that opportunity because of the investment and the flow of money that the arrival of a cruise ship per week would bring to Townsville city.There is also another opportunity, I believe, and that is to look at the establishment of a naval base in the port of Townsville. Currently, Australia is developing and putting together its largest ever amphibious fleet in the Australian Navy. Two of the ships are not yet commissioned. The Tobruk, which will be the third ship in that fleet, already has been operating for some years. There is an opportunity in Townsville Harbour to change, modernise and extend berth 10 to accept these ships. The reason is simply this. Townsville is the home of 3rd Brigade, the ready deployment force that can respond in 24 hours basically anywhere in Australia or, indeed, the world.An element of responding, where we may have to visit our near neighbours—there are various defence scenarios that have been looked at—is the need for an amphibious force. The 3rd Brigade may need to take an entire battalion, plus all of its heavy equipment, overseas somewhere in the near Pacific. We need to do that out of the port of Townsville. It makes sense to put our amphibious force of Australia in Townsville Harbour. So I would like to see our community and our defence forces in fact move towards home basing those ships in Townsville.Currently, they are scheduled to be home based in Sydney and perhaps forward based in Townsville, but it would make sense, I believe, from an economic and a practical point a view to base them in Townsville. It is very expensive to home base navy units in Sydney at the moment. I certainly would not like to be buying a house in Sydney at the moment with the house prices there; and, of course, Defence has to provide those homes.It is considerably less expensive—and, of course, the lifestyle is much better—when you can live in the tropics and be next door to where your major client is. The major client is the 3rd Brigade of the Australian defence forces. So I think that our community should put every effort into making sure that we in fact can get a navy presence in Townsville and get our amphibious forces to move to Townsville.In the minute or so I have left, I would like to talk about a visionary woman by the name of Ann Roberts. She laid $100 on the table, and a professional dance company was born in Townsville 30 years ago. Dance North is now the leading regional dance company in Australia. It is really great to see. I am pretty proud of Townsville, as you might gather, but we certainly do things there in the arts. This particular company is recognised Australia-wide as being a leading dance company. It is currently touring with a Mornington Island group, Luuli, and they will be appearing in Canberra next month. I certainly recommend that, if you do have an opportunity, you go to the theatre and check it out.943622:49:009436O'Byrne, MichelleMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—I also want to follow a bit of a shipping theme tonight, as the previous speaker has. I would like to talk about Australia's role in international shipping and the need for this government to provide effective policy direction in that area. I would like to commence by painting a broad historical canvas of the shipping industry and the environment in which we now find ourselves.The development of long distance sailing ships and the discovery and development of the Americas in the 16th and 17th centuries shifted the economic centre of the world from the Mediterranean Sea to the Atlantic Ocean. In our own times, the development of very large, high performance, modern ships and the rise of the Asian economies is now shifting the economic centre of the world to the Pacific Ocean.Just as the commercial dominance of the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean eras rested on the safe and efficient sea carriage of their commerce, so does that of the Pacific Ocean, in which Australia is embedded. We are an island continent almost totally dependent upon sea carriage for the conduct of our external trade. Situated as we are in this new economic centre of the world, the Australian Maritime College, situated in my electorate in Tasmania, has a natural advantage in providing maritime education to the rising nations throughout the area, but this advantage can be sustained only through effective government policy.The future of cabotage in Australia is a key issue. If cabotage is abandoned, the very survival of Australian shipping will be put at risk. If our coastal waters are opened to unfettered access by foreign flag vessels, there will be serious ramifications. A rise of flag of convenience vessels will lead to a concurrent rise in maritime fraud and piracy. According to an article in a recent issue of the Journal of the Navy League of Australia, modern-day piracy is increasing, and the violence of the attacks is also increasing. In 1998, 67 seafarers were reported killed in some 150 reported incidents. Cases have been reported of whole ships being stolen and their crews murdered.The Howard government has before it two authoritative reports that highlight the shipping industry's importance to the Australian economy. In August 1996, the then Minister for Transport and Regional Development, Mr Sharp, commissioned an inquiry into the industry. The resulting report—known as the Manser report—made a number of key recommendations designed to increase the international competitiveness of Australian shipping. The report was handed to the minister in May 1997. The government then chose to commission a second inquiry into the industry, and the now Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Anderson, received the report in April this year. It is nearly September, and that report still sits on the minister's desk.Now is the time for the government to provide Australian shipping with the policy platform that it needs to grow. The industry has provided the plan that the government requested of it, and the government must and should now implement some program. In 1997-98, Australian shipping earned just under $1 billion from freight exports. The government can enhance that effort by helping Australian shipping to become internationally competitive. If this does not happen, there will be not only economic losses but also a significant and continuing negative impact on ship safety and the marine environment.According to the Australian Shipowners Association, if the government chose not to put in place an appropriate policy framework for shipping, the core of the industry's export activity will disappear. Subsequent changes in international freight earnings would increase the current account deficit by up to $1 billion. Our ability in the future to provide the skilled and experienced people needed to run our harbours, our marine insurance industry, our navigation and regulatory services and our ship broking and chartering industries will also be diminished. We will lose the skills required by a host of other industries necessary for the safe and efficient prosecution of the seaborne trade upon which the health of our economy rests.To date the government's attitude has been that Australian shipping is not internationally competitive. It argues that this industry should be directly exposed to competition from flag of convenience shipping. It appears not to accept the argument that this competition is inherently not fair because our competitors enjoy substantial fiscal support from their governments and because many foreign vessels give little weight to the argument that high standards of crew competency and ship safety are essential.What is required from this government is a fiscal regime that will allow Australia to compete with foreign shipping. It is important to highlight the point that the potential for Australian shipping at this moment is unlimited if, and only if, the right policy framework is forthcoming from this government. Despite the recent economic difficulties faced by economies to our north, Asia provides us with a massive market right on our doorstep. Asia offers a great opportunity to grow. But those opportunities can only be grasped if both government and industry work cooperatively to increase our international competitiveness.943722:53:009437Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—A couple of weeks ago I attended an assembly of one of the schools in my electorate, Bede Polding College. The reason for my visit was to present a sports certificate to one of the winners of that award. During that assembly six young secondary students rose to read a short piece. These students were Samantha Camileri, Elise Miller, Louisa Cremen, Jocelyn Galea, Jim Formosa and Tim George. I was very impressed by what they read, firstly, because of the sincerity of their presentation and, secondly, because of the values and the challenge that they conveyed. I told them that if I had a chance I would read their short speech to parliament. This is what they said:The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings, but shorter tempers; wider freeways, but narrower viewpoints; we spend more, but have less; we buy more, but enjoy it less.We have bigger houses and smaller families; more conveniences, but less time; we have more degrees, but less sense; more knowledge, but less judgment; more experts, but more problems; more medicine, but less wellness.We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values. We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often. We've learned how to make a living, but not a life; we've added years to life, not life to years.We've been all the way to the moon and back, but have trouble crossing the street to meet the new neighbour. We've conquered outer space but not inner space. We've cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul; we've split the atom but not our prejudice.We have higher incomes but lower morals. We've become long on quantity but short on quality.These are the times of tall men and short character; steep profits and shallow relationships. These are the times of world peace, but domestic warfare; more leisure but less fun; more kinds of food, but less nutrition. These are days of two incomes but more divorce; of fancier houses but broken homes.It is a time when there is much in the show window and nothing in the stock room; a time when technology can bring this letter to you; and a time when you can choose either to make a difference, or to just hit the delete button.I thank those six young students for sharing that with the assembly and for the timely reminder that it provided not only to those others in the assembly but to me as well, a reminder of the things that really are important: that materialism is not the key to happiness; that more is not necessarily better; that relationships and people matter more than possessions; that commitment is in fact pivotal to happiness; that responsibility is more important than rights.I was greatly encouraged that these young people could see the importance of these things that they shared with the assembly. I was greatly encouraged that they could see through the superficiality of much that society presents as being so important. From the message that they shared and from their belief in what they shared I took great hope for our future.Question resolved in the affirmative.House adjourned at 10.57 p.m.Notices9438The following notices were given:Mr Albanese to present a bill for an act to establish an Aviation Noise Ombudsman and for related purposes.Answers to Questions in Writing9439The following answers to questions were circulated:9439(Question No. 656)6569439Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 1 June 1999:(1) Has the Minister or a department or agency administered by the Minister provided grants to the National Farmers' Federation (NFF) or bodies related to the NFF since 2 March 1996; if so, (a) in each case, (i) what was the nature of the grant and (ii) for what purpose was it provided and (b) what total sum was provided.(2) To what boards, committees or other bodies for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility have (a) Mr Donald McGauchie (b) Dr Wendy Craik or (c) other officers or staff of the NFF been appointed since 2 March 1996.(3) What sums has the Commonwealth paid in (a) sitting fees, (b) board fees, (c) travel costs and (d) related expenses with respect to each appointment referred to in part (2).9439Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No.(2) None, although I hold both individuals in high regard and would have no hesitation in appointing them to a board or committee(3) Not applicable.9439(Question No. 773)7739439Horne, Bob, MPMr HorneUU5PatersonALP00 asked the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, upon notice, on 22 June 1999:(1) Has the NSW Parliament passed legislation related to the Regional Forests Assessment Agreement; if so, (a) when was the legislation passed, (b) when did he learn that the legislation had been passed and (c) is it a fact that the legislation received the support of the three major political parties in New South Wales.(2) Has the legislation received the federal Government's agreement; if not, (a) what hardship is being experienced by the timber industry in New South Wales as a result (b) when will the federal Government agree to the legislation.9439Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TuckeySJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The NSW Parliament passed the Forest and National Park Estate Act 1998 (FNPE Act) on 14 December 1998. Under the FNPE Act, relevant NSW Ministers in the planning, environment, forestry and fisheries portfolios entered into forest agreements for the upper and lower north east and Eden regions of NSW. While the agreements set out the principles and strategic framework for the management of forests in those regions, they do not constitute Commonwealth—State Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs).(2) As the FNPE Act is NSW State Government legislation it is not appropriate for the Commonwealth to agree to it.(a) I am not aware of any hardship being experienced by the timber industry as a result of the Federal Government not agreeing to the State legislation.(b) The Federal Government is planning to finalise Regional Forest Agreements for the four major forest regions in NSW by the end of 1999. The Commonwealth has committed to developing a Regional Forest Agreement with the State that takes into account the legislated commitments of the NSW Government.9439(Question No. 778)7789439McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay4I4WatsonALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 23 June 1999:(1) With which countries does Australia have working holiday visa arrangements.(2) What are the conditions governing the issue of a visa in each case.(3) Is Australia negotiating an agreement with Greece on working holiday visas; if so, what (a) stage have the negotiations reached and (b) provision will be made to exempt from service Greek Australians who would otherwise be eligible for military service in Greece. 9440Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Reciprocal working holiday arrangements exist with the UK, Canada, Japan, Ireland, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea and Malta. There are, however, limited opportunities for nationals from other countries to obtain working holiday visas where they are able to show that both Australia and the individual would benefit from such a visit to Australia. Approximately 50 young Greek nationals are granted working holiday visas each year.(2) Working holiday makers need to be between 18 and 25 (and in special circumstances from arrangement countries, 26 to 30). Single or married persons can apply, but they must have no dependent children. They are permitted to do any kind of work of a temporary or casual nature. They are not permitted to work for longer than three months with any one employer. Under the visa subclass, applicants can stay in Australia for a maximum of 12 months. Applicants need to show that they have a good chance of finding temporary work to supplement their holiday funds, they will not undertake any studies in Australia other than an English language course, they have a return ticket or sufficient funds for a return fare and the first part of their stay, and that they will leave Australia at the end of their authorised stay. Nationals of countries with whom Australia does not have reciprocal arrangements will be considered where they are able to demonstrate how their personal qualities and proposed activities while in Australia are likely to lead to an enhanced understanding by both themselves and Australian residents of each other's respective cultures.(3) (a) Informal discussions with Greek Government officials concerning a working holiday arrangement with Australia have been continuing for a number of years. Discussions with the Greek Government have been undertaken at ministerial and officials level. During my visit to Greece last year I pursued the issue of an agreement further and relevant Greek Government Ministers were supportive of the idea. My Department is continuing discussions with Greek officials with a view to negotiating a reciprocal working holiday agreement with Greece as a matter of priority.(b) Any obligation under the laws of another country is a matter for the individual dual national. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade advises dual citizens/nationals who are planning to visit a country where they may be considered by that country to be a national to check their military service obligations before leaving Australia with the relevant Embassy/Consulate. 9440(Question No. 783)7839440Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 June 1999:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 601 (Hansard , 21 June 1999, page 5477), does DAS Operations Pty Ltd trading as DAS Distribution subcontract some carriage of explosives for his Department.(2) Does the expression `competent and fully trained' used in the answer to part (5) of question No. 601 encompass training to level of explosive ordnance class I for DAS Distribution and/or subcontractors.9440Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) DAS Distribution has not subcontracted carriage of explosives, however Question 783 follows up on an issue raised in Question No. 601. That Question read, in part, "Which companies have contracts with the Department of Defence for the carriage of explosives?" The response to this aspect of Question No. 601 read: "DAS Operations Pty Ltd, trading as DAS Distribution". Further research in the context of Question 783 indicates that the response to Question 601 may benefit from some expansion.In addition to the contract between DAS and Support Command Australia, specifically for the transportation of explosives, there are a number of other companies that also carry out related work.Under the Defence Reform Program schedule of market testing non-core functions, Defence Corporate Support (DCS) Group is putting in place a series of regionally oriented `Garrison Support' contracts. These contracts cover a number of common support functions, including the management of transport within each region. Some carriage of explosives is conducted as part of this wider function, although the contracts concerned are not specifically or exclusively `contracts for the carriage of explosives'.The companies concerned are SERco Gardner Merchant, and its subcontractor, Helicon; Transfield and its subcontractor, Spotless; and Tenix; Skidmores; and Ridgeways who import to Port Wilson class 1 explosive ordnance from overseas on behalf of Defence which is then collected by Defence or a contracted agency.(2) Yes, including regional contractors and their subcontractors involved with the DCS Garrison Support contracts. 9441(Question No. 795)7959441McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan5I4CanberraALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 9 August 1999:(1) Does the Federal Government have responsibility to ensure that foreign aid projects instigated by a State Government meet Australia's international obligations.(2) Has his attention been drawn to allegations that the Victorian Department of State Development's food aid package to Tangerang region of Indonesia does not meet Australia's international obligations, in particular to the recommendations of the (a) WHO Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, (b) 1998 International Review of Food Aid, (c) UN International Children's Emergency Fund, (d) Declaration on the Rights of the Child and (e) Beijing Women's Conference resolutions.(3) Does the Government share the concerns; if so, what action will be taken with regard to this matter.9441Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1)The Federal Government does not have a responsibility under international law to ensure that foreign aid projects instigated by a State government meet Australia's international obligations. The food aid package provided to the Tangerang region of West Java is an initiative of the Government of Victoria under a Memorandum of Understanding with the Indonesian Ministry of Food and Horticulture.(2) I am aware of concerns expressed by a number of individuals about the food assistance.(3) The Federal Government acknowledges that food assistance should be carefully targeted and managed. Responsibility for compliance with international standards lies with the project implementors, the Indonesian Ministry of Food and Horticulture and the Victorian Government.9441(Question No. 810)8109441McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 9 August 1999:(1) Does the Charter of Care for the Health Insurance Commission (HIC) contain a commitment to endeavour to keep waiting times below 10 minutes.(2) If so, has the HIC undertaken a survey of customer service centres to ascertain waiting times during the peak lunch hour period; if so, (a) at which customer service centres have studies or surveys been undertaken and (b) what was the result of the study or survey in each case.9441Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes(2) (a) and (b) Waiting times in all Medicare Officers are continually monitored and procedures adjusted where necessary. The queuing system in all Medicare Office involves placing additional staff on customer counters during peak periods.9441(Question No. 838)8389441Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 10 August 1999:(1) Were 6 persons removed from the Maribyrnong Detention Centre and taken to Port Philip Prison following a rebellion by detainees on 22 July 1999.(2) Have at least 4 of those persons made allegations claiming to have been assaulted by officers of the centre's security service and the police, including an allegation that they were kicked and bruised by officers at the time they were being detained and taken to the prison.(3) Has the Commonwealth Ombudsman initiated an inquiry into the events that took place at the centre on that day, following an official complaint by the Member for Calwell.(4) Will he ensure that there will be no cover up of the incident and no attempt to falsely shift the blame for the incident on to the persons who were taken to Port Philip Prison.(5) Have the detainees been charged with any criminal offence; if not, will he act to seek immediately the release of the persons from Port Philip Prison and return them to the detention centre; if not, why not.9441Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes. Six detainees were transferred to Port Philip Prison on 23 July following a disturbance at the Maribyrnong Immigration Detention Centre (IDC) on 22 July 1999.(2) No formal allegations of assault have been brought to the Department's attention by the individuals involved in the incident at the Maribyrnong IDC. I am aware however from correspondence from Dr Theophanous that some of the persons involved have made such allegations to Dr Theophanous.(3) Yes. (4) The Department is awaiting the outcome of the Ombudsman's investigation. Once his report is received, consideration will be given to what further action is required.(5) I am advised that no charges have been laid at this time. There are no plans at this time to return the detainees to the Maribyrnong IDC. The detainees were relocated to Port Philip Prison because they could not be properly managed at the Maribyrnong IDC. This decision was taken consistent with Policy instruction MSI 244, which allows for the relocation of detainees to goals in certain circumstances.9442(Question No. 839)8399442Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 10 August 1999:(1) Has his attention been drawn to community concern over a rebellion by detainees at the Maribyrnong Immigration Detention Centre on 22 July 1999 which led to the general destruction of a large amount of equipment and other material in the main section of the centre.(2) Has his Department issued a public statement about the incident offering an explanation on the causes of the rebellion.(3) Has his attention also been drawn to earlier protests by detainees at the centre, including a letter signed by 55 persons and sent to Amnesty International on 15 July 1999.(4) Does he support the claim made by his Department that only seven persons were responsible for the damage.(5) Is his Department carrying out an internal investigation into the matter; if so, will he release immediately the preliminary report of the investigation; if not, why not.(6) Will the Commonwealth Ombudsman's inquiry into the matter receive the full co-operation of his Department.9442Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) I am aware of media coverage of this event and Dr Theophanous' allegations in regard to this matter.(2) My Department has not issued a public statement, but the Public Affairs Unit of the Department has responded to media questions in relation to this matter.(3) Neither my Department nor I have received any communication from Amnesty International on this matter. I am aware of the comments made in Dr Theophanous' Press Release of 31 July 1999 about such a letter. My attention has been drawn on occasion to protests by detainees at the Maribyrnong facility.(4) I am awaiting the outcome of the Ombudsman's investigation of this matter before drawing conclusions.(5) My department is awaiting the outcome of the Ombudsman's investigation into this incident, before taking any further action.(6) Yes. My Department is co-operating fully with the Ombudsman's investigation into this matter.