1999-08-313914REPS944701999-08-31Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Ministerial Arrangements944714:01:009447Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Minister for Health and Aged Care will be absent from question time today as he is attending a funeral, and the Minister for Aged Care will answer questions on his behalf. I also inform the House that the Minister for Sport and Tourism is ill, and the Minister for Defence will answer questions on her behalf.Questions Without Notice944794479447Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Minister, yesterday you said that the MIFS program, which helped disability pensioners get off benefits, had only 4.5 per cent of participants achieving a work outcome. Minister, on what page of the departmental evaluation which you tabled yesterday was this fairytale 4.5 per cent figure mentioned?9447Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—Indeed, I do enjoy the member for Lilley's questions. In fact, my response in question time yesterday provided the latest information from my department—as opposed to your information, member for Lilley, which was based on 1997 figures. The 80 per cent successful completion quoted by the member for Lilley from page 27 of the interim evaluation released 19 May 1998 is based on only 28 individuals having exited the program.2V5SWANMr Swan—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It goes to relevance. I asked a very specific question about which page of this report the 4.5 per cent figure was on.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lilley will resume his seat! The member for Lilley is aware that the minister is being entirely relevant.XJ6Mr ANTHONY—Just to recap: the 80 per cent successful completions, quoted by the member for Lilley from page 27 of the report he has just waved which was released in May 1998, is based on only 28 individuals who had exited the program out of 187 who had participated at August 1997. The information I quoted yesterday—that is, 30 August—reflected much more recent data from the pilot. In April 1999 there were 1,500 MIFS clients, and at that date only 4.5 per cent had obtained work outcomes.94479447Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister inform the House of the conduct of the historic ballot in East Timor yesterday and the prospects now for a peaceful resolution to the problems of East Timor?9447Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the member for Kooyong for his question. The government was delighted with the ballot that took place in East Timor yesterday. All members of the House, I am sure, will have seen scenes on television last night and early this morning of people queuing to vote. I think it is fair to say that it is rather a moving thing to see people show such a great passion for democracy. We also applaud the extraordinarily positive atmosphere in which voting took place. There were, I understand, around seven incidents during the course of the day which could be described as incidents of a security nature. But, generally speaking, the voting took place in a very positive atmosphere. Honourable members might be interested to know that there was a very high voter turnout. But they might be particularly interested to note that, according to the United Nations assessments that we have just received, voter turnout was 98.6 per cent of registered voters. That is, I suppose, higher than we would get in a general election here with compulsory voting.Let me continue by paying a couple of tributes. One of them is to the United Nations mission in East Timor, UNAMET, which did so much to make the ballot a success. Let me also say that the Australian government very much appreciates the work that the Indonesian government did, in particular that of President Habibie, to make this ballot possible in the first place. When it came to polling day, the behaviour of the police and of the Indonesian military was consistent with the obligations that Indonesia undertook on 5 May, under the tripartite agreement.Of course, this is not the end of the process. The counting of the votes will take a week or so—somewhere in that vicinity. Then, from that point onwards, the process moves into the second phase. The Australian government will be happy to provide the United Nations with assistance through the second and the third phases. There will be an increase in United Nations civilian police personnel from around 260 or 270 to 460 in phase 2—and that begins from this week. Also, there will be an increase in the number of military liaison officers from around 50 to 300. So in the very short term there should be a significant increase in United Nations personnel on the ground of a police and military nature. Over and above that, we will continue to work with the United Nations, the Indonesians and others to see what other sort of role the United Nations can play in East Timor. In conclusion, I am sure all members of this House are simply delighted with the way the ballot was conducted yesterday. We look forward to ensuring that the process moves forward successfully in the future.94489448Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question without notice is again directed to the Minister for Community Services. I refer to his previous answer regarding departmental evaluation of the MIFS program which said on page 27:Achieved impressive results, with 80 per cent of participants successfully completing their action plan.Minister, isn't it true that your senior minister, Senator Newman, described this program as `successful' and `extremely efficient' in a press release last year? With a 20 per cent work outcome, which has the potential to reduce the number of disability pensioners by 115,000 and to save the taxpayer possibly $1 billion, why on earth is the government axing this highly successful program? And even if it did have, as you assert, a 4.5 per cent success rate, wouldn't that save the taxpayer $¼ billion?9448Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—I am glad the member for Lilley has such a keen interest in this. The parliament should be aware that the document he is reading from was the evaluation of that program in August 1997—over two years ago. The figures that I provided yesterday and the figures that I provided a few minutes ago were from April 1999, and the work outcomes were 4.5 per cent. In a press release issued yesterday the member for Lilley asked, `Which is it, Minister, you can't read or you can't add up?' I have given the figures but the interesting thing is that at least I know what day of the week it is. Do you know why? Yesterday he issued a press release—yesterday was 30 August—and on the press release was Tuesday, 30 June. As far as the MIFS program is concerned, we will continue to evaluate it when the pilot ends in the year 2000.94489448May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise the House if the government intends taking any further steps to assist small business to comply with and benefit from the new tax system?9448Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for McPherson for her question. As she would know and as members of the House would know, on 1 July 2000 the new tax system comes into effect for Australia. This is the biggest tax overhaul that we have had in federal history. In addition to abolishing wholesale sales tax and replacing it with GST, there are substantial income tax cuts and state indirect taxes will be abolished.It is important for small business and other people to start working now on compliance. The government has set up the New Tax System Advisory Board under the chairmanship of Mr Chris Jordan to work on educational materials. The government, after taking advice from small business and the board and after representations from the members for Longman, Moreton, McPherson and others, has decided to help small business by doub ling the existing cash accounting turnover threshold to $1 million a year.The New Tax System Advisory Board identified this as something that would be of assistance to business. It means that, if you have a turnover of $1 million a year, you will be able to account for GST on a cash basis. What that means for small business—up to 100,000 small businesses could benefit from this measure—is that they will be taking in the GST, holding it and getting the cash flow benefit of it before they remit it on a quarterly basis. Unlike the wholesale sales tax that the Labor Party is so enamoured of, won't that be a wonderful thing for small business? This is an improvement in relation to small business. Those people that currently do income tax on a cash basis will be able to use that for GST. In addition, the commissioner, either by a class order or individually, will be able to give the right to businesses to account for GST on a cash basis where their turnover is over $1 million.The government has set aside $500 million to assist small business in the implementation of the new tax system. We announced last week another $175 million in immediate write-offs for business for new software or hardware implemented before 1 July to cope with the new tax system. The government's educational campaign is continuing.Nobody would pretend that the biggest tax changes in Australian federal history can be done overnight or can be done without the rearranging of some accounting systems. The government is making sure that every facility is available to small business to make the new tax system one that works not only for small business but also for Australia and creates a modern and efficient tax system—one that can take us through the next century and put behind the outmoded, outdated, complex and inefficient system that we have been carrying since the 1930s.94499449Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Do you recall your Minister for Health saying on Meet the Press on 22 August, just last Sunday, that some states have pulled very significant amounts of money out of public hospitals but that the Victorian government had done—this is quoting the Minister for Health—`a fabulous job'? Is it not the case that, according to the AMA in Victoria, health spending has been slashed by $900 million, 12 country hospitals and six city hospitals have been closed and the biggest teaching hospital—the Austin and Repatriation Medical Centre—is about to be sold? Why are you doing nothing to stop Jeff Kennett wrecking the hospital system?9449Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have to confess that I did not see that interview. I am sure it was conducted with the normal skill and panache which characterises that minister. I am absolutely certain that it was. It is true that the government asserts, and I will repeat that assertion today, that over the years a number of states, in response to increased injections of federal money—and I think it is fair to say that on one or two occasions this occurred under the former federal Labor government—have taken money out. You will be aware, Mr Speaker, that on occasions I have had cause to defend the federal government against unreasonable attacks from state governments. I am not going to be deterred from defending the federal government by from attacks by state governments, no matter what source those unreasonable attacks come from or at what time of the year they come. The fact is that I assert on behalf of the federal government that we have done the right thing by the people of Australia so far as health is concerned. We have put more money into states for public hospitals—PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Rubbish!ZD4Mr HOWARD—It is a 17 per cent increase. The member for Jagajaga says that is rubbish. We have put a $1.6 billion boost into private health insurance and, for the first time since the middle of the 1980s, we are actually seeing the number of people in private health insurance increase. We have foreshadowed in the Treasurer's budget a doubling of the expenditure on health and medical research in Australia. We are doing our job. As to the particularities of individual state expenditures, I do not carry them in my head and, if there is anything I need to add on the question, I will. 94509450Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. Can the minister outline to the House how the services of the Job Network are being successfully marketed to employers and job seekers in local communities? Are there any alternative views on the effectiveness of the Job Network, and what obstacles have Job Network members had to overcome in their efforts to assist the unemployed?9450Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I am very happy to provide the House with information on innovative new strategies for helping job seekers through the government's highly successful Job Network. These are strategies designed to get employers to think of putting on workers. In particular, I am aware of a number of successful jobs drives in local areas where Job Network members, together with local employers and local media, have tried to provide additional jobs to local job seekers. With the enthusiastic support of the member for Hume, the Goulburn Chamber of Commerce recently ran a `$1 million worth of jobs' drive. The chamber aimed to find jobs paying wages of $1 million a year and they in fact found jobs paying $3 million a year. Since October there have been three jobs drives in the electorate of Gilmore, involving Job Network members, Radio 2ST, the Shoalhaven Area Consultative Committee of my department and local employers. Naturally enough, the excellent local member has lent her prestige to these events. These jobs drives have found 300 jobs worth $8 million a year in wages. There have been two jobs drives on the New South Wales Central Coast, strongly supported by the member for Robertson—drives which have found jobs worth $11 million a year. There has been a jobs drive at Albury-Wodonga, supported by the member for Indi, which has found jobs worth $2 million a year.I should point out that, in all of these areas, unemployment has fallen over the last 12 months. This is what can happen in any electorate; this can happen anywhere. I would appeal to members opposite to support their local Job Network. I would appeal to members opposite to forget the carping of the Leader of the Opposition and support the Job Network. He might be `large in body and mind', according to Neal Blewett, but he is `flawed by a streak of most un-Churchillian timidity'.I have been asked about obstacles to the success of Job Network, and one of them is the gentleman opposite. Blewett said that, for so outwardly aggressive a figure, Mr Beazley is `extraordinarily timid—fearful of the students, fearful of the bishops, fearful of the public servants'. I say to members opposite that he would be scared of them if they were prepared to support the local Job Network to do the right thing by the job seekers of Australia.94509450Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Did Jeff Kennett take money out of Victorian hospitals? Don't you have the courage to say it, or are you afraid to offend your Victorian party leader?9450Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I repeat what I said in answer to the previous question I was asked: I do not carry the figures for individual states around with me. But I will add further to that answer by saying that, as far as the relative performances of the Victorian and federal governments are concerned, I have persistently argued that Victoria has had a very fair deal from the federal government, and any criticism made by Mr Kennett of the federal government's performance will, whenever Mr Kennett makes that criticism, be repudiated by me.94509450Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to address a question to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Can the minister inform the House of developments in the pig industry and, in particular, of the government's initiatives to assist the industry in developing its export markets?9450Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the member for Mallee for his continuing interest in the pig industry and acknowledge his representations in support of that industry over the years. I have to say that I share his enthusiasm about the future of the pig industry in Australia. Pig prices are at an 18-month high, and there is new talk of investment in the industry. There can be no doubt at all that the government's $24 million Pork Industry Development Program has played a key role in the turnaround in the pork industry. Last year there was plenty of pessimism, including from many of the industry's own leaders. The ALP opposition spokesman, the member for Burke, was very quick to cry doom and gloom, and he was predicting the demise of the industry. He and the ALP must certainly be feeling a little embarrassed at the present time. I notice the member for Burke hiding up in the back benches. He has even taken to wearing a disguise because of his embarrassment on these issues.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister has the call. I appreciate the interjections are good-natured, but the minister will come back to the question.GT4Mr TRUSS—The National Pork Industry Development Program has provided real benefits to the Australian pork industry. A $1 million domestic market development program has reversed the declining local consumption of bacon, and in fact local consumption was up by a creditable 3.7 per cent last year. But it has perhaps been in the export development program that we have seen the most spectacular successes. A $106,000 program in Japan has resulted in $12.4 million worth of extra sales of chilled pork. Indeed, we expect to sell about $30 million worth of pork products to Japan this year. In Singapore last year Australia sold only $205,000 worth of pork; this year we expect to export more than $30 million worth. These are indeed outstanding achievements and really demonstrate the turnaround in the industry. I am pleased today to announce $1.5 million of funding for a new program for the pork industry to further help boost its international competitiveness and to build a stronger export focus. This program will help develop alliances and networks and will especially help the smaller farmers to take advantage of the new export opportunities that are opening up. I would like to encourage the pork industry to maintain its focus on the expanding markets overseas. The facts are our domestic market is largely mature and the real chances for expansion rest overseas. Any Australian industry that confines itself to our relatively small domestic market limits its potential. So it is in these wonderful export opportunities that the future of the pork industry rests. I would like to commend the member for Mallee and indeed many other members on the government side who resisted the temptation to pursue populist lines when the industry was in trouble a year ago and who recognised the importance of building this export focus. The government's pork industry plan has clearly worked, and it is great to see the pork industry looking at a more optimistic future than it had in the past.94519451Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister recollect Jeff Kennett's statement in July when he told the Herald Sun :Medicare isn't working . . . Medicare is a farce?Why is the Prime Minister doing nothing to prevent the Kennett government cutting hospital funding that is resulting in three-day waiting times on trolleys in emergency rooms, dirty wards and understaffed hospitals? What are you going to do to make sure Jeff Kennett delivers quality health services for those who cannot afford it as well as for those who can?9451Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The doorstop on the Victorian election today speaks volumes for the relevance of the opposition to national political debate. The Leader of the Opposition asked me a question about funding. Do I recollect what Mr Kennett said about Medicare? Yes, I do. I recollect it very well, and the House will recollect the response that I gave. What are we doing to stop anybody who might be minded to undermine Medicare? We are, for example, rejecting national inquiries by the Productivity Commission. We are reasserting our support for Medicare. We are putting $1½ billion into private health insurance. We are adding massively to public investment in medical health and research. In other words, the true guardians of the Medicare system are those who sit on this side of the House.94529452Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Can the minister inform the House of any developments regarding flood insurance to be provided by general insurers in the wake of storm related flooding in recent years?9452Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I would like to thank the member for Indi, who of course had a major flood in his electorate in 1993. A number of other members have had storm related damage in their electorates including, of course, the member for Cowper in Coffs Harbour and the member for Herbert in Townsville. I will also acknowledge that the member for Cunningham had storm related damage in his electorate only recently. We as a government welcome the statement from the NRMA that it is going to include storm related flood cover in its general insurance policies. It is a very important step forward in a highly competitive market where the NRMA has 20 per cent of market share across Australia and, I understand, over 30 per cent in New South Wales. Storm related damage has a substantial impact on a community, and until now there has been a constant battle between insurance companies and clients about whether their insurance would properly cover the damage inflicted by floods during the course of a storm or after it.I urge other insurance companies to follow suit, to follow the NRMA and introduce storm related cover. I also acknowledge the NRMA's comment that it will be looking at flood related damage and the cost of that being passed on to consumers—which is appropriate—in the form of premiums.The initiatives here come about because of competition in the marketplace; they do not come about because of any detailed proscription from the federal government or state governments forcing insurers to take uncommercial decisions. The best pressure that comes about is because of competition. It is about consumers marching with their feet—going to alternative insurance companies if they are not providing appropriate levels of cover.The Commonwealth government has undertaken a number of initiatives in the last few years to assist with flood related damage. We have put in place long-term flood preventative measures under the national Landcare program, we have allocated over $3 million per year for risk management and mitigation studies and, as a 1996 election commitment, we have delivered $20 million over three years for flood mitigation measures in rural and regional Australia. The best answer to some of these problems will always be competition in the marketplace. We welcome NRMA's initiative, and we urge other insurers to follow suit.94529452Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Aged Care. Do you recall telling the House that Commonwealth officers do not have to give notice when carrying out surprise inspections of aged care facilities to look into complaints of poor quality care? Why did you say this when your department, in February this year, stated that Commonwealth officers carrying out such investigations `must first gain the consent of the approved provider before gaining access to a facility', and `conducting "surprise" visits is not within the spirit of the new collaborative arrangements'? Haven't you misled the House?9452Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—You will recall what I said was that they could take the letter with them when they made their surprise visit. Will you never learn and follow it up?94529452Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. Has the minister seen reports in the media that the number of aged care places has dropped by 8,000? Can the minister inform the House if there is any truth to these claims? What support has the government given older Australians who are in need of care?9452Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—This is typical, Mr Speaker, of the sorts of lies that the Labor Party chooses to put around in this area.UU5HORNEMr Horne—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The minister is responding to a question from one of her own side. I think her opening is hardly relevant to the answer at all.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—As is self-evident, the minister's answer was entirely consistent with the question asked, and I invite her to continue.SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—The member on this side is interested in the truth, which is in contradistinction to what the other side is interested in. Only the other day Senator Evans, the shadow minister responsible, and for whom the dimmer of the glimmers acts, put out a press release saying that there were 8,000 places fewer than under the Labor Party. The truth is that we have added, with this current round, close to 6,500 new residential places—that is, 4,000 places already in situ and allocated—and close to another 2,500 that are in this current round. In addition to that, we have increased the number of community aged care packages from around 4,000 places under the previous government to now, with the current round, around 18,000 places. I have introduced a graph in this place on a previous occasion showing how the Labor Party, when they brought in the test of having 100 places per 1,000 people over the age of 70, were 98 per cent compliant. By the time they got to 1996, when they lost office, they were down to 93 per cent compliant. In other words, they left us 10,000 places short.The bottom line is: we have been working to fix up the Labor Party legacy and, by the time we get to the year 2002, we will be over that benchmark and up to 103 places per 1,000 people over the age of 70. In other words, this is an opportunity to put the facts on the record and stop the Labor Party trying to peddle fear, and to say that this government is once again fixing up the mess left by the Labor Party.94539453Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Aged Care, and it concerns facts. Is it a fact that the ratio of residential aged care places to people aged 70 and over has fallen significantly over the last three years of the Howard government? Hasn't this figure even fallen below your own target? Doesn't this graph show the size of this government's cuts to the number of places? Why is the government acting to reduce older Australians' access to residential care constantly?9453Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—Not only can the dimmer of the glimmer twins not get his facts right but he cannot even draw a decent graph. The fact is that in the last budget of the Labor Party they spent $2.5 billion on residential care. In this last budget, under this government, we have spent $3.5 billion on residential care. That has resulted, as I have said, in an increase of nearly 6,500 residential care places plus an increase of—just to help you with your lack of counting—4,000 in CACP packages—2V5SWANMr Swan—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I raise the point of relevance. My question concerned the ratio. We have had a whole lot of irrelevant comment, and a whole lot of attempt at wit, which is only half right.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister's answer is entirely relevant to the question asked, and she will continue.SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—To continue the information which the other side clearly needs—5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—What is the ratio?SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—If you had listened to the answer to my last question, I told you that we will exceed the ratio. As I said, the Labor Party pulled out $1.5 billion in expenditure, left us 10,000 places short, which we are making up—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga and the member for Lilley! The minister has the call.SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—Indeed, by the time we reach 2002, we will have 103 as the ratio.Ms Hoare interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Charlton. SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—In other words, for the increased expenditure from $2.2 billion to $3.5 billion we are fixing up the legacy that this lot left.94549454Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—My question is to the Minister for Community Services. I refer the minister to recent data that one in four couples who separate do so before their third wedding anniversary. I ask: what is the government doing to strengthen marriages?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Menzies has asked a question that will be of interest to all members of the House and the minister deserves to be heard in silence.9454Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—I thank the member for Menzies for his interest. He was the chairman of a committee that brought down the excellent report To have and to hold , and he has a very keen interest in family issues. It is true that some recent ABS figures showed an upward movement in the marriage rate, which is encouraging, but an increasing rate of divorce—I note though that the divorce rate declined in 1998. Nevertheless, the government, and I hope the opposition, would like to see the high level of divorce reversed. What the coalition government is all about is trying to secure stronger families and stronger relationships.To that end, the Howard-Anderson government has committed an extra $17.5 million this year for family relationship counselling, which will help over 100,000 people to access the service; $4.2 million for marriage and relationship education to assist couples to prepare for marriage, which will help about 30,000 people; $2.2 million for family relationship skills, which will help around 12,000 people using the service; and $2.1 million for adolescent mediation and family therapy. We anticipate that 18,000 young people and families will utilise this service. We are very much committed, and I certainly am in this portfolio, to ensuring that there are stronger families, which will lead to stronger communities, which is a goal this whole parliament should endorse.94549454Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. It concerns her answer to the question prior to the last one and whether she has misled the House on the matter of the inspections of aged care facilities. Do you recollect the statement by your department to the Senate that:The new arrangements were developed in partnership with aged care industry stakeholders and represent a shift away from overreliance on regulation to a shared responsibility for ensuring quality of care and services. Conducting surprise visits is not within the spirit of the new collaborative arrangements.Do you recollect your answer in this place, not your shortened version of it, when you said:In one word, the answer is no. Indeed, the Accreditation Agency can inspect a facility when they wish. Yes, they may take a letter with them but, no, they do not have to give an extended period of notice. They can go when they wish.Minister, why did you mislead us earlier in this week when you tried to conceal your embarrassment at not knowing your own regulations behind a blatantly misleading piece of information?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has asked his question and will resume his seat.NV5FORRESTMr Forrest—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Members of the opposition are asking questions today that I have been waiting patiently for you to rule out of order. They contain inference and argument, and I would like you to deliver them a lesson in the standing orders by ruling this question out of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Mallee has been here long enough to know that there is scarcely a question asked in this place that does not in one form or another advance an argument. The Leader of the Opposition was well aware that he was transgressing the standing orders when I asked him to resume his seat, and at that stage his microphone was switched off. I will not tolerate questions that unfairly advance argument and I intend to enforce that standing order, but I do not intend to so use question time that all ques tions are ruled out of order. Many questions would certainly be seen to advance an argument in the way in which they are framed.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Indignation!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the Chief Opposition Whip!9455Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—The answer that I gave you previously is the correct answer. Let me tell you why it is necessary for spot visits to take place. I am very pleased to see that the opposition leader can read. That is very pleasing. Unfortunately, his comprehension does not seem to be as good as his reading.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister is entitled to be heard in silence, and that courtesy will be extended to her or I will act severely against anyone who abuses standing order 55.SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—Let me tell you why it is the case. In 10 years, the Labor Party closed down only four homes. There are nursing homes that exist today that ought not to be open. The reason we will continue to have spot checks and the reason I will continue to have published on the Internet the names of residential facilities that do not meet the standard is the same reason that we want exposed the fact that we will not tolerate such care.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order and it relates to relevance.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On relevance?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has raised a point of order on relevance.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have the floor! The Leader of the Opposition has raised a point of order on relevance. It was self-evident to everyone in the chamber with just a wit of imagination precisely how the minister was responding to the question that was asked. She is entirely relevant.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, if you check the standing orders, I am sure you will find that standing orders protect the capacity to raise a point of order and raise it in full.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Absolutely.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—You do not just stand in this place and say, `Relevance,' or `132,' or something like that in the process. It is a reasonable thing to be permitted to present the position as to why you have raised relevance. I thought in this case—where we are dealing with a minister's statement of yesterday about the character of the circumstances in which an inspection might take place—a question of relevance was amply justified.WI4REITHMr Reith—On the point of order, Mr Speaker, the standing orders make it clear that you have carriage of the conduct of matters in the House.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Only after he hears the point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect!WI4REITHMr Reith—It has never been part of the standing orders and the raising of points of order that members can then get up and use that as a cover to debate the answer which is being given by a minister. So I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that your ruling is entirely correct. It is entirely in keeping with the standard and practice that we had for 13 years when Labor was in. Further, Mr Speaker, too often points of order are being used by the opposition to argue a case when they are not entitled to do so.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—To the point of order, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to standing order 99, which is `Proceedings on question of order'. It states:Upon a question of order being raised, the Member called to order shall resume his or her seat, and, after the question of order has been stated to the Speaker by the Member rising to the question of order, the Speaker shall give a ruling thereon.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for drawing my attention to standing order 99. I would remind the House that this has been a matter of relatively frequent debate and that, on a number of occasions, I have left this chair at some moments after 3 o'clock—particularly after the Manager of Opposition Business has drawn my attention to the very issue now being canvassed by the Leader of the Opposition—and checked both the standing orders and House of Representatives Practice . There is absolutely no obligation on the chair to do anything other than determine whether or not a point of order is valid. The Leader of the Opposition has raised a point of order on the matter of relevance. I had already been listening to the answer and had deemed it to be relevant.SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—Just so that the opposition understand it and understand it well, unlike you when you were in government I will use all the tools at my disposal to ensure that substandard care for older Australians in residential care is not permitted. That includes what we are talking about here—that is, the need for spot checks and publishing on the Internet the names of those people who give substandard care.94569456Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—My question is addressed to the very effective Minister for Community Services.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Cowper will come to his question.AE4Mr NEHL—Certainly, Sir. Would the minister explain to the House how the Child Support Agency is providing expanded services to regional and rural Australia? How will this expansion of services help people living in regional and rural Australia, especially those child support clients living in my electorate of Cowper?9456Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—The member for Cowper asks an excellent question. I am very happy to advise the House that earlier today I announced an expansion of Child Support Agency services to regional and rural Australia, from which many members of the coalition and many members of the opposition now will benefit. I am pleased to advise the member for Cowper that the expansion of child support services will dramatically improve the access and availability that parents have to child support agencies. Over the next six months, 20 new child support sites will be set up in Centrelink offices right across Australia. This will significantly benefit the child support clients living in regional and remote areas and give them face-to-face access with child support officers in the Centrelink offices. This gives it that personalised customer focus where in the past they may have had to travel large distances to metropolitan areas.That fits well with the government's commitment particularly to regional and rural Australia, and indeed to all families and all parents who have to go through the Child Support Agency. This does improve access dramatically. It is a worthy objective, and I certainly encourage all members of the House to contact my office if they wish to know whether they have one in their area.94569456Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and concerns her answer to the previous question. Minister, is it not a fact that there are now no spot checks without prior notification?9456Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—Just so you really understand: under section 1.7 of the accountability principles, a provider may access if given notice in writing which he may take with him when he arrives. There is no change in the way in which spot checks may take place. If you go back to the answer that you cleverly read out earlier in the day, you said they can take the letter with them, which is precisely what I said when I gave you the first answer.Mr Beazley interjecting—SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—You asked me. I am the minister, that is the department.94569456Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—I address my question to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. Has the minister received legal advice from the Australian Government Solicitor regarding Senate amendments to the government's RFA legislation? Is the minister aware of any criticism of the Australian Government Solicitor's advice?9456Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has received advice from the Australian Government Solicitor and has directed that advice to me as it deals with matters for which I am respon sible. The department requested of the Australian Government Solicitor advice on amendments put to the Senate by the Australian Labor Party in particular for the obvious reason that, in dealing with this legislation, it is a good idea to know whether, for instance, those proposals are constitutional. I have here that advice and I intend to table it, notwithstanding it has been issued to interested parties already. Amongst other things, in referring to a motion put in the Senate to make all regional forest agreements before a certain date subject to disallowance, item 8 of the Australian Government Solicitor advice says:The bill, if amended as proposed, would then confer on the houses of parliament an unlimited discretion whether to permit the Minister to enter into any particular RFA. In these circumstances, it is likely that the bill would be regarded by the High Court as authorising the giving of preference to one region over another contrary to section 99.He goes on to give a reference: Giris Pty Ltd v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1968-69) 119 CLR 365. The bill, if enacted in that form, would then be invalid. He goes on at item 9 of the advice:There is, in our view, no way consistent with section 99, that the existence of an RFA for a region can be made to depend on the RFA surviving a process of parliamentary approval or disallowance. This is the case whether all, or only some, RFAs are subjected to that process.That is a very definite piece of advice from none other than the Australian Government Solicitor in response to a request from a government department. It would seem that that in fact, as other parts of this advice state, could blow the regional forest agreements act out of the water in terms of its intention—and the Labor Party still runs around the electorates in Tasmania and other places saying it actually supports the principles. Of course, it is the CFMEU and others, including the Deputy Premier of Tasmania, who are saying that they support the bill unamended because they too have had similar advice.Further to this, and in answer to the member's question, the fact is that the shadow minister has gone as far as to say that, first, we had the government mislead its legal advisers. I point out to you, Mr Speaker, that this advice was provided at the request of the department, so that is misleading the public. Secondly, the opposition are running around the place saying they have legal advice contrary to the advice of the government's senior legal advisers, signed off I might add by two persons in that office.There is a simple solution to this problem: let the Labor Party produce their advice under a heading similar to this. They have said before to me, `Where is your advice? Will you table the advice?' Well, here it is. The fact of life is that it is an effort from the Australian Government Solicitor and it can be read by all and sundry as the opportunity arises. As the shadow minister knows, he has got a copy of it now. But okay, what about it? Are you going to put up your advice? I submit this advice to the House.94579457Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. Minister, as you would be aware, all written departmental answers that are provided to questions in Senate estimates processes are cleared by ministers.Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—PE4Mr BEAZLEY—No? I see! In light of the answer you have just given, what action will you take to correct the impression of your approved-of answer of 11 February which said:Conducting surprise visits is not within the spirit of the new collaborative arrangements.9457Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—I think I might know a bit more about estimates than you do. Let me tell you, just so you understand: the aged care principles are subordinate legislation pursuant to the enabling act. I just read out to you the relevant section of the subordinate legislation which governs the way in which people may behave. As you also know, through you Mr Speaker, government makes policy and bureaucrats carry it out. The policy is that there will be spot checks and that the enabling legislation and the subordinate legislation enable that to take place, as confirmed by the section I just read out to the House a moment ago. I stand by the original answer I gave as correct, legal and the way it will in fact be carried out.94589458Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—My question is to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. The minister would be aware of recent reports highlighting the skills shortage in the information technology and telecommunications industry. What action is the government taking to address these shortages?9458Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Curtin for her question. One of Australia's significant challenges is to take maximum advantage of the rapid changes in technology in the information arena. I believe that Australia is very well placed to meet that challenge and reap the economic rewards. We do have to recognise, however, that there is a worldwide skills shortage in information technology and telecommunications.Last December the government and the IT industry held its first information technology skills summit. Following that summit, the government announced a package of measures on 29 April to help industries improve their skills base. This package included strategies to gain a better understanding of the IT&T industries' problems, promote IT&T careers, enhance education and training outputs and facilitate immigration of IT&T specialists. Since then, I have recently launched the IT&T training package, which is going to provide flexible options within the area of vocational education and training. The IT industry has recently conducted a survey of skills shortages in the industry, and on Thursday Senator Alston and I will be meeting with industry representatives at the second IT skills summit here in Canberra.I am pleased to report that Australia's higher education and vocational institutions have responded to the challenge already. Commencements in IT&T higher education courses rose by 26.6 per cent in 1999 and are now 148 per cent higher than they were in that year. In vocational education and training, commencements in higher level courses rose by 57 per cent in the four years to 1998 and at all levels there were approximately 120,000 commencements in IT&T courses. This gives confidence to everyone that Australia will meet the challenge of providing the skills to support the IT&T industry in this country.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice9458945815:04:009458Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I want to add to an answer I gave in question time. I was asked a question about health spending in Victoria. I have been informed that, as far as levels of state government hospital funding are concerned, the Victorian budget papers show an increase from a budgeted $2.8 billion for acute health services in 1997-98—the last year of the former Medicare agreements negotiated by the Keating government—to $3.2 billion in 1999-2000. This is an increase of 13 per cent.Questions to the Speaker945894589458Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I have a question for you, Mr Speaker, relating to standing order 150. On 8 March 1999, I asked the Treasurer question No. 465. As 176 days have now passed, I require you, Mr Speaker, to write to the Treasurer asking him for an answer.9458Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow that up as the standing orders allow.94589458Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—Mr Speaker, I have a question for you regarding students visiting the chamber and staying in the galleries. I have had a number of schools say to me that, when staying in the glass enclosed second floor gallery, quite often the sound is turned off to enable the attendants to speak to the students. Having travelled long distances to enjoy the atmosphere of the chamber, there have been several complaints to my office. This is not a criticism of the education office at all; they do a very sound job. But I wonder if perhaps some inquiries could be made before schools come as to whether they would like to be in one of the galleries that are open or in one of the galleries that are enclosed.9459Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I thank the member for Dawson. I would point out to the House that I have observed, as all members would have observed, students in the galleries from time to time. I presume they are frequently from Canberra schools. That is only a presumption I have made. Clearly, there are opportunities for the students to occupy galleries on either side. As anyone will understand, it is frequently convenient for them to use the glassed areas because it allows there to be a conversation without disrupting the House, but I will follow up the inquiry by the member for Dawson to see if a choice is put to the schools.Miscellaneous9459945915:07:009459Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—Since question time yesterday, I have been advised that December's figures for apprenticeships have since been revised upwards from the previously published figure of 206,400 to 219,810. I included these revised figures in the media release I issued after question time. This is of course an excellent result and means that the total number in training grew by more than 12,000 from December 1998 to 31 March 1999.Miscellaneous94599459Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I present for the information of honourable members a copy of a letter received by facsimile from the Regional Director of the National Crime Authority, Melbourne office, requesting permission of the House for the production in court of the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives for 10 November 1998, No. 1 of 1998-99. I will have copies of this request passed on to the Leader of the House, the Manager of Opposition Business and the member for Calare.Documents94599459Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings .Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following paper:Government Response to the Committee Report—Ship Safe—Inquiry into the Australian Maritime Safety Authority 1996-97 Annual Report .Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance9459945910000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER— I have received a letter from the honourable member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of the Government to defend the principles of Medicare by permitting the decline in State Government hospital funding and service quality levels in Victoria.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:09:009459Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—As every Victorian knows, there is a crisis in the Victorian hospital system. Seven years of underfunding of operations, cutbacks in capital works and a run-down in morale have wrecked what was once a great public hospital system. Victorians are in no doubt about where Mr Kennett stands on Medicare. He calls Medicare a farce and has repeatedly called for it to be scrapped. His health policy is based on forcing everyone—everyone who he thinks can afford it—into private health insurance. For him, that means everyone.Jeff Kennett blames the federal government and the federal government blames Jeff Kennett. We have heard the Prime Minister here today work very hard to avoid blaming Jeff Kennett, but of course in the past we have heard so many times the interactions between the two of them. Both of them right now are just standing back and letting the public hospital system in Victoria suffer. Mr Kennett has pulled hundreds of millions of dollars out of the public hospital system. It is not the Labor Party saying this. The Prime Minister should have a look at what the Victorian AMA is saying. Nine hundred million dollars has been pulled out of the Victorian hospital system.Mr Kennett has closed wards and allowed thousands of patients to wait on trolleys in emergency departments. And he is the one who has privatised major hospitals, as the member for McMillan knows so well. If his government is re-elected, Victorians will lose forever the Austin and Repatriation Medical Centre—the biggest teaching hospital in Melbourne—which also happens to be in my electorate. If he is re-elected, Jeff Kennett will continue—this is the greatest danger—his campaign against Medicare, along with the Liberal state premiers from Western Australia and South Australia.Medicare is under the greatest threat that it has ever been under. And Jeff Kennett is the greatest threat to Medicare that we have ever seen. He was typically blunt when he told the Herald Sun on 23 July this year, `Medicare isn't working . . . Medicare is a farce . . . ' It is a farce in Victoria; Jeff Kennett made sure of that.4G4DOWNERMr Downer—Medicare a farce?PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—It is certainly a farce in Victoria. It is a total farce in Victoria, and this federal government has done absolutely nothing about it. What are the facts about the state of health services in the state of Victoria that this Howard government is doing nothing about? According to the Commonwealth Grants Commission, expenditure on health services is 12 per cent below the national average. What we know is that in Victoria patients are much more likely to leave hospital earlier than they are likely to elsewhere. The number of people returning to hospital after being discharged is increasing; they go out one door and come back in the next because they have not been properly looked after. Elderly Victorians have to wait an extra 41 days for a permanent nursing home bed—10 days above the national average. Victoria has the lowest number of nursing home and hostel places. As I have already said, $900 million has been taken from hospitals.Some of us will recall the special report on hospitals done by the Victorian Auditor-General—whom, of course, the Premier can't stand—which found that two-thirds of senior doctors and nurses believed that the quality of care in hospitals in Victoria had deteriorated. We have seen six metropolitan hospitals closed: Altona, Burwood, Fairfield, Preston and Northcote, Mordialloc-Cheltenham and Essendon. I understand that the Hampton Rehabilitation Hospital is due to close shortly. And the biggest teaching hospital, the Austin and Repatriation Medical Centre, is to be privatised and sold.Twelve country hospitals have been closed and many others have been forced to reduce services. The Latrobe Regional Hospital has been privatised, Mildura Base Hospital has been privatised and other country hospitals are being threatened with privatisation. Some 10,000 hospital staff have been cut from our hospital system, including 3,500 nurses. Some 1,400 hospital beds have been closed. In 1997-98, over 9,000 people waited more than 12 hours in emergency departments just in metropolitan hospitals before they were admitted to hospital. Waiting lists have increased by 20 per cent to over 40,000 during the Kennett government's term of office.Spending on capital works—this has been one of the most dismal areas—has been cut by over 40 per cent in real terms. The second Labor speaker in the MPI debate today is going to talk about the area of ambulance services. A special report from the Auditor-General on the ambulance service found that:. . . contractual arrangements at the Ambulance Service were carried out in a manner which, at best, involved serious mismanagement or, at worst, constituted corrupt activity.Ambulance response times declined for two years following the introduction of the Intergraph system. Once again according to the Commonwealth Grants Commission, expenditure on community health is 60 per cent below the national average. Victoria spends only $10.50 per head on drug and alcohol services, which is a lower level of expenditure per capita than those of the Northern Territory, Western Australia, the ACT and New South Wales. Just to top it off, the Kennett government has closed 43 maternal and child health services in its time in office.As we have heard today, with all this damage to the public health system the federal Minister for Health and Aged Care and the Prime Minister are quite happy to sit back and describe Jeff Kennett as having done `a fabulous job'—he has done a fabulous job of wrecking Victoria's public hospital system. The Kennett government has broken promises.4G4DOWNERMr Downer—The public will decide that. We'll see on September 18.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—We will certainly see what the Kennett government promise in the lead-up to this election. Let us have a look at what they promised at the last election and how many of those promises they kept. This is what the voters should consider: new health centres were promised for Preston, Lilydale and Melton—all of those were abandoned, and one at Sunbury has not been started; the promised Knox hospital has been indefinitely deferred; and the promised Berwick hospital has not commenced. When Fairfield closed, patients of the Victorian Respiratory Support Service were assured that they would be given ongoing respite care and transport from the Austin. As so many of us know, the Kennett government have not lived up to any of these obligations. They would not be interested in what happens to sufferers of muscular dystrophy, who are now left at home with their elderly families for weeks on end because the Kennett government does not provide sufficient funding to make sure that people are properly looked after. And all the Minister for Health and Aged Care can say is that things are fabulous. A new centre for AIDS treatment was promised at the Alfred Hospital and never delivered. These are the sorts of promises that the Victorian public should get ready to hear. Last time they were all broken.These facts tell only half the story. To understand the pain, frustration and sheer misery that has been caused by this Victorian government—aided and abetted by the Howard government—in running down our health system, I want to go through a few personal stories which come from my electorate, and such as we read in the papers day after day. Every single hospital in Victoria has a long list of horror stories and disasters; I have no doubt that all of my colleagues could add to this list. These stories all come from the cuts in budgets and the significant downward spiral of staff morale. Listen to this one example. A woman fell in her bathroom and was taken by her daughter to the Austin. She was given pain-killers in the emergency department and sent home, only to come back into the hospital the next day. Fortunately, that day she was given an X-ray, and it was revealed that she had a broken neck.An elderly grandmother was admitted to the Austin after falling in the street in Watsonia. She waited five hours for treatment and was then sent home with a walking frame and told that she could see a specialist in two weeks time. Three weeks later she got to see the specialist and a broken leg was diagnosed. She then had to receive an urgent knee replacement and a plate. A woman in a shared ward was left for five hours with a person who had died in the next bed. A veteran who died after being sent home in a taxi from the repatriation hospital was dragged from the taxi and left at his doorstep by the taxidriver. This is the reality of what is going on at the Austin and Repatriation Medical Centre, which is grossly underfunded by the Kenneth government under a system called `fabulous' by this federal Minister for Health and Aged Care.Things are bad in Victoria because of Jeff Kennett—who, according to the minister, is doing a fabulous job. The Howard government is doing nothing about it. It is a critical time for Medicare and the future direction of our public hospital system. It took us so long in government to rebuild Medicare after the wreckage of the Fraser government. The coalition promised that it would never touch Medibank but, piece by piece, it stripped it apart. For the great bulk of his political life, the Prime Minister has been obsessed with his dream of having a private health sector supported by lavish tax concessions. All through the 1980s we heard the Prime Minister saying that he wanted to take the knife to Medicare. He has only now realised that it is not such a good idea to be so up front about it. It is better to get other people out to do the work to attack Medicare.The Prime Minister promised that we would never, ever have a GST. Some of us would remember what he said. He used the states to get that debate going in 1997. In the same way that Jeff Kennett and the other Liberal premiers are currently promoting the case for the abolition of Medicare, we had those Liberal premiers out there in 1997 getting the debate going on the GST. Jeff Kennett claims a leading role in restarting the GST bandwagon. He said—and some members will remember this quote—`We have articulated a need for the GST and the federal government has responded.' The same thing is now happening with Medicare. The Prime Minister has shown by his record that he considers policy promises to be disposable. In 1995, when asked by Howard Sattler whether he would ever increase the Medicare levy, he answered `n-o; the opposite of yes'. Less than a year later, he put the one per cent Medicare surcharge on people without private health insurance earning more than $50,000 a year.We can see what he really thinks about Medicare because of the way that he decides to spend money—by pouring money into private health insurance and allowing Jeff Kennett to slash funding to public hospitals. The real views held within the Liberal Party about Medicare are evident from the unanimous outbursts that we have seen from the three Liberal premiers, led of course by the typically blunt Jeff Kennett. He has declared Medicare to be a farce and called for its abolition. Jeff Kennett wants means testing to force all but the poor into private health insurance. The same goes for John Olsen and Richard Court. What we know is that this Prime Minister has stood feebly by as the coalition premiers, led by Jeff Kennett, have dismantled their hospitals. The Prime Minister calls Jeff Kennett `fabulous'. We on this side call him `Medicare's public enemy No. 1'.15:24:009462Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—The allegation here is that this government has failed to defend the principles of Medicare. What a false allegation! This government went to the last two elections saying that it had a commitment to Medicare, that it would keep Medicare. Indeed, in regard to the Medicare agreements, we have increased funding right across Australia, including Victoria, enabling us to say very fulsomely that we have a commitment to Medicare. Our health system costs around $48 billion a year to run; our Medicare levy raises somewhere between $3 billion and $4 billion a year. Quite clearly, the money needed to supply the health system, which includes doctors, hospitals, aged care facilities and the PBS, has to come from general revenue.Understanding this, and also understanding that the states' core business is education, health, policing and roads, we allocate various grants and enter into section 96 grants which allow funding with various strings attached. Come 1 July 2000, the states will also have access to the growth tax of the GST so that they will be better able to manage their funds. But the Commonwealth government, with its signing of the last Medicare agreement, and counting in the DVA funds as well, has in fact increased funding by 19.7 per cent. That is a very significant increase. We have done something else, because there used to be a practice whereby, if the Commonwealth increased its funding, the states would withdraw a little bit of funding. In the Medicare agreement that we have signed, we have made it a term and condition of the agreement that state governments can no longer do this.In real terms, the Kennett government had an increase in funding in this current budget of $80 million—$11 million of that money came from the Victorian government itself. If you really want to get a bit of angst up, take a look at the contrast and ask the member for Jagajaga why it is that she is not haranguing the New South Wales government, which has pulled $42 million in funding out of its health budget in this financial year. Compare that: Victoria has put in $11 million of its own money this year and New South Wales—a Labor Party government—has pulled out $42 million. Why is it that we are hearing about Victoria today? Why would you think that is? Surprise, surprise! Could it have anything to do with an election? Could it have anything to do with the fact that the Labor Party in Victoria is looking in very poor straits indeed? Is this an attempt by the lame to help the lame? I think so. This is the lame opposition in this place helping the lame opposition in Victoria, and I must say that the arguments are about as lame as the allegations.Last time the Labor Party were in office they made a few promises. Let us have a look at what they said and what they did in the three years before they got thrown out in 1996. First, they promised that there would be new initiatives in the private sector: there would be $100 million over four years expended in that direction. What happened? They spent $13 million over three years as well as giving us the l-a-w law tax cuts. The second promise they made was that they would do something about providing capital funding for residential aged care facilities. They commissioned the Gregory report, which identified that there was a need for around $1.4 billion in funding over 10 years for nursing homes to have sufficient funds to improve the fabric of the buildings.What did those opposite do with that report when they were in government? Mr Deputy Speaker, I will tell you: they did absolutely nothing; they never even responded to it. Who was left to respond to that report? This government. This government responded by introducing the accommodation charge which, by a factor of 10, will produce more money for capital expenditure over a 10-year period than the Labor Party provided in their previous 10 years. So much for their promises.The Labor Party promised that it would have a national rural health program that would focus on expanding the rural health centres initiative and developing rural health plans. When we came to government three years later, what did we find? We did not find a thing.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—This is just the speech that she always gives.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Jagajaga, you have had your turn.SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOP—In fact, we have put in place a $200 million rural health plan, which means that we are introducing MPSs, a GP retention grants scheme, scholarships for rural students and a fly-in fly-out female GP service for people in rural areas who want to have a female GP. That is this government. What of the rural health plan promised by that lot? It never eventuated.A further promise that those opposite made was that they would introduce a reform for the National Health Act ensuring that there was commitment to the promotion of public health in Australia. Guess what? It did not happen. We, on the other hand, have entered into public health agreements to jointly fund research and services for delivery in very important areas like asthma, diabetes and things that really affect people and need attention. Promises from the shadow minister, in the great Marxist tradition, are just about as valuable as Russia found them to be.83SBURKEMs Burke—Like the `never, ever' GST?SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOP—There is one on the opposite side of the chamber trying to say that we did not take the GST policy to the people. That is the difference between them and us. They make promises, took them to the people and did not deliver; we made promises, took them to the people and did deliver. That is the fundamental difference.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—After you said `never, ever'.SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOP—Let us have another one of their promises. They promised to establish a national advisory council on ethnic health. Did they? No, of course not. What have we done? We have an ethnic framework working particularly with the area of aged care. We know and are very cognisant of the difficulties that older Australians who come from a non-English speaking background have when they grow older, lose their English facility and need to have special services so that their quality of life is good. We have put that framework in place. What did they do? Nothing.What is another promise that they made? They said that there would be a continuation of the National Health Strategy. That is Jenny Macklin code for `British style national health system'. This is the spokesman who always wanted private health insurance to fail. We can remember Graham Richardson, who was once upon a time Minister for Health. He said that, if it fell to 20 per cent, the system would collapse. This is the reality: of the $48 billion that our health system costs, one-third comes from the private sector. The reality is that 45 per cent comes from the Commonwealth government, 22 per cent from the state government and 33 per cent from the private sector. The reality is that, without that private health insurance system and the private sector, our health system would fall over—and that is what the member for Jagajaga wanted to happen, because then she could have a British style nationalised health system. That has always been her aim. Remember the Macklin report? That was code for socialism; it was the socialist solution to what is needed.But no, the Australian people know that the private sector is important to them. They know that it gives them choice. Accordingly, this government took all those actions that were necessary to stop the loss. If we had not taken the actions which we took, in 3½ years that loss would have delivered us to the 20 per cent figure that Graham Richardson identified as being failure. But by putting in place our policies to assist private health insurance and to assist families who want and value having choice of doctor and choice of hospital, we have seen a turnaround of a quarter of a million people.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—And wrecked the public hospitals.SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOP—Under us, the public hospitals have had an increase in funding. In Victoria, there has been an increase in funding. In New South Wales, $42 million has been pulled out—and yet not a word have we heard against the Labor government of New South Wales, the Bob Carr government.What have we done in place of that? We reject socialist solutions. We have had a review of general practice; we have intro duced the Wills report with its recommendations having gone into the budget.Ms Macklin interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga will not make personal comments.SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOP—We have had policies which are designed to reinforce, and in fact have reinforced, the private health insurance system. What was another of their promises? The development of a national primary health care policy. Guess what? It never happened. What have we done? We have targeted six particular areas where we are putting our resources and our attention to get real outcomes. Where do we target and refine? Mental health, cardiovascular health, injury prevention—particularly with relation to falls in the elderly—asthma, diabetes and cancer, areas where we can get real outcomes.What further promise did they make? They were going to have an environmental health strategy. Guess what? That did not happen either. However, this government has already entered into agreements with the state and territory governments and we now have an environmental health strategy. This government is the one that delivers on the things that need to be delivered on and are important. This MPI is designed to be part of the Victorian state election. As I said, one could say it is the lame leading the lame. In other words, this attempted bolstering of the opposition's position in Victoria is seen for precisely what it is. When you look at their record, which I have just outlined for you, you see precisely how pathetic it is. Victoria has increased its health care outlays in 1999-2000 by 2.6 per cent—they are the figures I was talking about—and New South Wales, 1.2 per cent. Victoria has had an injection of $80 million, $68 million from the Commonwealth and just over $11 million from its own resources. New South Wales has pushed it right out and has ripped out $42 million from its budget.Another quite important point about the distinction between the health agreements entered into by this government and the ones entered into by the Labor Party is: what happens if there were to be a drop in private health insurance and what assistance would be given to the public health system if that occurred? We do not have the weaselly two per cent review clause that Labor used to have—that is, if there was a two per cent drop then they might look at it and think about it. We have said that there would be an automatic adjustment. No `let's have a look, let's have a review' but an automatic adjustment that would provide an additional $82 million nationally for every percentage point reduction in private health insurance participation, recognising that if that occurred there would be a greater call on the public hospitals.The corollary of that if we increase the participation and just hold the drag with private health insurance is that we are saving pressure on the public hospitals. So the more successful we are with our private health insurance strategies, the less pressure there will be on the public hospitals. That is part and parcel of a balanced approach—not a nationalised approach, not socialised medicine, but a balance between responsibilities under the public system and the private system. That is what this government has given. We are protecting Medicare. We are ensuring that individual consumers get choice. Indeed, we are delivering where they failed. (Time expired)15:39:009465Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—I have never seen a minister so relieved to see her time up, seeing that she did not mention once the $900 million that the Premier of Victoria has cut from the health care budget in that state. The Premier of Victoria makes many claims—I do not think many of them are legitimate, but nevertheless he makes them—about the state that he has got Victoria into: it is on the move, it is restored, it is vital, the economy is a buzz, it is a fantastic place. But, in this one instance, the Premier has made no claims—PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—No claims!83SBurke, Anna, MPMs BURKE—And he will make no claims that the health system in Victoria is in a good state. Indeed, he has recently said that it is in such a bad way that we need a Productivity Commission inquiry into it. So the one claim that the Victorian Premier will not make is that he has created a good health system in our state.Victorians rely on Medicare. Medicare is the system of health cover that most Australians support and that the rest of the world envies. But Jeff Kennett just does not believe in public health. He told 3AW in January that he believes `everyone should be on and should have private health insurance'. In fact, Mr Kennett is committed to a health system that would force Victorians to pay thousands for private health insurance. He and other Liberal premiers believe that only the poor should have free public hospital cover and everyone else should pay. This is a view our Prime Minister believed until, for election reasons, he adopted another position prior to the 1996 election. That means that Victorian families would be stuck paying thousands for private health insurance or facing huge bills for hospital treatment.Jeff Kennett is the biggest threat to Medicare. He does not have any doubt about his commitment to the scrapping of Medicare and he has said so consistently for years. He has boasted on ABC radio, `I have argued for this for a long time. It's not new.' More significantly, he has also said that the federal government was `too scared to scrap Medicare'.Every time a newspaper runs a story about the terrible state of our hospitals, the state and federal governments blame each other—the tit for tat argument about cost shifting. But the facts are that neither the Howard government nor the Kennett Liberal government believe in the public health system. The Prime Minister shovels millions into private health insurance while our public hospitals choke with patients and while Jeff Kennett's Victoria spends less on health than any other state. No other industry benefits from such magnanimous government intervention. If the recurrent funds of $1.7 billion had gone into public hospitals and not to an industry that fails to offer a decent service to consumers, maybe the states would not be calling for a Productivity Commission inquiry into the state of our health care system in Australia.Personally, I have private health care insurance—for many reasons, one obviously being the impending birth of my first child—but when I received a $1,000 bill as an out-of-pocket expense the other day I was, to say the least, outraged. This is $1,000 nobody covers—not Medicare and not my private health insurance which I have top cover with. It is one of those wonderful things known as an out-of-pocket expense. This is the system that this government props up—a system that this government says is supporting our public hospitals. How? It is beyond my comprehension.It is a two-pronged attack on the public health system and Medicare. John Howard cut $800 million from the public health system in 1996 and Jeff Kennett has sold hospitals, one of which is in my electorate. The residents of Chisholm have lost their Burwood Hospital. This is quite an interesting case, because the previous member for Chisholm claimed that he would do everything to protect that hospital.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—I wonder who that was?83SBurke, Anna, MPMs BURKE—As we all know, who was the member for Chisholm at the time? He was none other than the current Minister for Health and Aged Care. He made repeated claims that the Burwood Hospital would remain open.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—What happened to it?83SBurke, Anna, MPMs BURKE—It sat there for two years costing the government an enormous amount of money to maintain a closed facility. Now it is just a pile of rubble. When you drive past it, it is quite tragic to see. The people in Burwood, which has an exceedingly ageing population, have no hospital nearby. The Kennett government not only closed hospitals but also closed wards and cut hundreds of millions of dollars from the hospital budget.The Victorian public has every right to be sick of the Liberals blaming each other and making excuses. They can blame each other, but the message is clear: our hospitals are in trouble and Liberals will not help. At first hand I have seen the cuts by this government, through the struggle of my husband and his colleagues to provide decent quality care to very ill patients. As an ambo, my husband sees daily the disintegration of the public hospital system in Victoria.Just in the last couple of days, the majority of Melbourne's hospitals have simultaneously been on by-pass to ambulances. This literally means that very sick patients are denied access to the closest facility because the emergency rooms are so overcrowded they can handle no more patients. This can mean, as it has in the past, that someone can die because they cannot get the care they need when they need it. Hospitals, interestingly enough, are actually financially penalised when they are on by-pass. While their emergency rooms are choked, absolutely swamped by an increase in demand, and they are struggling with a decline both in medical and support staff and in funding, they are also being blamed and held accountable financially because there is money going into their systems. I see the anguish that this causes to my husband and his colleagues quite regularly. It is tragic, and something really needs to be done urgently.The Kennett government is committed to ending Medicare and privatising our hospital system. Already it has privatised the Berwick, Mildura and Latrobe regional hospitals. The Austin and Repat and Knox hospitals are also earmarked for privatisation. Mr Kennett wants to force most people to take out private health insurance or pay to use public hospitals.Under Labor, no hospital, nursing home or community health care centre will be privatised. When I embark upon the experience of having my first child, I will have only 10 days on which I can visit a maternal health care centre in Victoria because they have all been cut and closed. No longer are you going to have an unlimited right to see these people. Ten measly days I get—that is it.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—For a first-time mum.83SBurke, Anna, MPMs BURKE—For a first-time mum. And I am a lucky one: I have a great husband and I have my family nearby. But most people do not. This is meant to be a family friendly government and it is not. Medicare will be maintained and strengthened under Labor. Every Victorian will have the right to access quality hospital care, regardless of their wealth. While Labor recognises the role of the private health care sector and of private health insurance in the current health system, we are opposed to handing over Victorians' public hospitals and community health care centres to private operators. Privatisation of these health facilities removes public accountability and control, fragments health care and makes health planning more difficult.The Kennett government wants to take Victoria down the American path of health care, where the quality of care you receive depends on the size of your wallet. Private hospitals must make profits. Non-profitable patients, including the old and the chronically ill, are likely to miss out.As the minister has been talking about New South Wales, maybe she should note that privatisation has already cost the taxpayer money. In New South Wales, the Liberal Greiner government privatised the Port Macquarie hospital, and it now costs New South Wales taxpayers 30 per cent more than a comparable public hospital. Under the Kennett government's hospital privatisation contracts, the taxpayers will pay the private contractor the cost of building and upgrading the hospital over a 20-year period. What happens at the end of that 20-year period? The private company will own the hospital; so we get to pay, and the public gets nothing in return.The deals to sell off the Austin and Repat hospital and other hospitals are being kept secret—much as everything in Victoria is—because the Kennett government knows the taxpayer is being sold out. If the Kennett government is re-elected, it will privatise further hospitals and nursing homes. No hospital or nursing home will be safe. The government has already indicated it will consider privatisation for any capital development of over $10 million. This is a government that really cares about health in our state!Labor will be unable to break many of these contracts, because we do not know what has been entered into. Nevertheless, Labor will invest in hospitals and not sell them. A Bracks government will stop the privatisation process at the Austin and Repat, will review all existing hospital privatisation contracts and will not provide bail-outs to privatised hospitals that are not meeting their contractual obligations.Under Labor, we will give back to Victoria's health system what it needs. We will give back to the voters in our state what they have been calling for: a system that is working, a system that gives them care—and not a system that lets them down at every turn, that leaves them on trolleys waiting for emergency care, that leaves them with an integrated service that dispatches ambulances so that, instead of going to somewhere in Victoria, they end up in Tasmania. We will give them a system that they can be proud of—one we used to have in our state but no longer do.15:49:009467Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—What a pathetic effort we have just heard, with the shadow minister and the member for Chisholm trying to prop up the state Leader of the Opposition and the state shadow minister for health. This MPI has absolutely no basis whatsoever. It has no basis, firstly, because Victoria has signed the health care agreement and it is that agreement that underpins all the principles of Medicare. There is absolutely no basis whatsoever to this MPI because, as the Prime Minister indicated at the end of question time today from the Victorian budget papers, there is an increase from a budgeted $2.8 billion for acute health services in 1997-98—the last year of the former Medicare agreements negotiated by those opposite—to $3.2 billion in 1999-2000. That is an increase of 13 per cent, and that is a real increase.This MPI has, of course, everything to do with the fact that a state election is being held in Victoria. It has everything to do with a concerted and deliberate scare campaign being mounted by the shadow minister for health and her Victorian state counterparts. Let me show you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and those interested in the House today, why I say it is a concerted scare campaign. A few weeks ago there was a public meeting called, with the emotive title of `Save the Austin and Repat'. Well, we should all save it from any Labor hands. One of the quotes in the leaflet that was distributed with that said that services at the Austin and Repat are `in a shambles'. That is a disgrace. It is not only a disgrace that the shadow minister would stoop so low to make a statement like that but also an example of gross irresponsibility. The shadow minister is attempting to conduct, as I said, simply another scare campaign.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Have a look at the reality.JT4Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEY—In her speech today, she actually talked about the Austin and Repatriation hospital. She mentioned the word `crisis'. She said people have not been properly looked after. Let us have a look at exactly what is happening at the Austin hospital. The number of patients treated in the last 12 months at the Austin and Repat hospital is at an all-time record. The number of patients who have received operations at the Austin and Repat hospital is also at an all-time record. More patients than ever before have been treated and have received operations there.Ms Macklin interjecting—JT4Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEY—The number of patients treated in intensive care at the Austin and Repat is at yet another all-time record. In fact, there has been an increase of eight per cent in the number of patients in intensive care at the very hospital that the shadow minister is absolutely determined to criticise and run down at every opportunity.Ms Macklin interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Jagajaga does not have to make a running commentary on everything that is said.JT4Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEY—Let us look not only at those statistics but also at the level of quality care and innovation that has been developed at the Austin hospital. Take, for example, Professor Brian Buxton's cardiology unit. He has established a special ward for immediate post-surgical care where the skills of recovery room nurses are integrated with other special skills.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—What is going to happen to the Austin hospital?JT4Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEY—The Austin hospital, like all other hospitals in Victoria, conducts surveys to test quality assurance and patient satisfac tion. Surveys of those who have been patients in the special wards in the last two years showed that more than 1,000 patients have benefited and that in that period there were only two cancellations due to no intensive care beds being available. Two out of 1,000 is jolly good for a quality assurance program and for patient satisfaction. By any measure, that is an excellent record.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Then why are you selling it?JT4Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEY—We should also look at the assisted discharge program for cardiac surgical patients, where people are actually visited in their own homes by specially trained nurses. Let us also look at the establishment of flats in the Austin hospital. I was at the opening of these flats, and may I tell the House that so also was the shadow minister for health.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Too right. It is in my electorate. I do not want to sell it; you do.JT4Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEY—We looked at those, and there was not one word of criticism about that particular service—Ms Macklin interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Jagajaga will be silent.JT4Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEY—because she was in the presence of hospital personnel. Cardiac patients are actually discharged from the hospital ward into those flats which are, as I said, located within the hospital itself. The sorts of patients who get access to the flats are those who are socially disadvantaged. Many, for example, are from rural areas. In fact, on the day of the opening of these flats one of the patients who was in the flats was from Euroa, a rural area in the member for Indi's electorate.A survey has also been taken of the patients who have been admitted to these flats. In excess of 95 per cent have expressed how happy they were with this arrangement and that they would recommend the service to others. I think it is about time that the shadow minister ceases this nonsense of constantly denigrating what is a very fine hospital, a hospital that is at the leading edge of research not just by Victorian standards but by world standards. Let me just give the shadow minister a reminder of what some of these research institutes are. For example, there is the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, run by Professor Jonathan Cebon; the National Stroke Foundation—this is the national research foundation located at the Austin; the Austin Research Institute, run by Professor McKenzie; the Mental Health Foundation, run by Professor Burrows; the Liver Transplant Unit, with a survival rate equal to any hospital in the world; the spinal injury unit; diabetes management, into which, as a result of recent overseas recognition, there was a transfusion of $3 million; and the cardiology unit, which has in just the last year presented and published more than 200 papers. These are not examples of a hospital in a shambles, as the shadow minister would have us believe. These are not examples of a system of health where people are not treated properly, as the opposition are constantly criticising—and they were the words that the shadow minister used in this debate today.Let me move on from the Austin, in particular, to actually get some facts on the record. In Victoria the expansion of health services represents over $1 billion invested in new health facilities, where 300,000 more patients are being treated now than were treated in 1992. Compare that to those years when the ALP were in charge of matters. Today no Victorian waits more than 30 days for urgent elective surgery, and the number of people waiting for semi-urgent elective surgery has been almost halved, in spite of an unprecedented increase in demand. Look at any area of health—whether it is rural health, older health, palliative care or mental health—and the Victorian government is doing a fantastic job.As I said today, this MPI is based on the Victorian ALP's health policy which was released today—outside the Austin, I might add. Can I tell you it is 10 anaemic pages. It does not mention any services. It does not mention anything about doctors. It does not mention anything about nurses. Nor does it mention anything about research. In stark contrast, this is the coalition's health policy, which was also released today—38 pages covering areas of building programs, hospital in the home, quality standards, road and ambulance services, children's health, health of new mothers, dental health, medical research, men's health and health promotion. This MPI is a disgrace! (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—This discussion has concluded.Committees9469946994699469Mr DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)10000PON/A10—I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members business on Monday, 20 September 1999. The report will be printed in today's Hansard , and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for the next sitting.The report read as follows—COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTSPresentation and statements1 AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION TO THE 7TH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE ASIA PACIFIC PARLIAMENTARY FORUM, LIMA PERU: Report on the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 7th annual meeting of the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum, Lima, Peru, 11-14 January 1999.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 15 minutes.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.2 ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER AFFAIRS—STANDING COMMITTEE: Video explaining the Committee's report "Unlocking the Future: The report on the review of the Reeves Report on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 ".The Committee determined that statements on the video may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 1 minute.Speech time limit—First Member speaking—1 minute.3 TREATIES—JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE: Report 25—Joint Defence Facility at Pine Gap. The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 15 minutes.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.4 INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND RESOURCES—STANDING COMMITTEE: Report on the effect of certain public policy changes on Australia's R & D.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within the time remaining prior to 1.15 p.m.Speech time limits—First Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNotices1Mr Bevis to present a bill for an act to amend the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Act 1992 to allow funds to be used to pay entitlements for certain employees. (Notice given 25 August 1999. )Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 5 minutes—pursuant to sessional order 104A.2 Mr Albanese to present a bill for an act to establish an Aviation Noise Ombudsman and for related purposes. (Notice given 30 August 1999. )Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 5 minutes—pursuant to sessional order 104A.3 Ms Irwin to move—That the House:(1) notes the failure of the Howard Government's Tough on Drugs Strategy, in particular, that after two years there has been:(a) an increase in drug use, with the average age of first users decreasing;(b) no significant decline in the amount of illicit drugs entering Australia, even after a number of high profile "busts";(c) inadequate funding for community-based programs in those areas of greatest need, particularly the south-west of Sydney; and(d) a lack of evidence that zero tolerance policies have achieved anything other than making the illicit drug trade the world's fastest growing industry; and(2) calls on the Government to take a more effective and creative approach to stemming the social tragedy being caused by the increasing use of heroin and other dangerous, addictive and illicit drugs. (Notice given 24 August 1999. ) Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.45 p.m.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.4Mr Pyne to move—That the House:(1) reaffirms the fundamental principles of human rights that must be practised by the entire international community;(3) condemns the false arrest and imprisonment of thirteen Iranian Jews on spurious espionage charges; and(4) calls upon Iranian authorities to immediately release the falsely imprisoned Iranian Jews. (Notice given 21 June 1999. )Time allotted—30 minutes.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Opposition Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.5Mrs Gash to move—That the House:(1) recognises the very high risk of homelessness amongst young people in several areas of regional Australia;(2) recognises that this is a problem amongst young people in regions such as Gilmore and Macquarie;(3) welcomes the federal Government's specific commitment of over $45 million towards reducing that risk and providing appropriate accommodation services; and(4) calls on governments at all levels to cooperate with one another to identify, fund and implement programs of assistance for our young people. (Notice given 30 June 1999. )Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.Miscellaneous9470Motion (by Mr Ronaldson)—by leave—agreed to:1. That the following bills be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration:Customs Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 Customs Amendment (Temporary Importation) Bill 1999Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999; and2. The following order of the day, Committee and Delegation Reports, be referred to the Main Committee for debate:Retailing Sector, Joint Select Committee report, motion to take notice of paper, resumption of debate.Bills9471r8989471Debate resumed from 26 August, on motion by Mr Reith:That the bill be now read a second time.16:01:009471Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—This bill, the Coal Mining Legislation Amendment (Oakdale Collieries) Bill 1999 , has got a significant amendment that I believe the government have either moved or circulated that extends the scope of the bill beyond the Oakdale Mine to take account of other mines that have closed, or may close, during the course of this year. The Labor Party will be supporting the amended bill, as I assume that the amendment will go through.The position of the workers at Oakdale is something that has grabbed the attention of the Australian public for the last few months. It has done that, in part, because Australian workers have felt insecure in their workplace for some time, and because this government's industrial relations laws have contributed significantly to that level of insecurity. They have felt both insecure in their jobs and unable to ensure decent conditions for themselves in an environment that this government has fostered through its industrial relations legislation. What has occurred, though, in the Australian psyche as a result of Oakdale is that Australian workers now insecure in their jobs are concerned that, if the worst comes to worst—if they do lose their employment—they might not get their pay. That is now the real fear in the minds of Australian workers, and the Oakdale workers drew that to the attention of every working man and woman in this country and to their families: that decent Australians can put in a decent day's work and, at the end of the road, find that their employer has taken off, that the company has gone belly up and that their legally due payments will not be made to them.In the case of the Oakdale workers they had one thing to rely upon; they had their long service leave. They were guaranteed their long service leave because there has been in place for some years now a special long service leave fund for workers in the coalmining industry—a fund, I might say, which this government has put on notice will be removed. If it were not for the existence of that fund, the workers and their families at Oakdale would not have had a cent to rely on. They would not have been able to pay the weekly rent, they would not have been able to pay the food bill. Many of those people were able to do so solely because they had a long service leave fund which they could draw upon. This bill uses that long service leave fund to pay out those other benefits that these workers have been denied. As a short-term solution to the problem of the Oakdale workers and the Merrywood workers in Tasmania that is a position which we support—in fact, it was a position advocated by the union.The government has come to this point having been dragged screaming all the way. Over the last six or so months of this dispute there has not been any point in the process at which the government has said one encouraging word to the workers or in public about this problem. This is not a case of a government that saw the light; this is a case of a government that felt the heat. They felt the heat of public opinion from, I might say, their usual allies in the media—people such as Alan Jones. I want to quote one of the comments Alan Jones made in his item on the news called `The Spot' on 11 August—not that long ago. This is what Alan Jones said:The delay in resolving the Oakdale mine fiasco can only result in the conclusion that, when it comes to taking the big stick to the union movement, the federal government seems to act with urgency and high priority. But, when it comes to repairing for workers the damage done to them by appalling employer behaviour, the government merely shifts and jabs and prevaricates and, as we saw yesterday, does nothing.That is what Alan Jones said. Alan Jones clearly is a supporter of the Prime Minister, a key ally of this government, but even Alan Jones could not tolerate the duplicity of this government in the way it has dealt with Australian workers. He was dead right because, when it comes to attacking minimum conditions for workers, this government is in there like a flash. A piece of legislation due in the parliament for debate later this week, Peter Reith's second wave, even strips away some of the basic conditions that are left in awards. This is a government that moves quickly to take away people's basic entitlements—things like long service leave, superannuation, termination rights and even jury service leave. We have a government that wants to stop workers having access to leave for the purposes of jury service. They can do that overnight, they can do that very quickly, but when it comes to doing something to give workers what is only their legal entitlement they have to be dragged in here today, screaming and yelling every inch of the way.I want to contrast that with a not dissimilar situation that occurred a couple of years ago. The Oakdale workers are not the first workers to find themselves left high and dry; it has happened in the past. If you have a look at events over recent years, you will find that the number of companies of medium size that have gone bust owing workers substantial amounts of money is on the rise. That is a worrying trend; so worrying that the government is now looking at an insurance scheme belatedly—again, dragged kicking to the position—to do something about that.The member for Prospect, who is in the chamber now, has had a very good private member's bill in the parliament for nearly two years to do just that, but this government will not debate it, and we have tried on many occasions to have a debate in this parliament about this problem. I have moved a private member's bill in this parliament to deal with other aspects of the problem. Those bills have been in the parliament for nearly two years, but this government will not even allow them to be debated. Against that background, we come to Oakdale.I refer now to that example from a couple of years ago that is not dissimilar—I refer to the Patrick's dispute, the waterfront fiasco. That was a situation in which a company deliberately restructured its finances to strip money out of parts of its organisation and put it into other sections of the corporate structure. This was done deliberately to ensure that workers would be denied their entitlement, because they intended to sack them and they did not want to pay them a cent. They took every dime out of the company—every cent, every dollar—that employed the workers and put it into one of the other branches of the organisation. The really evil and nasty thing about that is not just that it happened—that was evil and nasty enough—but that it was done with the knowledge, support and assistance of this government. It was done with the knowledge, support and assistance of this minister.This government is on the record, as a matter of historical fact, endorsing that practice of Chris Corrigan and his company of asset stripping to ensure workers do not get access to their funds. We cannot go into too much of the detail because there are still some legal cases floating around about that. One day those legal cases might get to court—and won't it be good for the Australian public to see the full disclosure in court of the sordid details which many of us in this place know about but are constrained to talk about. That is the history of this government's approach.You would have thought that by the time we got to the Oakdale dispute, with the public support that the Oakdale miners clearly had, with the concern that was palpable in the Australian public about this problem, the government might have been a little more sensitive. They were not. No lesser person than the Prime Minister was hitting the airwaves defending the right of companies to take this workers' money and use it for whatever they wanted.The Prime Minister had a revealing interview with Alan Jones on his radio program on 18 June. I will quote from the transcript of the Prime Minister's discussion with Alan Jones about what was happening at Oakdale, which is the specific problem we are now dealing with. Alan Jones had been putting to the Prime Minister that this was the workers' money and if we could have a fund for their long service leave why couldn't we protect the other things. The Prime Minister said:But the more money that small businesses are not able to invest in the day-to-day running of their businesses, the lesser will be their operations.That is what the Prime Minister said. He actually thinks this money belongs to the company for them to use in the day-to-day running of their businesses. Alan Jones was obviously a bit taken aback by this comment from his friend the Prime Minister and he said:Oh yes, but it is not their money. I mean, your industrial laws, that is employee money.The Prime Minister persisted:I know but the point I am making, Alan, is that in reality, because of cash flow needs, many companies, many firms actually use this money for the day-to-day operations of their business.The Prime Minister has had two goes to get it right and he has got it wrong both times. Alan Jones then gave him a third chance, and he said:But you shouldn't employ people if you can't pay them.And the Prime Minister persisted:I understand, I understand that, but you often quite rightly argue the case of business and commercial reality. I'm saying to you that the business and commercial reality of many small firms is that they need this cash for their day-to-day operations.That is a third time he has said to Alan Jones that the workers' money belongs to the boss. Mind you, there is a new definition of the coalmining industry in the Prime Minister's speech here—the coalmining industry is now a small business. Alan Jones persists with his concern about that and, again, the Prime Minister's response:If you apply that kind of system in relation to all of those entitlements, you will have less money for small business to invest in its operations.That is now four chances, and four times the Prime Minister defends the right of companies to take this money and use it for their own purposes. Alan Jones had another go:But people listening to you would say it is not their money to invest. They are holding it in trust to the workers.The Prime Minister had another go at it and said:I understand that, but I would say to them in reply, that is correct, but in reality what happens, because of the cash flow needs of small businesses, they effectively use that in their day-to-day operations.Five goes and five times the Prime Minister got it wrong. Only two months ago the Prime Minister defended not just any case but this case. The point they were discussing was exactly the situation at Oakdale. It was the Oakdale workers that he was talking about. Five times the Prime Minister said, `This money is the employer's money for them to use for cash flow purposes.' That is the fundamental difference between the view that we on the Labor side of parliament hold and the view that is held by those on the government side. No lesser person than the Prime Minister seems to think that this money is some sort of unsecured interest-free loan that the workers had just given to the boss. They have not negotiated it; it has just been taken off them.It is not like any other area, I might say. If an employer wants to do that with their group tax and play cashflow games with the group tax, they will quickly find the Treasurer and the tax man down on them like a tonne of bricks. There is no other bucket of money that you can point to where the government has this duplicitous view that it is not the workers' money but some sort of interest free loan the company has to play with.This money is not the employers' money. It is not an interest free loan. It is the workers' money. It needs to be guaranteed as the workers' money. They need to be able to get all of it, not part of it. This bill enables the workers at Oakdale and at Merrywood, and presumably at any other coalmine that may become insolvent in the course of this year and have people sacked, given the terms of the amendment, to gain the full entitlement of their pay.I am pleased that the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has decided to join us in the chamber on this because he may well take the opportunity while he is here to give a commitment to the parliament about the longevity of this long service leave fund. To date, he has squibbed every opportunity he has had to give a commitment to retaining the long service leave fund. Now that he is in the chamber, he might actually like to give a commitment on the record to maintain a long service leave fund.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Ralph Willis said that he would scrap this in 1992.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! There is no point of order.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—The minister is very sensitive about this for a couple of reasons. First, the minister has been out there trying to destroy the long service leave fund, which is the only thing now that these workers have to fall back on. He has been out there trying to destroy it. But, worst of all for him, he has been rolled on this. He has been rolled on the proposals in cabinet.Mr Reith interjecting—ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—He has either been rolled or he has been telling porkies to the coalmining industry.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The shadow minister is not entitled to mislead the House, nor is he entitled to use unparliamentary language. In the spirit of fairness, I think you should ask him to retract his statement.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! On the point of order, the expression used by the honourable member for Brisbane has been used on other occasions.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—By the Leader of the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! I caution the honourable member for Brisbane not to emote any motive of the minister.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—The minister is very sensitive because he has been rolled on this in the debate. He has been dragged along to this position against his will. He has made it plain that he does not support this proposal. He has made it plain that the industry does not like it and that he has been a keen advocate of the industry. It is interesting to look at the commentary of the last few weeks in relation to this. The Sydney Morning Herald on 19 August ran a page 1 story headline `PM's switch on job safety net', and the article stated:The Howard Government has reversed its long-standing opposition by moving to establish a financial safety net for workers who lose entitlements when companies go bankrupt.The government had not wanted to move in this direction. In fact, it did not give these commitments to the workers' representatives, the CFMEU, when it met with the CFMEU. It gave them to understand quite differently. The Australian of 6 August made some comment about the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, who is at the table, in relation to this. Under the heading `Reith SNAGs himself on worker about-face', it said:PETER Reith's about-face on worker entitlements is not as surprising as it might first appear when you consider the political context.It went on to talk about the fact that he was trying to tie it with his second wave industrial legislation and said:But Mr Reith has bigger fish to fry—his second-wave workplace relations legislation—and his new, caring attitude to worker entitlements is part of the bait he is using to lure the Democrats.I do not think the Democrats are in the mood to take the bait. I do not think the Australian public are in the mood to take the bait from this minister at all.This bill will provide for those workers in the coalmining industry access to the full benefits that they are due by virtue of their relevant industrial relations agreement. That is appropriate, and it is something which we supported weeks ago. It is something we supported weeks before this government was dragged to the position of reluctantly accepting it against the clearly held views of the Prime Minister, who does not believe that any of this money belongs to them, that it is somehow for cashflow purposes, and against the views of a minister who does not think these funds should be used like that because the companies in the coalmining industry said that to him. He has tried to explain to the companies in the coalmining industry that he shares their view. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot be saying one thing to the mining companies and another thing here in the parliament as a concerned person looking after the interests of those workers.That said, it is a bill which we support. It is a bill which has been overdue in arriving here. The workers in the coal industry put this proposal forward some time ago. In fact, I asked a question without notice about this matter in the parliament weeks ago, and the minister sought to fob that off. The simple fact of life is that this fund is an example of what can be put in place to secure all workers' entitlements, not just long service leave.It is, interestingly, a model which this government's discussion paper issued last Friday does not even include. They produced a discussion paper on workers' entitlements that omits any consideration whatsoever about this model that we are now dealing with in the long service leave fund. That is a peculiar way to hold a national debate on an important matter that clearly has widespread public interest.This government does not support this long service leave fund model. That is why it is not in that discussion paper. This government does not even want to have a debate about those matters. What we have here is a reluctant acceptance that it is a way out of a hot situation for them. As I said earlier, it is a case of a government that felt the heat not saw the light.Whilst the workers at Merrywood—which is a comparatively small mine where I believe some eight or nine workers are owed collectively somewhere in the order of $380,000—are not specifically mentioned in the terms of the bill, I would expect that the amendment that will be moved will ensure that they are given access to the same benefits as the Oakdale workers. I am not aware of, nor do I anticipate, any other coal mines that are likely to go belly up between now and Christmas, but I note that the legislation is wide enough to cover such an eventuality. I believe it is the government's intention to try to expedite a broad community scheme so that that can be in place as soon as possible thereafter. Whilst I think we may have some differences with the government about the nature of that scheme, the structure of the timing of those two events does make some sense.I would simply say that, if there is some problem associated with the implementation of that community wide scheme and that causes a delay in the scheme, that should not prevent the government coming back here to extend the deadline on this bill. The deadline at the moment involves workers who lose their employment prior to 31 December. If there is not a replacement system operating on 1 January, I think the parliament should revisit this matter and ensure that workers in the industry continue to have the protection that is here now.I again invite the minister not to take another point of order and waste time, but to take the opportunity while he is in the parliament to make a clear statement of the government's intention in relation to this long service leave fund. It is important to the industry. Without it, those families would have been left destitute. It would seem to me to be a very appropriate time for the government to give a commitment to the retention of that fund. We will be supporting this bill and, of course, the amendment.16:25:009475Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—I am just absolutely stunned that the opposition have 10 speakers on the speakers list when, in 13 years of parliamentary sittings when they were the government of the day, they did not manage to get one speaker to speak for one minute on this issue. In fact, I went back through the records, and there were four industrial relations ministers under the previous Labor government—they being Morris, Willis, Cook and Brereton. Not one of those industrial relations ministers saw fit to ever introduce anything into this parliament to protect the rights of the workers. They are long on rhetoric and very light on substance.You really have to feel sorry for the member for Brisbane, the shadow minister for industrial relations. Last week, he must have had the most horrible week in his life. He did a deal with the government and the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business to protect youth wages. Ever since then, he has been hit around the head with a hunk of four-by-two by the rest of his mates in the unions. It is quite obvious that they hit him quite a few times, because he came in here today and tried to mealy mouth this attitude that, `We're there for the workers. Why didn't you do it sooner?' In 13 years of Labor government, and the shadow minister was a member of that previous government, there was $1,800 million worth of lost entitlements from workers of businesses that went insolvent. I repeat: $1,800 million. And what did Labor do about it? Not a thing.There were 220,000 workers affected by that. I wonder how many of them were in unions. I see these posters saying, `Here are 6.3 million reasons why you should be in a union.' Mr Deputy Speaker, I put it to you that, if it was union membership and the union bosses who were going to decide whether or not these people were ever going to get their entitlements, they would have been waiting well into the next millennium. The members for Hotham and Batman were both former bosses of the ACTU. What did they do to protect the 220,000 workers and the $1.8 billion those workers lost in entitlements while they were the bosses of the ACTU? Absolutely nothing.It is no wonder that the member for Batman is down to speak on this bill. Maybe he is going to come in here and apologise to all the workers whose rights he denied for 13 years. Maybe he is going to apologise to them for the fact that he never had the backbone to stand up in this place and do anything productive in all of those years. But, then again, neither did Morris, Willis, Cook or Brereton. So they come from a long line of union bosses and industrial relations ministers who saw fit to do nothing for the workers—the workers who are trumpeted so loudly in here. What is it that the member for Werriwa and his mates are going to come in here and say today?7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Stay in here and find out.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—How are they going to defend themselves against their position that they never once did a thing about this while in government? Why didn't they take the opportunity?The honourable member opposite who just interjected has had a private member's bill in the House. What did you actually do when you were on the government benches? Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask the member opposite: what did you personally do whilst you were in government? Nothing, not a thing. Then we move on to what the shadow minister said about the fund itself and where this money is coming from as part of this legislation. He said, `The minister is about to get rid of it.' Go back to the 1992 report that then Treasurer Dawkins actually adopted—7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—That was seven years ago.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—Is it still your policy? I ask those opposite: is it your policy, or have you changed the policy? The shadow minister had nearly 10 minutes in which he said absolutely nothing. You elected not to use that time. The challenge was laid down to you by the minister and you still do not have a policy. You do not know what you want to do.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Yes, we do.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—If you do, when given the opportunity, why didn't you put it before the parliament?ET4BEVISMr Bevis—I am not going to waste my time on this bill talking about that.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—Oh, he is not going to waste his time in the parliament—the House of Representatives, the house of the people, of the workers who you purport to represent. In 1992 then Treasurer Dawkins accepted and adopted the 1990 report, the Willett report, which was going to return the fund to the industry. Since that time, there has not been any official line from those opposite to retract that position. So exactly where do they stand?What we do know—and let us put the facts before the parliament—is that for 13 years nothing was done. I challenge any one of you to stand up here in the House today and deny that. Did you at any time actually move to protect the entitlements lost to the 220,000 workers across a plethora of industries in 13 years? Did you protect $1, $10, $1,000 or $1 million of the $1.8 billion that was lost to workers during those 13 years? They are not the government's figures; they are not the department's figures; and they are certainly not the figures of the member for Longman. They are the ACTU's figures—the figures that were put together by the people of the member for Batman who, in his days in a previous incarnation, was the boss of the ACTU.They are the facts. We now see that not through union membership but through having a government that is responding to the needs of the work force that these workers' rights will be protected. But we go further. Not only are they being protected up until 1 January 2000, but we now have a discussion paper. Those opposite were asked if they would like to make some points and discuss their position with us in relation to that discussion paper, and we heard zero. Let us hear any of those opposite today discuss what is in this discussion paper which is going to protect workers' rights right across the sector—any sector, not just the coalmining industry but all industries.I was in the unfortunate position of being part of a company with 170 workers that did go belly up. We did not get our superannuation because the company had operated and acted illegally. We did not get any entitlements—sick pay, holiday pay or even pay for the last few days that we were operating. No-one went racing to the government of the day because, if they did, and if I had done so then as a worker, those claims would have fallen on deaf ears. From management down to the floor sweeper, nobody would have been heard by those opposite. So I wonder why it is that they can speak so loudly and long now about the needs of the workers.If they were so concerned about the needs of the workers, why weren't those opposite trumpeting the needs of the young with youth wages when they moved to legislate youth wages out of the work force in 1993? Why didn't they protect the $1.8 billion worth of entitlements? Why didn't they even do it on a localised basis with the likes of the coalminers, who had a superannuation fund which is being used? They never did it for a single union. They did not do it for a single worker. They did not do it for a single sector or right across the spectrum.This government has moved to do what the public expects us to do: to be able to protect workers in the most incredibly unfortunate circumstances, circumstances which cannot be in any way supported by any person—the business practices that were undertaken. We have now moved to protect those workers, so their rents and their mortgages will not be a problem. Their livelihoods have been secured because they have that $6.3 million.When talking about the coal industry, there is another issue. Those opposite have been crowing long and loud that what was achieved by Minister Hill in Kyoto in relation to the coalmining industry was a disaster for the environment. If it were not for Minister Hill, it would have been a bigger disaster than Oakdale would ever have been. We would have seen Oakdales all over this nation as mines would have closed down one after another without any fund to protect the employees' entitlements and without any chance of them getting a job anywhere else in this industry.That was the position and that still is the position till this day of those who sit opposite. So do not come into this place and attack the government after having been given the opportunity for 13 years to do something to protect the workers and having done nothing whilst in government and after your pitiful lack of support for the government in protecting not only the coalminers' jobs but also all the associated jobs that flow on and the export dollars that are earned by those industries for this nation.When you pool all of this together, what you have is people who talk loud and long about their care and their compassion for workers. But, when they have had their hands on the tiller to be able to do something to change the direction of industrial relations, they have done nothing. The challenge today for those 10 people opposite who have decided to speak on this debate is to point out to me where I am wrong. Where did you protect the 220,000 workers' entitlements? Where did you protect the ACTU's figure of $1.8 billion worth of entitlements? When, at any time, did former ministers Morris, Willis, Cook or Brereton stand in this place and say, `We're going to do something to protect the entitlements of workers,' and then do it and follow through?7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—What are you going to do?2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—Why are you sitting in this place? I really must ask you: why are you sitting in this place when we have a piece of legislation here which protects the $6.3 million worth of entitlements which gives these employees the funds, as well as any other coalminer whose employer goes under between now and then?7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Mr Deputy Speaker, I must take a point of order under section 145 relating to relevance. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would ask you to ask the member to read the bill. The bill is to make an ex gratia payment out of a particular fund to cover the $6.3 million owing to the workers. That is what the bill is about.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The honourable member for Prospect will resume her seat. She will not debate the question until she gets the call at the appropriate time.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—I can understand the incredible sensitivity because, under a Labor government, the ACTU, the CFMEU and everyone else would have still been crying at the door and all those members opposite would have been attending union meetings saying, `We're doing our best. We're in there fighting for you this year. You're not going to get it this year, but I tell you what: we're going to do something about it in the out years.' Well, we are still waiting. Today at least you are going to support this legislation, and that is something.As of 1 January, it is the intention of this government to be able to protect not only those in the coalmining industry but all workers. It is estimated that it will cost some $100 million. It is a very substantial outlay. The shadow minister continually brought up this point that somehow the Prime Minister did not want to use workers' money. He misses the point altogether. If we are to have an insurance system, which some of those opposite are purporting to be the answer, then we are putting another impost on businesses. We put it on both good businesses and bad businesses. We put it on those who are deliberately out there to deceive their workers. Those people deserve to be penalised. They need to have the full force of the law brought down on them.The Labor Party and the unions are free to discuss what is now before the people and to give their feedback. The minister has put that challenge to them today. Bring it forward to the parliament, bring it forward and tell us what you would have done in your 13 years that you did not do. Now that you know that this government will legislate in the new year—perhaps even before the end of the new year—to protect workers from 1 January, you have an opportunity to participate; you can have a role. Perhaps, even though you saw fit to do nothing over that period of time, you can buy into the argument. Take the opportunity to buy into the argument. Do something for those that you purport to represent—the workers.There is one undeniable fact: this government has a piece of legislation before the House that will protect the workers in this industry. It will provide them with the use of a fund which is already there but which, under the current legislation, cannot be used. The sooner you work that one out, the better. The fact is that we have to change the legislation in order to do it, and we are doing so. By your own admission, in the 1990 report, this fund was in place. Did you bring a piece of legislation before this House in 1992, 1993, 1994 or 1995 to protect them using this fund? No, you did not.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—We set the fund up.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—The ignorance of the member opposite is mind-boggling. She talks about the fact that they have this fund in place for superannuation. It has no capacity whatsoever until this legislation is passed to give those people that have been put out of work their payments for their entitlements. This legislation does it. This legislation put before this House by Minister Reith achieves that.Mrs Crosio interjecting—2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—But you did not do it in government, not once. Yet you continue to sit here and rave on as though this was some oversight. It was no oversight. This was a deliberate decision by those opposite to do nothing for those non-union workers in the mining sector or any other sector.I commend the bill and the amendment to the House and I challenge those opposite to tell us how they are going to move from the position of intransigence that they were in for 13 years where, I reiterate, 220,000 lives and families—not just workers—lost their entitlements. They expected something more from the Labor government. I challenge those opposite to tell us why they did not get it. I challenge those opposite to tell us what their defence is to their inaction over all those years.16:41:009479Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—The member for Longman really should know better. If he genuinely cared about the interests of workers, he would not have made such a long, boring, fatuous speech motivated by political point scoring. Yes, it is true that this issue should have been addressed under the Hawke and Keating governments; it should have been addressed by the Fraser government or the Whitlam government or the McMahon government or the Gorton government or the Menzies government. But if you sincerely cared about workers and their families, you would not be here scoring political points; you would be putting forward constructive suggestions about how this tragedy could be remedied. I say to the member for Longman it is also a shame that this government had to be dragged kicking and screaming into this legislation.But let us face up to the facts: we are not talking about political point scoring here, we are talking about families with the bum out of their pants, families that fear having to live on the streets because they have been robbed of their entitlements by the owner of this particular mine. If we are talking about families and children in need, we should not be engaged in some cheap, vacuous exercise in political point scoring.It is also a shame that Max Dunbier, the owner and controller of Oakdale, is not being made to discharge his proper corporate responsibilities. That too is a shame. We hear a lot of rhetoric from this government about mutual responsibility—the responsibility of unemployed people to participate in the tin pot scheme called Work for the Dole. We hear a lot of talk from this government about the responsibilities of welfare recipients. What about the other half of the responsibility equation in this country: the responsibilities of corporate Australia, the responsibility of companies to treat their workers properly, not rob them of their entitlements, to put back into the community and treat workers as civilised people in a civilised society?In recent decades companies have won a lot of extra rights—the right to trade and invest freely in the market economy. But I say that with those extra rights come extra responsibilities—the responsibility to look after their staff in a civilised way, the responsibility to put something decent back into their local communities. The sad case at Oakdale is that Max Dunbier, the owner and controller of the mine, was allowed to shirk both of those corporate responsibilities. He robbed the Oakdale miners of their $6.3 million in entitlements while also engaging in insider trading on the stock exchange. He had no regard whatsoever for his proper corporate responsibilities.This is a man who has been well treated in south-western Sydney. He has become a millionaire off the back of trade and investment in our region. He has been well treated by state governments. I note the $1.8 million loan he received in 1995 when the member for Macarthur was the Premier of New South Wales. I also note that workers in the transport industry in my electorate have reported to me their surprise at the number of state government contracts won by Mr Dunbier and his companies under the Fahey government, particularly with regard to waste services. It is also significant that the roads in the area were consistently upgraded by the Fahey government—roads used by the Dunbier haulage companies for the direct financial interest and benefit of Max Dunbier.This is no secret; these things are on the public record. Max Dunbier is a former state Liberal Party MP. He is part of a fundraising group called The Friends of John Fahey. I can report to this House that in this case friends in greed are friends indeed. That has been the sorry record of Max Dunbier's relationship with the Fahey government and it now explains some of the shameful delays of this federal government in bringing legislation before the House of Representatives. Where are the laws that would make Max Dunbier bear his fair and proper responsibility in this matter? We talk about mutual responsibility. One side of the equation has been exercised: all that public money has gone to the benefit of Max Dunbier and his companies. Where is his matching responsibility to the workers he employed in the Oakdale mine? We need to change the corporations and industrial relations laws in this country to establish a tribunal which can track down the personal assets which could be used to pay out the worker entitlements. Let us have corporate Australia bearing its proper responsibility in these matters.In the case of Oakdale, it is not hard to identify the person responsible for robbing the workers—it is Max Dunbier. It is not hard to identify his personal assets. While for the past three months the workers and their families have been worried senseless about their financial position, Max Dunbier still lives in a big house, is still a millionaire in south-west Sydney and still has substantial property holdings in the region—four or five properties, each purchased for a substantial amount of money in the past 10 years and all worth a million dollars in their own right. Max Dunbier still has substantial business interests in our region: Advance Coal, the transport group Heggies Bulk Haulage, the Brimstone coalmine, the Metropolitan mine at Helensburgh and Sada Pty Ltd, the owner of coal washeries at Wollondilly, Appin, Helensburgh, Glenleigh and Pelton.Let us not mess around with political point scoring. Let us cut to the reality of mutual responsibility—the responsibility of a corporate owner to treat his workers properly and not rob them of their entitlements. We need to change the laws so that these corporate owners have to bear their proper responsi bilities in circumstances such as these. The man responsible can be identified. His personal assets are very easy to identify. We should have a tribunal or a body in place which can track down the assets and make sure there is a fair distribution to the workers so they are not robbed of their entitlements. I congratulate the member for Prospect, the member for Brisbane and the member for Fraser, who brought private members' bills before this parliament for that exact purpose. I wish they had been introduced under the Hawke and Keating governments, or introduced by governments prior to those. This is a longstanding problem that brings no great credit to either side of politics. To have the member for Longman trying to score cheap political points when people in my electorate, the workers and the families at Oakdale, are fearful for their financial security is an absolute disgrace to his public responsibility and his role in this parliament. Much more could have been done to help the Oakdale mine and its workers.HX4KATTERMr Katter—Come on! You're a rationalist; you can't do that!K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—The details have been set out in a document that I will not have time to detail, but I would refer members of the House, including the senseless member for Kennedy, to the affidavit provided by Peter Colley from the CFMEU Mining and Energy Division before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission earlier this year. It sets out chapter and verse what could have been done by Max Dunbier to give better financial care to his mine and better financial consideration to the workers. Mr Dunbier's only excuse in this matter has been to claim that workers had earlier signed their entitlements away. That has been his public excuse, and it is a shameful lie. There are no documents to this effect. There was no signing away of the worker entitlements. The state government has testified to that effect.I bring to the House's attention an episode of insider trading. If members want to stand up and talk about responsibilities, let them investigate the true story of Oakdale and the Heggies Bulk Haulage share market holdings. In the six weeks leading up to 29 April, Mr Dunbier sold 4.2 million Heggies shares on the stock exchange. Heggies is the haulage company that did all the transport work into and away from the Oakdale mine. The whole value of Heggies is closely linked to the trading position and value of the Oakdale mine. In the six weeks leading up to 29 April, he sold the 4.2 million shares in Heggies. Four weeks later he closed down Oakdale.Some may say this is mere coincidence. I say it represents an instance of insider trading which needs to be investigated by the Securities and Investments Commission. I will give the House the financial interests involved. When Mr Dunbier started selling his shares in Heggies, they were valued at 70c each on the stock exchange. They dropped to 48c when he finished his sell-off. Then, after the closure of the Oakdale mine, they fell to less than 40c a share. If Max Dunbier had held his shares in Heggies and allowed the mine to close, they would have been devalued by 50 per cent. This is evidence of insider trading. He must have known what was happening at Oakdale. He did not sell these Heggies shares out of the blue. He sold them to minimise his financial loss. At the same time, he was willing to impose financial losses and hardship upon the workers and the families at Oakdale.Let's have some honesty in this debate. Let us face up to the facts. Corporate Australia has a responsibility to do the right thing. Most parts of corporate Australia trade successfully. In areas such as south-west Sydney, they live well off the back of workers' efforts for their companies. They should not be allowed to get away with this sort of practice. They have a matching responsibility to their workers, and that is to pay out their entitlements in full and in due course. That has not happened at Oakdale. It is a terrible shame that this matter was not addressed by earlier parliaments—not going back 13 years but going back 30 years. But we are here now to get results. We should pass the legislation that is before us. More substantially, we should pass the legislation that has been brought here by the members for Brisbane, Prospect and Fraser. We should also have some proper investigation by the Securities and Investments Com mission into the practices of Max Dunbier. He has brought nothing but shame to corporate Australia, and it should never be allowed to happen again.16:51:009481Katter, Bob, Jnr, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyNP10—On rising to speak on this Coal Mining Legislation Amendment (Oakdale Collieries) Bill 1999 , I am quite surprised at the previous speaker's outbursts. He is a great advocate that the benevolent and invisible hand of Adam Smith will save us all. The economic rationalists would have us believe that government should not interfere in any way. It is a rather remarkable philosophy coming from someone on the Labor side of the parliament. It behoves me to give them a little lesson in history.Mr Entsch, the member for Leichhardt, and I represent the areas in which the Labor Party, probably more than anywhere else, was born. It was born at Chillagoe. It was born substantially out of an order given by a foreman for six men to go down a mine shaft. One of those men was Red Ted Theodore. He said, `That mine is extremely dangerous and, if we go down it, some of us will get killed.' The foreman said, `You'll go down it or you'll get the sack.' In those days, they did not have any of the safety nets that the member for Werriwa was espousing. If they were killed, their wives and children would get absolutely nothing. The six of them went down the mine. Four of them got out—one was never able to walk again—and the other two never got out at all.Theodore determined then that he would form a union. He joined with the other existing unions—the Shearers Union and the Canecutters Union—and they formed one big union which they chose to call the AWU, which was the name of a similar union in New South Wales. They then formed a political wing, and that political wing ruled Queensland for the next 39 years and did wonderful things for that state. Our forebears in the National Party were very heavily associated with the formation of the labour movement, and we are very proud of what was achieved there. But the policy of economic rationalism—espoused so continuously by the previous speaker—has been a turning back of those historic decisions and battles.I have never felt that I had to fight the battle of the employee class because I felt that their trade unions were quite powerful enough to fight for them, but we are seeing a different ball game since the policies and legislation of Mr Keating were introduced into this place. I suddenly find myself now having to fight battles which I thought my forebears successfully fought some three generations ago. We are back fighting exactly the same battles. There are people going down mine shafts now in increasing circumstances of danger.Let me turn to technicalities because, unlike the previous speaker, I do not make grandiloquent statements and come in here espousing grand philosophy and ideology. I would like to think that every statement I make is backed up by hard factual evidence. So I will give you some of the hard factual evidence from a paper by Robert Jenkins, a fairly distinguished person in this area, in the AUSM bulletin—the mining industry's own bulletin. Under a heading `Job satisfaction: its effects on safety and turnover on fly-in fly-out operations' there was a concern about the increasing trend in the number of lost time injuries which had risen from a frequency of 24 lost time injuries per million hours worked in 1993, to 39 in 1995. I will repeat that: an increase between 1993 and 1995—just two years—of 24 lost time injuries per million hours worked to 39; almost a doubling. That trend has been occurring now for a considerable period. One of the reasons for this—and this is from an article on fly-in fly-out operations—has been the fly-in fly-out operations.In the standing committee on primary industries which had responsibility for mining, an honourable member of this House who used to be the organiser and state director of the Labor Party in Western Australia—he, not I—raised the issue of safety and mining. I very enthusiastically backed him up and said that this was most certainly a factor that was occurring and rising at exactly the same time as the fly-in fly-out operations. There were a number of us at the table who represented rural areas and had very big mining sectors in our electorates—me being one of them—and each of the people who represented mining areas agreed that the standing committee should look at the decrease in safety and increase in injuries in mining and how it related to the fly-in fly-out operations.If, as espoused by the previous speaker, we have policies of economic rationalism—that we do not have any responsibilities in the marketplace—it amazes me: don't these people read history books? This time last century—or a little bit before this time last century—there were children going down mine shafts who were actually owned by the mine owners. They wore steel collars around their necks, they had a number, they were bought and sold and they had to stay working at that mine. This occurred in Northern England and Scotland. I cannot think of any other word except the word `slave' to use in conjunction with these people. That is not a long time ago; it is about 130 years ago. That was one of the products of laissez-faire capitalism—a principle that we stand aside and just let the marketplace ride. When that was done the pirates said thankyou and moved in. The last speaker—for all of his inconsistency and hypocrisy—seemed to be saying, no, we should not allow the pirates to ride; we should involve ourselves to some degree.Having said that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am most certainly not a socialist, I can assure you. In fact, Hughie McLellan and I broke every record that was ever set with the stripping of the bag house at the lead smelter at Mount Isa Mines, which is quite the dirtiest and most insalubrious job that there is at Mount Isa Mines. Both of us were copper gougers and both of us were there only because we had gone broke in the collapse of the mining industry in the late sixties and early seventies. We were working there until we got enough money back in our pockets to go back and work our shows. We worked very successfully and I am very proud of the little Flora Dora mine. It was a very small operation, but one which could have, if I had not gone into politics, worked out very lucratively in my opinion. I was very proud that we had found and developed this ore body, and I am sure that Hughie McLellan was very proud of the ore bodies that he developed.John Lynch, who was the geologist responsible for the opening up of Mount Leyshon and the creation of 500 jobs in Charters Towers—jobs that were absolutely desperately needed when our meatworks closed—took very great risks with every single cent that he made because he backed his judgment with his own money at Mount Leyshon. All the big corporations had had a look at that enormously successful mining operation and walked away from it, Placer and Mount Isa Mines being among the many that had a look at it. But he saw something there that other, less capable, geologists had seen and convinced investors and put his own money where his mouth was and took very great risks to deliver something wonderful for the Australian economy—arguably the second or third biggest goldmine in Australia and certainly an enormous asset to the city of Charters Towers. I do not know where we would have been without it.What did John Lynch do when he made an awful lot of money? He put every single cent of it back into another project north of Charters Towers. I am quite sure that, if he makes a lot of money out of that new project, it will all go back again into this country. He has taken risk after risk and will continue to do so. So, too, with Robbie Kidd, who picked up the Rishton leases, the North Queensland resources leases, when that company went broke. In that case many people were not paid. I do not know whether that is true or not, but that is what I have been told. These people take great risks. There are Clyde Doxford, Maxie Reid and John White, who started off the Cape Mining Co. operations which again were tremendously successful; these men again took up areas in which nobody else was interested, took great risks with their own personal finances to create many, many jobs for the country.The point that I am coming to is that we do not want to punish or scare the hell out of these great Australian heroes, such as Lynch, Kidd, Doxford and Reid, et cetera. We do not want to scare the hell out of them, inhibit them, punish them or set the dogs on them just because they went out there and took a risk that did not pay off—because there is no game around that is more Russian roulette than mining, and I speak with very great authority on this subject. At one moment you can be cock of the walk, the next moment you can be the feather duster and the moment after you can be back again as cock of the walk. The prices of minerals internationally change dramatically. One minute you have Mount Leyshon producing 200,000 ounces of gold a year, and two years later it is closed. Ore bodies come to an end and, when they do, the price of commodities can suddenly rise. Also, it is a product of world economies. Having said all of those things, I turn to the provision of some security net for our workers in these situations. It has been argued, `Why should miners be treated differently?' Because it is an inherently dangerous game. My son-in-law told me that a mine in which he was working, for some quite extraordinary and inexplicable reasons, had a problem and that it was just luck that he and some others escaped as successfully as they did. But it is an inherently dangerous industry. No matter how well run a mine is, no matter how strong the safety procedures are, it is an inherently dangerous occupation.These heroes, these people to whom I have referred throughout my speech, provide us with export earnings of many tens of thousands of millions of dollars a year. The last time I looked up income from mining, it was about 72 per cent of our major export items—that is, 72 per cent of our major exports comes from mining. If this country needs to buy products from overseas, whatever they are—whether new drugs that save our lives; new technology that will enable us to have a better lifestyle, a better quality of life; new technology and heavy machinery that cannot be purchased in Australia but which will enable us to hit the economies of scale necessary for us to be internationally competitive—we must have export earnings. It is essential that we have a mining industry; we need one desperately. Without people such as the John Lynches, Robbie Kidds, Doxfords, Reids and Whites, we will not have a mining industry.With the exception of the iron ore and coalmining industries, I represent probably the major part of the hard rock mining industry in Australia—the silver, lead and zincs. We are second only to, and not all that far behind, Kalgoorlie, neither are we all that far behind Charters Towers. I represent those areas and I represent those people who take very great and dangerous risks going down mine shafts—and I was one of them. If we are to provide a protection net, then it should not be done—and it need not be done—at the expense of terrorising people out of taking risks in the opening up of these mines.Of all the mines producing this huge vast wealth in the area that I represent, only one was not found by a gouger such as me or any of these people whose names I have mentioned continuously throughout this speech. Each of those mines was originally found by a little bloke going out there and taking a risk. Once a bit of an ore body has been proved, big companies come in, trace it down, pay expensive money for drilling operations and come up with and delineate much bigger ore bodies. However, with one exception, all the mines that I know of producing this $4,000 million or $5,000 million a year were produced by these little blokes. If you scare the hell out of them and prosecute and persecute them, they ain't going to be there. And if they are not there then the mining industry will not be there.Whilst I applaud what is being done here today, I hope it will be done in such a way that, when we take superannuation payments out of tax, an overrider is put in. I hope that, if these superannuation payments are being made in a mining operation, an overrider is put on them and someone is paid to ensure that those payments are made on a regular basis, the same as the superannuation. That will overcome the problem that we have with these blokes who, after taking a great risk, find their venture has not paid off; they find that the ore body is not there and they have lost all of their earthly wealth. These are not people who have raced away with great personal wealth, such as those spoken about by the last speaker and other previous speakers. These are people who have put all their personal wealth back on the table to make Australia a richer country as well as making a more exciting, challenging life for themselves.Moving on and coming to the issue of mines collapsing and workers not being paid brings us to the issue of whether mining is viable or not viable and what is efficient and what is not efficient. It also brings us to the area which is inextricably linked with what we are talking about here. If money is not being put aside to meet termination payments, as in the legislation before the House, then money is not being put aside also to cover other areas such as workers compensation and so on.That brings me back to the issue of efficiencies and mining. With the fly-in fly-out mining, which I referred to before, I was recently with the leading mine manager—I cannot mention his name for obvious reasons—the biggest manager of any mine in Australian recent history. I asked, `If someone proposed to you that Ernest Henry'—the mine some 25 kilometres outside of Cloncurry—`should be run as a fly-in fly-out operation, what would be your reaction?' He said that he would not get to the door without having written his resignation out for making such an absolutely preposterous proposal that, instead of basing the workers in Cloncurry 25 kilometres away, they were to be flown 1,000 kilometres from Townsville or 1,500 kilometres from Brisbane. He said, `I would sack him before he reached the door.' That was the opinion of the most experienced and successful mine manager in recent Australian history.Again referring to my own time working at Mount Isa Mines when I was working in the lead smelter, on one occasion I noticed that one of our major units was offline and had safety tags on it. I could not find what was wrong, so I went and saw the foreman. He said, `What's going on?' I said, `I don't know. There are safety tags, but I can't find anything wrong.' So he then went down and went over the unit but he could not find anything wrong. So we had to go and chase up the bloke who had put the safety tags on in Mount Isa. There are only about 11 pubs in Mount Isa, and we eventually found him in one of them. But if he had gone to Townsville, where there are 60 or 70 watering holes, we would never have found him or, if he had gone off shift and had been flown back to Brisbane, we would never have found him. We would have just had to close down production in the lead smelter until we found him. This is an example of the profound inefficiencies of the fly-in fly-out approach to mining. It comes back to whether you want to use the approach of Mr Latham, an economic rationalist approach, or whether you want to adopt a different sort of approach such as I advocated in that little story about Ted Theodore, one of the founders of the labour movement.One wonders at what sort of family life you have if you live away from home for nine days at a time. You are not there when your son plays football in the grand final; you are not there when your daughter is picked in the ballet or the eisteddfod; you are not there when your wife gets very depressed and really needs someone with her—you are not there when any of those things occur which need a father to be there for. If you are flying out from, say, Mount Isa to a Century, to a Cannington or to an Osborne then you are not very far away. If the worst comes to the worst, you can jump in a car and drive back into town, someone can drive in and pick you up or you can blow a shift—as we were wont to do from time to time at Mount Isa Mines—to watch your son play football or whatever it might be. But family life ceases to exist with fly-in fly-out mining.When this was first proposed in Queensland for Emerald, I am very proud to say that one of my colleagues and good friends fought like a tiger against it, as did the CFMEU and as did the churches in Emerald. The net result was that the excellent government, the Bjelke-Petersen government, banned the fly-ins. Bjelke-Petersen said, `There are more important things than just profitability and making a quid out of these mines. We want development in these areas. We want family life. We want all of those things.' So they were banned in Queensland.They were also banned in Western Australia by Charles Court, but the incoming Labor government in Western Australia gave them permission to go ahead. How and why it was changed in that state was delineated in that excellent book about Western Australia Inc., The Rise and Fall of Alan Bond. The incoming Labor government gave in to the big mining corporations as well. We have fly-ins in the state of Queensland with the concomitant massive increase in the number of accidents that are occurring in these mines. The benefits for those towns—I had a similar battle in Charters Towers and similarly the Queensland government said, `No, we have banned fly-ins, so you won't have any fly-ins'—were that Charters Towers got 1,200 jobs out of it and Emerald got 1,500 jobs out of it. These were magnificent things for those areas. In my own home town of Mount Isa, we have lost 3,000 or 4,000 jobs. (Time expired)17:11:009485Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—Let me assure the honourable member for Kennedy that no-one on this side of the chamber is opposed to a mining industry, but we want an industry where the entitlements of the workers have been met. Today we are debating the Coal Mining Legislation Amendment (Oakdale Collieries) Bill 1999 , which deals with the entitlements of workers at the Oakdale Collieries. Because of time limitations I will limit my speech to enable colleagues on this side to speak. The shadow minister for industrial relations, the member for Brisbane, has said most of what I wanted to say. As the shadow minister indicated, we support the passage of this proposed legislation, which will enable the payment of entitlements to Oakdale coalminers and their families to be provided. It also provides for the payment of entitlements to miners at Merrywood in Tasmania.It is okay for those opposite to try to score a couple of cheap political points by asking, `What did Labor do during its 13 years in office?' But some of us who represent coalmining areas have pushed this issue. We have pushed it for some time. We are not a Johnny-come-lately to this topic. I well remember deputations being made to the former Attorney-General, Mr Lavarch, when there were claims on companies that had gone broke and the banks and everyone else were getting in first so that the workers were being stripped. We got that changed around. That was one thing that the Labor Party did do. It is true to say—and I think the honourable member for Werriwa said this—that many of us would have liked to have seen the Labor Party go further, but at least we are here supporting this legislation today. We have pushed for this legislation.It offended me when the honourable member for Kennedy tried, in some sort of warped distortion of the facts, to say that it was the Keating government which caused the loss of workers' entitlements. The fact is there will be bills coming up for debate later this week to strip workers of yet more entitlements. What about the second wave? Entitlement after entitlement and condition after condition have been taken away from the workers under this government introduced by Minister Reith. It is a distortion of the facts to say that this is somehow a Labor Party thing.I also heard the honourable member talk about not wanting to scare the investors—these poor investors who are out to make an honest bob. He actually did say, `We don't want to put the dogs on them.' Who has been the only government in this country over recent years ever to put dogs against workers?BV5ADAMSMr Adams—And men in balaclavas.DH4Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLIS—Dogs and balaclava'd thugs were put against workers in this country by those sitting opposite. And now they somehow say, `We don't want to put the dogs on to the management.' They did not have any worry about putting the real, savage dogs on leashes held by balaclava'd thugs against the workers, but somehow they can say, `Oh no, you cannot put dogs on to management.' Perhaps it would be better if a few savage dogs were let loose on some of the management that we have in this country.We are talking about workers' entitlements. It has taken a number of corporate collapses and the loss of the entitlements of thousands of Australian workers before the government would introduce a package like this. As the shadow minister said, they were dragged screaming and kicking. The person that should have been dragged screaming and kicking before the appropriate tribunal is Max Dunbier. He has kept all his entitlement and all his work, while he was happy to see his workers denied their just entitlements. Bear in mind always that this gentleman was a Liberal member of parliament and a leading light in the Liberal Party of Australia and is still a leading Liberal in the area around Macarthur; so let us not have any crocodile tears from the other side of the chamber.For the past three years, the government has dragged the chain on the issue of protecting workers' entitlements. I do not know why, but we are very quick to protect the bosses' entitlements in this country but not so quick to protect workers' entitlements. We keep being told we are a nation of shareholders. We look after the shareholders' entitlements, but we do not look after the workers' entitlements—and this despite the fact that Labor has had a couple of private members' bills on the table for the last couple of years. We have only ever got to the first stage of debate on this Labor bill because the government did not have the heart to go further on this important issue.We are often accused of playing politics on this side and obstructing the government's legislation program. This is a common criticism that all opposition parties face. But, on the protection of workers' entitlements, we offered the government ownership of Labor's bill. We told the government, `Here is the bill we have prepared. It covers all the issues; it provides the framework to close down the threat against all workers of lost entitlements. Claim it as your own bill, and we will support it.' The government never accepted the offer and has desperately tried to ignore the issue. The legislation is only before the parliament today because the government finally realised that no longer could it go on with its strategy of closing its eyes to the issue. Public pressure from such people as Alan Jones—that great, card carrying member of the ALP!—and John Laws put a spark into the government and into the minister to act. An unnecessary 24-hour coal industry shutdown, costing over $30 million, pushed the government to action. A couple of angry telephone calls from coal industry leaders bemoaning their losses also put a bit of steel into the minister's spine.The never ending public campaign by Oakdale miners, their families and the community never allowed the issue of their entitlements to leave the public's attention. The CFMEU's Mining and Energy Division deserves special recognition for its efforts on behalf of its members. I still recall CFMEU officials in my office here when they went from door to door to lobby, argue and plead the case for justice and a fair go. The result of all this activity and pressure has seen the legislation introduced last week and debated today.But the reality is, and the Oakdale miners and Merrywood miners accept it, that they are fortunate to have access to a long service leave fund as the source of the payment of over $6 million of their rightful entitlements. I am pleased and proud that the Oakdale miners have committed themselves to an ongoing campaign to ensure that a national scheme is introduced to protect all workers from the threat of losing what is rightfully theirs. While the Oakdale miners and their union have succeeded in this element of the entitlements campaign, they have not lost sight of the many thousands of other workers who do not have access to such a fund.The government would not have introduced this legislation with any enthusiasm. Later this week we are going to see another attack on workers' entitlements as they introduce their second wave of legislation. The government and this parliament cannot walk away today with a warm inner glow and say that the problem of protecting workers' entitlements is over with the introduction and passage of this legislation. Each of us in this House must remember that there are thousands of other workers in all parts of Australia who have been victims of similar company collapses and have not got a cent of their lost entitlements.That is the very point that the honourable member for Prospect, with her private member's bill, was covering. There are people with families, with mortgages, car repayments, school fees, university fees and other commitments. It is all right for those opposite to knock the workers. I know, and the honourable member for Cunningham also knows, that there are workers in the Illawarra who have still not been paid their entitlements from company insolvency going back three or four years. These are the workers from Yallah. When it was mentioned that this bill was going to be debated in the parliament, the wife of one of the workers from Yallah telephoned my office and asked whether this meant that they were going to get their entitlements.When that firm went bust four or so years ago, the workers in the Illawarra who work at Yallah got absolutely nothing. We have also had another meatworks go bust there recently. We are still working up the details of that. There have been very many such firms, and I know that most members of this parliament could say that they have also had similar schemes in their areas. The issue is not over and will not be over until more comprehensive legislation is introduced to establish a national scheme for workers' entitlements protection. As the workers' conditions are constantly eroded and will, with legislation going through this chamber this week, be further eroded, surely it is not too much to ask that their basic entitlements be honoured.17:21:009487Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—The payment of workers' entitlements in the event of company insolvency is certainly a very important issue and is something that is very dear to me. Most members of this House will know that I have worked on getting this government to recognise its responsibility to introduce a national scheme to protect workers' entitlements. I believe that such a scheme is one of the last great social reforms yet to be undertaken in this country. We have been left behind on this issue by almost every single Western nation in the world. It is to the lasting embarrassment of all of us—and I mean all of us—that we are yet to see such a scheme introduced.We would not be here today, introducing this Coal Mining Legislation Amendment (Oakdale Collieries) Bill 1999 and remarking on its contents if such a scheme were already in place. I first raised the issue of protecting workers' entitlements in this House in 1996. I introduced my private member's bill in 1998, and the government has chosen to ignore it and ridicule its aims at every turn. Now the government's tune appears to be changing. I am optimistic that all of the work associated with putting my bill together is not going to be in vain. I am also optimistic that we will see such a scheme in the near future—but, as I have said, not before time.The experience of the Oakdale miners has indeed been a dreadful one. We first saw their faces in May of this year. They were splashed all over our TV screens and newspapers, emerging from the pit covered in coaldust, solemn faced with the news that they had just received. They had been robbed of everything that had been legally owed to them by their employer—their redundancy pay, their holiday pay, their long service leave—all of their entitlements. Some of these men had been working down the mine for over 40 years. Some of these men were owed hundreds of thousands of dollars in entitlements. All of them were left with nothing. Their families were left with nothing. Local businesses that depended on their custom were left wondering how they were going to survive.The owner of the mine, Max Dunbier—who was referred to by previous speakers—closed the wrought-iron gates of his large and very stately home and refused to take calls. Meanwhile, he kept his other two mines open and running at a profit. When he did speak, Max Dunbier said the miners had agreed to give up their entitlements to keep the mine going. Mr Dunbier seriously wanted us to believe that a man who had worked down a mine for over 40 years, who was just a few years short of retirement, was willing to sacrifice over $200,000 in entitlements just so he could keep the mine—Max Dunbier's mine—going until he turned 65. I do not think so.Meanwhile, the Oakdale miners were reduced to stripping the mine of anything worth money. They scoured the mine, scavenging equipment to be sold at auction, with the proceeds being put towards the money that was owed to them, to make up as much of the lost entitlements as possible. It was a sight that I—and I believe every member of this parliament—need never, ever see again.The government, as we know from the comments made by the Prime Minister, was sympathetic to the miners' plight. Yet, when the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business adamantly refused even to consider introducing legislation that would see the miners paid their entitlements out of the coalmining industry's long service leave fund, the miners and the general public were left wondering just how far that sympathy was extended.The minister repeatedly dismissed such an option, despite the fact that the money was the workers' money in the first place. It was only then that the media—having followed the Oakdale situation closely since it began—subsequently stepped up its campaign to see that the miners received justice. Article after article, photo after photo, story after story appeared, placing extra pressure on the government to act. It soon became apparent from the public's rising anger and frustration concerning Oakdale that there was no other option for the Prime Minister or the minister for workplace relations than to do just that—to act and to act now.To get that action and to arrive at the bill that we have in the House today, one thing was necessary: the Prime Minister had to roll the minister for workplace relations—not, unfortunately, through some sense of greater good, but because it was the pragmatic and political thing to do. I am sure the Oakdale miners do not really care what drove the Prime Minister to change his mind; they are getting their money, and that is the main thing. But it still gives us on this side of the House pause for thought. I am left to think that the government would not have buckled on letting the Oakdale miners access the coalmining fund and ultimately meet their entitlements if the whole saga had not released such an outpouring of emotion from the general public.Without that public anger that a very great wrong had been done—and for all intents and purposes was going to go unaddressed—I am sure the government would still be putting off coming up with this equitable solution. They were right to buckle to public pressure, but they should not have needed to buckle in the first place. The government should have, right from the outset, offered concrete support, rather than just sympathy. There should not have been any delay. They should have, right from the end of May, agreed that this option was the right one to take and that this option that we are talking about today was the only way forward for the Oakdale miners. At the very least the government should have learned from the experience of the Cobar miners. That debacle should have taught them something; they obviously did not learn one thing.How many more workers have not had the media on their side and have never even caught even a glimpse of their entitlements? How many more have not become the media's flavour of the month and made such powerful photos in the press and images on the TV, placing so much pressure on the government to act in the process? Hundreds? No, thousands.I know workers from the former telecommunications company Exicom in my electorate—the catalyst for my introducing my private member's bill on this subject. They never saw anything near their full entitlements. With poor English and little education, these workers were relying on their entitlements to set themselves up for their retirement. Many of them are still looking for work over three years after the event—670 workers were owed $17 million in entitlements.And what about the miners from the Woodlawn mine near Goulburn? What about the Grafton meat workers? What about the Austral Pacific bus workers? What about the one or two workers from the local shop who lose all of their entitlements when their employer goes bust and whose story never even makes it to the first 20 pages of the local newspaper, never mind the evening news? The list goes on and on. Each one of us in this House would have areas in our electorates which have been affected, where the workers are suffering. These workers have not been so lucky. They have received only a small portion of their entitlements or nothing at all. They did not warrant the government's mere interest, let alone its attention. The minister for workplace relations has been a fairly strong critic of my bill. In fact, he has been a strong critic of any scheme that offered substantial protection for the entitlements of workers. The Prime Minister too has denied that such a scheme was workable or even necessary. They both believed—up to a short time ago, that is—that the current arrangements dealing with protecting workers' entitlements were sufficient and that no change was even needed. The government maintained its position even while, for over 18 months, it conducted an analysis of the need for legislative reform to further protect workers' entitlements.If the government had acted when I first introduced my bill 18 months ago—even to follow its own lead based upon the UK scheme—then we would not have had to have this legislation that we are debating today. We would not be here debating this bill. The financial collapse of Oakdale Collieries would have been an unfortunate occurrence of a few months ago, not a symbol of a national embarrassment and tragedy, as it is now.The minister for workplace relations has repeatedly said that my bill would not have protected the Oakdale miners because it did not offer coverage for redundancy payments. I would like to make something very clear again in this House: on every occasion when I have been able to contribute to the debate concerning workers' entitlements, I have made it very clear to the government that I offered my bill as a starting point from which it could work. I have encouraged ministers and other members on the government side to take my bill, to amend it as they see fit, to make changes if that is what they want, but to give the workers of Australia a bill with the same aim as mine—protection of the entitlements of all Australian workers.My bill gave the minister the material from which to construct his own. He and the government did not choose to take up my offer. We now know that the minister embarked on a half-baked process of reviewing the problem. If Oakdale had not been the straw that broke the camel's back, we would still be in the midst of that review.The government has made great play of accusing Labor of having done nothing to protect workers' entitlements during its 13 years in office, despite the fact that it supported Labor in 1985 and again in 1991 when the government hopefully changed the laws to do just that—protect the workers. Obviously those reforms were not enough and, if they had been sufficient then, we would not be here now. However, just as obvious is the fact that the only thing that has caused this government to act now is public pressure and its own embarrassment.I wholeheartedly support the bill before the House. What a shame that it has taken three months for the government to relent and decide that this was the only course of action that it could take. What a shame that it introduces this bill not because it is convinced of the plight of the Oakdale miners and not because it is the right thing to do but because it is the politically expedient thing, the populist thing, for it to do. If the government had acted three months earlier it would have found that doing the right thing and doing the popular thing are sometimes one and the same. Let us see more action from the government in this regard.17:31:009490Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—The Oakdale Colliery is as well known to me as it is to the minister who has just come into the chamber, the Minister for Finance and Administration, because in 1984, when I was first elected to this place, I represented the electorate of Macarthur. The Burragorang Valley was located in my electorate, as was Oakdale. I am pleased to say that Oakdale was a spot that I regularly visited. A branch of the Australian Labor Party is established in the Burragorang Valley and meets at the Oakdale Workers Club on a regular monthly basis. As often as I could I went along to those meetings. Participants in those meetings were coalminers—members of the Labor Party. They came along and spoke long and hard about conditions in the Burragorang Valley and concerns they had about the future of the valley, as did the CMFEU members in the southern and south-western districts.I am sure that has been commented on by other members in this place. This was because they, like me, recognised that there was always a concern about some of the management practices in coalmines located in the southern and south-western districts of New South Wales. Why do I say this? It is because whilst people might like to hide from time to time behind world coal prices, world economic conditions and so on, ultimately the processes by which coal companies tried to sell the product on world markets were somewhat corrupt. Major buyers, particularly those for Japanese steel mills, also corrupted those processes. So my history with Oakdale goes back a fair way.It is not the first time, regrettably, that an issue at Oakdale has triggered some necessary action: Oakdale and some of its sister collieries in the Burragorang Valley went through a period of restructuring because of difficulties some years ago. It was after those difficulties that Mr Dunbier took over the operation of the Oakdale mine. Mr Dunbier has a history in Camden and the surrounding districts. He is perceived as being a successful businessman—he runs a trucking company—he also had a term in the state parliament representing the Liberal Party and his father is extremely well known in south-western Sydney because of his political career. But when Mr Dunbier took over the operation of Oakdale it was on the basis of fresh hope; it was on the basis that the mining industry in that location could face a reasonable future. So it was with some shock and sadness that we in the Illawarra, courtesy of the CFMEU, the workers themselves and the local media, came to learn of the circumstances surrounding the demise of that colliery and, indeed, the almost entire demise of coalmining in the south-western district.The fact of the matter is that the Oakdale circumstance is something which not only is to be regretted but also is an absolute travesty when you think that the entitlements that the workers in that colliery could have expected to receive automatically—the contributions that had been made to superannuation schemes, long service leave and the like—were all gone. They were told that the company had gone into liquidation, that receivers had been appointed and that they could expect to get nothing. I have to say that, to the families of those coalminers out in the Burragorang Valley and the shopkeepers in places like Oakdale, the Oaks, Camden and so on, this was a crushing blow because not only was the work force to be deprived of a living—coalminers make a reasonable living because of the sometimes dreadful and certainly dangerous conditions under which they have to work—but also the shopkeepers and another service providers in these townships would suffer. Why? Because if the coalminers are out of work money is not spent in those small communities—and I do mean communities. Oakdale is a small community, but it is a community. It is a community of interest. I know that the incumbent member for Macarthur knows that is the case. He knows the area extremely well.On the one hand we welcome the government's decision finally to take the appropriate decision that they have with the introduction of this legislation, the Coal Mining Legislation Amendment (Oakdale Collieries) Bill 1999 , but I have to say to the minister at the table, the Minister for Finance and Administration, that the way in which his colleague the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business approached this initially was, I am afraid, a sad reflection of the lack of compassion that he has for the plight of the workers of this nation. It took meetings in Canberra, it took rallies in the southern and the south-western districts, it took some form of industrial pressure, it took community rallies and it took media pressure before this government would finally act. It also took that sort of pressure before the minister was prepared to meet with representatives of the CFMEU from the south-western district and specifically from Oakdale Colliery, but the result is what we are debating here now.I have to say that I am a little more concerned because the same Mr Dunbier, who was the owner of Oakdale, has now bought the Metropolitan Colliery based in Helensburgh and is operating that. Metropolitan had some difficulties as well but Mr Dunbier has come on board and said, `I can fix the circumstances at Metropolitan Colliery', and has given some hope to people in Helensburgh and adjacent areas. I take more than a passing interest in this because it is occurring in Helensburgh, which is just to the north of my present electorate and is proposed to be included in the new Cunningham under the redistribution of boundaries. Helensburgh is part of the city of Wollongong, and I know a lot of people in that part of the present Hughes electorate, soon to be part of the Cunningham electorate. The concerns of the people there about the future of that coalmine are genuine ones, and I express my reservations about that mine now. The last thing we want to see is the track record of the present owner revisited upon the Metropolitan Colliery in Helensburgh. The last thing we want to see is a similar set of circumstances arising where people—coalminers, that is—are forced, through no fault of their own, to scrabble around to find their just entitlements, if that colliery goes into liquidation.I am also concerned, when I pick up the financial sections of newspapers, to see headlines saying, `Shell quits coal for $1.5 billion'. The Shell company has decided it is going to get out, effectively leaving it to BHP and Rio Tinto at the minute but with the possibility of coalmining companies from around the world buying into Australia. These sorts of things concern me greatly because if major companies have decided to turn it up in terms of ownership of coalmines throughout Australia what will this mean down the track for the viability of many of those coalmines?The unfortunate thing in the Illawarra is that coalmining—for a variety of reasons—is no longer the great industry for employment that it once was. The fact is, through a variety of factors—whether market prices, geological problems or the fact that the coalmine has been worked out—the number of people being employed in the coal industry in our area has dropped remarkably. It is a sad fact that, whilst people talk about an economic rationalist approach to industry, we have seen a very real example of the negative side of that within our area. The concern that I translate from that goes to the issue of people coming into Australia and buying out Shell's operations and maybe not appreciating fully themselves the obligations that are on them as owners in providing for entitlements for workers.As the honourable member for Prospect said in her contribution, Labor led the way on this issue. She introduced a private member's bill which picked up on the very issue that the minister for industrial relations was dragged kicking and screaming into this chamber to present in the bill we are debating tonight. The member for Prospect deserves the applause of this House for clearly pointing out that there are people out there masquerading as good corporate citizens who are prepared to sell out their work force—a work force that has been loyal, dedicated and prepared to work extremely long, hard hours under difficult conditions, as anyone who knows anything about coalmining, particularly underground coalmining, will know. These people have been prepared to allow circumstances to exist that result in their collieries going under, and tough luck for the workers out there.In highlighting the difficulties in similar circumstances, I think the member for Prospect deserves the commendation of this House. As a representative of an industrial area of New South Wales where these sorts of concerns are genuine, I say to her, `Congratulations. You have stimulated debate in this place. You can take a great deal of credit for bringing this minister for industrial relations kicking and screaming into this place to present this bill today.' But we have to be vigilant. We do not want to see this sort of thing revisited in the future.My colleague from the Illawarra, the member for Throsby, made comment a moment ago about some pending difficulties in the meatworks down at Yallah. The same concerns exist there. At one stage, these guys lost everything. They were given some cheques and all of the cheques bounced. I understand some arrangements have been put in place there in Parish Meats; nevertheless this is a real problem. This is a sensible solution for the Oakdale workers, and I am sure that the Minister for Finance and Administration who is at the table would welcome that, as he represents that area. But it should not end there. This is an issue that the government needs to consider fully and frankly, and not through another committee of inquiry. It needs to bring sensible legislation into this place to protect workers and their rights.17:42:009492Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—The government's failure to deal in a responsible manner with the problems of employers going broke and leaving their companies in debt and owing workers their entitlements is what has brought the Coal Mining Legislation Amendment (Oakdale Collieries) Bill 1999 before the parliament. The unions have forced the government to amend the legislation so that 127 former employees of Oakdale mine in New South Wales can be paid their full severance entitlements after the mine closed owing workers their entitlements. The unions had to intervene because this government did not care if workers were paid their proper entitlements.As we know, the minister responsible for this area, the member for Flinders, Peter Reith, announced an inquiry into the Coal Mining Industry Long Service Leave Fund basically to see whether there was a need to continue Commonwealth government involvement, seeing that the primary focus for managing employees had shifted to individual enterprises, in his terms. This meant that employers wanted the fund abolished and the funds realised and managed in a different way, which cut out the payment to those workers who had been laid off. So there were obviously going to be some changeover problems. The union involved, the CFMEU, was not going to allow the Oakdale miners and their families to become innocent victims because their workplace had closed and legislation was preventing them accessing their entitlements. They took action. We remember the rallies here in Canberra to raise these issues and to put pressure on this government to act.They took action because not only were their members hurting but they saw that, in the long term, there was a need to put a national scheme together to protect all employees' entitlements. We know what the Oakdale miners have gone through, but many others have also been disadvantaged. Those include Sizzlers (Bell) Restaurants, Grafton meatworks, Cobar copper mine, Woodlawn copper mine, Austral Pacific, Roadmark, Selwyn gold and copper mine, Braybrook textiles, Oakdale and, of course, Merrywood coalmine in the Fingal Valley in my electorate, which is of great interest to me.These closures showed that the loss of entitlements was to be far broader than the coal industry. A review of the legal processes done in Labor's time endorsed arrangements whereby employees are accorded priority ahead of unsecured creditors in payments from the realisation of the liquidated company's assets. The report also considered the matter of protecting employee entitlements and recommended that consideration be given to the formation of a wage earner protection fund—something which you, Madam Deputy Speaker Crosio, have been highlighting in this parliament with a private member's bill for some time. The Keating government also moved to put employees in front of the taxation office in priority of creditors, and rightly so.So, after a lot of pressure from all sides, this minister agreed to act to provide for these funds to cover wider entitlements than just the long service leave of Oakdale miners. However, I understand this bill will also allow the Merrywood employees, not just the Oakdale miners, to be covered under this Oakdale payout. I have been dealing with the liquidator, who made sure that I was well aware of the situation of the employees in the Merrywood colliery. I am very happy to hear that they will be covered by this amendment, which states:(1) Clause 1, page 1 (line 6), after "Oakdale Collieries ", insert "and others ".That will duly cover my 15 constituents and the $237,495.56 owed to them. There are other sums outstanding to them as well, such as superannuation and the coalmining long service leave fund. Those 15 constituents of mine who have been waiting some considerable time will be very pleased that that has taken place.I understand that, under this bill, the employees will pay over to their long service leave fund the right of their entitlements and the long service leave fund will then take on that debt and, in doing so, may be able to receive some of it. In the case of Merrywood, that is a possibility as there is a court case pending—the company that is in liquidation is seeking to gather some funds from an accounting firm which failed to pick up that a considerable sum of money was being embezzled by one of the company's office employees. So, if that money is recovered, the long service leave fund will get its money back.This is only a very small mine. Because many of the workers have been with this employer for many years, their entitlements have mounted up. I went through the figures, and the sums are considerable, especially to them. I know that they will be very relieved to receive these payments.I would urge the minister to take action in this matter and to look at the future of other workers in this position. I read out a list of companies that have gone into liquidation, leaving employees with considerable problems in meeting their own commitments. We in Australia have certainly seen that there is a need to act. This is only a temporary thing to get over a short-term problem. We who live in this country should have some feeling towards people and employees; workers are entitled to receive their dues. How we go about that is up to the government. It is up to the government to come forward with a proposition in the future.I believe that, in this situation, the government was trying to get away from the long service leave fund; it wanted to disown it. The minister wanted to throw this away, push it away from his department or any influence that they had over it. He set out to do that. I believe that that has been exposed. I believe that, in the first instance on this, they misread the public opinion. Public opinion, I think, has helped workers in my constituency and the Oakdale workers as well. It has been the public opinion and the union's constant raising of the pressure that have actually achieved our being where we are today with this amendment bill before the parliament.If it had not been for that and public opinion, I do not think the government would have acted. Also, your private member's bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, has helped to highlight this, and other members of this House are taking up the issues as well. We have been able to focus on it and make public opinion count and, therefore, bring this government to a position where it has had to act in some sort of responsible manner. The workers of Oakdale and the workers of Merrywood will receive their due entitlements. Any moneys that may come back will go back to that long service leave fund in the future. I am pleased to support the bill.17:52:009494Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—I rise tonight also to support the Coal Mining Legislation Amendment (Oakdale Collieries) Bill 1999 . It certainly represents a great outcome for the former employees of Oakdale Collieries, their families and their union, the CFMEU. I think it is a great tribute to their campaign and their persistence in pursuing this matter, and I support the sentiments expressed by my colleague the member for Lyons that public opinion certainly pushed this issue along. I must also say that I too support the actions of you, Madam Deputy Speaker Crosio, and the members for Brisbane and Fraser. Your actions have contributed significantly to pushing the government to actually take the action they have now taken in introducing this bill.Whilst we can be very pleased that the government has seen right to take some action in this instance, I think it is appropriate for us to remember that it has really been pushed kicking and screaming into taking this action. It has only been because of the persistence of the campaign of the workers and those on this side of the House that the Oakdale workers are able to get some satisfaction in having their legal entitlements paid to them.I do not think we should get too over the top in celebrating those successes when we actually consider what this bill will give to those workers. What it will give them is what they are legally entitled to claim. It is, after all, what their employer should have paid them. They have not won any new standard. They have not been paid any great windfall benefit. They are actually being paid from their own money, and that is something which I think is important to remember: these entitlements are actually going to be paid from the money of miners some time before them.Whilst I support the bill and am pleased that the government have seen their way through to introducing this legislation, we actually want to live in a country where all workers are able to expect that their legal entitlements are secure. Workers who work for their employers, who give their heart and soul to their jobs, should be able to be confident that, if they are in the unfortunate situation of being retrenched, they will be able to be paid what is owed to them. We are often not talking about a lot of money in these situations. We are talking about relatively small amounts of money but amounts which are very significant to the workers who suddenly find themselves out of employment.The coalminers, as many of us in this House know, have been saved by the foresight and planning of their predecessors. It was the members of the CFMEU before them who set up the long service leave fund which is now being used to pay for the entitlements that are owed to the Oakdale workers. The government knows that this is a problem and it has, to some extent, had an easy way out because it has not had to make a decision that affected general revenue in any way. It has been able to look like it is giving the Oakdale workers something, although it is their legal entitlement and is actually the money their fellow colleagues and comrades in the union movement contributed for them.I am very concerned to use this opportunity to say to the government that we need to make sure we take this issue further. There are many other examples of industries and circumstances where people are not paid their entitlements. I would like to again raise a situation in my electorate of a company called Braybrook Manufacturing, a shirt making company which is due to shut its doors any day now. There are 70 workers employed at that factory. They are mostly migrant women and mostly over the age of 45, and a number of those workers have worked there in excess of 30 years. That is all the more staggering when you hear that they earn now—not when they started 30 years ago—approximately $340 a week. These workers are not highly paid, but many of these women have stayed and given their working lives to the company.These women have been told that the company will put itself into voluntary liquidation and that there is not sufficient money for them to be paid their entitlements. These entitlements include not just a redundancy payment but their long service leave, their accrued annual leave and wages in some circumstances. Many of these workers are migrant women. Many of them have saved and worked for years and years for the opportunity to use their long service leave to make that one trip back to their country of origin to visit their parents. That opportunity is going to be denied to them. Even if they are able to eventually get their payments—and I would urge the government to do all they can to help make sure the workers do get their payments—what sort of confidence are they going to have about spending any of that money if they do not have jobs to return to?It is an issue that, unfortunately, is very common in my electorate in the western suburbs of Melbourne. We have had a number of closures where the workers have approached me and asked for my assistance in making sure that their entitlements are secured. In my previous life prior to being elected to this House, I was an industrial lawyer and I unfortunately saw—particularly in the textile industry—time and time again the closure of companies which had not made sufficient provision to pay for workers entitlements.So I use this opportunity to urge the government to not say it is sufficient to introduce this bill. This bill is a great outcome for the workers who are affected by it, but it does not go nearly far enough for other workers in this country. The workers at Braybrook Manufacturing are owed about $1.8 million in entitlements. That works out at roughly $25,000 each. The award entitlements are roughly $700,000, but they have an agreement that does entitle them to higher payments than are set out in the award.I say to the minister: it is not sufficient to be introducing and talking about a minimum safety net in an entitlements discussion paper. Whilst that might be something that is worth floating, it is not sufficient to actually secure what people are legally entitled to. I think it would be very hard for anyone to stand up in this place and say that those workers who have worked for a company for 30 years, who are paid $340 a week and who expect when they are retrenched to be paid their long service leave, their redundancy payments and their annual leave—however much has accrued—are being overly greedy. Is that something we do not think people in this country should be entitled to?There may be other options to look at, including a number of private members' bills that have been introduced from our side of the House. Certainly, we welcome the fact that there is a discussion paper out there, but I do urge the government to look seriously at whether or not it is sufficient to look at a safety net rather than people being paid their full legal entitlements.I would like to encourage the government to make this issue a priority. It is not sufficient to introduce a discussion paper and say, `We're doing everything as quickly as we can.' The government has acted with absolute indecent haste in introducing the More Jobs, Better Pay bill—a ridiculous name and a ridiculous diversion. There is nothing in that bill that deals with this fundamental issue of securing people's entitlements. In fact, there are a number of things in that bill that actually make it worse for workers who are hoping that this government will give them some security.I want to briefly mention three things that make it worse. One of those is the transmission of business provisions which actually weaken the security for employees who are perhaps not in a situation of insolvency but are subject to corporate restructures. This is a way of trying to make sure that it is attractive for employers to restructure so that they can avoid their award obligations. It is shameful that the government would be looking at making such a change at a time when they are protesting loudly that they are doing all they can to secure people's entitlements. We know that that is false. I say to the government: you really need to look at your priorities and deal with the issues that are of most public concern first.The second issue is notice of termination payments. Payments that are made in lieu of notice upon termination are to be taken out of awards under the new More Jobs, Better Pay bill. It seems to me absolutely extraordinary that this government would be looking at taking out of awards something that does provide scant security in its current form, given that people cannot actually effectively pursue their entitlements in many circumstances. The government would know that these abuses are occurring and would still, nevertheless, propose in a bill to remove those sorts of protections such as they are.The final issue is that the changes that are being proposed for unfair dismissal laws are also ones which are going to decrease security even further. The government is making it harder for people to bring claims. The government will not take steps to make sure that legal entitlements for workers are going to be paid, but it is prepared to legislate to tell a worker where it is that they can talk to their union. Why would a government want to bother itself with legislating which room it is or which chair it is that a worker can sit on when they talk to their union but is not prepared to, as a priority, introduce some system which will protect workers' entitlements?Anyone who looks at these sorts of glaring contradictions knows that the government are not serious about extending security to all workers in Australia. In supporting the bill, I congratulate the workers at Oakdale, but this battle is not over. There are far too many workers, and many of them in my electorate, who are not satisfied with the system the way it is. They have been victims of employers who have not been sensible in the way they have managed their companies and who have left long-serving and deserving workers without their entitlements. I urge this government to take some action on this issue as a matter of priority, not just as a matter to make them feel good that they will deal with it in years to come.18:02:009496Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I feel compelled to make a contribution to the Coal Mining Legislation Amendment (Oakdale Collieries) Bill 1999 debate for two reasons. The subject of the bill before the House relates to some coalminers who worked in my electorate at the Oakdale colliery. Those coalminers are well known to me generally, and some of the individuals have been known to me all my life. Those coalminers have worked, in many instances, for a long time in that particular mine and have lived in my community, worked in my community and contributed significantly to that community over a long period.When the particular event occurred, of course it brought with it all of the difficulties that any closure of a workplace brings to a community. It is not just simply a case of the economy suffering in that community; it is a case of individuals suffering and the families of those individuals worrying about the future, wondering if there is a future and wondering how they might make ends meet. Those families consist of wives and children. In this case, it had a devastating effect on the community, as it does on any community when the event itself does occur.I listened with some interest before entering the chamber and subsequently to the contributions by members opposite. One would think if one listened only to those contributions that this whole event came about simply because there was pressure from the Labor Party, pressure in the public arena, pressure in the media and pressure from the CFMEU. Nothing could be further from the truth. I indicate quite clearly in this instance that, from the very beginning, the minister responsible for this legislation, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, approached this issue in a very conscientious fashion and with a view to achieving an outcome that would be good for all workers.In the request that was made to meet with the union, which was answered immediately and which occurred very quickly after the event, the very first issues that were the subject of discussion were the plight of all workers when a company goes insolvent. That was brought forward by the minister responsible for this legislation, by my colleague Peter Reith, as being first and foremost in the government's mind. It is not something that happened just as a result of the Oakdale mine closing; it was something that had been worked through for a considerable time by the minister for workplace relations. That process of endeavouring to find a solution for all workers has continued, notwithstanding this particular issue.It is fair to say that the issue itself did bring with it a great deal of publicity. It certainly brought with it a considerable amount of work for me as the local member, work which I welcomed and which I approached sympathetically. Again, in conjunction with my colleague, we were always seeking an outcome that was good for workers, including the Oakdale workers.We should go back in history. There was a vehement attack that I can describe only as bitter and twisted by the honourable member for Werriwa earlier in the afternoon on the employer. The simple facts of the matter were that two years ago the company that was operating this mine went into liquidation. At that time, there were something like 225 coalminers—none of whom had a right to a job the next day, none of whom had a right to any entitlements whatsoever because the company as it then operated was insolvent.The most recent employer, Mr Dunbier, had an investment. He was a debtor at that time—in the vicinity of $1 million. By virtue of agreements with the workers, which were done very openly and very constructively, it was arranged that some 100 workers would cease work and that the mine would reopen with 100 fewer workers. It was arranged that, during the next year or so, if there was to be some economy of scale built into the operations in the future, those 100 miners who lost their jobs would be paid their entitlements out of the money that was raised from the mine continuing. As I understand it, each one of those 100 miners got all their entitlements.Two years later, with the downturn in the price of coal and a 17 per cent reduction in the negotiations and contract that was to be signed for the continued selling of coal to India, there was little choice. The revenue coming in had ceased to come in the manner in which it was anticipated. It was a simple case that, despite a considerable amount of money going into the operation by Mr Dunbier—and I understand an additional $9 million was ploughed in during that two-year period, so Mr Dunbier has a loss of some $10 million—the operation could not continue.Throughout that two-year period there were regular meetings. There were regular meetings with the union representatives, with all of the workers. Access was given to the books of the company. In fact I saw a report from the auditor employed by the CFMEU to examine the books during that period. That report stated that, of all the books that had ever been looked at by the CFMEU in its history, no set of books was more transparent than that set.It is all very fine to say that Mr Dunbier still operates other businesses. The simple fact is that Mr Dunbier gave 100 workers all of their entitlements by keeping this mine going and gave to the 125 workers who continued on two years of work that they would never otherwise have had. I should also add that this mine had about two years of coal left in it, and all of those workers knew that there was a finite period in which they could work in that mine. That is not to say that when it did come to pass there should not have been some benefits there for them. This was something that this government never ignored.I should also mention that, in discussions with the CFMEU, it was always indicated to them that there would be a money outcome in what the government intended to achieve for workers in Australia, including the Oakdale workers. They said that they had come to Canberra and they had no money. They were given assurances that there would be benefits paid to them; it was simply a case of working the models through. A significant amount of work was done by the minister for workplace relations and his officers and by various other officers in modelling just what could occur. The CFMEU and the ACTU, in giving submissions to the government, indicated that every month between 1,500 and 2,000 workers lose their entitlements. Something like 18,000 to 25,000 workers per year lose their entitlements, and here we had a case involv ing some 125 workers where they were walking away from them.I had many meetings with local representatives, who always recognised the constructive approach that was being taken by the government and the constructive approach that had been taken by Mr Dunbier in providing some benefits for an additional two years, as I have already described. None of them complained about the way in which the government was approaching this; they recognised that time was necessary. But the CFMEU sought to paint it in a different way.What we now have is a bill that will receive the support of the opposition and go through the parliament to give all of those entitlements to the Oakdale workers and to the workers from Merrywood. Of course, I support that. I commend first and foremost the significant efforts by the minister for workplace relations in bringing this forward and getting the support of the government to achieve this outcome. Just as importantly, I draw the attention of all members opposite to the fact that a discussion paper was released last Friday. I have not heard too much in the way of constructive debate on that discussion paper—the way forward, the way of addressing the entitlements of all workers in Australia when there is an insolvency and when entitlements are at risk. That is something that has not been done by any government here.The honourable member for Werriwa said that this should have been done 30 years ago. He was part of a government that was here for 13 years and nothing occurred. When the Leader of the Opposition was asked, `Why didn't the Labor Party do something about this in their term in office?' his answer was, `We did what the unions asked. We put the Taxation Office down on an equal footing in terms of priority with the workers in terms of entitlement. That is all we were asked to do.' That is terrific, isn't it? They did nothing for workers, as we have seen. They did nothing for those 1,500 to 2,000 workers who walk away every month without entitlements because of insolvency. That is something that this government is very determined to get an outcome on.I urge all members opposite—instead of trying to take credit for the work of one Peter Reith and his colleagues on this—to bring this matter to a conclusion in the manner that this bill represents and to bring forward a proposal that will cover workers for entitlements in the future. Let us see if the members of the Labor Party make some constructive contribution to that white paper, that discussion paper that is out there in the public arena at the present time, and go forward to achieve an outcome for all workers. We have achieved an outcome through this bill today for the Oakdale workers and for the Merrywood workers. We have to achieve an outcome, which this government is determined to achieve, for all workers in Australia. The credit for that goes to the minister for workplace relations. I commend this bill to the House.18:12:009498Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—I am delighted that the Minister for Finance and Administration has just made a contribution. Some of his colleagues wished to talk about guilty parties. As an ex state Premier of New South Wales, he is one of the guilty parties. Until very recently, all of the issues we are talking about were the responsibilities of state governments in terms of corporate law. We have watched today the mock indignation and confected anger of the member for Longman, whose contribution I thought was farcical, and we have just heard the minister for finance joining in. The minister has said the same thing as other members opposite have said. They have all taken this tack of saying, `How come you people did not do it? You had 13 years; why didn't you fix it?'I can go back to before we were first elected in 1983, to the companies that went broke, which lost taxation, where taxation took priority. The government of the day, under Prime Minister Fraser and Treasurer Howard, left us a God-awful mess in that respect. It took us eight, nine, 10 years to persuade the states to unify their corporate legislation. How much did we pay off New South Wales before it finally agreed to be part of a national corporate legislative framework? It was an awful lot of money. They used corporate legislation as a revenue source.To have a state Premier of New South Wales lecture us about what we should have done and what we did not do is perhaps one of the best examples of hypocrisy one will see in this place. To do it with mock indignation as well means that that jumping act was just an act. This guy is a performer par excellence. The whole thing is confected. What about the front page of the Daily Telegraph with that miner's wife saying, `Mr Howard, what is my vote worth?' Colleagues from outside New South Wales may not have seen that. But, within a couple of days, there was a very big change in the government. You had a story of a woman saying, `I voted Liberal. I believed John Howard, and where has it got me? Look what he has done to me.' We know that many of those people do vote Liberal. We still support them, but we know they vote Liberal. The running of that story in the Daily Telegraph a few weeks back caused a dramatic change in the government.The minister's talk here about the CFMEU and so on is simply shifting the agenda. He knows that the people talking to the media were the miners and their families. They were the ones people were listening to. They were saying, `We trusted this government. We trusted Honest John, and he's dudded us.' That point struck home very powerfully. The minister talks about his representation, all the work that has been done, all the modelling being done and all the rest of it, yet there are probably 100 words, perhaps 150 words, in the legislation all up, which includes a range of definitional matters. We are talking about one of the shortest bills in history and it has taken this government years to produce it.We have had a long list of companies going broke. We had the Prime Minister on the Alan Jones program saying to business people, `It's okay for you to use the entitlements as working capital.' We heard Alan Jones trying to say, `Prime Minister, that wasn't their money,' and Mr Howard saying, `Oh, yes, it was. They could use it. Everybody else does it.' He legitimised the use by businesses of those entitlement funds for speculation. We had the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, or the minister for unemployment, setting a model with Patrick to show how getting rid of the entitlements responsibilities could be done. What happened with Patrick was a message to all employers and corporate managers far and wide. The message was: `This government is agreeable to you ripping off entitlements. Patrick showed the exact way to do it. It can be done: get rid of the workers, go broke and you have saved your company a fortune.' We had the minister directly responsible setting the model. We had the Prime Minister endorsing the use of entitlement funds by business for speculation, as part of their working capital. It is no wonder that it has gone on and on.As the Leader of the Opposition said, we did what was required. Under federal legislation, we had only tax responsibility. The only thing we could do was to vary the tax system. We did that. Mr Fraser and Mr Howard left us with a system where tax took priority over everything else. The Taxation Office got its money before anything. After experiencing a number of years of that occurring, Labor saw it as wrong. We varied the priorities until, eventually, tax had no priority at all. Eventually, entitlements took priority over tax. From the Taxation Office's point of view, that was a very bad thing to do. I can assure members of the House that the argument with the Taxation Office over that was very strong and very bitter. Mind you, it was the first change in that relationship for 85 to 90 years. It had always been that way and was seen as being immutable. Well, we changed it. We changed the only thing we could change. But the state governments were responsible for corporate law.In this exercise, another part—which comes to the question of responsibility and liability—is interesting. The minister has commented that there may be some variations in corporate law in terms of how entitlements are used. But the fact is that there is a real question of whether this company was technically insolvent and whether, technically, the people are in serious breach of corporate law. I do not hear a word from the government about that. I do not hear a word from the minister about people being sued or prosecuted for possible breaches of corporate law. Where is the message going out to the other employers that this government will not tolerate the misuse of funds and companies trading if they are insolvent and using employees' funds as their working capital? Where is the message going out saying, `This will not happen. You do it, and we'll put you in jail'?We may not need this national scheme. If the government wants to prosecute seriously all the companies that trade while they are insolvent by using employees' funds, we may not need all the measures that are being talked about or all the money that is involved. In recent years, a green light has been given to people to go ahead. It was okay. What is more, that is not being corrected. In the minister's speech on this legislation and in the speeches of another minister and two backbenchers there was not a single word about responsibility or about breaches of corporate law by these companies or about the government chasing and seriously and strenuously prosecuting those people. There was a slight mention of possible changes to corporate law but no indication that this government is going to get tough on people who misuse employees' entitlements.This legislation was a long time coming, and it only came because of the pressure organised by the CFMEU—but spearheaded by the people themselves. It is an excellent example of people combining for a common cause. If this situation had happened in a year's time or two years time, that may not have happened, because the organisations may not have been able to mount a coordinated campaign across a national front as was done this time. So we have the government giving a green light to those who breach corporate responsibilities and corporate law and, at the same time, trying to destroy the organisations that are the only ones capable of coordinating across industries across the country.In a sense, we are seeing the last of a movement. The Oakdales, the Cobars, the Woodlawns and so on are, if you like, the last vestige of what can be done by organised labour. But this is also the response of industry and some business people to a government saying, `It is okay to be unethical, immoral and, very likely, illegal. We'll turn a blind eye.' We have seen not one attempt by this government to lay any responsibility on the individuals in the companies responsible. We have heard a lot of rhetoric attacking us and about what they may or may not do, but we have heard nothing at all about whether they are setting up investigations and whether there was any breach of law with all those cases—Woodlawn, Cobar, Oakdale. I would have thought we would have seen that after the blatant nature of the Cobar exercise—and thank God a Labor state government was in power at the time, because at least it got something back.The laws are actually federal laws now, not state laws. If they are being breached, a federal inquiry should be set up to chase those issues. If they are not being breached, they are still breaching every sense of morality that could possibly exist. The Prime Minister encouraging, on Alan Jones's program, that breach of morality and, possibly, law is indicative. This legislation is overdue, helpful and appropriate because it is now a national responsibility—unlike most of our period in office when it was not a national responsibility.But this is only part of the story. We have now heard about the national scheme coming forward, and I am sure that all members of parliament would welcome that, as would all employees. However, that which makes it necessary is, to me, an acknowledged breach of responsibility by managers and owners of corporations. The third part of this exercise really needs to be this government getting tough—in whatever form it takes—on those who play fast and loose with other people's money. This is a federal responsibility—they are federal laws being enforced—and this government should set up an inquiry into whether or not there have been breaches of Corporations Law. If not, the law should be changed so that they are breaches. We cannot sit back and condone people using other people's money for speculation and risking those people's long-term savings and their family's support. We are supporting these amendments—the shortest in history but, word for word, they have taken longer than any amendments I have ever heard of. At least they are here; let us get them through.18:24:009501Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I rise to support the Coal Mining Legislation Amendment (Oakdale Collieries) Bill 1999 and, in doing so, to briefly refer to the history of this dispute. As we all know, back in May of this year, the workers of Oakdale Collieries turned up to work only to find that their jobs had disappeared. Their company had gone into liquidation and they were, like many other workers in similar situations, left on the unemployment scrap heap. I raise those issues because, in historical terms, I think the Oakdale dispute is going to turn out to be an exceptionally important dispute. It has, once and for all, caused this parliament to face up to the fact that Australian working men and women are entitled to the proper protection of employee entitlements in the event of employer insolvency.The problem today is that, yes, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has released a discussion paper—the Labor Party will respond to that paper in due course—but, despite having released that discussion paper, the minister does not want a proper discussion in the House. It is the minister, as the Leader of the House, who has short-circuited the time allowed for what I regard as an exceptionally important debate. I say that because, when you think about an insolvency or redundancy situation, you should refer not only to the nature of the bill before the House today but also to the other expected add-ons from the government. These add-ons are about trying to ensure that a worker who loses his or her job not only appropriately receives their employee entitlements—their rights—in an insolvency situation but also can look to government for a helping hand, for assistance to try to get training or access to alternative opportunities to enable them to transfer to a new employment opportunity, be it in their local area or a region nearby.The tragedy of the Oakdale situation is that, yes, perhaps at long last—because of the Oakdale dispute, the leadership of the CFMEU and the support given to the Oakdale workers by the Labor Party and the communi ty—we will resolve the issue, if there is proper debate and consideration of the issues, that has plagued working people for many years: their right in insolvency situations to receive their just entitlements. Let us be clear: all they are receiving are their entitlements—their accumulated annual leave, annual leave loading, access to long service leave and severance pay entitlements. It is not as if this is manna from heaven. It is something that these workers have worked long and hard to build up, almost as if it were a bank account, as a result of the sacrifices and hard work they have put in as workers in a given employment situation.Here we have a bill which is about giving a small section of the Australian work force that is being faced with such a situation their just entitlements—their employee entitlements—when their employer walked away from his responsibilities, his personal responsibilities, to ensure that these workers and their families were looked after. So I congratulate the Oakdale miners, the CFMEU and the Australian community for giving these workers and their families support. I am not sure that this government will fully deliver a proper system to guarantee workers in a similar situation in the future. But I tell you what: on our return to government, we will clean up any unfinished business on which this government has left the door open and ensure that, once and for all, we have a system in place that guarantees workers' entitlements in the event of an employer insolvency.I would also raise in the debate the need to ensure that, in addition to a regime that guarantees employee entitlements, we have side by side with such a regime a system of labour market assistance which guarantees that those workers who are displaced do not have to draw upon their entitlements—their personal savings in the form of annual leave, long service leave or annual leave loading. More importantly, we will ensure that those workers have as a right, through government assistance, access to decent training opportunities which ensure that, if they are displaced from a given industry, they are able to engage in training and skilling so that their employability is improved for the purposes of gaining alternative employment opportunities in the future. That is exceptionally important.This government wanted to walk away from the Oakdale workers and the broader issue of employee entitlements in the same way that they walked away from the broader issue of ensuring that displaced workers have an entitlement to decent training opportunities. These opportunities mean that they will have skills to get alternative employment opportunities when they are displaced, be it in an insolvency situation or any other situation which leads to them losing their jobs. That is why I say that the issue before the House is important. But it is only part of the debate about the assistance that should be made available to workers in the event of insolvency. I commend the bill to the House and congratulate the CFMEU, the Oakdale workers and their families and, more importantly, the Australian community for forcing the hand of the Howard government, the government that was going to walk out on the Oakdale miners and their families.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.20:00:009502McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The opposition supports the Coal Mining Legislation Amendment (Oakdale Collieries) Bill 1999 . It has to be said, however, that the bill comes before us in this House more as a result of pressure from the Daily Telegraph in Sydney and the John Laws and Alan Jones programs than the government's genuine commitment to the security of workers. Looking at the history of this government, it has done everything but protect the job security of workers. On 11 August this year, for instance, it gagged the motion by the member for Brisbane calling on parliament to urgently address this situation; that was the most recent event. But before that the government had opposed a private member's bill entitled the Employment Security Bill moved on 25 May last year by the former shadow minister for industrial relations while, at the same time, rejecting a private member's bill by Janice Crosio which proposed an insurance scheme. Thereafter, the government rejected Senate amendments to the Company Law Review Bill which would have significantly tightened the obligations of company directors and made them personally liable for any situation where, as a result of their asset stripping or moving of assets to avoid creditors' obligations, including obligations to workers, they would have been personally liable to those creditors. The amendments also proposed specifically giving employees, as creditors, the right to recover those damages, as opposed to the current provisions of the Corporations Law which give that power to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission or individual shareholders. So that was a significant step that was passed by the Senate but rejected by this government when it came back into the House. Also, more recently, the member for Brisbane on 29 March this year and the member for Prospect at about that time reintroduced the Employment Security Bill and the bill to establish an insurance scheme.This government has had those opportunities. I know from first-hand knowledge that the private members' bills, certainly that of the shadow minister for industrial relations, were prepared after consultation with a number of experts in the field of industrial law and Corporations Law. So those bills were not stunts; they were deeply thought through propositions that, unfortunately, have simply been rejected out of hand by the government.This government, through a number of speakers on the other side, has criticised the fact—so those speakers have said—that little was done by the former government in this area. What was done which was significant was that the priority of employees in the event of the insolvency of a company or the bankruptcy of an individual was elevated above unsecured creditors and, indeed, elevated even above moneys payable to the Commissioner of Taxation. That was a very significant measure in enabling workers to recover literally millions of dollars which otherwise would have been lost.But the fact of the matter is that this issue has really come to the fore as a result of the facts in respect of the restructuring of the Patrick group of companies in September 1997 which, in turn, resulted in the dismissal of workers on 7 April 1998. It is quite clear that that restructuring was deliberately used to deprive workers of their entitlements.There have been a number of commentaries on the background to that dispute in April of last year and almost all of those have focused on the government's complicity in the restructuring of those companies to specifically avoid the employment obligations that the employers had to the workers and, indeed, to result in the dismissal of those workers. For instance, as Mr Justice North noted in the Federal Court of Australia when these matters were before him, when an application was lodged to reinstate the dismissed stevedoring employees:The cancellation of the labour supply contracts—between the stevedoring companies of the Patrick group and the labour hire companies of the Patrick group—and the appointment of administrators on 7 April 1998 were made possible by a complex inter-company transaction which occurred in September 1997. By dividing the functions of employing workers and owning the business between two companies, the Patrick Group put in place a structure which made it easier to dismiss the whole workforce. It is arguable, on the evidence, that this was done because the employees were members of the union . . . His Honour further said:There is also evidence that the Patrick owners and other companies in the Patrick Group, together with others, agreed on the unlawful acts as part of an overall plan to replace the workforce with non union labour.That restructuring involved asset stripping of $300 million from the labour hire companies. Granted that it was part of the government's industrial and political agenda of the time, but it was strategic use of the Corporations Law to deprive workers of their entitlements. Indeed, the High Court that heard the case on appeal, in its majority decision, found that, in managing the affairs of the Patrick group of companies, prior to and during September 1997, there was created a situation `where the security of the company's businesses was extremely tenuous'. Also, no-one has ever challenged the fact that the government was intrinsically involved, indeed, if not a prime mover, in those company restructures.It is noteworthy that, simultaneously with the administrator being appointed at approximately 11.00 p.m. on 7 April 1998—and I still remember the broadcasts; we were here in parliament—the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business issued a media release strongly supporting the actions of the Patrick group. By 9.30 the following morning, the minister was in parliament, in the House of Representatives, presenting a detailed bill to the parliament, providing a funding arrangement to enable the Patrick group to meet the redundancy obligations of some 1,400 workers whose employment was, but for the intervention of the Federal Court and the High Court, to be terminated as a result of this company's restructuring arrangements.Issues in respect of company restructuring being deliberately used really came to light in the Patrick case. Something clearly needs to be done to avoid that happening again. If it can happen in that situation, then each and every worker in Australia employed by a company in a group of companies is under threat. The government have rejected a number of requests under the Freedom of Information Act to produce information, just as they have refused to answer a number of questions on notice seeking information as to their involvement in the background of that dispute. They are chronically embarrassed. For the government then to come in here today and say that they are genuinely concerned about the security of workers is to cry crocodile tears. Indeed, those tears themselves would not have been shed if it had not been for the public pressure and the pressure of those media outlets to which I have referred.Essentially what is proposed in this bill is a bandaid solution, albeit for very deserving workers. We recognise that many of the Oakdale miners have worked long and hard for many years—leaving the light of day and going underground to work in dangerous, damp and dusty conditions—only to find out, rudely, that their nest egg, their security for their life after employment, was decimated by their employer becoming insolvent. It must be remembered that, while this bill is a bandaid solution for this particular group of employees, and I understand will be expanded by amendments in respect of employees in the coal industry, there are many other workers who have been affected by these common situations.These include Cobar Mines where 270 workers were owed $9 million for over 10 months until eventually $6.5 million was recovered, but still $2.5 million was lost out of workers pockets and their family incomes; Austral Pacific Bus Co. where 700 workers lost approximately $10 million; Grafton Abattoir, where 250 workers lost approximately $3 million; Exicom, where 680 workers were owed $6 million in leave and $11 million in redundancy entitlements on the insolvency of that company; Woodlawn Mine, where 160 workers lost about $6 million in accrued entitlements, some of that being recovered because the company's administrator was able to establish a rubbish dump on the site; St Andrews Hospital in Queensland, where 150 workers lost $1.5 million; at Rockhampton and Yeppoon, where 157 hospital workers lost $1.4 million; Sizzler restaurants, where 2,000 workers lost $2 million; and Roadmark where employees lost about $175,000. These situations involve employees in all walks of industry and commerce, they are not limited to the mining industry, yet these provisions will have nothing to do with them.We are talking not only about hundreds of workers—in combination some thousands of workers—but about their families, about mortgages being foreclosed, about forced removal of families from their homes, being forced to move into cheaper accommodation, and about kids being forced to move from schools as a result of having to change locations or perhaps as a result of their families not being able to afford school fees if they were in a Catholic or private school. While I read out in that list the figures for the workers, the loss of those entitlements have a devastating effect on the lives of thousands of families. On very few occasions are workers who lose their final entitlements ever able to recover that amount.This is an extremely important matter for this parliament to consider. We have to consider whether the priority is to support only the vested interests of capital or to support those people who provide their labour and bring up families. I note that this government has recently circulated a discussion paper looking at possible solutions to the problem, and that step has to be encouraged. It is pleasing to see that has occurred. The government is proposing a basic safety net payment capped at some $20,000 for workers who would otherwise lose all their entitlements or, alternatively, a compulsory insurance scheme whereby all major employers would be required to take out insurance cover to protect the accrued liabilities to their employees. But the discussion paper effectively rejects the proposition of placing employee entitlements higher on the list of preferred creditors. That is regrettable, and it is a matter requiring further examination.While there are concerns that placing the priority of employees above that of secured creditors may affect the willingness of financial institutions to lend money, I think those financial institutions would feel sufficiently secure to continue to fund commerce if they were satisfied that employers had identified either in an account lodged with those institutions or in some other trust account sufficient funds to cover their obligations or, indeed, if there were an insurance scheme in place, to cover the liability. These issues are worth examining.Another issue which I should express concern about, as the final point I wish to make in this speech, is that one of the government's proposed solutions in their discussion paper is simply to say that workers should cash out, as soon as accrued, their leave entitlements and their accrued long service leave entitlements. If ever there was an anti-family proposition, it is that. Family holidays have become a way of life for Australian families. To suggest that, as a result of financial pressure or as a result of fear of losing those entitlements, workers should deprive their families of those opportunities is, quite frankly, an outrage.In conclusion, these measures are one of the most vital issues affecting Australian families. The government must act. While this is a bandaid, there is a very long way to go, and the government should not use this as an excuse to avoid a more fundamental restructure of the industrial relations system and the Corporations Law to adequately protect the full legal entitlement of workers.20:15:009505Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—The government has, I suspect, been brought very reluctantly to this piece of legislation, the Coal Mining Legislation Amendment (Oakdale Collieries) Bill 1999 , which is but a slight adjustment to the worthy coal industry legislation to cover the long service payroll levy introduced in 1992. But both this government and the previous government have consistently failed to address the wider problem of workers' entitlements affecting those industries other than coal and particularly involving foreign owners. This potential problem will become even more relevant with news that Shell is selling up its Australian coal interests. There is a long list of international groups lining up to make bids—reportedly along with BHP, whose own willingness to sell our coal short on world markets represents a home-grown threat to the viability of smaller and less cost-effective coalmines and hence to their work forces.It is a sad irony that we have here a conservative government hell-bent on further paring back the rights of employees who are now forced to accept the reality of an increasing bastardry against workers, particularly in parts of the mining industry. The first public awareness of what was occurring came from the closure of the Ashanti CSA mining operation at Cobar, with a foreign owned company walking away from its responsibilities to its Australian work force. It might be said that that company has now met 80 per cent of its obligations but only, I would suggest, because it knew its other Australian plans—notably in Western Australia, as I remember—would be at some risk if it did not, reluctantly, do the right thing.It is important to recall the circumstances of Cobar before moving on to the Oakdale situation. At the time of the retrenchment of workers in January 1998, the former employees were owed $10½ million. The company also owed $24 million to various unsecured creditors. Yet in May of last year, 1998, the company was able to pay a US20c per share dividend on 109 million shares. That is just short of $22 million. Meantime, the Cobar economy had been thrown into a tailspin and families were forced to leave the outback town in search of other work—a community and a work force entirely at the mercy of a company more concerned with its foreign shareholders than with its employees.Despite the warnings of Cobar, Woodlawn and other non-mining examples involving smaller work forces but equal personal pain, nothing by way of legislation was done before Oakdale. Why, you might ask? I would suggest it was because of an effective union campaign from one of the few unions that have survived the industrial reform onslaught of recent years with enough clout to make a difference—and clout, in the case of the CFMEU, this time used responsibly. Is it any wonder that the CFMEU is in the government's sights?Helped for once by a positive media campaign, largely through the Sydney Daily Telegraph and talkback jocks like Jones and Laws, the government was stirred into action. I would suggest that the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and his zealots bunkered in the office of Industrial Relations will never forgive the union that embarrassment. For once, media driven government has turned out for the good—with this bill, however narrowly targeted, the result.The minister said in his second reading speech that the government recognises the impact these situations can have on employees and that the Australian people have an expectation that employees will not be deprived of their lawful entitlements. All I can say is that the government has had a very late conversion on the road to Oakdale. Where was this government, and the one before, when other companies went belly up in past years? It took a high profile industry, a high profile union, high profile media people and high profile headlines to jolt anyone into action in Canberra—not because people were losing money but because the government looked like losing votes if it sat on its hands and, as usual, let the marketplace decide these things.We have had globalism, rationalism, corporatism and, until people were heard enough through Cobar to Oakdale, tough-tittyism. This bill amends legislation covering the coal industry's long service leave fund to enable payment of 100 per cent of the Oakdale miners' entitlements. Good luck to them, and it was only what they should receive. But what about the 26½ thousand workers who lose up to $240 million a year in entitlements nationwide? What about the child-care workers in my own electorate who are still waiting for payments of superannuation entitlements from an operator who became insolvent but is still running other businesses? What about Reg Smith, who lost his entitlements when bus manufacturer Austral Pacific went broke last year? What about the abattoir industry, a particularly vulnerable sector of the economy, as the member for Barton indicated in reference to Grafton?The government is floating ideas of a national safety net system rather than a scheme guaranteeing full payment of entitlements. It is expected to provide cover for about 17,000 employees a year, still 10,000 short of the number losing their entitlements each and every year. I say: rather than just consider the options on the table, include them all in any national scheme. Amend the Corporations Law to stop directors entering into arrangements that avoid payment of employee entitlements.How do you `strengthen prohibitions against insolvent trading', as the minister said in his speech? Prohibition surely means just that. Make other companies within a group responsible for outstanding employee entitlements if one company in the group goes under—otherwise that avoidance option will always be available to a parent company. What chance such workers' protection under a proposal such as the Multilateral Agreement on Investment if we cannot get our house in order prior to any insidious international program like that coming into effect?If small business wants the protection of unfair dismissal laws—and I support them—then a national insurance scheme that is part- employer and part-government funded is essential as a fair trade-off at least. As for the coal industry work force, it will benefit from the sheer determination of the Oakdale workers, their communities and their union. I say that knowing something about Oakdale, having been brought up there as a child, with my father, the local stationmaster, watching the S&M Fox blue trucks trundle through town for a decade, and knowing how committed that community is to the coalmining industry—Oakdale, in those years, being a state coalmine.Anyone knowing anything about the coal industry in recent years will know how precarious an existence it is, not only for those workers underground and operating high-powered equipment, often in cramped and dangerous conditions, but also for the towns and economies that depend on the income from coal sales. Those sales are being threatened by the increasingly downward pressure on prices in the marketplace often precipitated by local giants, such as BHP, who accept lower and lower prices to make their margins on volume at the expense of the rest of the industry, such as the western New South Wales fields in my electorate, often smaller owners, smaller volumes and far more difficult and expensive extraction processes.According to the CFMEU, we are likely to see more, rather than fewer, cases of insolvency among mine owners in this country, and I am concerned particularly for the mines of the western fields. They are very vulnerable, and I want to see at least miners' entitlements protected. I have already had miners who have lost jobs in the past 12 months in the Lithgow district come into my office, caught out by the introduction of the income maintenance period for access to Job Search, caught out at the very commencement of the new rules in late 1997 and poorly advised in that transitional period.It is one thing to be forced to live off accrued long service, holiday pay and other saved up entitlements that were being set aside as a retirement bonus—for that boat, for that holiday or for whatever—but it is another for those miners and their families to be denied any of those entitlements that are rightfully theirs. One of the real weaknesses of our current laws, so far as I can see, lies in the current Australian accounting standards, which do not require employers to make provision for severance and retrenchment pay, except where it is known retrenchments will occur. Most employers make no provision and in the event of insolvency it is obvious there will be no funds available to make such payments.In its submission to this government on rescue and protection of retrenchment entitlements, the CFMEU rightly points out that the `risk exposure of workers in any insolvency is usually greater than that of any other creditor'. The submission goes on:. . . whilst other creditors usually have other business or economic activity to help them sustain their loss, workers usually have no other asset beside their job. This higher proportional level of risk exposure is not accorded due recognition by corporations law.Therein lies the nub of the problem. The union has sensibly suggested that amendments to the Coal Mining Industry Long Service Leave Funding Act 1992 should go much further than these amendments do. The national scheme is currently funded by a five per cent levy on the payroll of coal industry employers, with about half of that for funding currently accruing long service leave liabilities and the other half designed to extinguish the unfunded liability by June 2003. It has been suggested the scheme should be extended beyond that date. A per tonne levy, in preference to a payroll levy, has also been suggested.The crucial point is that, for all the heartache and drama surrounding Oakdale and the coalmining industry, other parts of Australian industry are in a much more parlous state. Even in gold and copper, a closely related industry, we see such a situation—this was referred to in question time yesterday—in the Selwyn mine at Cloncurry and in two operations in Western Australia where 350 workers are waiting for their entitlements. As the minister quite correctly pointed out to the House yesterday, these operations are not in the coal industry and so do not fall into the Oakdale situation where the long service leave fund is available for the entitlements.That is the challenge for this government. After the glare of publicity has died down, after Alan Jones, John Laws and the Daily Telegraph have moved on to other issues because the story is stale, will this government develop legislation that protects all Australian workers' entitlements? To tie any such legislation to the new wave of industrial reforms is a cynical ploy, I believe, to sprinkle sugar over a completely unpalatable new set of so-called workplace reforms.WI4REITHMr Reith—You agreed with us on unfair dismissal. It is in the bill. Is that unpalatable?KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—This certainly is. The workers' entitlements legislation should be separate and distinct from workplace reform. Such entitlements are part of Corporations Law reform, and any legitimate and honest legislation should be stand-alone to deal with this urgent problem that has been ignored for far too long. I am heartened to see the Democrats indicating they have no intention to cross-trade workers' entitlements for workplace reforms. I suggest the government take heed and introduce separate and specific legislation. I live in hope, as I commend this bill to the House.20:27:009507Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—in reply—Firstly, can I thank all the members for their contributions to the debate on the Coal Mining Legislation Amendment (Oakdale Collieries) Bill 1999 . The debate has been characterised by some useful comments, some entirely irrelevant comments and some uninformed comments—for example, those of the last speaker. He was keen to ensure that we do not have entitlements within the Workplace Relations Act. I would invite him to read the act, and he might then appreciate that the act provides many entitlements for workers. It would be passing strange to say that it is somehow offensive to suggest that other benefits should not also be provided within the context of reform of our workplace relations laws.The intention of the government in respect of our legislative scheme is to work to put a national scheme in place by 1 January. I hope that we will be able to do so. Our understanding with the Democrats, in general terms, is that the Senate will deal with the piece of legislation that is currently before the parliament. It makes sense, given the fact that there will be a Senate inquiry into the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 , that they take the opportunity to also look at the question of a national scheme. I would have thought that the honourable member would think that that is a good idea, because we do want to get on with this—we do want to try to get it finished this year—and this workplace legislation currently before the parliament is an ideal opportunity to press ahead with the issue.There will be things in the bill that the Democrats do not like or that irrelevant Independent members in the lower house do not like. We deal with that all the time. We will deal with the issues on their merits. It may be that there are matters with which we will agree with the Labor Party. In fact, only last week, I am pleased to say, the Labor Party agreed to propositions from this government to provide entitlements to workers, particularly young workers—namely, their entitlement to a job.KL6ANDRENMr Andren—I agree with that.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I am glad that you agree with that.Mr Bevis interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—And I am delighted that the shadow minister thinks that our amendments are so good that he is now describing them as his own, and long may he continue to do so. Every time he does he will have another torrent of abuse from the trade union movement. That is fine by me. This government is doing the right thing. This is the first time we have seen a government be prepared to do the right thing on the question of employee entitlements.Some of the opposition people have been so ungracious as to suggest that this action was forced upon the government by circumstances. Nothing could be further from the truth. The public record demonstrates that this government had been working on the question of employee entitlements well before any of us had even heard of Oakdale—with the exception, I should say, of the Minister for Finance and Administration, who knows the area well and has been a very strong supporter in ensuring that a fair outcome was achieved for the Oakdale workers. For example, I think it was only last year that, through the Workplace Relations Ministers Council, we had a working party with the states on the question of how to deal with employee entitlements. A communique from the Workplace Relations Ministers Council accepted the fact that it was a joint national and state responsibility. We had already signalled our willingness to take all steps to deal with employers who might not have fully met their obligations under Corporations Law. There is an example of that—it was mentioned in the speech of the member for Calare, the last member to speak—namely, Cobar. There we ensured the authorities pursued the entitlements of the employees and, in that particular case, in the order of 85 per cent or 95 per cent of the entitlements were recovered. Again, this is as a result of this government taking decisive action to make sure that the fair thing is done by workers, in that particular case at Cobar.In respect of the Corporations Law, some of the comments that have been made I do accept. The government had already announced its intention to tighten up the Corporations Law. Two of those matters are going through the ministerial council process, and we have already flagged a third one which we think will help to deal with this situation in the future. This is not, however, a be-all and end-all. This whole issue is a complex one. There are circumstances where, for one reason or another, it can be demonstrated or it seems to be the case that the Corporations Law has been complied with but where there simply are no funds to meet entitlements. For that reason this government has been conscious of the need to develop a national scheme. For example, in the matter of Oakdale we met with the representatives of the workers, the CFMEU, and in that meeting we said we intended to ensure the payment of some entitlements. The union then went out and did a press release saying, `Oh, the government's just told us we're not going to get a brass razoo—not a cent will we obtain.' That was not the case. The later claims, therefore, that we had somehow backtracked or done a backflip were simply wrong. We had made it quite clear that we intended to react. It is true that we were concerned that, in any response to Oakdale, we had an eye to the future national scheme that we would put in place. I think that is a sensible approach for a government to take. It was as a result of a lot of work that we have been doing that we were able last week to put out a discussion paper and to canvass two possible options for putting in place a national scheme. We are keen to see people's reaction to those proposals, and we have invited comments back to us in the next two or three weeks.All of these actions taken by this government demonstrate our willingness to find a better long-term solution to the problems of insolvency where the consequence of that insolvency is that employees are not able to receive their full entitlements. That is in very stark contrast to the years and years of inaction on the other side. It is no wonder so many of them joined in this debate today, because they never had an opportunity for 13 years when Labor was in to get up and say something on behalf of workers. The rough calculation that we have made is that in the 13 years that Labor was in the sum total value of lost entitlements of employees in the case of insolvency was in the order of $1.8 billion—$1,800 million—not one cent of which found its way into the pockets of employees when a Labor government was in office. There were four Labor ministers and not one of them was ever prepared to get up and say, `Let us at least have a national scheme.' Since they have been in opposition the Labor Party have started to talk about this issue. They put up a bill, the consequences of which for Oakdale miners being that, instead of their getting $6 million plus, they would have been lucky to get about $2 million—about 30 cents in the dollar. The hypocrisy of the Labor Party on this issue knows no bounds.Mr Bevis interjecting—Mr Kelvin Thomson interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I hear the interjection about the waterfront. What happened on the water front is that we ensured there was a scheme to pay out workers' entitlements in the same way that Labor did when they were in office and there was then a Waterfront Industry Reform Program. The one thing I would remind people about the waterfront is that during the dispute the Labor Party supported all of the rorts and rip-offs which have characterised the Australian waterfront for many years and which have led to great inefficiencies. The thing you cannot stand is that in the port of Melbourne we have now got 25 crane lifts an hour and a productivity performance which matches the international benchmark set by the government.Labor introduced a scheme by way of a private member's bill and, when we read it, what do we find? We find it is unconstitutional and that the Oakdale workers would have got only 30 cents in the dollar. These people on the other side are a joke. They are an embarrassment to the labour movement generally. No wonder you have been getting phone calls from the trade union movement. You do not even have the guts to ring them and tell them of a decision whereby you overturned six years of Labor and ACTU policy.This opposition is one of the weakest oppositions Australia has had since World War II. When it comes to an issue to look after workers those opposite are found wanting—no wonder there have been so many interjections. After 13 years when Labor did nothing, we now have a government that is not only running the economy better so that low income workers are getting higher wage increases than they ever got under Labor—plus the fact that so many more of them have got jobs, with the lowest level of unemployment now for 10 years—but also prepared to extend the safety net to ensure a fair system.It is a matter of concern in the Australian community that there are people at the top end of the pile who can literally take out millions of dollars when they leave businesses, and some of those businesses are not left in good repair, and yet people at the bottom end—those working in the mines, those working in dirty jobs—can find themselves in a situation where they have done the right thing but, as a result of company insolvency, they miss out on the lawful entitlements. As a matter of fairness, the government will be pressing ahead with this issue.We are prepared to constructively discuss the matter with the opposition. I have already indicated that arrangements have been made for me to meet with Mr Combet from the ACTU. We are prepared to discuss these issues. It needs to be on a sensible basis and it is unfortunately a characterisation of Labor that in this debate we have had hardly one constructive comment on the discussion paper, but that only betrays their lack of interest in the genuine issues before us.For all of that, I am pleased that the opposition have accepted our amendments on this. It would be good to get them to accept some of our other legislation like unfair dismissal—but you never know. I never thought I would get them to agree on junior rates either, so we live in hope. We believe that with the passage of this legislation tonight we can send it over to the Senate and get the matter settled by the end of the week. Then we can put the wheels in motion for the payments to the Oakdale employees and the Merrywood employees. I therefore commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.9510Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.Amendments (by Mr Reith)—by leave—agreed to:(1) Clause 1, page 1 (line 6), after "Oakdale Collieries ", insert "and others ".(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (after line 15), after section 48A, insert:48B Payments in respect of former employees of companies being wound up etc.(1) A person is a qualifying employee for the purposes of this section if all the following conditions are met: (a) the person's employment with an employer (the former employer ) has been terminated on or before 31 December 1999; (b) immediately before the termination, the person was an eligible employee; (c) a liquidator, provisional liquidator or administrator of the former employer has been appointed under the Corporations Law on or after 1 January 1999; (d) the former employer is not Oakdale Collieries Pty Limited (ACN 066 839 585).(2) A qualifying employee is entitled to be paid, out of the Fund, an amount equal to the employee's termination entitlement, reduced by any amount that the employee has received in respect of the employee's termination entitlement.(3) Payment is not to be made to an employee unless the employee has entered into a written agreement with the Corporation: (a) assigning to the Corporation the employee's rights to be paid any amount (by a person other than the Corporation) in respect of the employee's termination entitlement; and (b) agreeing to pay to the Corporation any amount that the employee later receives in respect of the employee's termination entitlement.(4) Regulations may be made requiring the Corporation to give information statements to employees in respect of payments under this section.(5) In this section: termination entitlement means the amount owing by the former employer to the employee, immediately after the termination time, in respect of the employee's employment by the former employer. termination time means the time when the employee's employment by the former employer was terminated.Bill, as amended, agreed to.9510Bill (on motion by Mr Reith)—by leave—read a third time.Bills9510r8669510Debate resumed from 30 August, on motion by Mr Costello:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr Crean moved by way of amendment:"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."20:42:009511Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—As I was saying last evening when the debate was adjourned, this is an extraordinarily complex piece of legislation for something which the government styles as not a new tax but a new tax system and wants to talk about its simplicity. I suggest you try telling the people involved in small business that this is a new tax system and something which will be simpler and better when they have to do battle with some of the paragraphs which I will read to the House. For example, 2.111 says:An entity is not required to make additional payments when it chooses an instalment rate higher than the instalment rate it used in the previous instalment quarter but it may choose to make additional payments.Then there is 2.116:An entity is liable to a penalty for each instalment quarter in which it chose to use an instalment rate under section 45-205 (varied instalment rate) that is less than 85% of the instalment rate that should have been used. The Commissioner works out that rate—the benchmark instalment rate —having regard to the entity's instalment income and assessed tax for that year.Or 2.117, which says:The Commissioner works out the benchmark instalment rate. An entity does not need to work it out, but an understanding of how it is worked out may help an entity to work out the instalment rate it chooses to use under section 45-205.We have over 100 pages of similar description concerning the pay-as-you-go legislation, which the government describes as not a new tax but a new tax system. Try telling that to small business which will have to do battle with this legislation as it progressively comes into effect.Try telling that too to some of those people who have experienced the kinds of difficulties that Mr Michael Quis of Conder, ACT, has in relation to his disability income replacement benefits concerning a claim he made under a Colonial income cover policy. Mr Quis was being paid a monthly benefit, arising from an injury which resulted in—SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I have looked at the Notice Paper and I think the bill we are dealing with is A New Tax System (Taxation Laws Amendment) Bill (No. 1) 1999 , but we are suddenly getting into social security. Is that the member's intention, or does he want to go on misrepresenting the issues of the complexity of the tax? Is this a tax problem? Is it part of the bill?UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—On the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure that the Minister for Forestry and Conservation has not read the bill and is not familiar with what is in it. But paragraph (c) of proposed section 12-120 `Compensation, sickness or accident payment' refers to a payment which `is not a payment made under an insurance policy to the policy owner'. I intend to direct my remarks precisely to that part of the legislation.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—On the point of order: again, the member is giving a specific example of someone who has a problem now and wants to apply it to legislation yet to be applied to the community. I think it is reasonable that he sticks to the bill and does not try to introduce extraneous matter.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—The member, I think, was dealing with the section of the bill which relates to compensation. If in fact he is outside the ambit of the bill, he will be judged on that, I am sure.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—I intend to relate my remarks precisely to the fact that this provision is in the legislation before the House. Mr Quis has been receiving this monthly benefit arising from the injury which has resulted in his being disabled and not able to perform his usual occupation. He received benefits going back to 1994—indeed, as the minister points out, under the operation of previous legislation.He has been receiving a monthly statement concerning his benefits, and at no time was any reference made to the fact that tax was payable on these benefits and that tax had not been withdrawn. As a result, more recently he has been sent an enormous taxation liability, which is causing him a great deal of distress. He has taken this matter up—SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on another point of order. The member is now telling us that a person has received a tax bill. What is the relationship between the application of tax under the present discredited system, which we are trying to change, and the application of tax under the system that is before the House, which the member is trying to talk to? It is patently obvious—and that became clear from the beginning—that he wants to run a constituent issue in addressing prospective tax legislation, and that is not appropriate. He has just said that he got a tax bill.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—On the point of order: I will explain the relationship between this case and the bill if the minister stops endeavouring to gag me, thus enabling these serious issues to be debated in a serious fashion.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! I have now heard the argument that is being pursued. It does not seem to relate to the bill. It is necessary for the member to relate his remarks to the bill.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—The relationship between this unsatisfactory situation and the bill is quite clear. In reference to withholding tax, proposed section 12-120 states:An entity must withhold an amount from a payment of compensation, or of sickness or accident pay, it makes to an individual if the payment:. . . . . . . . .(c) is not a payment made under an insurance policy to the policy owner.In other words, this government, which says it is doing something to fix up the tax system by introducing pay-as-you-go taxation, leaves in place precisely this problem where people can receive regular compensation payments, not have the tax withdrawn and subsequently face that taxation liability. I suggest to the House that the government ought to be seriously considering section 12-120 to see whether the policy rationale for that provision to remain there still exists.This piece of legislation is being brought before the House by this government. I urge the minister at the table, who says this is a new tax system, to examine these provisions and see whether there is a legitimate policy rationale for them or whether they ought not to be addressed in the interests of people like Michael Quis who, as things stand, is facing back taxation liabilities of a kind that he really should not be facing.It gets worse, and I refer the House to running balance accounts, which is another significant aspect of this legislation. The running balance accounts refer to the process where different taxation liabilities of businesses—their income tax, their fringe benefits tax liabilities, the PAYE moneys they owe on behalf of their employees and their other tax liabilities—are merged into a single account to simplify both tax compliance and tax administration. Labor has not opposed the principle of this new system, and we see that it has some potential to provide benefits for taxpayers and the Commonwealth. But, extraordinarily, accompanying this, the Taxation Office has had taken away from it its discretion concerning fines or penalties for late payments.The member for Cowan has provided me with three different examples of taxpayers who have been sent penalties imposed for late payment by the tax office of the following amounts: in the first case, a bill for $9.85; in the second case, a bill for $5.45; and, in the third case, a bill for $1.35.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—You are a disgrace! You just want to gag this speech. That is all you are good for.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—He is defying the chair.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Wills!SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—The legislation before the House is A New Tax System (Taxation Laws Amendment) Bill (No. 1) 1999 . The member at the dispatch box keeps telling us about the failings of the present tax system, for which they were responsible for 13 years. All we ask the member to do is comment on the implications of the new tax system. If he is trying to tell us that we have not corrected all their mistakes, let him admit to it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have heard the point of order. The member for Wills does seem to be reflecting on the old tax system.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—I am doing nothing of the kind, and this is a transparent attempt to stop the facts of this government's failures from being brought before the House. The system of running balance accounts is covered by this legislation.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Well, why give us examples of your taxes?UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—No, this is an example of what this government has done—SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—No, it isn't, because we haven't got it in yet.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—No, this is a system which this government has introduced in the last few months. The running balance accounts are being amended by this legislation. The running balance accounts are things which this government has introduced and, as a direct result, these constituents of the member for Cowan have had late penalty payments of $9.85, $5.45 and $1.35 imposed.This is a disgrace. Anyone who knows anything about public administration can tell you that it costs of the order of $100 or $200 for a body like the tax office to send out correspondence of this kind and check these payments. Yet the tax office has said it has no discretion as a result of changes made by this government and has instructed those constituents to contact their local member. I urge the government, rather than seeking to gag debate as they have done here, to take action to make sure that the tax office has a discretion to deal with those late penalty payments and to enable constituents to go about their tax affairs in a more appropriate and professional way.This is a bill which essentially deals with some administrative reforms—for example, as I have indicated, the pay-as-you-go system and amendments to the running balance accounts arrangements. Regrettably, the minister does not seem to understand that they are part of this legislation.As I have indicated, we do not oppose these proposals in principle, but we have moved a second reading amendment which relates to the process surrounding this legislation. We believe that, because this is part of the business tax reform process, it should be dealt with in conjunction with the other parts of that process. The most important elements are those which have been reviewed by the Ralph committee, but we have seen a situation where the Ralph committee report has been sat on by this government for a month now. The government has not released the report. We have been consistently arguing for a full debate on these issues, but the Treasurer, for reasons best known to himself, has decided he does not want one.The Ralph process is something we have supported until now. What happens here is that we get to the business end of the process, the time when the decisions are going to be made, and suddenly this government's obsession with secrecy takes over. We know from the Federation Fund scandal that this is a government which is afraid of scrutiny. We know that you want to rort proper processes. We know that you are afraid of open government—you run away from operating transparently.Frankly, this is not good enough. The Ralph final report should be released immediately. It should have been released a month ago, and that would have given us the opportunity to debate the real business taxation proposals at the same time as we are considering this legislation. We are concerned that this legislation, in many cases, will make life for small business more complex than it already is. As a result, we have moved a second reading amendment which I urge all members of the House to support.20:56:009514Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—I want to take this opportunity to talk in particular about the pay-as-you-go system that is proposed in the A New Tax System (Taxation Laws Amendment) Bill (No. 1) 1999 and the wider issue of the business tax review, including the recommendations and information contained in the Ralph report. That report is still in the hands of the government, which has refused to hand it over, and I have quite a bit to say about that.In regard to the pay-as-you-go system, we are concerned that there is a significant trend towards employees being reclassified as contractors, even though they work as if they are employees. These employees are known as dependent contractors as, in effect, they work for only one employer. The benefit to employees from this burgeoning arrangement is largely tax driven, because employees are able to pay less tax if they are classed as contractors.There are two aspects to this tax benefit that are being enjoyed by employees who are being reclassified as contractors. The first is that less tax is withheld when the payment is initially made. Twenty per cent is the general rate of tax, which is much less than the comparable PAYE rate in well-paid occupations. The second aspect of the tax benefit is that independent contractors are able to claim many more deductions than other employees. It is estimated that this erosion of the PAYE tax base is costing the tax system between $½ billion and $1 billion per year, and that figure is growing quite dramatically.The difficulty with this bill is that it proposes that the prescribed payments system be abolished, and that is the system that applies this 20 per cent rate. The abolition of the prescribed payments system will increase the tax incentive for workers to become dependent contractors because the current 20 per cent PPS rate will fall to zero. So that clearly will provide an even stronger incentive for a dependent contractor relationship to flourish.In addition, if the company tax rate is cut to 30 per cent, as has been mooted by the government and in media coverage of the Ralph report, then that too will increase the incentive for high income earners to operate as contractors through companies. We acknowledge that this is a difficult issue to address legislatively, as we on the Labor side do not want to hamper the activities of legitimate small business contractors. That is why Labor sponsored a Senate motion which in fact was carried. That motion requested John Ralph's committee to examine the issue in his review of business taxation, but we are completely unaware as to whether that has happened.The pay-as-you-go system sounds fine in principle and in theory. I operated a small business for two years with a partner. The much hated provisional tax system is in place now, and many small businesses would be very happy to see the end of that provisional tax system. That is why at the last election we did support the government's position that the provisional tax system be replaced with the pay-as-you-go system. But I believe that many of these businesses will be surprised and rather disappointed about the impact of the pay-as-you-go system upon them. Let us draw this comparison: we have this other system, the PAYE system, the pay-as-you-earn system, and that is the system that applies to normal wage and salary earners. That means that every week or every fortnight tax is taken out as they earn. That is why it is called pay-as-you-earn.The pay-as-you-go system will take the tax out every three months. We are moving the business tax system towards a PAYE system, a pay-as-you-earn system. It sounds good. We are going to get rid of the provisional tax system, but there are tax deferral benefits in the provisional tax system which will be eliminated by the pay-as-you-go system. I predict that business will not be overjoyed with the pay-as-you-go system. But they are so happy to get rid of the provisional tax system that perhaps they have not looked in great detail at the alternative. Nevertheless, we think that the pay-as-you-go system is definitely worth pursuing.Our position, as outlined in the amendments to this bill, is that this bill itself is properly part of the business tax reform process, yet we are being asked to consider it in isolation from the Ralph report and from the other measures that will ultimately be contained in the government's legislation emanating from the Ralph report on business taxation reform. On the one hand we want to see all of the business tax measures of the government laid on the table together so that we can conduct a proper evaluation of the revenue implications, because we know that in many of the proposals being discussed in the media there will be revenue losses, while on the other hand we are likely to be generally supportive of some of the revenue gains that will be achieved through the closing of loopholes and widening of the company tax base measures.The second matter we would want to see properly examined is that there are a lot of assertions about the benefits of various options being contemplated in the business tax reform. When the government floated the GST and went to the election with the GST, it claimed all sorts of wonderful magical benefits for the GST. It emerged under scrutiny in the Senate GST inquiry that those benefits were little more than assertions—that the Treasury and the government had not done any proper, rigorous economic analysis of the benefits of these changes. In fact, we were able to demonstrate clearly that the GST itself would be bad for the economy. What we want to see this time is the government learning from its mistakes and undertaking a proper objective analysis bringing in expert advice so that we can have a proper look at the economic benefits that would flow from the various proposals being considered by the government.Just the other day the Prime Minister offered a hand across the table. He said, `Let's have bipartisan support on the business tax reform process.' We would like to have bipartisan support. We would like to extend that offer. The Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have made this point time and time again. The shadow Treasurer and Deputy Leader of the Opposition has written to the Treasurer and has exhorted the Treasurer to extend that hand of bipartisan support by making available to us the Ralph report.The shadow Treasurer has also pointed out that there may well be aspects of the Ralph report that are market sensitive. If that is the case, the offer is then to delete those aspects of the report and give us the balance of the report, which would be the majority of the report, so we can have a proper look at it internally and go through our own scrutiny of it, and then we will have a very good chance of offering bipartisan support on a number of aspects of the Ralph report. But I fear that the government are going through this process as a charade. They say that they are offering the hand of support across the table, but they are refusing to give us the Ralph report. Why? Perhaps it is because they want to jam us in the last few moments. When they have been through their processes, perhaps they will then say, `Here's the legislation. Now you either support it or, if you oppose it, then you're opposed to business tax reform.' We are not opposed to business tax reform but, for the sake of the business community in this country and for the sake of the economy at large, let us have genuine bipartisan support. Let us see that report released.My fears about the government's attitude, in particular the Prime Minister's attitude, to the entire business tax reform process have been compounded by some research I have conducted about the current Prime Minister's behaviour during the 1980s. A few weeks ago the Prime Minister said, `Look, when you were doing all those reforms during the 1980s, we supported them. We supported all the economic reforms.' Well, the evidence and the facts show that that is not the case. The current Prime Minister of Australia led an opposition which opposed the assets test on the pension. He led an opposition which opposed the fringe benefits tax, which opposed the capital gains tax, which opposed the removal of the free lunches for businesses and which even opposed the foreign tax credit system whereby companies could shift their operations in paper terms overseas, pay a minute amount of tax and therefore relieve themselves of all tax responsibilities here in Australia.On 27 March 1985, speaking on the Trust Recoupment Tax Assessment Bill, the current Prime Minister said:The Treasurer (Mr Keating) never spoke a truer word than a moment ago when he said that one has to have a good memory in politics.Well, I do have a good memory and I remember those times. On another occasion, within the period, he said:We need to have a sensible, broadly based consumption tax in this country to enable major reductions in the burden of income tax.He got his consumption tax. He had to wait for more than a decade, but he got it. More interesting, in working out his likely behaviour in relation to the business tax reform, is his attitude to these other taxes as expressed in the House of Representatives in the old Parliament House. In a debate on the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984, the current Prime Minister declared:We brought tax avoidance to an end.. . . . . . . . .The fact is that we killed the tax avoidance industry in Australia. Despite the rhetoric of the Hawke Government, tax avoidance was a dead duck when it came to power.That is untrue. The Hawke government had to implement a number of crucial measures to address tax avoidance. One of those measures was to address the problem of high income earners converting their income into capital gains, because there was no capital gains tax. On these sorts of tax measures—the capital gains tax, the fringe benefits tax, the removal of the free lunches—on 5 June 1986, the Prime Minister said:This is the tax package which I warned then would represent a situation in which, at the end of the day, all we would end up with would be the nasties of option A. One of the worst nasties of option A is the Government's iniquitous capital gains tax.He said, `We crushed tax avoidance, but we do not want a capital gains tax. We do not want the wealthy to be paying their fair share of tax. We want the wealthy to be able to convert their income into capital gains and therefore avoid tax altogether.' This is what he calls a `nasty'. In the very same debate, in speaking about the fringe benefits tax, the current Prime Minister said:The fringe benefits tax puts into the taxation legislation provisions of unbelievable complexity and difficulty. It also places in the way of legitimate business activity in Australia imposts of unbelievable severity and of a discriminatory character. I can only say to the Government that in political terms the fringe benefits tax must go down as one of the most monumentally stupid political blunders that any government has introduced. I look forward with relish to the opportunity of telling the Australian people, particularly those in the nine marginal seats, all about the details of the fringe benefits tax. The Government will get it day after day during the recess, and I will be there to talk to the people in Dunkley and the others.So there you go, that is the current Prime Minister's attitude to the fringe benefits tax—a key subject of the Ralph review. He thinks this tax should go and that it should never have been put in place, which is the same attitude he had towards the capital gains tax.In speaking on 29 May 1986 to the Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Capital Gains) Bill, the current Prime Minister said:What is this Government's solution to the fact that Australia is capital scarce? It introduced more taxes to make capital even scarcer. This is an extraordinary situation; the Government has a problem with capital scarcity; so what does it do? It decides to impose a new tax which will make people even less likely to invest. This Government will impose a capital gains tax and a fringe benefits tax. What is wrong with capital gains tax is not only its actual impact but also its psychological impact, because capital gains taxes will psychologically act against capital accumulation by small business in Australia.He went on to describe the capital gains tax as `madness'. Labor pressed ahead with that reform. We pressed ahead with that reform against the total opposition of the current Prime Minister, who has the temerity to say that he backed all of Labor's reforms. He describes the capital gains tax as `madness'. What worries me deeply is that in the cabinet's consideration of the capital gains tax and the sorts of proposals that Mr Ralph may be coming up with he is driven by this view that the capital gains tax is madness, that a tax which put an end to wealthy people converting their income into capital and therefore avoiding all income tax is madness. This is deeply worrying to me.One of the most extraordinary things that the current Prime Minister had to say about the tax reform process in 1985 is this:I think it is a great shame for the future of this country's investment in South East Asia that the Government is going ahead with this stupid foreign tax credit system.What the then government was combating was a situation which was rampant; that is, as long as an Australian company with overseas operations paid a dollar or two of tax, they were then able to say to the Australian Taxation Office, under the legislation of the previous Treasurer—the current Prime Minister—that they had discharged all of their Australian tax obligations. We introduced measures to deal fairly and sensibly with that. And the current Prime Minister called that a `stupid foreign tax credit system'.I could go on with example after example of the Prime Minister's attitude to tax reform, of his attitude to business tax reform in particular, where he regards the fringe benefits tax as a `nasty', where he regards the capital gains tax as `madness' and where he regards Labor's foreign tax credit system as `stupid'. So why don't we now move constructively into this phase where the government, if it wishes to propose sensible reforms of the business tax regime, puts those proposals to the opposition with a reasonable amount of time for us to be able to consider them. Then we may be able to get a sensible result out of that process, a good result for the business community and a great result for Australia.If the Prime Minister persists with the attitude towards the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax and the foreign tax credit system he displayed in the debates in 1985—where he opposed them all the way down the line and where it was clear that he was against them—and if he puts forward proposals designed purely to give a new round of tax cuts to high income earners, I for one would have grave concerns with those proposals. Let us understand the context in which the Prime Minister is speaking. He said in 1987, `I am the most conservative leader the Liberal Party has ever had.' He hates the measures that we implemented to crack down on tax avoidance. If he comes forward now with measures to reward high income earners—to give them another tax break after the big income tax cuts they will get on 1 July next year—he will do no credit to himself, he will do no credit to this country and he will inflict on this country a new wave of inequality and unfairness that will be very bad for our society. If he comes forward with those proposals, we will have enormous difficulty supporting them, because we want a fair tax system. We want a tax system that is good for corporate Australia and good for the economy. (Time expired)21:16:009517Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—The A New Tax System (Taxation Laws Amendment) Bill (No. 1) 1999 deals with changes to the tax machinery of the country that will occur at approximately the same time as the introduction of a range of other changes in the nation's taxation system. Specifically, it deals with the introduction of a new so-called PAYG, pay-as-you-go, withholding tax system which will replace in turn the existing PAYE, PPS and RPS systems and other withholding arrangements. Specifically, the bill also deals with the PAYG instalment system and its replacement of the current provisional tax and the company tax instalment system.These proposed changes to our national taxation machinery occur in a broader context. Our small business community is already dealing with the emerging compliance burden of other changes to the taxation system. Our business community faces the new compliance requirements of this new PAYG system at a time when they face the uncertainty of the compliance arrangements which will flow from whatever devolves out of the Ralph Review of Business Taxation and, on top of that, the existing cornucopia of compliance difficulties which will emerge from the entire ANTS package, of which this particular bill is but a small subset. We are also dealing here with how effectively these new taxation arrangements, in particular the proposed GST, will secure the nation's long-term taxation base and how effectively that base can be secured into the future, given the other challenges to that base.I would, though, first make a few remarks in relation to the overall physical compliance burden which the small business community of Australia now faces. This PAYG system involves some 200 pages of new regulations. It comes on top of the additional legislation and regulation that flow from the totality of the 32 separate ANTS related bills which have gone or are in the process of going before this House and through the Senate. Beyond that again we have the as yet untold story of Ralph and the untold story of new compliance requirements for business. I do not know how often government members actually speak to small business, but I would simply inform them that a casual conversation with small business in the suburbs of Brisbane or of any centre around this country would soon reveal that small business cannot cope with an additional raft of regulatory burdens and compliance requirements at this time. Yet, through this particular piece of legislation, we are asking them yet again to consume, to adapt to and to adjust to a further raft of compliance complications.Quite apart from the compliance burden which will arise from Ralph, again the question arises as to how serious this government is about the content of Ralph and what substantive package of Ralph related business taxation reforms we will deliver to the nation. Barely two days ago in this chamber, the Prime Minister delivered a grand rhetorical statement across the table where he said, `Come with us, Australian Labor Party, and develop cooperatively a new raft of business taxation reforms for the nation.' Obviously, the Prime Minister had not had cause to read correspondence which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had sent to the Prime Minister's colleague the Treasurer only some weeks before on this very subject. I think it is worth reading this correspondence into the record; it is not long. Mr Crean says:Dear TreasurerI am writing in relation to the final report of the Review of Business Taxation.As I have signalled on a number of occasions, it is essential that we continue the process of business tax reform undertaken by Labor in order to increase our competitiveness and generate further job growth. I therefore believe there is considerable scope for agreement on many elements of the current round of business tax reform—Apparently the Prime Minister is unaware of that. Mr Crean continues:If there is a genuine willingness on the part of the government to engage in open debate on the merits of the Ralph Committee's options for business tax reform, it should be possible to produce a more coherent result than that achieved by the government's GST process.In this regard I note the Prime Minister's recent comments welcoming Labor's approach on business tax.The best way for the government to foster such a debate and a sensible policy outcome is to release the key document in that debate, the final report of the Ralph Committee, and to engage in constructive dialogue on its recommendations.For its part, Labor is willing to work to identify the common ground, commit to genuine negotiation on areas of disagreement and support rapid passage of legislation through the Parliament on all items where there is agreement.As a first step, I have written to John Ralph seeking a copy of his report, if necessary on an in-confidence basis, and a briefing on his findings.It should then be possible for you and me—referring to the Treasurer and to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—to meet to identify areas of agreement and commence negotiation on the more contentious issues.This process should also involve making available the key Treasury officials involved in producing the report, in order to test the assumptions and clarify points of detail as they arise.I look forward to your cooperation on this matter.Yours sincerely . . . The point I would make to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration, Mr Slipper, is that that was a genuine offer made by the opposition through the office of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow Treasurer to the Treasurer to engage in substantive dialogue on what should be this nation's next raft of business tax reforms. We had the Prime Minister's rhetorical flourish across the table, but in terms of a substantive response to the offer we have had up until today zilch, zero, nothing—which I think underpins the cynicism with which the Prime Minister's remarks were couched the other day.Another topic that I wish to return to this evening goes to the heart of the integrity of the taxation system overall, whether we are talking about income tax, business tax or consumption tax. Here I refer to the impact on the nation's taxation architecture which will occur as a consequence of electronic commerce—e-commerce, Internet commerce. How will the explosion of e-commerce impact on the taxation base in general but, most critically, how will it impact on the Treasurer's most beloved GST? Of course, this is not a problem unique to Australia. It affects at least 28 other OECD economies which already have a consumption tax and which are collectively experiencing what could only be described as a period of white panic, as we speak. Why? Because they are already substantially dependent on consumption taxes and there is to date no effective international taxation regime governing the taxation of electronic commerce.Uniquely, however, in Australia we have chosen to introduce this consumption tax at a time when it has become most liable to the threat posed by electronic commerce of an international nature in particular. To give us all a sense of what we are up against on this score, let me read from the OECD's most recent authoritative report on this issue from the OECD's Committee of Fiscal Affairs. This was last year's report titled `Electronic commerce: a discussion paper on taxation issues'. The report stated:The problems concerning the application of consumption taxes are generally recognised as having more immediacy than the issues concerning direct taxation. Supplies of services and intangible property to private consumers, while currently small in volume, present potentially the greatest tests to effective administration of consumption taxes, particularly when the products are delivered on-line across international borders. At present, with a few isolated exceptions, there are no provisions for the collection of consumption taxes on these supplies.For your average fiscal policy officer at the Treasury or tax policy officer down at the ATO, this report is, I think, more like the fiscal equivalent of the great screenplay from the 1960s Wake in Fright . We have evidence here that we are about to introduce a $32 billion tax but without an effective international or national taxation regime to capture that slice of activity which will disappear down the international gurgle hole through the electronic commerce system.In the sober bureaucratic speak of the OECD, the report observes that in fact there is very little which international governments have been able to deliver on this question. Let me repeat: at present, with a few isolated exceptions, there are no provisions at all for the collection of consumption taxes on these sorts of supplies. Surely, Australia must be one of the isolated exceptions to which the report refers. But, alas, no. I have read that the Swiss are experimenting with the taxation of Internet commerce for transactions in excess of 10,000 Swiss francs. I have also read of European flirtations with so-called BIT taxes that would tax, by another means, the volume of Internet activity. Surely, we must therefore look at that other great socioeconomic experiment across the Tasman—over there in the South Seas—New Zealand, which has had a consumption tax for a decade, to see how they have wrestled with the impact of the digital economy on their consumption tax. But here I read from the Dominion newspaper, dated 15 March this year, under the heading `Taxation in cyberspace in "too hard" basket':The task of shoring up New Zealand's tax base to prevent it being lost to cyberspace has been put in the "too hard" basket by the Committee of Experts on Tax Compliance. The committee, chaired by retired appeal court judge Sir Ian McKay, completed a wide-ranging review of the tax system in December which was made public late last month. Despite warning the growth of electronic commerce "makes many existing problems faced by tax designers more acute", the report says governments should not be rushed into taking piecemeal measures and should instead coordinate any action with other OECD member states.The GST, the report continues, is not levied on goods and services unless the value of the imported goods exceeds $400, but transactions above this value can be almost impossible to detect where they involve software or services delivered direct to the consumers' personal computers. It continues:The lack of physical documentation that tends to be a feature of e-commerce transactions, the difficulty of determining where parties to a transaction are resident, the fact that there may be fewer intermediaries between the producer and consumer of a product, and the growing accessibility of offshore Internet banking services all increase opportunities for tax evasion, the committee notes. The rate of technological progress to date suggests that these issues should be considered sooner rather than later. However, the committee avoided recommending any specific changes to New Zealand's tax laws in response to concerns it had set out.Well, that is just dandy! The Kiwis are saying, `This is a real problem, but we hope that something, some day, will shake out of the trees somewhere on this, and we are putting all our money into the OECD basket and their deliberations to somehow come up with the fix.' But I thought that I had just read from the document produced by the OECD themselves which says that in fact no taxation measures at present exist for the collection of revenues in this area arising from electronic commerce.How could this possibly be, when we have the world's niftiest little Treasurer, our Treasurer—our very own P. Costello? How could this Treasurer go galloping into a $32 billion consumption tax at a time when the physical construction and delivery of the consumption of goods and services themselves are undergoing a fundamental revolution through electronic commerce? How could he have done this without first having done the work on how he was going to capture the tax from this new type of economic activity?We are not talking about a Sunday school picnic here. This is no Friday afternoon frolic. This is about re-engineering approximately one-quarter of the total taxation base of the Commonwealth of Australia only to find that the premise on which it is based—that is, measurable physical domestic consumption—may be thrown out the window, or at least partly so, by the electronic commerce revolution. As Alice Ghent writes rather pithily in the Melbourne Age under the heading `Digital Dealings Slip GST Net':If there is an area of the GST that makes the taxman go numb, it is the borderless, 24-hour shopping zone of the Internet. Under a consumption tax, suppliers become tax collectors. But when suppliers are offshore, how do you trace transactions for digitised products such as financial services, software and music downloaded via the Internet?For tax collectors that is a vexed question.Treasurer Peter Costello [has been] forced to admit that people importing books through online retailers could avoid GST in the same way that items slip untaxed through the post now. But, due to currency fluctuations and shipping costs, items such as books are probably the least of the Australian Taxation Office's worries. If the Government really wants to collect GST on all imported goods, it only has to provide enough customs inspectors. But imagine all the products that can be digitised—such as software and financial services—and delivered via the Net, and the problem becomes much more complex.Ms Ghent continues:A Dutch study of tax leakage from e-commerce by Huub Meijers of the University of Maastricht concluded that, while the problem was minor now, by 2020 the amount lost in relative terms would be equivalent to the 1997 budget for the Netherlands' Ministry of Agriculture.The Australian Taxation Office referred all questions on the GST to Treasury, who would not comment for this article because they were so busy last week answering questions from Parliament.That was from the Melbourne Age . So the key proposition must be that the Treasurer assumes this will somehow be a minuscule problem for Australia and that, therefore, we will not have a large overall problem to deal with. Perhaps the research from the Dutch university to which I have referred is misplaced and perhaps it will not have any particular future application to Australia, despite the fact that the size of the economy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is approximately the same size as that of Australia.Therefore, one of the critical questions for us to answer is: how big will Internet commerce be in this country? Looking at the current levels of Internet usage and its relative usage across the OECD and at what emerges from the report prepared by the Public Accounts Committee of this parliament in May 1998 entitled Internet commerce—To buy or not to buy, we find that this country is right up there in the first league of nations across the OECD in terms of Internet usage and current levels of Internet commerce.If we look at the overall quantum of economic activity currently generated by Internet commerce, it is also substantial, but the individual numbers are far less significant than the growth year to year. While it may be problematic to suggest a straight-line projection into the future of one year's growth into the next, particularly in the early years of this particular cycle, the bottom line is that we are looking at one large lump of Australian and global economic activity within the next decade which will be generated by e-commerce and which, as we speak, lies beyond the capacity of any national taxation jurisdiction to capture—in any shape or form whatever.If we go to its logical core, electronic commerce, e-trade or e-commerce, presents fundamental challenges to the traditional jurisdictional and transjurisdictional treatment of tax—transjurisdictional through the raft of double taxation treaties which this nation has with about 40 others around the world. In traditional tax orthodoxy, tax liability is defined in terms of place of residence and geographical source of income of individuals; and for the jurisdiction of incorporation, location of business activity, the location of central management and control, or the residential qualifications of controlling voting powers in the case of corporations.E-commerce is in the process of turning most of these definitions on their heads. They go to the heart of where, in fact, transactions are executed. These transactions in e-commerce involve multiple players within multiple states across multiple boundaries. As a consequence, we do not as yet have a safe measure or means of taxation capable of capturing that level of activity. There are many key issues which emerge from this which go to how such a taxation regime is to be defined, whether it is multilateral or national; plainly the answer must be multilateral. Secondly, there is the definition of taxable income in terms of place of residence or other definitions of place. Thirdly, there is the sheer problem arising from the quantum of digitisation in the economy overall. But the overall problem is this: when we are engineering a change of this magnitude, a regime needs to be developed for e-commerce that secures the national taxation base—and does not destroy it. (Time expired)21:36:009521Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—Those who listened to the Treasurer's second reading speech on A New Tax System (Taxation Laws Amendment) Bill (No. 1) 1999 will know quite clearly that this bill is being used as another vehicle to trumpet the government's credentials as the party of small business in this country. Those who saw the Minister for Finance and Administration run into this place earlier today, in response to the very fine contribution made by the member for Werriwa on the issue of employee entitlements, will know only too well where this government stands when it comes to a bit of a stoush between the big end and the small end of town. It is very clear. I was surprised that the Minister for Finance and Administration would be so gullible as to run in here—after being baited by a very competent speech by the member for Werriwa with all the facts—to defend the honour of his mate Max Dunbier, the former Liberal state MP. I think that clearly demonstrates where the Liberal Party stands when it comes to the divide between the big end and the small end of town.But that is not the only point. Those who have followed the debate on the petroleum deregulation bills will also understand very clearly where this government stands when it comes to the dichotomy between the big end and the small end of town. Those who have been following the debate in both the lead-up to the establishment of the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector and the retail inquiry, and the pressure that has been put on this government with respect to going easy on the big end of town, will understand only too well where the Liberal Party stands when it comes to defending the interests of the small end of industry as against the large. Let us not have any pretence: these matters have always been quite clear.The bill before the House tonight implements a number of the recommendations of the Small Business Deregulation Task Force, which handed down its report back in November 1996—so we have been a long time waiting. The establishment of the committee and all the hype which followed led to John Howard making his now infamous commitment to the small business community that in the next term of government he would reduce red tape by some 50 per cent. What a farce that is in the context of the current GST debate and the almost day by day changes we are seeing in respect of the Democrat deal or the changes we heard from the Treasurer today with respect to the threshold for small business seeking to act on a cash basis with the GST.The key findings of the Bell report, as it became known, surprised no-one. Certainly the fact that the small business community feels frustrated and overwhelmed by the complexity and cost of dealing with government regulation and paperwork was no great revelation. Its working overtime survey found that an average small business spends about 16 hours each week on compliance and administration activities. Four of the 16 hours are devoted to government paperwork and administration, and three of these hours are committed to taxation compliance matters. The survey also found that the total cost of compliance to the average small firm was around $7,000 each year. These are not insignificant issues for the small business community. Indeed, they are very significant issues, and too many of them remain unattended to. Almost three years after the Bell report and almost three years after the member for Bennelong, the Prime Minister, made that now infamous commitment to cut red tape by around 50 per cent all these matters remain outstanding—indeed, we are heading in absolutely the opposite direction.The small firm sector has never faced such levels of uncertainty as it does at this time: concern about the outcomes of the Ralph report, concern over superannuation changes and concern over the GST are combining to lift those levels of uncertainty to all-time highs. I want to deal with those one by one in the time that is available to me. There are many more areas, but these are the key ones. I might start with the Ralph committee and the government's unpreparedness to share those recommendations and views with us. You will find very few people in the small business community getting too excited about the Ralph report. Its main mantra is a reduction in the company tax rate to 30 per cent—we all support that. That would be wonderful, and 25 per cent or 20 per cent would be even better still. But the fact is that less than 50 per cent of small businesses are incorporated, less than 50 per cent represent a company structure, so there is nothing in it for them. Of those almost 50 per cent of small businesses which are incorporated, many use the company structure simply as a vehicle for driving the business and for drawing wages from that vehicle. Therefore that change presents to them very little benefit, if any at all. If you ask small business about trusts, it will express some interest because the growth of trusts as a small business vehicle has been exponential in the last few years. Small business is very concerned about that matter. Again, that is creating great uncertainty for the sector.The second area I want to raise is superannuation. I do not want to dwell on this area too much, because we will be discussing legislation specific to the matter tomorrow. I will certainly be making a contribution to the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999 . Do-it-yourself superannuation is absolutely crucial to the small business sector both in saving for retirement and as a tool for investing in business infrastructure. This is a debate we will have tomorrow.The third point I want to dwell on for a little while is the GST. I said earlier that the Bell committee's working overtime survey showed that the annual cost of government compliance, including tax compliance, is around $7,000 each year. It is an unfortunate coincidence that the NTAA estimates that the GST start-up cost for small firms is likely to average around $7,000 a year. I point out to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration, at the table, that is double the compliance costs for a small business organisation in the first year.Of course, the pay-as-you-go bill we are talking about tonight—which I am not opposed to, and later I will share with the House my views on that—adds an initial cash flow burden on a small firm in the initial, start-up year. So, combined, these are very significant issues for the small business sector, and that is borne out in a small firms survey that I have been doing on behalf of the opposition.I now have some of the results of that small business survey, ranging over about nine electorates across the country. That survey has canvassed now around 1,000 firms. I can announce tonight that it shows that 70 per cent, or seven out of 10, of small businesses surveyed now believe that the introduction of the GST will have a negative impact on them; and 55 per cent said the financial impact of the GST will be negative. So 70 per cent or seven out of 10 say that it will have an overall negative effect, combining both the administrative burden and the financial burden; and 55 per cent say the financial impact alone will now be negative. And no wonder, after the grubby little deal the government did with the Democrats and the additional impost that that will place upon small business after the introduction of the GST!The results of my own survey do not need to be relied upon. They are consistent with today's Yellow Pages Small Business Index results, which show that 74 per cent of small business operators say that they are worried about the complexity of, and the paperwork associated with, the ANTS package. This is a survey which is highly regarded—it is not one run by me—in the sector, and one which canvasses some 1,200 firms across the nation. The message is quite clear. The Howard government is in trouble with respect to what it used to consider its natural constituency. It is in deep trouble. That is quite clear both from my survey and from the survey released today by Yellow Pages. This is why the bill cannot wait.We heard the member for Hotham last night, at the beginning of the second reading debate on this bill, talking about the need to look at a holistic approach here, to look at this with respect to Ralph, for example, and not to deal with it in isolation. But, you see, the government thinks that this is a very popular measure and so it needs to get it out in an attempt to recover some of the territory it has lost with respect to the ANTS package and the GST in particular. It believes that it has been successful in its marketing techniques. It believes it has been successful in selling this package as a means of jettisoning provisional tax. The government thinks that small business is suddenly going to be very happy, notwithstanding the GST, because provisional tax is something which has burned so deeply in their minds for so long and has been such a burden for so long.The government thinks that this is its saviour and that people will think, `We've got the GST, but provisional tax is going, and so that is going to counter that and everything is going to be okay.' I think it is fair to say that the government underestimates again the intelligence of the small business sector, because it knows two things. It knows, for a start, as any glance at the budget papers will show—as indeed will any glance at Labor's policy document, which also promoted a pay-as-you-go system going into the last election—that this is a revenue positive measure.This is no great handout from the government. It is going to get $30 billion in GST revenue, but this indeed is itself a positive revenue measure. This will earn the government income, as it would have earned a Labor government income, because of the way in which it draws on receipts earlier. So it knows that. It knows that there is no great handout here. There is no great compensation for the GST here. This will reap more revenue for the government. It also knows, as I think I alluded to earlier, that this will present enormous cash flow problems for small firms, particularly in the start-up year. So the small business community has not been fooled by the line that they need not fear the GST and all of its compliance and financial burdens because the pay-as-you-go system is going to save them.They are not that silly. That has been borne out in the Yellow Pages Small Business Index survey today and it has been borne out in my own survey, which is itself quite a comprehensive survey of a thousand small firms across nine electorates. I know that Parliamentary Secretary Slipper will be delighted to know that that survey is ongoing, and I hope that in the not too distant future it will be a much greater sample than the Yellow Pages Small Business Index and will continue to produce results that are consistent with the very deep concern in the small business community about the GST.I want to return to the Yellow Pages Small Business Index as my main platform, because I can understand that some will say that it has more credibility than mine has and that mine might be fiddled with. I accept that, but I can assure members that it has not. The Yellow Pages survey results today showed that only 42 per cent of small operators believe that the PAYG system will have a positive impact. That demonstrates again that the small business constituency has not been fooled. They know that the impost of the GST is so great that there is no chance in the world that this good system, this improvement on the payments system, is going to compensate them for the impost imposed by the GST.I will basically quote what the Yellow Pages press release said again today. It said that all this is reflected in today's Yellow Pages survey, which shows that 74 per cent of small firms are worried about the complexity of ANTS and that 40 per cent now believe they will be worse off. I repeat: 74 per cent of small firms are worried about the complexity of ANTS and 40 per cent believe they will be worse off. No wonder the government have gone into damage control with respect to the GST. No wonder they are pushing this through, notwithstanding their refusal to share with us, the opposition—and we have offered a bipartisan approach on this matter—the recommendations and the overview of Ralph. As I said, the opposition support this bill but say that the PAYG system can only be properly assessed, in terms of its impact on small business, when looked at in conjunction with a whole range of matters, including Ralph and the GST package.Just today, again, we saw a backdown from the Treasurer on the threshold for small businesses seeking to work on a cash accounting basis. You must remember: the threshold was $250,000 originally and then, after a bit of pressure from those in the sector, it was $500,000, and today it is $1 million. What did Angela Ryan—that highly respected GST accountant and the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business's appointment to the Small Business Consultative Committee—say last week? She said this:If Peter Reith and Peter Costello do not lift that threshold from $500,000 to $1 million, they will have completely sold out the small business community. This is not a paid-up card-carrying member of the Labor Party; this is Peter Reith's own appointment to the Small Business Consultative Committee, a highly regarded accountant and, particularly, a GST expert. We can only assume from Angela Ryan's words that she feels that, even with the threshold lifted to $1 million, the small business community has been substantially sold out. She says that without the threshold lift the small business community will be completely sold out, so you have to infer from that that, even with the lift of the threshold from $500,000 to $1 million, it has been substantially sold out. These are the sorts of day-to-day changes we are getting from the Treasurer—and they wonder why small business people cannot get proper answers on the hotline to the GST queries. The Treasurer is making policy on the run, day by day, in question time in the face of pressure from people who should be assisting him in his efforts to sell this GST package to the small business community. No wonder the small business community is facing more uncertainty than it ever has since Federation.Labor supports tax reform. Labor supports small business, and Labor sees the growing importance of the small business sector in the new economy. The government does not see this. The government sees the small business sector as the one that always did the right thing by it—the rusted on sector, the sector that the government knew would always do the right thing at the end of the day and vote for it. Times are changing. The new economy has produced a whole new small business sector. The downsizing of both large government departments and private sector firms is creating a small business constituency servicing those firms, and Labor recognises that. I can tell you this: they are no longer rusted on—they are nowhere near rusted on—and Labor will defend them all of the way. Labor will fight for a better outcome every time.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—I don't believe that.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—The parliamentary secretary at the table should take note of that. Labor is and should be the natural party of the new small business constituency. It is symbolic in the way that the Minister for Finance and Administration acted today; it is symbolic in the way the government has attempted to take care of the big end of town in the petroleum debate. Labor sees a new small business constituency, it sees an opportunity to win it, and it will. That is why I recommend the member for Hotham's amendment to the House.21:56:009525Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—The A New Tax System (Taxation Laws Amendment) Bill (No. 1) 1999 will introduce the new pay-as-you-go system for business tax. It is supposed to be a tax simplification measure, and the Treasurer is very proud of it. He came into the House on 11 February and answered a dorothy dixer in question time. You can look it up on page 2508. He got the member for Grey to ask it. It was designed to give him an opportunity to show off, and he did. It was a real dog and pony show. The member for Grey asked:Is the Treasurer aware of reforms due to be undertaken to streamline tax forms for business? If so, could the Treasurer outline how these changes will improve and simplify compliance costs for Australian businesses?The Treasurer's answer began:. . . not only can we improve the tax system but also we can dramatically reduce the compliance burden on business as a result of their taxation obligations.What followed was a convincing demonstration that the Treasurer does not know the difference between compliance costs, which will grow massively under his new tax system, and the relatively minor part of the process, filling out a form and sending it to the Taxation Office. The Treasurer said:. . . we are abolishing five existing tax and payment reporting systems: prescribed payments, PAYE, reportable payments, provisional tax and company instalments, and replacing them with one system of pay-as-you-go tax.Then he moved on to the thing he says facilitates all of this streamlining, the GST:Because we are introducing a broad based indirect tax which requires business to report sales and purchases on a quarterly basis, we can, from the back of that return, make it possible for a business to do all of its tax requirements on one form quarterly—one form quarterly. The Treasurer implied that he was abolishing taxes when, in fact, pay-as-you-go changes only the reporting and payment systems. The underlying tax liability remains the same. The Treasurer went on to say:At the moment a small company and its directors typically need to make about 16 payments to the ATO and, for some businesses, up to 32 payments in any one year. Under Labor's tax system, companies have to put in provisional tax reporting forms and get instalment notices in return. They have to put in their fringe benefits returns on different forms and get assessments. And they have to put in their company and superannuation forms on another set of compliance documents and get their returns.While he was saying this, the Treasurer was standing at the dispatch box with a pile of tax office return books and going through them, trying to demonstrate how much paperwork was involved. He talked about wholesale sales tax:Under Labor's wholesale sales tax, if they are in the wholesale sales tax system—I have to say that is a pretty big `if', given that there are only about 70,000 businesses liable to remit sales tax—the system that the Labor Party loves—they get a book like this with all their sales remittances. If they have a prescribed payment system under Labor's tax system, they get a book like this which they have to fill in. Under the PAYE system—Labor's PAYE system—by that I assume the Treasurer meant `the PAYE system that former barristers have probably never been closely acquainted with', and he therefore thinks is some kind of curious anachronism—they get this booklet which they have to fill in on a separate and different set of records and, if they come into the reportable payment system under Labor's tax system, they get this book as well. Up to 32 payments to the Australian Taxation Office: that is a business's reporting requirements to the Australian Taxation Office under Labor's loved tax system.He then pulled one piece of paper out of his pocket to emphasise his personal ownership of the new system. It was the draft version of his revolutionary quarterly PAYG return. He unfolded it, and went on:Under the tax system which the government proposes to introduce, you will have this one page four times a year. This is a draft return—the business activity statement—which is filled in four times a year on which you put sales and purchases and on which you get your assessment for all withholding tax obligations, company taxes, reportable payments system, prescribed payments system, diesel fuel excise credit and every other requirement. That is what tax reform under the coalition will bring in benefits to small business.It was very impressive if you did not think about it. What the Treasurer did not say or does not realise is that you still have to do the calculations and maintain the paper trail to substantiate the figures that go on that one piece of paper. That is where the compliance costs are, not in filling out the forms. That is the easy part when you have distilled the number that must go onto the return. I do not know whether the Treasurer has ever been personally responsible for employing someone or whether he has ever filled out an employer's PAYE form. It is a simple thing to do and no more complicated than putting the relevant figure on his new quarterly business activity return. Certainly there may be some advantages for business in a single form. Principal amongst these is, I expect, the extension of the running balance account arrangements so that taxpayers can receive a single statement which tallies their net tax paying or tax refund position in respect of their entire taxation liabilities.I hope this new reporting system also provides the Australian Taxation Office with some administrative efficiencies which will reduce its running costs as well as help it provide its business clients with a better service. But the new PAYG system is not simple. The Treasurer's own explanatory memorandum is 104 pages, and the bill, including schedules, 181 pages. That is 285 pages to change the reporting arrangements, and the bill does not include recovery, procedural and evidentiary provisions for PAYG. The point is that the Treasurer claims that PAYG will reduce compliance costs, but it cannot do away with the requirements for businesses to substantiate what they are reporting. The liabilities of business taxpayers have not diminished with the new tax system. They have increased very substantially with the introduction of the GST which, as much as the Treasurer and the Prime Minister might like to avoid saying it, is the centrepiece, the whole reason, for the so-called new tax system. When he is pressed on the GST as part of the new system the Treasurer tries to portray the other elements—any improvements like the Australian business number or the abolition of provisional tax—as the benefits of the GST. But they are conceptually and in practical terms quite separate things. They could all have been achieved without a GST. In fact, the GST brings with it administrative burdens which far outweigh any of the benefits of the so-called new tax system.The Treasurer conveniently keeps forgetting that only 70,000 businesses were collection points for the wholesale sales tax. With his GST that number will grow to something like 1.4 million. His own regulatory impact statement for the GST bills admitted that the cost to Australian business of compliance would be $1.9 billion in an ordinary year after set-up costs. The cost to the tax office would be a further $300 million a year. One of the things I am really looking forward to as deputy chair of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit is the inevitable efficiency audit of GST administration which will have to be done by the Auditor-General.I recall that the Prime Minister as Treasurer in the Fraser cabinet in 1981 told the parliament that government had rejected a GST because of the huge administrative burden it would place on taxpayers and taxing authorities. Mr Howard has since disowned that comment. He says it was a ministerial statement made on behalf of the Fraser government and a decision with which he did not agree. He says that you have to look at both sides of the balance sheet before making a judgment about whether the benefits of the GST outweigh its costs. Over the years he has made many conflicting statements and been on both sides of the GST issue—at least in his public statements—depending on his own political convenience at the time. The thing that will weigh heavily upon the Prime Minister's political convenience over the next couple of years is the enormous inconvenience and cost the GST will mean, particularly for small business. If you look at the so-called new tax system as a whole, the modest benefits to business of the pay-as-you-go system will be outweighed by the compliance cost nightmare of the GST.A couple of aspects of the measures contained in this bill deserve particular mention. Pay-as-you-go has two parts: a PAYG withholding system which replaces the existing pay-as-you-earn prescribed payments and reportable payments systems, as well as six other withholding arrangements such as non-resident and TFN withholding; and a PAYG instalments system which will replace the current provisional tax and company tax instalment systems. The first issue is one relating to the withholding tax component of the PAYG system. The new system will see the abolition of the prescribed payments system. This covered industries including construction, road transport, car repairs, joinery, professional services in the construction industry—including architects, engineers and surveyors—and the cleaning industry. The government claims that because there are significant compliance costs with the PPS, and because if it continued to operate it would impede a smooth transition to the GST, PPS requirements will not be incorporated in the PAYG system except in three areas: payments to a worker from a labour hire firm, payments for work or services where there is a voluntary agreement to withhold part of a payment, and payments requested on an invoice that does not include quotation of an Australian business number.Persons who were previously subject to PPS deductions will be expected to meet their obligations under the PAYG arrangements with quarterly instalments. There was already a problem of inequity with workers paid as contractors being subject to a lower rate of deduction than PAYE taxpayers. Not only were their deductions limited to 20 per cent but also they were able to claim a larger amount of work related expenses. The possibility that the company tax rate may be cut to 30 per cent will compound this inequity and increase the incentive for high income earners across a large range of occupations to operate as contractors through companies. This is a real problem both in terms of equity and in terms of protecting the revenue base. If this problem continues to be ignored by government, it has real potential to enlarge the disparity between the disposable incomes of affluent and low paid wage earners. This growing disparity will be in large part because of the operation of the tax system. What was once a progressive tax system for most people will become highly regressive as the affluent choose to opt out.The second issue relates to the payments component of the PAYG system. Many people have applauded the proposal to abolish provisional tax because they felt provisional tax made them pay tax in advance. As the name implies, PAYE taxpayers pay their tax as they earn income. With provisional tax—if you assume income is earned evenly over the financial year—you pay nothing for the first nine months, then you pay the full value of the estimated year's income, with an adjustment when you submit your tax return. A deferral of any tax liability for nine months is offset by bringing forward the liability for the last three months.Under PAYG, this provisional arrangement will be replaced by quarterly payments designed to extract the tax as income is earned. This is fairer. The problem for some people is they will actually be worse off. Do not listen to the Treasurer's empty rhetoric about his new tax system. It is just a group of measures put together to provide some plausible cover for bringing in the GST in the guise of reform of the whole tax system. Ask the question: who will get more out of the new tax system—the taxpayer or the government? When you look at how the small administrative benefits of PAYG are so massively outweighed by the compliance costs associated with the GST you can see that it certainly will not be the business taxpayer who will be better off.22:08:009527Gerick, Jane, MPMs GERICK83WCanningALP00—As a former small business person, I am always interested in any new proposed legislation which will make the running of a business easier, and reduce the costs and the time taken to complete the paperwork required. I can understand that those members who have not recently been involved in running a small business may think it will be a vast improve ment to change the payment dates of taxation, but the reality is far from this. One of the constant pressures of small business is the management of cash flow. Small businesses will be under increased pressure next year when the GST is introduced as they will need to make sure that there is enough cash flow to cover the costs of compliance. In cases where the GST will not be passed on to clients, they will need to wait to claim back their inputs.Some of the proposed changes will make these pressures worse rather than better. The first major area of concern is the changing of income tax payments—for small businesses paying tax of $8,000 or less—from an annual payment to a quarterly payment. The logical and inexperienced argument is that by paying income tax and withholding tax quarterly it will make it far easier on cash flow, and that the necessary steps have been put in place to assist with the year of transition. The major area of concern is the ongoing impact that this change will have on small business. There is the increased compliance cost burden that will be placed on small business operators and the fact that it may well have a very negative impact on cash flow.The amount of taxation to be paid on gross income will be decided by the Commissioner of Taxation and generally calculated by using a percentage calculated on the previous year's figures. If the income of the business varies from month to month, a business may well have a very successful first quarter and the tax payable will be high. The next quarter may be the worst for the business. Therefore, a smaller amount of tax will be paid. This method of payment means that the business will need to pay the tax immediately. If the income is lower in the next quarter, then the amount of tax paid may be lower. It means that, rather than being able to allocate the income from the better quarters to the less successful ones, there will be less cash available because of the immediate payment of tax after a successful quarter.Even when people decide to choose their own lower instalment rate to cover a bad quarter, the benefit of any reduction in instalment is only given after the end of that quarter. They will have already paid the tax on the higher quarter so it will not be available to offset the slower trading period. When I spoke to the small business operators I know, they were not supportive of this change. They already struggle to complete the paperwork and this is going to be one more pressure and, worse, the thought of the impact on their cash flow does not bear thinking about.There are proposed ways of seeking a variation to the amount paid, all of which will take time and money and lead to the possibility of penalties for underpayment. The thought of going through this process is enough to send a collective shudder down the spines of every business person I know. At the same time as calculating the income tax payable, it will be necessary to complete the paperwork for group tax, GST, and any other payments due in that period.While the thought of filling out one form every three months sounds great and efficient, the reality may very well be the opposite for small business operators. The argument that filling out forms quarterly rather than monthly is simpler just does not stack up. When doing the calculations for a quarter rather than a month there is three times the amount of information to include. Those promoting these changes need to spend time speaking to small business people around the country—not to the representative groups but the people on the ground, those doing the paperwork week in and week out, who know just how much time is spent dealing with forms. All of this time encroaches on the amount of time that they can spend planning for the future of their business and its growth.The system is complex and not one you can expect small business operators to understand quickly. The fear of making an error, and the time taken to understand the impact on each small business, will make an already difficult year—with the introduction of the GST—a living nightmare for every small business operator. It will mean that small business operators will need to spend a lot more time with their accountants, working out the impact of these changes on their businesses and ensuring that they understand what arrange ments they will need to make for the impact on their cash flow and what forms must be completed so that they can fulfil all of the requirements. The annual accounting costs for small businesses will escalate rapidly. A number of small business operators I know have not joined the large chamber of commerce groups, because of the costs involved, and instead belong to small community groups. Have these small businesses had an opportunity to comment on the proposed changes?I have spoken to a number of small business owners and representative groups who were unaware of these proposed changes, and they were concerned that they had not been better informed of the changes and the impact it would have on their lives. A number were very concerned about the effects the changes would have on their cashflow and expressed the hope that there would be an option given as to which payment plan they had to use.Small business is the best employer in Australia, and it is important that the changes being introduced will benefit rather than hinder. The amount of paperwork required to make the current payments will blur into insignificance when compared to the demands that compliance with the GST and these changes will make on the average small business. From experience, I would much rather have to prepare the current paperwork without having the expense of getting ready for the GST and knowing that I would be spending many extra hours doing the paperwork required.Let us not be fooled by the Treasurer brandishing his two-page tax form. Not only the length of the form is important; all the calculations, analysis and record keeping that are necessary to ensure that the form has been correctly filled in are also important. This new system does not diminish that real world cost; it undoubtedly makes it worse.While big business groups are supportive of a GST, the small business people who are not currently responsible for collecting sales tax will find the new impositions costly in both money and working hours. The alignment of the payment dates does demonstrate that it is possible to lessen the load of paperwork on small businesses and to make improvements to the taxation system without needing to introduce an unfair tax on the whole country.This is exactly what Labor proposed to do. This would be infinitely superior to imposing a tax which will not help all small businesses and which will be most unfair on those who can least afford it. The alignment of remittance dates has already occurred and is generally working well, I am advised. This has nothing to do with the GST. It is simply an administrative reform made possible basically because of information technology.There are many different types of small businesses and the demands on each one vary. It is impossible to develop a system of payments for taxation which suits all perfectly. It is vital that there are options available so that the small business owner can select the system which is going to suit their business best and ensure that it continues to be a success and has the chance to offer further employment opportunities. The government must offer small business real taxation reform that will help. The proposed changes will not achieve that outcome.22:17:009529Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—in reply—I would like to thank all the members of the House who have spoken in this debate on the A New Tax System (Taxation Laws Amendment) Bill (No. 1) 1999 , including the erudite member for Cook and the members for Rankin, Wills and Hunter and, just recently, the member for Canning. In fact, the member for Canning cheers me. She seems to indicate that she has some experience in small business. If so, she must be a very lonely person in the ALP, apart from the member for Bowman, who I know is quite highly regarded in Queensland circles for his experience in small business. Indeed, that would make the small business faction of the parliamentary Labor Party a faction of two.When members of the Labor Party come into this House and wax lyrical about their experience in small business, and in some cases they might say the bill before the House will have a detrimental impact on small businesses, I say this: the proof is in the pudding. They have never baked a pudding before, so they should be very careful about what they are saying on this bill. It is of no surprise that the member for Hunter, who is the opposition spokesman on small business, has had no experience in small business, as far as I am aware. So it is a little disappointing that, when we are trying to add to the debate, something has been lost—that is, experience in the substance of the debate.In this chamber last night, the member for Wills invited members of the House to get up and guarantee that they could give accurate advice as to the meaning of and difference between notional tax, adjusted tax, adjusted assessed tax, adjusted taxable income, adjusted withholding income, adjusted assessed taxable income and GDP-adjusted notional tax, under pain of penalty. I am sure he kept all the listeners out there of ABC Radio intrigued with his demand.The point is that these are concepts that the commissioner needs to understand to work out the instalment rate he or she must give to taxpayers or, in the case of GDP-adjusted notional tax, give to the taxpayer as the amount to be paid as an instalment. They are not concepts of which taxpayers need to have an in-depth understanding or, indeed, any understanding at all. No taxpayer will be penalised for getting those concepts wrong because no taxpayer will be asked to get them right.Further, the government is pleased to assure the member for Wills that these various concepts ensure a fairer income tax collection system. Amongst other things, these concepts ensure that the same amount cannot be subject to both the pay-as-you-go withholding system and the pay-as-you-go instalment system. Secondly, an abnormal receipt such as net capital gains is not taken into account when working out the instalment rate or amount payable by a person in the new pay-as-you-go instalment system.The new pay-as-you-go instalment legislation applies to all instalment payers and is far simpler than the existing company instalment and provisional tax legislation. The member for Wills, who I know is not in the chamber, may care to compare subdivision 45K of schedule 1 to the Tax Administration Act 1953, as being inserted by this bill, with the complexities of section 221YCAA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. Let me say that again: section 221YCAA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 is a great example of just how complicated our current tax legislation has become. I am sure he would find this bill deals with the same complexities in a much clearer way.The Deputy Leader of the Opposition suggested that those who thought they would benefit from the abolition of provisional tax would get, in his words:. . . 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.An estimated 460,000 individual taxpayers will, by 2003, be entitled to pay a single instalment of their income tax liability some four months after the end of the income year instead of three months before the end of the income year. That was a great advantage to us in the recent election campaign. Furthermore, the amount they will pay will be last year's tax without the old provisional tax uplift factor. The government does not consider this to be merely a marginal benefit to those taxpayers.We have had the opposition come into this House and say, `Abolishing provisional tax and abolishing the tax uplift factor is of marginal benefit to taxpayers.' I say to the self-funded retirees in my electorate of North Sydney that that is the Labor Party saying there is only a marginal benefit. Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, I say to the self-funded retirees in, say, the federal electorate of Cowper that they will benefit from this initiative. I say to the self-funded retirees in the member for Bowman's electorate—the people who have on occasions in the past punished the Labor Party dearly for taking them for granted—that you are going to get the benefit of the abolition of the provisional tax and the abolition of the tax uplift factor as a result of the initiatives we took to the last election and are contained in this tax package.In addition, for most businesses, all that is required of them is that they send a quarterly instalment which they calculate by multiplying the rate notified by the commissioner by their trading receipts for the quarter. It is actually quite a simple system. If they think the instalment is too high—because, for example, they have incurred unusual expenses in the quarter—then they can estimate their own rate based on their actual trading conditions. This should be a rare occurrence because of the in-built flexibility of the pay-as-you-go system which responds to income fluctuations. However, there will be systems in place which help taxpayers to work out their own rate. So the government's transitional arrangements are indeed very generous. They make appropriate arrangements to overcome cash flow problems that businesses might otherwise experience in the transition to the new pay-as-you-go instalment system.This is part of the entire ANTS package. This is part of the much maligned package—much maligned by the Labor Party because, as they have indicated in the discourse on this bill, they do not understand what we are doing. They do not understand that we are trying to give business a leg up. They do not understand that we are trying to give self-funded retirees and people who are paying provisional tax—part self-funded retirees, part pensioners—a fair go so that they pay tax only on the money they have received rather than the money they may receive, which is what provisional tax is about. What they do not understand is that under the GST package, as it has become known—more appropriately, it should be titled the ANTS package—we are in fact giving Australians greater choice, greater mobility with their money and an opportunity to have a simpler and fairer system when it comes to the payment of taxation. That is particularly good for small business.I feel a little qualified in this area, because I have worked in a small business in the past. I grew up in a family of small business people but, more importantly, I represent over 30,000 small businesses. Those small businesses are saying to me that this package is providing them with more opportunity to get rid of the old red tape associated with the tax system that we have in place: the same tax system, as the Chief Government Whip who has just walked in will appreciate, that the Labor Party has been defending; the same tax system that has the old, outdated wholesale sales tax; the same tax system that has given provisional tax to people who are being asked to pay tax when they have not received the income; the same tax system that is narrowing in its base; and the same tax system that has put in place taxes that are regressive, unfair and in fact an incentive for the states to go away and create new, additional unfair taxes, such as gambling taxes and the bed tax in New South Wales, and extend the land tax.That is a system that the Labor Party defends, and that is a system that the Labor Party is continually attacking us on. What the Labor Party is saying is that the system we have in place at the moment is a good system; it works well. If it works that well, why overwhelmingly do Australians support tax reform? If the current system is so good, why is it that we have this ugly scene each year where the premiers come with their begging bowls to Canberra begging for money in order to meet their growing expenditure commitments in hospitals, schools, roads, police, et cetera? Why do they do it? I will tell you why they do it: because the system that the Labor Party defends from one end of the country to the other centralises power in Canberra. It goes back to the old saying that is so much a part of Labor philosophy today: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. That is a good, old Labor line which is a good excuse for mediocrity.So many members of the Labor Party have absolutely no experience in business. Put up your hands if you have had any experience of small business. Four hands, Mr Speaker! Across the whole of the Labor Party benches, four hands went up. Hear that out in Australia: four hands went up in the Labor Party. That says something about the mob on the other side.Debate interrupted.Adjournment953110000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn. 953222:30:009532Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—It is good to see a few more members of the Labor Party getting involved with small business, a very welcomed move. Tonight I speak about the city of Redcliffe, and I would particularly like to congratulate the city of Redcliffe on the occasion of its first settlement celebrations on the weekend. The celebrations marked the 175-year anniversary of John Oxley's landing on the Redcliffe Peninsula. The area that I represent is steeped in great history. It is 175 years since the Amity first landed on the shores of Queensland. In the last century this was a former convict settlement. It has now realised its potential as a relaxing seaside resort.In those days thousands of tourists came by steamship to journey to this seaside mecca. They did that because the city of Redcliffe closely resembled the conditions of Brighton in England. It was a subtropical climate. Overnight, the city of Redcliffe grew with cafes and outdoor dining. It was a welcome relief from the sweltering conditions in Brisbane. In its heyday, it was absolutely a mecca for tourism. The Redcliffe Peninsula today is still a modern city. It is closely approaching 50,000 people. It is roughly 35 minutes from the Brisbane CBD area. It is located close to the Sunshine Coast. It is part of a vibrant and growing region.Recently, the councils in the area, including Pine Rivers, Caboolture and Kilcoy, decided that they needed to take some sort of affirmative action to stop the north coast gaining all the tourist trade. They formed themselves into a region called the Moreton Bay Coast and Country Region. I must congratulate them on their marketing efforts. They put together a fantastic brochure with accommodation houses, sightseeing and tourism trails. The city of Redcliffe itself has been very progressive on that front in promoting itself as an ideal destination for day trippers, being only a short distance from Brisbane.The Redcliffe Promotions Bureau really deserves a mention for the wonderful work they have been doing to promote the city. The celebrations on the weekend that marked the 175th anniversary of John Oxley's landing included a re-enactment of John Oxley's landing, buskers and also a number of other activities such as a heritage walk in the footsteps of John Oxley. There were activities for all age groups: the teddy bears picnic, lunch at the International Wine and Food Court and a number of water displays, including the Jet Sports Club racing. Redcliffe is a vibrant city today. I must also make mention of the Redcliffe and Bayside Herald for their visionary work in putting together the series `Bridge for the Future'.We do have some problems that we need to overcome. Transport is one of them and has been for the 100 years that Redcliffe has existed. For 120 years or more, Redcliffe has been promised a railway. It is a peninsula and the transport issues are very important, particularly in job creation schemes, et cetera.I have to thank the Redcliffe and Bayside Herald for getting together with the Redcliffe City Council and a number of members of the small business community to set up a networking group to ensure that Redcliffe's prosperity continues well into the future. They are also planning to bring a number of events to Redcliffe. One that is being looked at now is hosting the Peninsula Pacific V8 Car Race. That is on the drawing board at the moment. It is at its planning stage. I am sure it will be an annual event that will attract tourism and business from far and wide. I have to congratulate the council and the steering committee for getting together and for looking to the future of Redcliffe. I hope that they will continue to work well into the future. I lend my support in whatever way I can as the federal member for the area.953222:35:009532Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTONYK6IsaacsALP00—I recently had the pleasure of hosting in my Canberra office a young Melbourne work experience student. Her name is Celina Vines and she hails from the fine Toorak school of Mandeville Hall. Celina has a very incisive mind and a keen attitude towards the art of politics. Whilst that remains one of her fine ambitions, I know that she will pursue it with great flair and vigour. As part of her activities in our office, she wrote a brief speech on the subject of youth suicide, something that a person of her age and capacities is well versed to write about. I would like to submit that speech to the House this evening. Celina says:Youth suicide is an ever growing issue in Australian society and is not a problem that is adequately addressed. More than two thousand deaths per year in Australia are suicides and it is the leading cause of death amongst youth. For every one teenage male who commits suicide—fifteen attempt it. For every one teenage female who commits suicide—one hundred attempt it. There is a lot of focus on trying to combat the problem, but not nearly enough action taking place to prevent it.. . . . . . . . .Much analysis and investigation of youth suicide has taken place over the years and there have been no conclusive findings regarding the reasons for youth suicide. There are many and varying reasons that will never be fully comprehended. One possibility could be some sort of `copy cat' reason—in that if one person commits suicide because they feel that their life is inadequate, then it can cause others to put their own lives under scrutiny and decide that their lives are just as bad.. . . the circumstances surrounding the victim's lives are many and varied and definitely not restricted to a set of identified factors such as privilege, or indeed socio-economic position.According to the minister, there is $57 million spent on funding prevention strategies for youth suicide.That is $57 million spent annually in Australia. Celina goes on to say:There is little, if any, of this government support evident in the Australian community.There are presently three major phone lines set up specifically for youth counselling with problems including abuse, disputes with friends and family, school problems and suicide counselling. However, prominent and publicised as these services may be, they are still rarely used by teenagers they are seen to be `lame' and the idea of discussing personal dilemmas with a stranger over the phone is an unrealistic approach to preventing suicide.An inter-related issue is the lack of infrastructure provided by governments to address the absence of facilities directed at providing active youth lifestyles and the concomitant lack of a sensible, natural drugs policy, specifically in regard to drug use amongst minors.Government funded organisations—such as the Victorian Freeza have begun a strategy of keeping the youth occupied by organising underage events. These include CD launches, live music `gigs' and dance parties or raves. Their biggest annual event is `Pushover', which sells out every year, attracting some seven thousand teenagers to it. While these on the surface may seem like good government initiatives, many of these events are not as successful as they are seen. Instead of encouraging teenagers not to use illegal drugs, there is a challenge for teenagers to find ways of getting such substances past the security checks and into the venues.An example of this failure is this: on Saturday night, a local Melbourne council hosted its first live music event. This was an all ages event intended to be drug and alcohol free. Unfortunately, the event failed when the police were called in order to apprehend several drug abusers.The government is not doing enough for the youth of its country who will, in turn, be the leaders of this country. There needs to be more focus on preventing minors from committing drug offences and on preventing the further influx of youth suicide.That concludes Celina's submission. I would like to thank her and acknowledge her willingness and bright personal nature, being a dedicated contributor to our office for that week.953322:39:009533Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—In these times of relative peace and stability in our region, it is all too easy to forget the efforts of our armed services in maintaining security and consequent freedom for Australians. We must never overlook the sacrifices our defence forces have made to securing Australia's freedom during conflicts in times past.Recently I was able to take part in two small ceremonies that were opportunities to remember the efforts of our defence forces, past and present, although from rather different perspectives. On both occasions I was pleased to be able to present cheques by way of funding grants to a number of organisations which support actively our ex-service men and women and also the families of our current defence personnel. The grants were made available by the federal government under two schemes. The first was the Department of Veterans' Affairs Joint Venture Scheme, which seeks to promote independence for veterans by providing practical assistance to those who need help so they can continue to live secure and independent lives in their own homes. The second was the Defence Family Support Funding Program, which provides grants to groups of defence families to enable them to work together on projects or programs beneficial to the defence service community.As to the first, the Western Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Association invited me to one of their monthly meetings in August. On behalf of the federal government and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, I presented a cheque to the association to assist with its program of recreational bus trips for its members—a highly sought-after outing, so I understand. I spent a captivating hour sitting and listening to the veterans as they spoke about their prisoner of war experiences—experiences so foreign to our everyday lives that it is hard to fathom the enormity of the impact such experiences must have made on their lives.Among the members were ex-servicemen from both the European and Asian theatres of war who were held captive. They recounted the hardships they had to endure during their time at places like Changi Prison, work camps in Japan and in Germany, as well as working on the Burma railway. The WA Ex-Prisoners of War Association has done and still does an extraordinary and dedicated job in supporting ex-prisoners of war and their families in the state of Western Australia.Receiving grant moneys from the federal government under the Defence Family Support Funding Program, totalling almost $30,000, were four groups comprising members of Defence Force families who work together to develop a program or project to encourage and improve the quality of life for defence families. There were a number of recipients from my electorate of Curtin. These included the Karrakatta Community House. This group maintains two Defence Estate owned houses on Stubbs Terrace in the electorate, which are used by the defence community. The funds of over $16,000 will help maintain those houses as venues for meetings, courses and activity centres for defence families in the area.Another recipient from my electorate of Curtin was the Special Services Regiment Auxiliary, which provides an ongoing social and communication network for SAS families and the local defence community in general. The activities they provide include playgroup, craft sessions, tennis groups and other social gatherings.Army Families WA in the electorate of Curtin was a further recipient. It arranges activities and social gatherings for defence families, including welcoming new arrivals. The final recipient was the Sandgroper magazine, which is a quarterly publication sent to service families to provide information on defence community issues, family matters as well as support services such as the Defence Community Organisation and defence housing. The grant of $13,000 to the Sandgroper magazine was welcomed indeed.All of these projects will benefit families living within defence communities in the electorate of Curtin. When I met with the representatives from these four defence family groups, I was impressed by their commitment to increasing opportunities for families to undertake self-help projects. They are encouraging initiatives which assist to diminish some of the adverse effects that are caused by the often peripatetic nature of Defence Force life. The increasing awareness of the significant contribution made by families of service members in support of their spouse's or partner's careers is recognised under this federal government initiative.As the member for the Curtin electorate, with a significant number of defence families and a strong military heritage among its population, I was proud to be able to commend all these groups and the federal government for the ongoing commitment to the lives of our veterans and to our defence forces. (Time expired)953422:44:009534Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—Last Wednesday, 25 August, a very significant award was presented to the University of Wollongong—Australian University of the Year. I usually do not find myself in a position of agreeing with the Treasurer, but his remark at the ceremony last week in which he described the University of Wollongong as `the best of the best' was entirely accurate. I have seen the University of Wollongong develop into a fine tertiary institution with very crucial links with the entire Illawarra region. We have been served by three outstanding vice-chancellors: Michael Burt, Ken McKinnon and, currently, Gerard Sutton. I served on the University of Wollongong Council for many years and can recall when it was simply a college of a Sydney university. In one year short of a quarter of a century, the University of Wollongong has established a formidable reputation both in Australia and throughout the world.In the Illawarra, it is the second largest employer after BHP, with a staff of 1,500. In 1998, direct spending by the University of Wollongong amounted to $187 million. With a flow-on of spending, it is estimated that the institution contributes nearly $500 million to the Illawarra economy. The University of Wollongong is the academic home for some 14,000 students, servicing both young and mature students from the Illawarra itself, other parts of the state and overseas. The University of Wollongong was awarded joint winner of the Australian University of the Year for its outstanding record in research and development and its partnerships with industry. The Illawarra Mercury reported on its front page that the Treasurer `gave Wollongong University special praise, saying it had won despite its youth and it was now the second largest employer in the Illawarra region'.The University of Wollongong earned more in research funding as a share of operating budget than any other Australian university last year. Research and development is the key to the economy of today. The Australian Industry Group released a report on 29 August 1999 entitled, Trends in research and development expenditure in Australian manufacturing, revealing that manufacturing research and development has fallen for the third year in a row from $2.3 billion in 1995-96 to $1.9 billion in 1998-99. The Howard government cut in the research and development tax concession is a major factor underlying this fall.All of us from the Illawarra are extremely proud of this recognition. It confirms that we can and do succeed despite enormous odds. It confirms that we can build an important institution, link it with industry to test dynamic ideas and come out at the other end with fantastic results not only for the region but for Australia and, indeed, the world. People in the Illawarra never, ever have to feel that we are somehow second best, which is the narrow view that others from outside the region like to sometimes impose upon us. We categorically reject this. Our view is not limited by the escarpment to the west, Stanwell Park to the north and the Shoalhaven River to the south. Our view is one of the world. I congratulate the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Gerard Sutton, and all the staff at the university for this outstanding award. It is prestigious, builds further on an already substantial reputation and is absolutely well deserved for the `best of the best'. May the University of Wollongong continue with its outstanding research and academic performance. I congratulate all associated with this award.953522:49:009535Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—Wednesday, 18 August was an important day for the greater Frankston-Mornington Peninsula community. It was the day of the Job Journey, the new apprenticeships expo put on by the Peninsula Job Team. It was terrific to see such an excellent response to this event designed to provide information not only about how the new apprenticeship system has changed and offers young people a very meaningful, worthwhile and satisfying career but also about how the changes to the system provide very real benefits for employers and how the new apprenticeship system can deliver for local businesses in terms of the training of their staff, the development of skills, improved human resource practices and enhanced productivity and overall make a very substantial and real contribution to the success of businesses.Over the day, more than 1,200 people came to meet the 31 exhibitors who came along and provided very useful and practical advice about the new apprenticeship system and how their particular organisation could help employers, family members and young people looking for a career path and looking for assistance through the new apprenticeship system. But there were more than those expected participants at the expo. We had job seekers, we had young people who are on the youth allowance and are not sure where to turn to get themselves started in a career and we had parents looking at the changes that had been made and what their role could be in supporting young people into a meaningful career.A lot of high profile, well-known people with a local connection came along and lent their support. Linley Frame, the world record holding swimmer and Commonwealth gold medallist, came along and inspired many of the young people who were there with whom she spoke and was very generous with her time. She shared with them her experiences and how, at times, if things are not quite running your way, knuckling down can make a real difference in your life. Holden Racing Team driver Mark Skaife also came along for all the petrolheads and everybody else who likes seeing Holdens screaming around tracks around this country. We were very pleased to talk with Mark about his career and how an apprenticeship gave him the base and the grounding from which to end up being a world class racing car driver. So they were seeing connections between the new apprenticeship system, career opportunities and life opportunities that many of the participants had not quite understood without coming along to the expo.The local band the Fauves came along—I understand they are a big deal, and I would like to thank Melissa from the Chisholm Institute for explaining that to me. The Fauves talked to expogoers about their experiences. I think the lead singer and the bass guitarist are qualified tradespeople, and the people enjoyed talking with the Fauves. Essendon footballer Mark Bolton came along—there is a young man with a brilliant career ahead of him but, while he is training to be an elite athlete, he is also involved in a new apprenticeship. He is looking at making the best out of the skills he has now while also investing in a career path for the future. Those people were supported by Shaun Carney, a friend of mine and a former student of Monterey Secondary College, who is Associate Editor of the Age. Shaun also shared with the audience and those who wanted to talk about the media and those sorts of career opportunities his career path, explaining that some of the training and the support available through new apprenticeships could also have people end up with a very worthwhile career in the media.But the day started with Laurie Guisepini, General Manager Retail, from Coles-Myer supermarkets explaining to local business people—who had come along free of charge to share the insights that Laurie and the Coles-Myer team had gained—how new apprenticeships are part of the foundation of Coles-Myer's longer term competitive strategy. We had some people from Coles-Myer who are fully involved in new apprenticeships and we had an explanation about how career pathways through Coles-Myer built upon new apprenticeships. It was a very worthwhile experience for all of us. I would like to acknowledge all of the Peninsular Job Team. I have the good fortune of chairing that organisation, and the voluntary contribution of a vast number of people was what made this event possible.We also had Diana Wolowski from Resources for Courses very ably helping us with event management, Justin Johnson from my office and my whole office team dedicating a lot of their time to it. But we could not have done it without the support of sponsors: South East Development, who got right behind the activity; JobPOWER; Your Employment Solutions; BHP; McDonald's, who provided a `business brekkie on the run' for the breakfast session of the event; the Chisholm Institute; the Independent News group; Leader newspapers; Radio 3MP; SkillsPlus; and Strathfield Car Radio, who provided door prizes. It was all a great community effort and we are looking forward to bigger and better things next year. I would also like to acknowledge the work of the Frankston Cultural Centre, a terrific entertainment and expo venue in the city of Frankston, and Display Solutions for their support with the event. (Time expired)953722:54:009537Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—Last week during the grievance debate I raised with the parliament my concern about the practice of some less scrupulous employers seeking to exploit the powers that they have under the government's new industrial relations laws—and not just the legislative powers but also the way in which the psyche of the Australian workplace has changed as a result of this government's legislation; the fact that the atmosphere in the workplace is now much different. This evening, I intend to outline a second case in which an employer has indulged in activity that is totally unacceptable to the great bulk of Australian people. This case concerns a Victorian manufacturing firm, Rose and Hillcrest Pty Ltd.This company produces handpainted glass products and certifies that each of its individually handcrafted items has been made by a skilled artisan. The company pays these skilled craftspeople the absolute statutory minimum: a flat, ordinary time wage rate of approximately $10 an hour which, depending on the circumstances, is actually less than the award rate. This flat rate is paid regardless of the time of day or the length of a shift worked. Workers were recently required to work a 20-hour shift from 8.30 a.m. one day to 4.30 a.m. the next. The workers were paid ordinary time for that shift. Some workers are paid no superannuation and no meal allowances and receive no overtime. The workers have advised that as an April Fools' joke last year the proprietor, Mr Rosenberg, brought a rifle into the workplace and pointed it at the employees. That was his idea of an April Fools' Day joke.On weekends, he has actually been known to lock the employees in when he leaves the factory just to ensure that they stay and continue work in his absence. A sexual harassment case has been lodged in the Victorian Equal Employment Opportunities Commission by a former employee against one of the managers. This company employs about 20 people, mostly women, many of them newly arrived migrants. When employees from English speaking backgrounds have started to raise concerns about these condi tions, they have simply not been called back in for further work because they are engaged on a casual basis. The relevant union, the Metal Workers Union, sent out two organisers to investigate the complaints they had received about this particular operator. They gave the employer 24-hours notice of their visit, as required, but they were refused entry to the premises. Not content with refusing them entry to the premises, the manager called the Office of the Employment Advocate. That office, so the manager said, told him that the organisers should be instructed to leave the premises.This chronicles both a litany of breaches of law—even this government's base law—and the problem of workplace operations under the sort of legislation and culture which this legislation has itself developed. I will just mention a couple of the things associated with this. Union organisers from the Metal Workers Union went to this place of work to make sure that laws were being adhered to. They complied with the requirements and could not gain entry. This week we are due to debate a second wave of industrial legislation in which that right of entry is to be diminished even further. This is a clear example of the problems generated when legislation restricts workers' rights to organise in this way. But there is another problem: the response from the Office of the Employment Advocate. This is an office that should be abolished and that Labor will abolish. It does not protect the interests of ordinary workers, as it was sold to the public at the time. This is an office that has done the political bidding of this government and, as this example demonstrates, does it in a very biased way.These are tragic circumstances and it is time that the legislature, the parliament, recognises the problems associated with workplace relations today under the arrangements that have been put in place by this government. It is not good enough to turn a blind eye to these events. It is the obligation of all of us in this parliament to make sure that the laws are changed to prevent those actions affecting others. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.House adjourned at 10.59 p.m.Notices9538The following notices were given:Mr Reith to move:That the House grants leave for the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives for 10 November 1998 (No. 1 of 1998-99) to be produced in the Melbourne Magistrates Court, and in any subsequent proceedings, in respect of the Member for Calwell.Mr Truss to present a bill for an act to amend legislation dealing with fisheries and fishers, and for related purposes.Mr Williams to move:That the House:(1) notes the fiftieth anniversary of the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949;(2) congratulates the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement on its continuous fostering of the principles of international humanitarian law to limit human suffering in times of armed conflict and to prevent atrocities, especially against civilian populations, the wounded, and prisoners of war;(3) recalls Australia's ratification of the Conventions and of the two Additional Protocols of 1977;(4) affirms all Parliamentary measures taken in support of such ratification;(5) encourages the fullest implementation of the Conventions and Additional Protocols by the military forces and civilian organisations of all nations;(6) encourages ratification by all nations of the Conventions and Additional Protocols; and(7) recognises the extraordinary contribution made by many individual Australians, including Australian Red Cross members, volunteers and staff, to the practical carrying into effect of the humanitarian ideals and legal principles expressed in the Conventions andAdditional Protocols.Mr Melham to move:That this House, noting the desire of the Australian community to satisfactorily resolve outstanding issues concerning the stolen generation referred to in the recommendations of the report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission entitled Bringing Them Home , calls on the Government to:(1) settle the stolen generation case currently before the federal court in the Northern Territory; and(2) following consultation and agreement with appropriate representatives of the Stolen Generation, to: (a) establish an alternate dispute resolution tribunal to assist members of the Stolen Generations by resolving claims for compensation: (i) through consultation, conciliation and negotiation, rather than adversarial litigation; and (ii) where appropriate and agreed to, deliver alternate forms of restitution; and (b) set up processes and mechanisms which are adequately funded to: (i) provide counselling; (ii) record their testimonies; (iii) educate Australians about their history and current plight; (iv) help them to establish their ancestry and to access family reunion services; and (v) help them to re-establish or re-build their links to their culture, language and history.Answers to Questions in Writing9539The following answers to questions were circulated:9539(Question No. 640)6409539Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 31 May 1999:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 522, (Hansard , 12 May 1999, page 4342), did the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) or a person from the DPP's office discuss the allegations of perjury against Mr Corrigan with the Attorney-General, the Minister, another Minister or a staff member of a Minister's office; if so, in each case, (a) when, (b) by what means did the discussion occur and (c) what was said by each participant.(2) Has the DPP or a person from the DPP's office discussed the matter with another person; if so, in each case, (a) when, (b) by what means did the discussion occur and (c) what was said by each participant.(3) Has the DPP received or despatched correspondence about the matter other than the letters referred to in the answer to question No. 522; if so, in each case, (a) on what date, (b) from or to which person and (c) with what contents.(4) Did the DPP raise the matter with the Australian Federal Police or take other steps to seek further information on the matter; if not, why not.(5) Was the DPP's decision not to proceed based on an absence of sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of perjury; if so, what was the nature of the unavailable evidence which in the DPP's view rendered the prospects of a successful prosecution unlikely.(6) Was the DPP's decision to proceed based on a question of law; if so, what was the nature of the legal impediment.9539Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Acting Director of Public Prosecutions has provided me with the following information:(1) There were no discussions about the allegations of perjury with the Attorney-General, any other Minister, or the staff of Ministers. The only discussion that did occur was with a staff member of the Attorney-General when the issue was raised in the press on 7 April, 1999. The Acting Director provided the staff member with details of the response provided to the Industrial Registrar on 2 November 1998.(2) Officers of the DPP provided information to officers of the Attorney-General's Department for the purpose of answering House of Representatives Question on Notice number 522. Officers of the DPP have had operational discussions with the AFP.(3) On 27 April 1999 the DPP received a letter enclosing far more material than had previously been provided. On 4 May 1999 the DPP informed the correspondent that the AFP had responsibility for investigating the offences against the laws of the Commonwealth and noted that the material had also been provided to the AFP. On 11 May 1999 the DPP received a letter from a different source offering to provide information and documents about the matter. On 17 May 1999 the DPP informed this correspondent that the matters raised in the letter should be referred to the AFP and noted that the letter had been copied to the AFP.(4) The DPP informed the Industrial Registrar on 2 November 1998 that the DPP had no investigation function or powers to investigate possible offences and that investigation responsibility rested with the administering agency or AFP. Since receiving the letters referred to in answer (3), officers of the DPP have had discussions of an operational nature with the AFP.(5) The DPP did not have enough material to make a decision and informed the Industrial Registrar accordingly.(6) No.9539(Question No. 689)6899539McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 7 June 1999:Is he considering the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; if so, when will the Government respond to the report.9539Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Yes, I am considering the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.A Government response to the report is in the process of being finalised and will be tabled as soon as possible.9540(Question No. 722)7229540Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 9 June 1999:(1) Further to the answer to Senate question No. 636 (Senate Hansard , 12 May 1999, page 4928), was the fee for connecting Kirribilli House via cable to the Foxtel television network $1575; if so, is it a fact that Foxtel's regular quotation for installing a cable connection to a house in the suburb of Kirribilli is either $79.95 or $29.95 if the subscriber agrees to receive the service for a minimum of 12 months; if so, why did the Official Establishments Program pay $1575.(2) Was a quotation for the installation obtained from Foxtel before the cable connection was made; if so, (a) by whom and (b) by what process was the quotation obtained.(3) Did he, his office, his personal staff at Kirribilli House or officers within the Official Establishments Program query the installation price; if not, why not.9540Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The cost for installing the FOXTEL service was $1575. Kirribilli House is included on the Register of the National Estate and, as with all other properties with similar heritage status, all work at the residence must be undertaken in a way that preserves the heritage status of the building and grounds. The installation of FOXTEL cables involved significant labour costs in order to ensure the preservation of heritage status. Two additional outlets were also installed.(2) An estimate was obtained from FOXTEL.(a) The Department of the Prime and Cabinet's Telecommunications Facilities Manager who is on contract from Telstra.(b) The estimate was obtained by meeting with FOXTEL representatives at Kirribilli House and discussing the requirements with them, including heritage considerations. The estimate was $1500.(3) FOXTEL, as a principal provider of the service required, was asked to provide the quotation. Technical advice to the Department from the Telecommunications Facilities Manager indicated that FOXTEL's estimate was considered to represent good value for money and a fair assessment of the work involved given the heritage status of the building and grounds.9540(Question No. 742)7429540Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 21 June 1999:Does the Minister's Department operate a library or libraries; if so, (a) what sum was spent on purchasing new books for departmental libraries in (i) 1996-97, (ii) 1997-98 and (iii) 1998-99 and (b) will the Minister provide a list of the title and author of each book purchased by departmental libraries in 1998-99.9540Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I am advised by my Department that:(a) The library spent the following amounts on purchasing new books. Sums include only those items purchased on a one-off basis, ie. publications not updated regularly.(i) 1996-97 $6,713.27; 1997-98 $9,017.71; 1998-99 $26,688.00.(b) The library purchased the following new books in 1998-99.Title/Author1901—our future's past/Evans, Raymond2000 things you didn't know about the Olympic games/Barry, KevinAACR2—Anglo-American cataloguing rules 1998 revisionAbiding interests/Whitlam, GoughAboriginal primary health care : an evidence-based approach/Couzas, Sophia ABS 1300.1 NSW yearbookABS 1307.8 Australian Capital Territory in focus. 1998ABS 1331.0 Statistics—a powerful edge!ABS 2008.0 1996 census—nature and contentABS 2017.0 Census of population and housing: selected family and labour force characteristics. AustraliaABS 2032.0 Census of population and housing : Australia in profile—a regional analysisABS 2034.0 Census of population and housing : Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People. AustraliaABS 2901.0 Census dictionaryABS 2903.0 How Australia takes a censusABS 2940.0 Census of population and housing : data quality—under count ABS 3222.0 Population projections 1997 to 2051ABS 3222.0 Population projections 1997 to 2051ABS 3310.0 Marriages and divorces 1997ABS 4119.0 Children in Australia : a social reportABS 4177.0 Participation in sport 1997-98ABS 4224.0 Education AustraliaABS 4430.0 Disability, ageing and carers : a summary of findings.ABS 4442.0 Family characteristicsABS 4442.0 Family characteristics : AustraliaABS 4601.0 Australians and the environmentABS 6319.0 Superannuation : AustraliaABS 8147.0 Use of the Internet by householders, AustraliaABS 8251.0 Year 2000 problemAccountability and corruption : public sector ethics/Caldow, Clark JonsonAcross country : stories from Aboriginal Australia/Davies, Kerry Activism and the policy process/Yeatman, Anna Africans in Australia/Udo-Ekpo, Lawrence T. Aged care : old policies new problems/Gibson, DianeAgeing in OECD countries : a critical policy challenge; no. 20/OECDALED 4 Australian libraries : the essential directory/Bundy, AlanAs it happened/Button, John (2 copies)As we wave you goodbye : Australian women and war/Bassett, JanAsia falling? : making sense of the Asian currency crisis and its aftermath/Henderson, CallumAsia meltdown : the end of the miracle?/Gough, LeoAsia-Pacific security : the economics—politics nexus/Harris, StuartAsian eclipse : exposing the dark side of business in Asia/Backman, MichaelThe Asian financial crisis : causes, cures, and systemic implications/Goldstein, MorrisAustralia and the knowledge economy—an assessment of enhanced economic growth/Sheehan, P. J.Australia at work : just managing?/Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and TeachingAustralia in international politics : an introduction to Australian foreign policy/Firth, StewartAustralia in the world : an introduction to Australian foreign policy/Smith, Garry Australia's Olympic century : all the games in pictures.Australia's security in the 21st century/Malik, J. MohanAustralia's young adults : the deepening divide/Dussledorp Skills Forum.Australian Aboriginal religions/Worms, Ernest A.Australian Aboriginal words in English : their origin and meaning/Dixon, R.M.W.Australian almanac 1999 : Australia at the end of the century.Australian banking and banking law bibliography 1989-1995/The Banking Law Centre, Monash UniversityAustralian business dictionary/Ford, H.A.J.Australian business law/Latimer, PaulAustralian commercial law/Turner, CliveAustralian Corporations Law/Burnett, BrianAustralian cultural geographies/Stratford, ElaineAustralian economy 2/Kriesler, PeterAustralian education directory 1999 (includes CD)/Australian Council for Educational ResearchAustralian feminism : a companion/Caine, BarbaraThe Australian Flag : colonial relic or contemporary icon?/Foley, Carol A.The Australian guide to chairing meetings : revised edition : the leading handbook on meeting procedure, ceremonial procedure and forms of address/Puregger, MarjorieAustralian Indonesian relations since 1945 : the Garuda and the kangaroo/Catley, BobAustralian legal institutions : principles, structure and organisation/Hughes, R.A.Australian lives : an Oxford anthology/Hooton, JoyAustralian policy handbook : practical guide to making policy choices/Bridgman, PeterAustralian public sector management/Corbett, DavidThe avenue of the fair go—a group tour of Australian political thought/HorneBasic research methods for librarians/Powell, Ronald R.Battle against exclusion : social assistance in Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands and Norway/OECDBeazley : a biography/Fitzsimons, PeterBenefit systems and work incentives/OECDThe best Australian essays 1998/Craven, Peter Beyond meltdown : global battle for sustained growth/Brain, PeterBeyond prohibition : report of the Redfern Legal Centre drug law reform project/Redfern Legal CentreBeyond the welfare state? : the new political economy of welfare/Pierson, ChristopherBillion dollar business : strategies and lessons in Australian arms acquisitions/Earnshaw, PaulThe Bookman Media guide and CD/Bookman DirectoriesBoom and gloom : who's doing what to Australia/Browning, BobBorderland : a journey through the history of Ukraine/Reid, AnnaBox the pony/Rankin, ScottBreakaway planning : 8 big questions to guide organisational change/Levesque, PaulThe budget Macquarie thesaurus : value edition./The Macquarie Library Pty LtdBudget papers 1999Building robust competencies : linking human resource systems to organizational strategies/Green, Paul C.Burning questions : emerging environmental issues of indigenous peoples in northern Australia/Langton, MarciaThe bush capital : how Australia chose Canberra as its federal city/Pegrum, RogerBusiness @ the speed of thought : using a digital nervous system/Gates, BillBusiness finance/Peirson, GrahamBusiness, government and law on the Internet : a hands-on workshop book and disk/Peete, Gary R.Butterworths concise Australian legal dictionary : second edition/Nygh, Peter E.Calm at work/Wilson, PaulCambridge dictionary of Australian places/Appleton, RichardCambridge factfinder/Crystal, DavidA caring world : new social policy agenda/OECDCatching the waves : life in and out of politics/Ryan, SusanCause for power : the official history of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor party/Freudenberg, GrahamCentury of social change : Labor history essays vol.4/Whitlam Conference of Labour Historians [4th: 1991]Challenges for a global welfare system/Hermann, Peter Change power : capabilities that drive corporate renewal/Turner, DennisChanging Australia : social, cultural and economic trends shaping the nation/Andrews, KevinChanging Australia : the social, cultural and economic trends facing Australia/Andrews, KevinThe Character of individualised employment arrangements in Australia : unitarism, unilateralism and utilitarianism/Deery, StephenChiefs today : traditional pacific leadership and the postcolonial state/White, LindstromChildren, families and communities : contexts and consequences/Bowes, JenniferCity link street directory 1999.Collaborative federalism : economic reform in Australia in the 1990s/Painter, MartinCombating age barriers in employment : a European portfolio of good practice/Walker, AlanCombating age barriers in employment : European research report/Walker, AlanCommanding heights—battle between government and the marketplace that is remaking the modern world/Yergin, DanielCommercial implications of Native Title/Horrigan, BryanCommunities at work: lessons from Australia and OECD experience of employment development initiatives 1980-1994/Vaneveld, ElizabethCompetition law and policy : cases and materials/Clarke, PhilipCompetitive governments : an economic theory of politics and public finance/Breton, Albert (2 copies)Complete idiot's guide to getting along with difficult people/Torpov, BrandonComplete idiot's guide to Microsoft Office 97/Kraynak, JoeThe concise Australian national dictionary/Hughes, JoanThe concise Oxford dictionary of Australian History/Bassett, JanConference proceedings—Information Online and Ondisc 95 and 97Confident public speaking : how to communicate effectively using the power talk system/Godefroy, Christian H.Conservation through cultural survival : indigenous peoples and protected areas/Stevens, StanConsultants guide to proposal writing : how to satisfy your clients and double your income/Holtz, HermanContemporary social and political theory : an introduction/Ashe, Fidelma Contesting the Australian way : states, markets and civil society/Smyth, PaulContinent of hunter-gatherers : new perspectives in Australian prehistory/Lourandos, Harry The contracting organization : a strategic guide to outsourcing/Domberger, Simon Corporations law, principles, policy and process/ Tomasic, RomanCorporatisation and privatisation in Australia : a collection of papers examining legal, economic and policy issues/Collier, BernaCorruption and the global economy/Elliott, Kimberley AnnThe course of my life : my autobiography/Heath, EdwardCreating and implementing your strategic plan : a workbook for public and nonprofit orgnaizations/Bryson, John M.Crime is not the problem/lethal violence in America/Zimring, Franklin E.The crisis of global capitalism/Soros, GeorgeCurrency competition and foreign exchange markets : the Dollar, the Yen and the Euro/ Hartmann, PhilippDealing with alcohol/Saggers, SherryDebating human rights : critical essays from the United States and Asia/Van Ness, PeterDeep crises and reform : what have we learned?/ Bruno, MichaelDeinstitutionalising women : an ethnographic study of institutional closure/Johnson, KelleyDelivering results : a new mandate for human resource professionals/Ulrich, DaveDemanding patients? : analysing the use of primary care/Rogers, AnneDescriptionary : a thematic dictionary : when you know it is, but not what it's called/Maccutcheon, MarcDescriptive cataloging for the AACR2R and the integrated MARC format : a how-to-do-it workbook/Millsap, FernDevolution and choice in education : the school, the state, and the market/Whitty, GregDialogues on Australia's future in honour of the late Professor Ronald Henderson/Sheehan, PeterDictionary of stock exchange and investment terms : an annotated guide for investors at all levels/Renton, N.E.The dictionary of superannuation/Association of Superannuation Funds of AustraliaDifferent voices : gender and politics in Australia/Van Acker, Elizabeth The Dilbert future : thriving on business stupidity in the 21st century/Adams, ScottDirectory of Australian associations—1999/ Information AustraliaDiscussion papers/Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, no's 157-162Discussion papers/Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research no's 163-166Do it yourself superannuation/Donnelly, AustinDoing leadership differently : gender power and sexuality in a changing business culture/Sinclair, AmandaDon't ask for stories. . . : the women from Ernabella and their art/Eickelkamp, UteDon't just surf : effective research strategies for the Net/Henninger, MaureenDownsizing of Asia/Godement, FrancoisDreams in the shadows : Vietnamese-Australian lives in transition/Thomas, MandyDriving fear out of the workplace : how to overcome the invisible barriers to quality, productivity, and innovation/Ryan, Kathleen D.Drug use and abuse/Healey, KayeEast and west : the last Governor of Hong Kong/ Patten, ChrisEast Asia in crisis : from being a miracle to needing one?/Mcleod, Ross H.East Timor and the United Nations : the case for intervention/Gunn, Geoffrey C.Easy Microsoft Excel 97/Monsen, LauraEat the rich : a treatise on economics/O'Rourke, P.J.Economics of the welfare state/Barr, NicholasEducation at a glance : OECD indicators 1998/ OECDLeadership made simple/Overton, RodneyEffective business briefings/Clark, ColinEmerging economic systems of Asia : a political and economic survey/Sheridan, KyokoEncouraging the heart : a leader's guide to rewarding and recognizing others/Kouzas, James M.Encyclopedia of world historyEntrepreneurial management in the public sector/ Wanna, JohnEnvironmental change in Australia since 1788/ Young, Ann R.M.Environmental management in the Australian minerals and energy industries/Mulligan, David RobertEssays, moral, political and economic/Brittan, Samuel Ethical management for the public services/Lawton, AlanThe Euro/Temperton, PaulEvatt to Evans : the Labor tradition in Australian foreign policy/Lee, DavidExporting education to Asia/Jolley, AinsleyFactors influencing youth unemployment in Australia : 1980-1994/Marks, Gary N.False dawn : the delusions of global capitalism/Gray, JohnFalse paradise : Australian capitalism revisited, 1915-1955/Buckley, KenFamily/Hardyment, ChristinaFamily caregivers : disability, illness and ageing/Schofield, HilaryThe family in question/Stein, RingenFarewell to the family : public policy and family breakdown in Britain and the USA/Morgan, PatriciaThe fast forward MBA in investing/Waggoner, JohnThe fast forward MBA in negotiating and deal making/Lewicki, Roy J.Fast money 4 : the bestselling guide to Australia's financial markets/Carew, EdnaFate of a free people/Reynolds, HenryFather Time/Petre, DanielFederal finance/Mathews, Russel L.Feminists fatale/Bowen, JanFor hearths and homes : citizen soldiering in Australia 1854-1945/Wilcox, CraigFree East Timor : Australia's culpability in East Timor's Genocide/Aubrey, JimFrom APEC to Xanadu : creating a viable community in the post-cold war Pacific/Hellman, PyleFull employment and growth : further Keynesian. . . /Tobin, JamesFuture child care provision in Australia: Task Force final report/EPACFuture makers, future takers : life in Australia 2050/Cocks, DougThe future of the ASEAN regional forum : an Australian view/Dupont, AlanFuture tense : state of the nation/Kelly, PaulGender and institutions : welfare, work and citizenship/Gatens, MackinnonGender, identity and place : understanding feminist geographies/McDowell, LindaGeneration at risk : growing up in an era of family upheaval/Amato, Paul R.German dictionary and grammar/Prowe, Gunhild Get your message across : the professional communication skills everyone needs/Ewart, JacquiGetting past no : negotiating your way from confrontation to cooperation/Ury, WilliamGlobal advantage : how world-class organisations improve performance through globalisation/ Marquardt, Michael J.Global commons : an introduction/Susan J. BuckThe global corporation : the decolonization of international business/Mourdoukoutas, PanosGlobal economy in Australia : global integration and national economic policy/Bryan, DickGlobal environment outlook/United Nations Environment ProgrammeGlobal nation? : Australia and the politics of globalisation/Wiseman, JohnA global parliament : principles of world federation/Hamer, ChristopherGlobal politics in the human interest/Gurtov, MelGlobal public policy : governing without government?/Reinicke, Wolfgang H.Globalization : the human consequences/Bauman, ZygmuntGlobalization of world politics/Baylis, JohnGlobalizing capital : history of the international monetary system/Eichengreen, BarryGovernance, administration and development : making the state work/Turner, MarkGoverning China—from revolution through reform/Lieberthal, KennethGoverning in the information age Government in Australia : key events in politics, law, the economy/Fraser, BryceGovernment information collections in the networked environment : new issues and models/Cheverie, Joan F.Government law and policy commercial aspects/Horrigan, BryanGovernment outsourcing : what has been learnt?/CTC ConsultantsGovernment, politics, power and policy in Australia/Woodward, Dennis (2 copies)Governments of Australia/International Public Relations Pty LtdThe great divide : immigration politics in Australia/Betts, KatharineGreat expectations : microeconomic reform and Australia/Quiggin, JohnGST : the winners and the losers/Donnelly, AustinThe guerilla dynasty : politics and leadership in North Korea/Buzo, Adrian A guide to business law/Carvan, JohnGuidelines for managing risk in the Australian Public Service/Australia. Management Advisory BoardThe guru guide : the best ideas of the top management thinkers/Boyett, JosephHarvard Business Review on managing peopleHarvard Business Review on knowledge management/Harvard Business School PressHarvard Business Review on measuring corporate finance/Harvard Business ReviewHealth policy in the market state/Hancock, LindaThe health trap : poverty , smoking and lone parenthood/Dorsett, RichardHeroin-related deaths in New South Wales 1992-1996/Darke, ShaneHigh-tech personal efficiency program : organizing your electronic resources/Gleeson, KerryHistory of Australian environmental movement/Hutton, DrewA history of the twentieth century/Gilbert, MartinHolding government bureaucracies accountable/Rosen, BernardHollow crown/Weller, PatrickHomelands and frontiers/Tucker, AlanHow intranets work/Gralla, PrestonHow to give a damn good speech/Theibert, Philip R.Human capital : what it is and why people invest it/Davenport, Thomas O.Human development report 1998/United Nations Development ProgrammeThe human equation: building profits by putting people first/Pfeffer, JeffreyHuman rights in Australian law : principles, practice and potential/Kinley, DavidHuman rights under the Australian Constitution/Williams, GeorgeIdeas for the new millennium/Ellyard, PeterImmigration and Australia : myths and realities/Castles, StephenImmigration and refugee law in Australia/Crock, MaryIn search of heroes : stories of seven remarkable men/Lennox, GinaIn the best interest of the child? : stolen children : Aboriginal pain, White shame/Link-Up (NSW) Aboriginal CorporationIn their own image : Greek Australians/Alexakis, Effy Independent social security handbook, 3rd edition/Raper, MichaelIndigenous legal issues : commentary and materials/McRae, HeatherIndigenous people and the law in Australia/Cunneen, ChristopherIndigenous population and the distribution of financial assistance grants/Searle, R.J.Industrial relations/Healey, KayeInformation technology law in Australia/Akindemowo, OlujokeInside the war cabinet : directing Australia's war effort 1939-45/Horner, DavidInsourcing after the outsourcing : MIS survival guide/Chapman, Robert B.Instant synonyms and antonyms/Bolander, DonaldIntellectual capital./Stewart, Thomas AIntellectual property in Australia/McKeough, .JillInternally displaced people : a global survey/Hampton, JanieInternational and comparative employment relations/Bamber, GregInternational organisationsInternational organizations : a dictionary/ Schiavone, GuiseppeThe international politics of the new Asia Pacific/McDougall, DerekInternational who's who 1998/99The Internet : the rough guide/Kennedy, Angus J.Introduction to Australian public policy/Fenna, AlanIt's your constitution governing Australia today/ Saunders, CherylJob applications : the wining edge/Schmerling, .LeahJobs of our own : building a stake-holder society alternatives to the market and the state/Mathews, RaceJobshift : how to prosper in a workplace without jobs/Bridges ,WilliamJustice for natives : searching for common ground/Morrison, Andrea P.Keeping the bastards honest : the Australian Democrats' first twenty years/Warhurst, JohnKnowledge-enabled organisation moving from `training' to `learning' to meet business goals/Tobin, Daniel R.Labor essays 1998 new visions for government/Jungwirth, Gary Labor without class : the gentrification of the ALP/Thompson, MichaelThe labour marker and older workers : No. 17/OECDLand is life : from bush to town : the story of the Yanyuwa people/Baker, RichardLast days of President Saharto/Aspinall, EdwardThe last governor : Chris Patten and the handover of Hong Kong/Dimbley, JonathanLateral thinking for management : a handbook/de Bono, EdwardLaunching new global trade talks : an action agenda/Schott, Jeffrey J.Laying down the law : the foundation of legal reasoning, research and writing in Australia/Morris, GwenLeader to leader : enduring insights on leadership from the Crucker Foundation's award-winning journal/Hesselbein, FrancesLeadership and values : a profile of Australian executives and the balance of power, profits and people/Sarros, James C.Leadership in government : study of the Australian Public Service/Korac-Ksalabadse, AndrewLeading the organisation to learn : the 10 levers for putting knowledge and learning to work/Cope, MickLegislating Liberty : a Bill of Rights for Australia?/Brennan, FrankLinux for dummies/Hall, JonThe little Oxford dictionary of English grammar/Chalker, SylviaLocal heroes : a celebration of success and leadership in Australia/Moodie, Ann-MareeLucky be damned : tells how Australians can win back its freedom of speech and become a wealthy country again/Cumming, JohnMabo, Wik and Native Title/Butt, PeterMacmillan Australia global atlas/Parker, BrianThe Macquarie concise dictionary/Delbridge, A.The Macquarie concise thesaurus/Tardif, RichardThe Macquarie encyclopedia of Australian events : revised edition/Fraser, BryceMacquarie pocket dictionary/Blair, David The Macquarie spelling guide Maintaining prosperity in an ageing society/OECDMaking change irresistible—overcoming resistance to change in your organization/Hultman, KenMaking votes count/Cox, Gary W.Making work pay : taxation, benefits, employment and unemployment/OECD Managers as facilitators : a practical guide to getting work done in a changing workplace/Weaver, Richard G.Managing an ageing workforce/Patrickson, MargaretManaging change : a how to do it manual for planning, implementing and evaluating change in libraries/Curzon, SusanManaging like a man : women and men in corporate management/Wajcman, JudyManaging multiple bosses : how to juggle priorities, personalities and projects—and make it look easy/Nickerson, PatMastering Microsoft Office/Martin, HoldingMastering virtual teams : strategies, tools, and techniques that succeed/Duarte, Deborah L.Measuring progress : is life getting better?/Eckersley, RichardMedical mishaps : pieces of the puzzle/Rosenthal, Marilynn M.Menzies' child : Liberal Party of Australia/Henderson, GerardThe Merck manual of medical information : home edition/Berkow, RobertA military history of Australia/Grey, JeffreyThe millennium bug handbook : how to control your Year 2000 problem/Stanley, PhillipMother of all myths : how society moulds and constrains mothers/Forna, AminattaMyth of the powerless state : governing the economy in a global era/Weiss, LindaNationalism and modernism : a critical survey of recent theories of national and nationalism/Smith, Anthony D.Native title/Healey, KayeThe natural wealth of nations : harnessing the market for the environment/Roodman, David MalinNet future : the 7 cyber trends that will drive your business, create new wealth, and define your future/Martin, ChuckNew contractualism?/Davis, GlynThe new deal at work : managing the market-driven workforce/Cappelli, PeterThe new Oxford dictionary of English/Pearsall, JudyThe new Palgrave dictionary of economics and the law (3 vol set)/Newman, PeterNew roles of parliamentary committees/Longley, Lawrence D.New romanized English-Japanese dictionary with Japanese-English dictionary and most useful expressions/Fukikake, Eizo The New York Public Library desk reference/New York Public LibraryNewsgathering on the Net/Quinn, StephenNext : the flow of the future/Matathia, IraNgarrindjeri Wurruwarrin : a world that is, was, and will be/Bell, DianeNo fault politics : modern presidents, the press, and reformers/Mccarthy, Eugene J.Not quite men : no longer boys/Laughton, K. C.OECD employment outlook June 1998Older and wiser : the economics of public pensions/Thompson, Lawrence H.Older getting wiser/Johnson, PaulOn managing uncertaintyOne destiny : the federation story—how Australia became a nation/Russell, RoslynOpen Australia/Tanner, LindsayOpposites/Mcnulty, SallyOur century : a journey through this century/Batstone, KayOur state of mind : racial planning and the stolen generations/Beresford, QuentinOut of the rut : making Labor a genuine alternative/Carman, MichaelOutback ghettos : Aborigines, institutionalisation and survival/Brock, PeggyOver our dead bodies : Port Arthur and Australia's fight for gun control/Chapman, SimonOvercome neck and back pain/Laughlin, KitThe Oxford companion to Australian history/Davis, GraemeThe Oxford companion to Australian military history/Dennis, PeterThe Oxford companion to Australian sport/Vamplew, WrayThe Oxford dictionary of foreign words and phrases/Speake, JenniferOxford history of the twentieth century/Howard, MichaelOxford literary history of Australia/Bennett, BruceThe Oxford paperback French dictionary/Janes, MichaelPacific economic papers—nos. 287-298/Australia-Japan Research Centre, ANUThe packaging of Australia : politics and culturewars/Melleuish, GregoryPast wrongs, future rights/Warby, MichaelPaul Hasluck in Australian history : civic personality and public life/Stannage, TomThe Penguin thesaurus of quotations/Cohen, M.J. Periodical acquisitions and the Internet/Slight-Gibney, NancyPeriodicals in print: Australia New Zealand and the South Pacific 1997A plague on both your houses : minor parties in Australia/Jaensch, DeanThe pocket Oxford Italian dictionary/Mazza, DeboraPolicing across the world : issues for the twenty-first century/Mawby, R.I.Political lives/Brett, JudithPolitics in Australia : third edition/Smith, RodneyThe politics of nationalism and ethnicity/Kellas, James G.Poverty lines in theory and practice/Ravallion, MartinPower, parliament and the people/Coper, MichaelPredictions : family/Hardyment, ChristinaPreserving rural Australia/Robertson, AlistarPrivate long term care insurance : how well is it meeting consumer needs and public policy concerns?/Ushc StaffPrivate medicine and public health : profit, politics, and prejudice in the American health care enterprise/Weiss, LawrencePrivatising prisons : rhetoric and reality/James, Adrian L.Project management for the 21st century/Lientz, Bennet P.Public relations on the Net : winning strategies to inform and influence the media, the investment community, the government, the public, and more!/Holtz, ShelPublic sector ethics : finding and implementing values/Sampford, CharlesThe public sector in jeopardy : Australian fiscal federalism from Whitlam to Keating/Mathews, RussellPublic sector management in Australia, 2nd edition/O'Faircheallaigh, CiaranPublic voice in a democracy at risk/Salvador, SiasRace daze : Australia in identity crisis/Stratton, JonReading public opinion : how political actors view the democratic process/Herbst, SusanThe real meaning of money/Rowe, DorothyReal time : preparing for the age of the never satisfied customer/McKenna, RegisRedesigning the welfare state in New Zealand : problems, policies, prospects/Boston, JonathanRedhat Linux 5.2 operating system Reference sources on the Internet : off the shelf and onto the Web/Diaz, Karen R.Reinventing competitiveness : achieving best practice in Australia/Rimmer, MalcolmRemembering Weary/Geddes, MargaretRepresenting women/Macdonald, MyraA republic : yes or no?/Healey, KayeResearching Australian law/Deakin University School of LawReshaping Australia : urban problems and policies/Stilwell, FrankReviving the fourth estate/Schultz, JulianneRiddle of Malaysian capitalism : rent seekers or real capitalists?/Searle, PeterThe rise and decline of the Asian century : false starts on the part to the global millennium/Lingle, ChristopherThe road ahead/Gates, BillThe Sandline affair : politics and mercenaries and the Bougainville crisis/Dorney, SeanSearching Smart on the World Wide Web : tools and techniques for getting quality results/Gould, CherylThe Second World War and its Australian Army Battle Honours/Maitland, Gordon L.Secret life of money : exposing the private parts of personal money/Wilson, ValeriaThe secrets of finding and keeping a job : second edition/Burns, Robert B.Self-esteem at work : how confident people make powerful companies/Brandon, NathanielThe seven habits of highly effective people/Covey, StephenThe seven habits of highly effective people : restoring the character ethic/Covey, Stephen (2 copies)Sex and medicine : gender, power and authority in the medical profession/Pringle, RosemaryShadow child : a memoir of the stolen generation/Fraser, RosalieSharing the burden : strategies for public and private long-term care insurance/Wiener, JoshuaA short history of Australia/Clark, ManningA short history of Manning Clark/Holt, StephenShrinking the state : the political underpinnings of privatization/Feigenbaum, HarveyThe Singapore story/Yew, Lee KuanSix action shoes/de Bono, EdwardSlow reckoning/Athanasiou, TomSmart choices a practical guide to making better decisions/Hammond, John S. Snake cradle/Sykes, RobertaSnake dancing/Sykes, RobertaSnaring the other tiger/Ward, IanSocial change, suburban lives : an Australian Newtown 1960s to 1990s/Bryson, LoisSocial welfare and individual responsibility/Schmidtz, DavidSocietal cohesion and the globalising economy/OECDSoutheast Asia's economic crisis : origin lessons and the way forward/Arndt, H.W.Speaking their minds : intellectuals and the public culture in Australia/Dessaix, RobertSpin cycle : inside the Clinton propaganda machine/Kurtz, HowardSponsorship made simple/Pritchard, BobState of reform—essays for a better future/Gallop, GeoffStates, markets, families : gender; liberalism and social policy in Australia, Canada, Great Britain and the United States/O'Connor, Julia S.Statesman's yearbook 1998/99/Hunter, BrianStatistics and data collection concerning indigenous Australians/Barnes, TonyStop : think/Hellyer, PaulStrategy safari : a guided tour through the wilds of strategic management/Mintzberg, HenryThe street that died young/Frydman, GloriaStructuring effective sponsorships/Richards, CraigThe struggle for Aboriginal rights : a documentary history/Attwood, BainSuccessful fundraising and sponsorship : a week/McKoen, SueSupervision survival manual/Gallasch, P.A.Surface city—Sydney at the millennium/Murphy, PeterA survival guide for project managers/Taylor, JamesTalking up : young women's take on feminism/Else-Mitchell, RosamundTax reform : equity and efficiency : evaluation of tax reform with producer and consumer responses/Johnson, DavidTax reform debate : the economics of the options/Abelson, PeterThe tax/benefit position of employees 1997—1998 edition/OECDTeach yourself Access 97 in 24 hours/Buchanan, TimothyTeach yourself Web publishing with Microsoft Office 97 in a week/Larson, Michael Teachers (Independent Schools) State Award salary scalesTemper democratic : how exceptional is Australia?/McQueen, HumphreyTerrorism and the 2000 Olympics/Thompson, AlanThe TEXbook./Knuth, Donald EThird way—renewal of social democracy/ Giddens, AnthonyThis tired brown land/O'Connor, MarkThis whispering in our hearts/Reynolds, HenryTigers tamed : the end of the Asian miracle/ Garran, RobertTime bomb 2000 : what the Year 2000 computer-crisis means to you!/Yourdon, EdwardTo be free : stories from Asia's struggle against oppression/Juan, Chee SoonToo much medicine? : the business of health—and its risks for you/Moynihan, RoyToward a new international financial architecture : a practical post-Asia agenda/Eichengreen, Barry J.Towards republic?/Healey, Kaye.Toys triggers and television : violence and youth in the 1990s/Bretherton, DianeTransplanting the agora : Hellenic settlement in Australia/Dimitreas, Yiannis E.Trends in methadone related deaths in the United Kingdom and Australia—1985-1995/Hall, WayneTrends in opioid overdose and suicide mortality in young adults in Australia 1965-1997/Hall, WayneTroubling women : feminism, leadership and educational change/Blackmore, JillTruth about outsourcing/Rothery, BrianTurning point : an end to the growth paradigm/Ayers, Robert U.Two nations : the causes and effects of the rise of the One Nation Party in Australia/Abbott, TonyTwo weeks in Lilliput : bear-baiting and backbiting at the Constitutional Convention/Vizard, Steve (2 copies)UN peacekeeping, UNIFIL and the Fijian experience/Sanday, JimUncanny Australia—sacredness and identity in an postcolonial nation/Gelder, KennethUnderstanding equal employment opportunity—a guide for the workplace/Napoli, JoanUnderstanding the Australian legal system/Carvan, John Understanding the Euro : the clear and concise guide to the new trans-European economy/Chabot, Christian N.Unemployment and the Australian labour market/Debelle, GudUnited Nations handbook—1998/New Zealand. Ministry of Foreign Affairs and TradeUnited States government manual—1998/99/ United States. Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records AdministrationUnlocking the infrastructure/King, StephenUntold stories : memories and lives of Victorian Kooris/Critchett, JanUpholding the Australian constitution: proceedings of the inaugural conference of the Samuel Griffith Society/Samuel Griffith SocietyValuing intangible assets/Reilly, Robert F.Valuing local knowledge : indigenous people and intellectual property rights/Brush, Stephen B.A very civil servant/Hyslop, RobertViolence against women in Australia : key research and data issues/Putt, JudyThe VSDC Dictionary of Auslan : English to Auslan/Bernal, BrianThe war diaries of Weary Dunlop : Java and the Burma-Thailand Railway 1942-1945/Dunlop, Ernest EdwardWater in Australia : resources and management/Smith, David IngleThe way ahead : prominent Australians talk about the future of our nation/Byrski, LizThe way we live now : the controversies of the nineties/Manne, RobertWeb design in a nutshell: a desktop quick reference/Niederst, JenniferWelfare bushed : social care in rural Australia/Cheers, BrianWhat chance a job? : employment of parents with young children/Gilley, TimWhat color is your parachute?/Bolles, Richard NelsonWhere Australians fought : the encyclopaedia of Australia's battles/Coulthard-Clark, C. D.Whitaker's almanac—1999White nation : fantasies of white supremacy in a multicultural society/Hage, GhassanWhite politics and black Australians/Bennett, ScottWhither APEC : progress to date and agenda for the future/Bergstein, C. FredWho's afraid of the GST?/Switzer, Peter Who's who in AustraliaThe whole woman/Greer, GermaineWhy I want to be king of Australia/de Bono, EdwardWhy people don't trust government/Nye, J.S.The Wik debate : its impact on aborigines, pastoralists and miners/Brennan, FrankWik, mining and Aborigines/Kauffman, PaulWinning and losing : Australian national elections/Bennett, ScottWomen and health services : an agenda for change/Doyal, LesleyWomen and the law : judicial attitudes as they impact on women/Thackery, AnneWomen's encounters with violence : Australian experiences/Cook, SandyThe women's power handbook/Kirner, JoanWomen, public policy and the state/Hancock, LindaWord 97 for Windows for dummies/Gookin, DanWork : what it does for us, what we do for it/Macnab, FrancisThe work generation : work and identity in the nineties/Probert, BelindaThe work of teams/Katzenback, Jon R.Working for the future : technology and employment in the global knowledge economy/Sheehan, PeterWorkplace health and safety handbook/Bos, NickWorkplaces of the future/Thompson, PaulWorld development report 1997 : the state is a changing world/World BankWorld development report 1998-1999 : knowledge for development./World BankWorld economic outlook OCTOBER 1998/ International Monetary FundWorld hunger : 12 myths/Moore, FrancesThe world in 2020 : towards a new global age/ OECDWorlding women : a feminist international politics/Pettman, Jan JindyYellowcake and crocodiles : town planning, government and society in Northern Australia/Lea, John P.Your future in your hands : total tax reform/McRobert, JohnYouth crisis : growing up in the high-risk society/Davis, Nanette J.Youth earnings in Australia 1980-1994 : a comparison of three youth cohorts/Marks, Gary N.Youth for sale : Australia's national inquiry into the commercial sexual exploitation of children and young people in Australia/ECPATYouth homelessness : early intervention and prevention/Chamberlain, Chris9551(Question No. 817)8179551Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 9 August 1999:(1) Has his attention been drawn to the drug Aricept Donepezil and its benefits to those suffering from Alzheimers disease.(2) Is the drug listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS); if not, why not.(3) Is further proof required by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to have Aricept Donepezil placed on the PBS; if so, what.(4) Does the Government have evidence of widespread use and benefits of the drug around the world.(5) Is the Government considering further reassessment of Aricept Donepezil under the PBS.9551Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) No.The PBAC rejected the application to list donepezil on the PBS because it was not convinced that the claims the sponsor company made, based on the results of the clinical trials about the benefits of the drug, including claims about its cost effectiveness, could be achieved.(3) Yes.The PBAC would have to see the results of longer term clinical trials designed to assess the impact on patients' quality of life; the carers' quality of life; the progress of patients to institutionalisation (ie the time it took for patients to go into an institution); and on the use of other health care services.(4) No.(5) The PBAC would re-assess donepezil for PBS listing if the manufacturer submitted a further application addressing the issues raised in (3) above. The Government would then be in a position to act on any recommendation from the PBAC.