1999-09-013914REPS956501999-09-01Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous956509:31:009565Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I 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.This motion is intended to grant a request conveyed to the House yesterday for leave to produce Votes and Proceedings of the House for the opening day of the parliament. The document is being made available in relation to committal proceedings in the Melbourne Magistrates Court and in any subsequent proceedings in respect of the member for Calwell. I am advised that there is some judicial authority for the view that the permission of the House is not required on the production of parliamentary records. This is essentially a procedural question. However, the House has never formally abandoned the position that permission should be sought, which is why this motion has been moved.The substantive question of the use to which House records can be put is not affected. They may be used to establish a certain fact: for example, that a writ was returned endorsing the election of a member and that the member completed the constitutional requirement of oath or affirmation of allegiance. However, they cannot be questioned in any way. If the House grants the request for leave, it will be acting in full accordance with precedent. I have briefly discussed this matter with the Manager of Opposition Business and I understand that there are no objections to the course of action being proposed this morning. It is essentially a procedural, technical matter.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills9565r9149565Bill presented by Mr Truss, and read a first time.956509:33:009565Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The purpose of the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 is to introduce new measures for sustainable management of fisheries, in particular new powers, offences and sanctions to ensure compliance with fisheries management measures.The Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 consists of two schedules. Schedule 1 relates to new forfeiture and enforcement powers to combat illegal foreign fishing. These measures are aimed at ensuring more effective fisheries surveillance and enforcement within the Australian fishing zone. Schedule 2 relates to implementing obligations necessary to ratify an international agreement termed the fish stocks agreement. The full title is the Agreement for the Implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. Is it any wonder it is shortened to fish stocks agreement!Both schedules of the bill address the growing issue of illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing. Illegal fishing occurs when foreign fishing vessels operate within the Australian fishing zone without authorisation. Unregulated and unreported fishing occurs on the high seas where fisheries management arrangements, established to manage particular stocks, are ignored. This is despite the duties countries have under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea to cooperate to implement management measures under such arrangements.There is rising concern over the ongoing activities of illegal foreign fishing vessels in the Australian fishing zone, particularly in remote areas of the zone such as our sub-Antarctic territories and off north-western Australia. Australia's sovereign right to manage the fish resources in these areas is challenged by such activities, and the government is determined to take stern measures to deter illegal foreign fishing in the Australian fishing zone. In the sub-Antarctic, illegal fishing and fishing occurring outside management regimes established by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources costs the Australian industry potentially tens of millions of dollars per year in terms of fish stolen. It also undermines cooperative management under the commission and poses a threat to the Antarctic treaty system itself.Illegal fishers, particularly those in the sub-Antarctic, are highly organised and adaptable operators chasing very valuable fish in extremely harsh conditions. Penalties for illegal foreign fishing are proposed to be doubled, recognising the high value of such fisheries to Australia, the large profits to be made by illegal operators and the high costs of enforcement. An amendment is also proposed to overcome the problems with enforcement action experienced following the apprehension of the Aliza Glacial, caught illegally fishing within the Australian fishing zone around Heard Island. In that case, a third party, who was the mortgagee of the vessel, successfully intervened to assert the primacy of its interest in the vessel under the Admiralty Act 1988 over enforcement action by the Commonwealth. The amendment makes clear that third party interests will not prevail over Commonwealth enforcement action by virtue of the Admiralty Act.Amendments under schedule 1 will provide for a more effective catch, gear and boat forfeiture scheme to deter illegal foreign fishing in the Australian fishing zone.Australian fisheries officers will be able to seize foreign boats, fishing gear or catch which have been automatically forfeited to the Commonwealth as a result of illegal fishing in the Australian fishing zone. The onus will then fall to the illegal foreign fishers to establish their legitimacy for being present in the Australian fishing zone without authorisation. The amendments implement the international law principle of constructive presence. This enables action, outside the Australian fishing zone, against mother ships that support illegal foreign fishers within the Australian fishing zone.Other amendments will provide fisheries officers with explicit powers to use reasonable force when requiring a boat to stop consistent with international law to apprehend foreign boats suspected of illegal fishing. Such force could include firing at or into a ship after appropriate warning shots have been fired and using devices to stop propulsion of the boat.The amendments to implement the fish stocks agreement, contained in schedule 2, will provide a framework to address the wider problem of unregulated and unreported fishing on the high seas.Unsustainable fishing on the high seas directly impacts the sustainability of stocks on which our domestic industry relies. In the Australian context, highly migratory fish stocks include stocks that migrate through our fishing zone, such as southern bluefin tuna and other tuna and billfish species. Straddling stocks include stocks that straddle the boundary of our fishing zone and the high seas adjacent to it, such as orange roughy and in some cases the patagonian toothfish. The value of these species to the Australian economy in 1999 is expected to be over $250 million.The fish stocks agreement was drafted out of international concern for the sustainability of these straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. The objective of the fish stocks agreement is to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable use of these fish stocks. Australia signed the agreement when it was first opened for signature in 1995. The amendments being introduced will enable Australia to enjoy the rights under the agreement and also meet its obligations.Australia is a world leader in sustainable fisheries management and manages its fisheries in accordance with contemporary fisheries management principles, such as the precautionary principle and ecologically sustainable development. The fish stocks agreement will strengthen the application of these principles, in particular by requiring stock specific reference points to be determined for highly migratory and straddling stocks. The bill will amend fisheries management legislation to require stock specific reference points to be set out in fisheries management plans.The agreement provides a framework for strengthened cooperation between nations to manage and conserve these stocks by establishing regional fisheries management organisations or similar arrangements. The objectives of fisheries management legislation will be amended to reflect these international obligations.Ratification of the fish stocks agreement by Australia and participation in regional fisheries organisations will help secure a share to fish resources both within and outside the Australian fishing zone. The regional fisheries organisations will be responsible for devising cooperative measures to conserve and manage the relevant regional stocks. The regime will be legally binding on member countries who will be required to abide by these measures or refrain from participating in the fisheries. Member countries will have rights to enforce these measures on the other parties to the agreement. The amendments will enable Australian fisheries officers to board and inspect fishing vessels on the high seas to check compliance with regionally agreed management and conservation measures.Once the agreement comes into force members will be required to take on flag state responsibility for vessels carrying its flag. This responsibility will involve regulating the activities of that vessel to ensure it operates in accordance with the principles of the agreement and any regional conservation and management measures. The amendments will expand the application of fisheries management legislation to the high seas in order to fulfil this obligation. The amendments will require the Australian Fisheries Management Authority to authorise Australian vessels to fish on the high seas and impose and monitor the necessary conditions for compliance with any conservation and management measures.I commend the legislation to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Kelvin Thomson) adjourned.Bills9567r8669567Debate resumed from 31 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."09:43:009567Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—In summarising the remarks I made on the A New Tax System (Taxation Laws Amendment) Bill (No. 1) 1999 last night, I would just add some further comments in response to the words of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and also those of the member for Rankin. They both express concern that the new withholding arrangements, and especially the abolition of the prescribed payments system, will encourage the growth of so-called dependent contractors who only work for one organisation. I am advised that the pay-as-you-go withholding provisions are not specifically designed to deal with those contractors. The main issues involved with those contractors are primary liability issues, whereas this bill is about collection issues.Secondly, withholding will not generally apply to payments to contractors. The reason for this is that contractors generally will be charging GST on their services. The government considers that it would be too great a burden for business if both GST and withholding generally were applied to these transactions. It is no surprise that the Labor Party should be pushing that line. The third point, however, is that businesses generally will be required to withhold at the top marginal tax rate from payments to contractors who fail to quote their Australian business number in an invoice. So this measure is designed to prevent tax evasion where payments are made in cash.Labour hire workers will not be treated like other contractors. A labour hire firm will have to withhold payments to workers for work performed for the client of the labour hire firm. The payment to the worker will not attract GST. As the honourable member noted, these arrangements will address any competitive advantage that labour hire workers have over traditional employees. Finally, we will be rejecting the Labor Party's amendment to this bill.Mr Emerson interjecting—DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—It comes as no surprise, I am sure, to members of the opposition because we read in today's paper that only yesterday the Leader of the Opposition was boasting to his party room about how good it is to be performing in sideshow alley for the Labor Party—how good it is for the Labor Party to be operating outside the mainstream debate in Australian politics. That is intriguing logic. It is great to be here in the fun park, but it is even better to operate a big stall in sideshow alley rather than to be in the main performance arena where the coalition and the Democrats are getting on with the job. That is intriguing leadership and intriguing commonsense.You can only wonder what sort of logic is going through the office of the Leader of the Opposition. I would have speculated that when Michael Costello joined that office he would have added a new dimension to the thinking in the office. Obviously, one or other of two events is occurring. He has no influ ence as the Leader of the Opposition's chief of staff or, alternately, his political antennae are not online at the moment. I will give him the benefit of the doubt. But the Leader of the Opposition is well experienced in this place, so I am surprised that he should say, `It is great to be operating out in the sidecar and let's leave the driving of the motorbike to the coalition and the Democrats.'Mr Emerson interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Rankin knows better than he does.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—Here we have another example of Labor Party guff when they talk about delaying this bill until Ralph comes into play. The recommendations of the Ralph committee are being considered and are going through due process within the coalition and the government—which is appropriate—but why is it that, even at the time of death's doorknock, the Labor Party continue to push hard on ANTS? Why is it that they continue to oppose to the very end every single initiative of the government in relation to ANTS after the substantive bills have been passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives? It is because they are trying to get some relevancy back into their politics. It is a shameful exercise in political expediency and they will be judged very harshly for it.We say that this bill has no relevance to the business taxation review occurring at the moment. We are focusing on getting on with the job of implementing ANTS and we will take the next step as and when appropriate in relation to business taxation. But, yet again, even in this House—and I heard the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's words on this—the opposition want to be dealt into Ralph and business taxation, in the same way that they wanted to be dealt into the Telstra privatisation debate, the workplace relations and reform program, the new taxation system that went through the parliament and the statement of reconciliation made by this House quite recently.Why is it that on every single issue the Labor Party is choosing to take an alternate track and is finding that that alternate track leads to a dead-end? I will tell you why: because there is no strategic thinking. The Labor Party has been intellectually lazy since the 1996 election and any dissenting opinion in the Labor Party is expressed but not dealt with by the Leader of the Opposition. If you are going to pretend to be an alternate government, you have to have the intellectual debates about policy and not simply choose the expedient political path which the Labor Party continues to choose at every single hard option.Mr Emerson interjecting—DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—It says a lot about the Labor Party at the moment. I can only speculate that the Labor Party have not yet gone through their cathartic experience in relation to policy development that each opposition should go through, and it is a reflection on people of good intellect. And I will say here, in due deference to the members in the house, that the member for Rankin and the member for Wills do possess good intellects. They do their research and the hard work, and they do bend the elbow in policy debates, but why is it that the Labor Party policies of the 1950s have overtaken the Labor Party policies of the 21st century? Why is it? It is a form of recidivism. They have gone back to gaol. They have not yet come out of the 1950s, and this bill is an example of the sort of guffaw that the Labor Party continues to put before the House—yet again, a senseless motion about an alternative system and an irrelevant point about the relationship to business taxation review. The government rejects it and is getting on with the job at hand. We are about delivering good policy and we will continue to oppose the Labor Party's games. (Time expired)Mr Emerson interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Rankin has been persistently reminded by the chair of the obligations he has under the standing orders. His continual interjections therefore reflect on the chair and not on the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation.Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Crean's amendment) stand part of the question.The House divided. [9.55 a.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.9569Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.10:02:009569Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:(1) Clause 1, page 1 (lines 5 to 7), omit the clause, substitute:1 Short titleThis Act may be cited as the A New Tax System (Pay As You Go) Act 1999 .I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum.10:02:009569Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I express some concern on behalf of the opposition that this amendment has been circulated to us without the opportunity for us to consider it through our usual processes. The amendment changes the title of the bill from the A New Tax System (Taxation Laws Amendment) Bill (No. 1) 1999 to the A New Tax System (Pay As You Go) Bill. We wonder what the government's motivation is for changing the title. Perhaps they want to get away from numbering the amendments to a new tax system because otherwise we might end up with taxation laws amendment No. 50 or No. 100 in due course.The shadow Treasurer suggested that rather than being referred to as the A New Tax System (Pay As You Go) Bill it might better be referred to as the `A New Tax System (Pay Through The Nose) Bill'. In my own contribution to the debate, I pointed out that contained within this piece of legislation there were no fewer than seven different types of tax. There was reference to notional tax, adjusted tax, adjusted assessed tax, GDP adjusted notional tax, adjusted taxable income, adjusted withholding income and adjusted assessed taxable income. Perhaps it might be more properly known as `A New Tax System (Notional Tax, Adjusted Tax, Adjusted Assessed Tax, GDP Adjusted Notional Tax, Adjusted Taxable Income, Adjusted Withholding Income and Adjusted Assessed Taxable Income) Bill 1999'. Notwithstanding the temptation to move an amendment to that effect, I will not, and the opposition will not oppose the change which the government is proposing.I take the opportunity while we are considering the bill in detail to raise an issue again which I raised in debate last night. Regrettably, the minister at the table did not seem anxious to take this on board to seek an answer at all. Indeed, the Minister for Forestry and Conservation did not seem to have read the legislation at all or have any understanding of what its contents were but wanted to take points of order. So I would redirect this issue to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. It is section 12-120 of the legislation, which refers to withholding amounts where compensation sickness or accident payments have been made.I had brought to my attention a most unfortunate example of a chap by the name of Michael Quis, who had received a compensation payment, over a course of months, arising from a disability which made it impossible for him to pursue his former occupation. However, tax was not taken out of the compensation payment, nor was he informed that it had not been taken out of the compensation payment. After this had taken place for a couple of years, he was left with a major taxation bill, which of course caused him extreme financial hardship and distress. While I accept the observation being made that this has occurred under the present legislation, it is my understanding from reading the legislation that is before the House—in particular, section 12-120(c), the reference to payments made under an insurance policy to the policy owner—that we have a continuation of this situation. It is certainly not clear to me as to what the policy rationale for this section is. I request the minister and the government to consider this particular issue and provide a response. I accept that it might not be possible to provide a response right now, but I would certainly appreciate it being taken on notice and some response being provided in due course.10:06:009570Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—We had assurances from the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation that the problems of dependent contractors have been dealt with and that everything is fine in this legislation. I cannot accept that. It is an assurance of the Joh Bjelke-Petersen mould of `don't you worry about that'.I want to briefly raise the changing of the title of this tax system legislation. The minister says, `We've got our act together.' This act is not together. If the government have to change the title, it reflects very badly on the passage of the GST and the smooth transition to a GST that they are hoping will be achieved. In fact, before the deal was done by the government with the Democrats, there were 128 amendments before the Senate. There have been dozens more since that time and, as reported in the media yesterday, the cabinet is considering another 40 amendments. So this is looking like anything but a smooth transition to the new tax system. It is looking more and more every day like the Treasurer's 1930s ramshackle, Botswana style GST to me.It is timely for the government to regroup, have a look at this entire tax system and stop bringing back amendments, including amendments to change the title of the legislation. Not knowing the correct title of the legislation reflects very poorly on the government's organisation and augurs badly for any smooth transition to the so-called new tax system. I think that transition will be anything but smooth.10:08:009570Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I want to give the member for Rankin a solemn assurance—83VEMERSONMr Emerson—No more amendments.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—that there will be plenty more amendments in relation to the core taxation bills that this House has dealt with over the last 12 months.83VEMERSONMr Emerson—I wouldn't call that an assurance.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—I can assure the member for Rankin that, even if he has the opportunity to come over here and sit on the treasury bench—in the far-flung future, in the fullness of time nearing the end of the next millennium—there will be further amendments to these bills.The member for Wills raised an issue in relation to proposed section 12-120 and the proposed pay-as-you-go arrangements. I will undertake to write back to him with some information on the issues that he raised. I have some preliminary advice at the moment, but I am not satisfied that it covers enough of the issues. So I will ask Treasury to provide me with some information that we could forward to the member for Wills in relation to his constituent.We are changing the name of this bill because we think that the new name that we are proposing more properly reflects the content of the bill. That is perfectly reasonable. It does not change the substance of the bill. It is a bit like the Labor Party in New South Wales who have designated their rural members `Country Labor Party'. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is a duck. In this case, we believe that this bill is now properly renamed with this amendment.10:10:009571Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—I have one final point. To remove any confusion, when I was talking about contractors I was talking about dependent contractors. I do not accept the assurances that the minister has given to us in relation to dependent contractors.Amendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.9571Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills9571r904Billsr903Bills9571Debate resumed from 26 August, on motion by Mr Slipper:That the bill be now read a second time.10:12:009571Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—These appropriation bills seek to appropriate moneys from the consolidated revenue fund for initiatives flowing from the deal that the government made with the Democrats to secure passage of the GST. The measures are, firstly, for the book industry assistance plan and, secondly, for additional funding for the Supported Accommodation Assistance Plan. Those measures are contained in Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999 . We have a number of environment initiatives contained in Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999 , and I will deal with each of these in turn.Appropriation bill No. 1 provides $60 million for each of the four years from 2000-01 through to 2003-04. The main aims of the plan are to provide financial assistance to those producing books in Australia, Australian creators of books and retailers of textbooks in Australia. We need to point out to the House right up-front that this is needed only because of the GST and the impact that it will have on those who are involved in producing, creating and retailing books in Australia. We do this and we question the adequacy of this measure.We think it is an inadequate response to what in the first place was a most unsatisfactory decision to impose a GST on books. We believe that it has the potential to create an administrative nightmare for every bookshop in Australia and that it is only going to compound the problem. Indeed, bookshops will have the administrative problems that every small business will have with the GST, but now they will have a whole new complex rebate to administer which has not been properly worked through, and this does represent a potential nightmare for bookshops. This measure represents, in our view, small and inadequate compensation for the industry in general for a tax that will be a direct attack on what Australia needs to be—that is, the knowledge nation. So this represents perhaps one step forward but certainly two steps back for the knowledge nation.The government knows that the GST is bad for the book industry, for consumers of books, for bookshops and for education and knowledge in this country. It had to be embarrassed and shamed into a promise that it would do something in this regard, and we now see it in the form of this legislation which represents just a few crumbs off the table to the book industry when what we really needed to be saying was, `We are not going to be imposing a GST on knowledge.'It is a totally inadequate measure in our view, unnecessary but for the government's determination to impose a GST on books and, indeed, but for the Democrats' capitulation on this issue. One of the core promises, I guess, of the Democrats when they went to the last election was that they would not allow in any shape or form a GST to be imposed on books, but after the election we saw the Democrats caving in, capitulating to the government on this issue. Now they walk around saying, `We've done wonderful things for the book industry,' when in fact the contrary is true. They had it in their power to prevent a GST being imposed on books in this country but they did not do it.So what we have here is a piece of legislation which effectively says to the book industry, `We've struck you a dreadful blow and you're bleeding, but here is a bandaid.' Certainly, the bandaid is better than nothing, and we will not be opposing it, but it is our view that it is a small and inadequate response. Those book publishers who have indicated that they welcome the measure say that it goes some way to compensate for the GST, but that is the best you can say for it: that it does go some way to compensate.Australians ought to be aware that this plan is not good news. Despite its meagre compensation, come 1 July 2000 people involved in this area—authors, bookshops, students, parents, Australians purchasing books—will be worse off. It would have been better, if we had to proceed down the GST path, to exempt books as the Democrats had pledged, rather than to introduce these complicated arrangements. I further point out to the House that it is quite hypocritical for some opposite to be talking about literacy—we hear from the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs from time to time on this front—when this tax will make books, and therefore knowledge and learning, more expensive.The second provision in this legislation is that which provides an additional $15 million for the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program for each of the four years through to 2003-04. The processes for distributing this money to the states are not clear. This is something that we would like some information about. Indeed, in the lead-up to the renegotiation of the agreement of the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program, we would like to hear more from the government about how this is intended to be distributed to the states.I should point out that we believe the government has failed to take real action to address homelessness issues. The government's negotiations with the Democrats have led to this $15 million per year being provided for youth homelessness. We think this is trying to solve a major national crisis with, once again, as with the books area, crumbs from the table. The government failed in its budget to address Supported Accommodation Assistance Program funding at all, and the $45 million over six years amounts to a meagre $7.5 million a year and it has been instituted merely to ensure that the staff employed in the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program agencies have and enjoy award conditions. Not one dollar of that amount will actually go towards expanding the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program services to the needy.Last year, the government sponsored a review by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute which recommended, at a minimum, a 25 per cent funding increase to SAAP in order just to service current unmet demands. The national evaluation of the program, released by the Department of Family and Community Services some three weeks ago, concurred with that analysis and requested that recurrent funding for the first year of the new agreement reach a total of $285 million.Against that background, the extra $15 million which was reannounced by the government as part of this deal with the Democrats is candidly nowhere near the 25 per cent increase recommended by the government's own review and by the government's own Department of Family and Community Services. The demand for services for the homeless is ever growing. Figures released in budget week showed that the number of people accessing these services had risen from 101,000 in 1996-97 to 160,000—something like a 66 per cent increase—for the financial year 1997-98. This is a matter of considerable concern. The government was saying that it was a good thing that it was providing more services, but we would say it is illogical for the government to be treating as a sign of success evidence that there are more and more homeless people in our society. We are concerned that what is proposed here simply will not address these problems in a serious way.Appropriation bill No. 2 provides for the environmental initiatives agreed with the Democrats, and I will go through them now. Those initiatives are: support conversions to compressed natural gas or liquid petroleum gas for commercial vehicles and buses that have a gross vehicle mass equal to or greater than 3.5 tonnes—that also applies to trains and ferries—support a product stewardship system for the reuse and recycling of waste oil; support the utilisation of photovoltaic systems on residential buildings and community reuse buildings; support the development and commercialisation of renewable energy; support the use of renewable energy from remote power generation; support the development and implementation of in-service emissions-testing capabilities for diesel patrol vehicles, where the diesel emissions testing is in connection with the making and/or implementation of a diesel national environment protection measure; and provide for a Greenhouse Gas Abatement Program. As you can see, as far as they go, they are welcome, and we will certainly not be opposing them.It is appropriate at this time to re-emphasise the environmental consequences of the goods and services tax, of which this legislation is a consequence, and the reduction in economic incentives to use alternative environmentally friendly fuels and technologies. The overwhelming body of evidence presented to the Senate committee inquiry into the impacts of the GST on the environment reinforced the view that the government's package was ill-considered and fundamentally flawed. Indeed, the Senate committee's report highlighted negative impacts on a great number of areas which it examined in some detail, including impact on the urban environment, impact on public transport services, impact on emerging technologies and impact on exports. All the evidence that the Senate committee considered tended to point to disastrous and long-term damage to the environment which would occur through an increase in diesel fuel pollutants and greenhouse gases and a reduction in economic incentives to use alternative environmentally friendly fuels and technologies.The diesel fuel excise cut will result in economic incentive to use diesel fuel transport, a switch from petrol to diesel fuel vehicles, a switch from more fuel efficient rail transport to less efficient and high polluting road transport, and a reduction in incentives to switch from diesel to gaseous fuels and to new technologies such as solar. We want to continue to express the concern that the greatest environmental effects as a result of this measure will be in urban areas and that increased diesel fuel consumption will lead to an increase in highly dangerous particulates in our urban environments. We note that the Australian Medical Association has warned of increased risk of lung cancer and a variety of respiratory disorders.The direct effect of the cut in the diesel fuel excise will be to make it difficult for the government to even meet those watered-down Kyoto greenhouse targets. One of the clear losers will be the emerging alternative energy sector. The impact on emerging technologies could cost many jobs. Australia is currently a world leader in the development of new technology and the renewable energy sector, including solar. It is clear that the government's taxation package will be highly detrimental to this critical and developing industry. It will undermine the industry's huge export potential. The measures in this bill simply do not adequately address that issue.Evidence to the Senate committee expressed deep concern that removal of the diesel fuel rebate would also impact on what I have to describe as the already fragile economics of the Alice Springs to Darwin and Melbourne to Darwin railway proposals. The evidence on the environment, as with the evidence on books, is that the GST will impact very adversely and that the government's compensation measures will not be adequate.It is worth pointing out that the Democrats went to the Australian people with a non-negotiable set of changes to the government's GST proposals. When we look at what they have achieved in this bill, they have in fact achieved none of the changes at all. First, in relation to the diesel fuel rebate, they said that it would be only payable to trucks over 20 tonnes except for those carrying farm produce. In the end, they gave it to all trucks over 4.5 tonnes. Second, they said that they would not allow trips within cities to qualify for the grant. But, when you see what we have ended up with, there is no apportionment at all for diesel used in the city. So as long as a journey crosses a city boundary, wherever it is, then all of the journey qualifies for a grant, even if the overwhelming proportion of the journey is within a capital city. So journeys commencing outside a metropolitan area but ending up in a metropolitan area and journeys commencing in a metropolitan area but ending up outside the metropolitan area will all qualify for a grant for the complete journey.What we will now see is the redesign of intra-city transport routes to ensure that they briefly leave the metropolitan area in order to qualify for the rebate. Worse still, since there will be no way to ensure the integrity of the scheme, there will be claims based on ficti tious routes which involve a brief time outside the city. This is not going to discourage fossil fuel use; it is going to encourage fossil fuel use. No wonder the Democrats' expert environmental consultant, Dr Clive Hamilton, resigned in despair when he understood where the deal was going. We can see from this bill before the House that the Democrats have been absolutely naive in their negotiations with the government and have been played on a break. They have in fact achieved a system where a lot of the diesel used in cities will qualify for the grant system.That is a most unsatisfactory situation, as is the situation where we do not have an indication of the boundaries for the metropolitan areas. We have the prospect of a plethora of anomalies and unfair outcomes depending on whether, in the Melbourne context for example, you describe Whittlesea or Werribee or Craigieburn or Kilmore or Seymour or somewhere else as being part of the urban area or part of the rural areas. We regard this as a very unsatisfactory situation. We certainly do not think that what the government has put forward with the support of the Democrats in this appropriation bill No. 2 will address those problems.Having said that, as I indicated before, we are not proposing to oppose them. We note that there is some $60 million of expenditure for each of the four years in relation to the book industry assistance plan, and some $15 million of expenditure for each of the four years concerning supported accommodation assistance. We also note that the environmental measures are said to involve $214 million of expenditure in the first year, $222 million in the second year, $227 million in the third year and $233 million in the fourth year. On that basis, we will be supporting these measures, but we certainly put the government on notice that we do not think that the measures are adequate to address the adverse effects that its GST package will cause in the area of books, in the area of housing and accommodation and in the area of environment protection. We will be monitoring very closely the impact of this legislation, as well as the impact of the government's GST proposals more broadly, as we proceed towards implementation.10:30:009575Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—The Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999 and the Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999 are bills contingent on the introduction of a goods and services tax, a change in the taxation system in Australia. The information contained in the bills is marginal but it is important to the people involved and it has been important to the settling in of the goods and services tax—the new taxation system. These bills are part of the total package and, in part, seek to compensate in some areas where compensation is needed.The previous speaker spent a lot of his time on the diesel fuel rebate scheme, which is a part of the goods and services tax, but did not really deal with some of the issues in the bill. Rather, he complained about how that diesel fuel rebate system would operate. He also complained about the fact that a goods and services tax might apply to books. The goods and services tax is going to apply to a wide range of things. Applying a tax to consumers as they purchase things will allow the government to provide substantial personal income tax cuts, providing choice and opportunities for people that they have not had before. It is a change in the tax system. I remind the House that this government is running a balanced budget. This government does not need additional taxation. Unlike Labor Party governments, this government has been able to bring its house into order, balance its books and therefore be in a position not to make a claim for additional taxation from Australian taxpayers.The process that we are going through is one of change. It is one that, in the broad, will provide tax concessions and relief for individuals, particularly for individuals with families. It will provide taxation relief for business processes and the export of Australian goods. It simplifies the taxation system and it gets rid of some unconscionable and stupid taxes. Those are goals worth striving for, and they are goals that this government has achieved. These appropriation bills that we are dealing with today are contingent on the introduction of the goods and services tax and, on the margin, are complementary to it.What do these bills seek to do? The Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 1) details the way in which two items of expenditure are dealt with. It provides that there should be ongoing assistance not only to the book industry but to readers of books, sellers of books and producers and writers of books. Through this legislation $60 million a year over the next four years—not an insignificant amount of money—will be provided to people involved in the book industry. That $60 million is going to go a long way to supporting the Australian book industry. It is a substantial amount of money. Anybody who is dismissive about $60 million has a pretty peculiar idea of what it is like to earn a living and pay the bills every week. I think it is a very superior attitude, one that is often demonstrated by the Australian Labor Party.The book industry assistance plan has three main objectives: to provide financial assistance to those producing books; to provide financial assistance to those who are creators of books; and to provide financial assistance to retail sellers of text books in Australia in connection with reducing the retail price of text books for use in studies at Australian education institutions. They are pretty laudable objectives. They are narrow, well assessed and supportive of Australian students and children as well as the creative talent of Australia.An additional objective relating to this plan is the provision of financial assistance to libraries of Australian primary schools. This is a great program. What could be better than money coming from the federal government to assist primary school libraries? I do not know how many libraries the members opposite go into; I do not know whether they go into libraries. I visit primary schools pretty frequently and I know that the member for Fisher does too. It is very much part of a proper representational role that effective members of the House of Representatives have. We go into these primary schools and look at the school libraries and often we say, `If only there were a little additional money to supplement this splendid collection of books.' There is often no help from the state governments. The money raised by parents is spent on stocking the library. We are doing something about this situation in this legislation.Another objective of this plan is the collection, compilation and dissemination of statistical information about book production and book sales in Australia. Yes, the industry claims that it has not been able to mount a case for better use of Australian book production because it is not certain of the nature and structure of the industry. This is money well spent. Further, this plan will enable the promotion of the intrinsic value of books and reading.1K6BILLSONMr Billson—Hear, hear!SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—Well, it is hardly a `Life. Be In It' program, it is not a `get active and get attractive' sort of program, but it is one that I believe goes to the very core of personal satisfaction and growth. The idea is that the people of Australia should be encouraged—at the same time as having access to some marvellous innovations with the World Wide Web and email, electronic commerce and those sorts of things—to go directly to the creator of interesting ideas and thoughts and read books. I cannot see anything but good sense in it.The promotion of literacy is an additional objective of the plan. The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, David Kemp, has done more than any person in Australian history to promote literacy amongst Australian kids. That is a most laudable plan. If you are going to control a population, then take away their capacity to read and write and they will become reliant on broad media presentations churned out by a limited number of media moguls. David Kemp's pursuit of literacy for all has to be encouraged. This literacy promotion plan that the House is dealing with today is a good measure.The promotion of books of Australian authors, the training of book producers, the support for innovation and infrastructure development in book production and the support of other ancillary or incidental objectives are part of this plan. Sixty million dollars a year will be allocated to this plan. It is a well placed, well thought out four-year plan in support of the Australian book industry. Whilst the Labor Party say they are not opposing this, they are nevertheless complaining about it.The second measure dealt with in Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999 is the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program. This covers a wide range of programs. I would like to inform the House that over the next four or five years the Commonwealth intends to raise funding from $140.1 million in the current year to $163.3 million in the year 2003-04. In addition to that, about $40 million goes on an annual basis to the states as part of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement on crisis accommodation. That program must be considered in addition to SAAP that we are currently looking at today.The additional funding for this program in this appropriation is $15 million a year for four years. This complements the work that has already been done in this area. If any government has done something to help our young people it must be this government. It has introduced the Tough on Drugs and Youth Off the Streets programs. Father Chris Riley and the Salvation Army have been in there doing this work. I know that members of the opposition will complain that not enough is being done. There is never enough being done in these areas. But this government has made honest and sincere attempts to do something and is out there doing this.We have complementary programs. We see kids as not being in isolation from their families or their society. Kids need support in getting jobs. We have excellent programs to assist kids—whether they started in job clubs and went to the now defined Work for the Dole and Green Corps—which are producing great results. There are literacy programs to make sure that the huge number of young people who are not acquiring jobs because of their lack of literacy skills due to the changes in literacy standards in the schools get assistance. There is assistance to families through taxation relief to make the people in the households more adequately prepared to look after their kids. Then there are programs to assist young people who fall out with their families and cannot any longer live in the circumstances they wish to or their parents may wish them to.I will give the House a couple of examples of these programs. Hills Accommodation for Youth, which is run in the Hills district where I live, has been starved of funds until recent years. Gradually through families contributing and appeals a stockpile of three homes has been built up to give support to homeless kids. The first focus of this program is: can we get the kids back into their own homes and do they really have to move out of home? There is negotiation and counselling between parents and children to try to establish a stable and ongoing relationship so that the young people do not find it necessary to move out of home. In some instances, tragically, where there is violence or abuse there is no alternative but for the young people to leave home. They consistently work to restore a relationship so that ultimately they can move back into their homes.Zanita Johnson and her people at Hills Accommodation for Youth have been doing a magnificent job. They have basically done it with little help. The Commonwealth has helped with some assistance. We have been able to, by persuasion, bring pressure to bear on the state government. This additional money will be welcomed by the people who are dedicated to providing accommodation for youth in this Hills district.I have had drawn to my attention in the last week a proposal from Mission Australia to establish a youth homelessness pilot program in the Penrith district. That would reach out into my electorate of Mitchell and the Hawkesbury district. The statistics from that area are very concerning. The median age for young people seeking support through this homelessness pilot program is 15 years. Just over one-third are aged less than 15 years. The gender breakdown is 43 per cent male and 57 per cent female. Parents requested assistance in 55 per cent of the cases, including 27 per cent of cases where both the young person and the parent requested assistance together. In 85 per cent of the cases contact was made whilst the young person was still at home or within three weeks of leaving home. The early intervention nature of these proposals is really important. That is what the government is building on. That is what the government is doing here with the allocation of this additional $15 million per annum over the next four years. The median support period is four to eight weeks, longer in cases involving both parents and young people. Four to six or eight weeks is the only intervention proposed for the pilot project in Penrith. That will cover much of Western Sydney. The most utilised family relation strategies were counselling, practical support and mediation.I want to commend that program to the House and say how worthy I think the early intervention and youth homelessness programs are, seen in the context of a government anxious to create jobs, anxious to see good education, anxious to see stability and reasonable resources within families and anxious to see that abusive substances and influences that debilitate the lives of young people are removed and controlled and that a proper education program about them is put in place.The second bill before the House today, the Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999 , deals with a range of environmental matters. I know my colleague who will be speaking shortly will want to deal with some of those environmental matters—it is an area in which he is expert—but I just want to let the House know the breakdown of this four-year program: total amounts will range from $214 million in the first year to $233 million in the fourth year. I also want to say that, as far as this government is concerned, the program is a diverse approach to environmental problems such as degradation of our atmosphere. The program is being implemented by the government to assist. Money will be appropriated from consolidated revenue for seven environmental initiatives: supporting conversions to compressed natural gas or liquid petroleum for commercial vehicles and buses that have a gross vehicle mass greater than 3.5 tonnes, applicable also to trains and ferries; developing a product stewardship system for the use and recycling of waste oil; supporting the utilisation of photovoltaic systems on residential and community use buildings; supporting the development and commercialisation of renewable energy; supporting the use of renewable energy for remote power generation; supporting the development and implementation of in-service emission testing capabilities for diesel and petrol vehicles where the diesel emission testing is in connection with the making and/or implementation of a national diesel environment protection measure; and a Greenhouse Gas Abatement Program. These are all worthy programs. The provisions of this bill deal with these issues.Again I say that these are substantial funds contingent on the introduction of the goods and services tax, but worthy in their own right in assisting and supporting a cleaner, greener environment for all Australians.10:47:009578Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—In speaking this morning on the cognate appropriations debate before the House I would like to begin my comments with a quote:It is nonsense to suggest that education is GST-free when you are applying a GST to the single most substantial education resource that students should have at their disposal—books.There is another which says that a tax on books is a tax on `learning, literacy and literature'. And here is one more:Taxing learning is hardly a path to making Australia a `clever country' as we enter the new millennium.Whom do we have to thank for all those quotable quotes on the evils of introducing a 10 per cent goods and services tax on books? Why, none other than the very woman who cut the deal with the Prime Minister that would see the Howard-Democrat GST do just that—Senator Meg Lees. The decision of Senator Lees and the majority of the Australian Democrats to do a backflip on levying the GST on books will go down in our country as a dark day for education. I support the thrust of Senator Lees's comments 100 per cent—a GST on books is against learning, literature and literacy. A GST on books will not help us forge a path towards Australia achieving the mantle of a clever country, and no amount of compensation will make up for these facts.The very act of offering compensation for a tax on books is an admission on behalf of this government and the Democrats that the tax is unfair and that the people suffering from the tax will be worse off. In fact, the compensation measures which this Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999 will fund and which we are debating here at this very moment—measures which the Democrats and the government are trumpeting as being the saving grace for the Australian book industry—will just add to the tax compliance nightmare for thousands of people in industry right across this country of ours. Even the Democrats themselves know that the package will not completely make up for the damage that the GST will do to the Australian book industry.The joint press statement of Senator Lees and Senator Allison on the package, released on 20 August, said it would `largely' cancel out any adverse effects flowing from a GST on books. `Largely' is not 100 per cent, is it? That is not as good as having no GST on books at all. If the compensation package does not completely make up for the damage that the GST on books will do, how much of the damage will it compensate? Will it compensate 40 per cent, 50 per cent, 60 per cent? The Democrats and this government have no answer to this question because they do not know the answer themselves. Later in that same press release Senator Lees had the gall to say that she would have much preferred that books were GST free. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker! I believe it is too late for expressions of remorse from any Democrat senator. It certainly will not mean anything to the Australian authors, to the booksellers and to the publishers, et cetera who will pay the price for the broken promises.Before I take a closer look at the Howard-Democrat deal on compensation for a GST on books, I would like to make some general observations about the effects of taxing books, both on the book industry and on education standards in this country. I am pleased to see we have some young students up in the gallery. A GST on books will handicap the education of many thousands of children and our young students across Australia, including those in my own electorate. Because books are currently wholesale sales tax free, a tax on books will make them dramatically more expensive and will have the effect of discouraging people from purchasing them. A tax on books is a direct threat to the education of our kids. After the GST is introduced and prices rise, books and their contents will be looked on as luxuries. Low income parents in my electorate will be less likely to buy a book to encourage in their children a love of reading, an important part of developing a child's literacy. Students in high schools and in universities will also find they are less able to purchase textbooks because they have become so much more expensive.Throughout the long and involved debate over the GST, the government has used the argument that a GST or similar has been introduced in many other Western nations and economies and is therefore right for Australia. When making this argument, one fact it neglects to mention is that, of the 19 major industrial nations with which Australia compares itself, 14 have either no tax on books or a tax at a reduced rate. Canada provides us with a very powerful example of the dangers to education and to the book industry of introducing a GST on this sector. When the Canadian government introduced a seven per cent GST on books, education books sales plummeted by 25 per cent. This was followed by a long-term 10 to 20 per cent cut in demand across all book sectors.This is the news that sends chills of fear up the spine of the Australian book industry. It sends them cold, despite the compensation that the Democrats and this government are now offering. The Australian book industry is already a very competitive marketplace. As we know, more and more consumers are turning to the Internet to purchase their books through web sites such as amazon.com. The fear within the industry is that placing a GST on books will actually encourage thousands more Australians to purchase their books offshore. It will, in essence, have the effect of herding book buyers towards the waiting arms of these web sites and sending thousands of dollars out of Australia.The Australian book industry knows this. The Democrats know this. Even the Treasurer of this country knows this—and we all know that he gave his own constituents tips on avoiding the GST on books by doing just that: buying through the Internet. This is what Senator Lees said in a press release on 28 September last year:A tax on Australian made and sold books will simply see an explosion in the number of books bought through the Internet. Australians are reportedly already the third biggest customers of US online bookstores like Amazon.com.The fears expressed by Senator Lees last year look like they will now become a reality—and all thanks to her very own work. The government could not get this through the Senate but, with the Democrats' assistance, they did.What else has the Australian book industry had to say about a GST on books? The Australian Society of Authors has made itself very clear on the subject. It has gone on the record with the following comment:A GST on books is a tax on thinking. We endorse the British and US models where there are no federal GST/VAT taxes on books. Books and associated products like software and CDs—anything that promotes learning, literacy and knowledge—should be zero-rated.Australian writers are already lowly paid, earning on average only $5,000 per annum from their writing. Any drop in demand for books will be disastrous. Booksellers and publishers will also be seriously affected.As for the Australian Publishers Association, its position on a GST on books has been clear from the very start:The APA has enunciated a clear and consistent position against any form of taxation on books for many years. Despite developments in new technologies and increased electronic communications, books steadfastly remain the most effective tools for providing a lifetime of education.It went on to say in its remarks:We are disappointed that the Australian Government has not recognised the educational value of books nor their important role in the community and intends to apply a 10 per cent GST to books in Australia. What about Bryce Courtenay, one of Australia's most widely published and well-loved authors? What is his opinion of a GST on books? He stated:Every now and then, governments do something so incredibly stupid, so incredibly inane, so incredibly thoughtless, that it actually amounts to a crime. For a government to come along and say, `I'll tell you what, we'll put a price on the head of a book,' is the most astonishing piece of crass legislation that I've ever heard of. It is just absurd. You can't do anything better than educate a nation, but here we have a government who is committing the kind of crime that is called `dumbing down the people'.Well said, Mr Bryce Courtenay. Then you have distinguished Australians like the former Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Anthony Mason. His opinion was also made very clear when he stated:The tyranny of distance separates us from the main centres of intellectual activity in the world and adds to the price in Australia of books published overseas. The significant depreciation in the value of the Australian dollar is already having a devastating impact upon the capacity of Australians, especially Australian students and libraries, to buy books. And the education sector in this country is faced with an array of problems affecting funding and resources, that is why the impact of the proposed GST on books is so disturbing. The impact on students, not only in relation to books, but also equipment, is harsh.All of these commentators and observers know what a GST on books really means for learning, education, literacy and the book industry in general. Compensation or no compensation, it is going to be a disaster.For the book industry, this was chillingly illustrated in an article which appeared in the Melbourne Age in September last year. Written by author Janet McCalman, it bluntly set out, line by line, how the GST will devastate the Australian book industry. Ms McCalman's illustration began with a book being sold for $10 in a shop. Of that, $4 goes to the bookseller, from which all overheads must be paid, leaving them with a profit of around 20c. $2 goes to the distributor, who then must pay for staff, warehousing and transport around the country. The remaining $4 goes to the publisher. $2 of that goes on production costs, being used to pay editors, designers, indexers, typesetters and printers. Of the remaining $2, $1 is passed on to the author in the form of royalty payments while the remaining dollar is used by the publisher to pay such diverse costs as labour, rent, loans, administration, publicity, taxes, charges, insurance and WorkCover.There is not a lot of fat there. High rollers in the Australian book industry are very few and far between, and profit margins in the good years hover at around two to five per cent. Then add to this equation a 10 per cent GST after 1 July next year. The tax will hit the book industry at almost every level down the chain—from author to retailer. The GST will have to be added to the costs of freelance editors and designers, the typesetter, the proofreader, the indexer, the printer and the binder. Despite compensation, the production cost of the book has to increase as every link in the chain passes on the cost of the tax and its administration to their clients. If they did not, they could not afford to pay it themselves.According to Ms McCalman, a small publisher might have an annual turnover of $1 million, for example, of which $300,000 is production cost. With a GST, $30,000 will also have to be paid in tax—often far in advance of sales revenue. Publishers in this position will need to add that $30,000 figure to its bank overdraft. The publisher will also have to add into the equation the extra time and labour costs that will eventuate as the company's bookkeeper struggles to get on top of all the extra paperwork the GST will bring to the business.The end result is that a 10 per cent GST on the book industry will have the effect of driving up the retail cost—not by 10 per cent but by an estimated 15 per cent to 16 per cent, and that is being conservative. The Howard-Democrat compensation deal that was announced on 20 August might soothe a few jangled nerves in the Australian book industry, but everyone in it knows that no level of compensation offered by this government is as good as having no GST on books at all.The compensation package is in reality one step forward after two steps backward for the industry and for the health and wellbeing of education and learning in this country. Come 1 July 2000, the Australian book industry and educators everywhere will learn this lesson the hard way. The biggest problem with the compensation package is that it compounds the compliance nightmare, the compliance misery, for every participant in the industry.Those in the book industry will have to grapple with extra new paperwork outlining the new and complex rebate system—a rebate system which neither the government nor the Democrats have even worked out for themselves as yet. Those individuals and organisations in the book industry with their heads screwed on correctly have rightly seen that this package is just a few crumbs from the government's table to help the Democrats save face.The Australian Booksellers Association makes the point that the compensation package ignores the fact that over 70 per cent of book sales are consumer sales and not school sales. The ABA states:These books will all be taxed which will lead inevitably to a drop in demand and therefore impact on our businesses. It—meaning the compensation package—does virtually nothing for retail sellers of books. Despite the Democrats good intent, booksellers remain unconvinced that the package offsets the impact of a GST on their businesses.The Australian Society of Authors stated that the educational lending right contained in the compensation package `can never compensate for the effects of a GST on book sales'.Then you have the small business people, the owners of the bookshops around our nation. These people are the professionals. They are at the coalface and they know how the GST will affect them and their industry. What do they think of the compensation package? `It will be an administrative nightmare in addition to the one already imposed by the GST itself,' says Mr Roger Mackell, the owner of one of Sydney's finest and most popular independent bookshops, Gleebooks in Glebe.A few weeks ago, a report from the OECD found that the education levels of Australian adults lagged seriously behind those of comparable countries and that those levels would decline further in the future unless something was done to remedy the situation. Placing a 10 per cent GST on books is not part of that remedy; it will become part of the problem.At a time when Australia should be boosting its education standards and preparing the ground for a knowledge based society, at a time when the government should be actively pursuing policies to improve teaching methods and people's access to learning opportunities, it is imposing a 10 per cent tax on books—a move that nearly every other nation in the world with a value added tax has rejected. It will be a handicap to people's education and it will limit their learning opportunities. In the process it will push our already struggling book industry to the edge.This compensation package to which the budget appropriation is attached might satisfy the government, it might even assuage the guilt of the Australian Democrats, but it will not go far enough in regard to making up for the damage that the GST will do to the book industry and to education in this country. This bill before us today is one of many amendment bills that we know are going to have to come before this parliament. It was estimated yesterday—I think in an article in the Financial Review—that over 40 amendments will be forthcoming. As we all know, you can multiply those 40 by hundreds because the government does not have the package right. There are more and more groups around the nation who are going to suffer from some of the GST clauses, when they fully understand and appreciate what the tax is going to mean to them. This is just one of many that this parliament will be debating. This is a deplorable tax. It is a tax that should never have been placed on books and education. I believe that come July 2000 people will understand and appreciate just how badly this government has handled this tax package.11:06:009581Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—In my speech on the appropriation bills made shortly after the budget, I said that Australians would breathe a sigh of relief when the government's tax reform package finally passed through the Senate, ensuring that Australians would be better off and the country as a whole would be in a better position to meet the world's challenges in the new millennium. As we just heard from the previous speaker, the member for Prospect, the debate that we are facing today has little to do with the specifics of Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999 and Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999 before the House; it is a distaste for tax reform generally.But it is tax reform that the nation has embraced—tax reform that the former Labor government tried to implement but did not have the ticker to carry through. Everybody who knows that we need to finance necessary government works and services understands that we need these tax changes. The bills before the House are supplementary measures to the overall package that we have debated before in this place and that I am sure we will hear more about as time pushes on.Just as our side of politics was arguing that the budget was a product of decisive leadership action and continuing policy innovation, the Labor Party tried the flimsy argument that the budget was not the real budget—the tax reform package was the real budget. Its logic is looking more counterfeit today than ever before. The budget is a product of the hard work, diligence and policy innovation of the coalition, and these bills we are discussing today supplement that effort and help to bring the next phase of Australia's economic renewal to reality by facilitating the smooth introduction of the tax reform package.These two bills which are being debated together are an essential part of the transition to the new tax system. They appropriate funds for seven important environmental initiatives, the Book Industry Assistance Plan and the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program. Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999 funds the book industry assistance plan and augments the funding of the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program.The Book Industry Assistance Plan is designed to ensure a smooth transition for Australia's book industry and its authors and young readers to the new tax system. It was interesting listening to the member for Prospect. She made the very simple point that the book industry is already struggling. She then went on to talk about what that struggle represents and the industry's various fears. The amazing irony is that those fears and that struggle exist, regardless of tax reform.I put it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the tax reform changes will neither make nor break the book industry. They will not make an unprofitable business profitable. They will not strip away the lifeblood of a profitable enterprise. So, in that respect, it could well be argued that the tax reform package will have a fairly neutral effect on all sectors of the economy. It may make some changes at the margin but, of itself, it will not overcome every fear that every industry may have, nor will it blunt the advantages that industries have. The member for Prospect was very clear in making the point that the book industry has its problems. These problems are unrelated to tax reform. But the terrific thing about the bills before the House today, which include the Book Industry Assistance Plan, is that they tackle the problems the industry already has—those problems that are unrelated to tax reform.The member for Prospect went on and said that no-one will be able to afford to buy books. What utter, utter nonsense. We know that, as part of the tax reform package, there will be reductions in income tax, there will be a boost in income support, the bottom line being that there will be an increase in the discretionary expenditure in the hands of all Australians. The challenge before the book industry is the same challenge that is before any other sector of the economy: how to get its hands on the available expenditure; how to make sure that it is the one to take more than its fair share of the discretionary income that now will be in the hands of all Australians as a result of the package.Under the Book Industry Assistance Plan, $60 million will be provided in each of the four years from the year 2000-01 through to the year 2003-04. The Book Industry Assistance Plan has a number of objectives. The first is to provide financial assistance to those producing books in Australia. As the member for Prospect pointed out, those people are having a bit of a tough time of it now. This package will enhance their capacity to com pete, not detract from it. That seems to be lost on the member for Prospect.Secondly, there is also financial assistance to Australian creators of books. We heard from the member for Prospect about the income that is available for Australian authors—I think, from my recollection, she said around $5,000 a year. Again, here we are talking about a tax reform package that will increase disposable income. It will mean that, of that $5,000 a year, the author will be able to retain more of what they earn. But, above all, it actually is giving a boost to those authors—and I will come back to that point in a moment.The third objective of the Book Industry Assistance Plan is to assist retailer sellers of textbooks in Australia. Again, this is a point that seemed to be lost on the member for Prospect. The fears in the industry that the member for Prospect spoke about and the `already struggling nature'—as she described it—of the book industry are not the product of tax reform. But these bills before the House, a complementary initiative that goes with tax reform, directly address those issues.The member for Prospect spoke about Australians being the third biggest customer of Internet book purchases—and that is happening now—and the exchange rate impacts, unrelated to tax reform, being a challenge that the industry is facing. She spoke of thin margins. Again, that is a challenge before the industry, unrelated to the tax reform package, that this group of measures will address. Within the package of the Book Industry Assistance Plan, there is financial assistance to Australian primary school libraries to help them buy Australian books. We are trying to boost demand for the work of the industry and the authors. That goes to the heart of the challenges that the industry is facing, and that is a complementary measure with the tax reform package. But those challenges are not a product of the tax reform. This is the confusion that we get from those opposite.There is also assistance for the generation and dissemination of statistical information about book production and sales in Australia. There is the promotion of the value of books and reading. Again, that is a demand measure. That is trying to stimulate interest in the product. It is not tax reform. The demand challenge is there today, and this package of measures that accompanies the tax reform will do something about those pre-existing issues confronting the industry. For instance, my little boy Alexander loves books. He loves reading about Hungry Hippo and Sleepy Snail.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—How old is he?1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—He is 20 months old. When he has a moment and he sees his dad or mum sitting down, he goes and grabs a book and we read it together. I cannot begin to tell you how pleasing it is that he has such a passion for books. But that is something we as parents have been trying to instil. This measure will complement those sorts of measures where families will recognise the value of spending some time with their children and generate books and reading as a hobby, as a leisure activity, as something that young people do as a matter of choice. This package has measures that complement that.As an aside, I have been talking with Geoff Masters from the Australian Council for Education Research and Associate Professor Anne Stonehouse from Monash, Victoria about what I might be able to do to help provide useful information to new parents about the constructive things parents can do to help with the development of their kids. Part of that, I believe, will be explaining how parents quite constructively can introduce their children to books. This Book Industry Assistance Plan promotes the value of books and reading. It also promotes books by Australian authors. It also provides training for book producers and support for innovation and infrastructure development in book production.These are issues that the industry is facing that are unrelated to tax reform, but we have used the opportunity of tax reform to go to the heart of some of the industry's concerns. Some of you would have heard in the media in recent times about new technology where you can actually order a book over the Internet. New printing and production systems mean that you can fire in a text and it will print it for you in a short run. Then you can either collect it or get it mailed to you. That is an enormously significant change in the book industry for authors who might not be able to sell 1,000 or 2,000 books and for book publishers who no longer have to be concerned about overruns where they need to bring those books back to their outfits and write off the cost of such overruns. It removes those barriers.It means that anybody with a couple of hundred dollars can become an author and publisher and that the risk faced by publishers of aspirant authors, who come to them with work that they are not sure whether will sell, will disappear. That is an enormous change to this industry. It will change the very nature of book production and, in my view, enhance the range of product available to people. They can access it through modern technology and it can be produced in short runs. It will turn the book industry on its head. These are challenges facing the industry—unrelated to tax reform—and this is what the government is seeking to address in the package of measures before the House today.The member for Prospect went on to talk about the impact of the broader tax reform on the book production industry. As is so often the case when Labor members of parliament talk about tax reform, they just pick out the bits that they think will make it look bad. They just try to cobble together a half story of half facts to back up a pretty dodgy argument to start with. She was talking about how tax compounds on tax compounds on tax. We all know that that is not the way the tax system that we have put to the Australian people operates. We all know that there are input tax credits available. And the member for Prospect said, `Oh, there is no wholesale sales tax on books.' Excuse me! What about the indirect taxes and embedded taxes that start from the moment the timber is harvested to produce the paper? The transport, the equipment being used and, when it moves from that point to a production level, the equipment, the inks and the technology all have taxes in them. But you do not hear any of that. You do not hear about all those embedded taxes—those indirect taxes that are hidden taxes now—that add to the price of the final product. The interesting thing is that no-one on the opposite side has actually talked about what the net bottom line impact is. They are trying not to address themselves to the very real benefits of this tax reform where we are taking taxes—hidden and indirect—out of the production, wholesale, distribution and retailing stages. But you do not hear those opposite talk about those things.In addition, the bill authorises an additional $15 million for each of the four years starting from 2000-01 through to 2003-04 to deliver assistance to disadvantaged homeless people in crisis or on low incomes. This funding is in addition to the $60 million over the four years starting from 2000-01 that the government has earmarked for SAAP. The signing earlier this month of the Commonwealth-state memorandum of understanding has further boosted this program and shows how determined the coalition government is to getting on with the task of addressing this important area of unmet need.We understand that homelessness can be a product of domestic violence and that there are issues in people's lives that mean they have to leave their normal place of abode. This initiative that we are talking about today goes directly to the heart of that social challenge. It is additional funding to make sure that those people who are forced to flee from domestic violence—usually women and children—have the opportunity to again find themselves, get some peace into their lives and get their house and their futures back in order. That is a worthwhile initiative.It also reminds me of my ongoing campaign for 2½ years to address the unmet needs in disability services. One of the glaring areas there relates to accommodation. One of the main reasons for this is that we do not have a retirement structure for people with intellectual disabilities who are either in an employment program or not in a program at all. So you will find many families with a family member or a loved one with an intellectual disability having to take inappropriate accommodation options purely because, as a nation and a federation, governments in this country have not addressed themselves to the issue of how you provide a retirement structure for people with intellectual disabilities, many of whom have an advanced metabolic rate. While they might be 45, they are actually 65 in their body and they are ready to retire. But we insist on having those people subjected to employment programs that are not of their need or liking and, more particularly, we displace those who could benefit from it. So this is an important complementary measure in that respect. Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999 funds seven environmental initiatives that are part of the revised tax reform package that passed both houses of parliament. You could almost say that the Howard-Anderson government is the cleanest, greenest government that this nation has ever seen. That point can be well backed up by the vast array of environmental, air quality and water quality measures that we have discussed a number of times in this place.This bill has a number of initiatives, including supporting conversion to natural or liquid petroleum gas for commercial vehicles and buses that have a gross vehicle mass equal to or greater than 3½ tonnes—this is also applicable to trains and ferries—the development of a product stewardship system for the reuse and recycling of waste oil and supporting the utilisation of photovoltaic systems on residential and commercial buildings. It also embraces support for the development and commercialisation of renewable energy, support for the use of renewable energy for remote power generation systems and funding to support the development and implementation of in-service omission testing capabilities for diesel and petrol vehicles where diesel omissions testing is in connection with the making or implementation of the diesel national environment protection measure. Finally, there is further support for the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Program. The amounts that we seek to appropriate today are very substantial: in 2000-01, $214 million to that task—a very significant investment—and $220 million for the following year. In 2000-03, $227 million and in 2003-04, $233 million.This funding is designed to meet exciting commitments made by the government as a part of the tax reform package. Despite the ill-informed criticism about the environmental impacts of the tax reform package by the Australia Institute, most Australians will see that the environmental effects of the package are one of the best features of it. They are one of the great virtues of this package. Many people do not like change, and most people do not like taxes, but it is fair to say that the vast majority of Australians recognise the need to change Australia's tax system to make it fairer and less reliant on such a narrow, shrinking tax base as the wholesale sales tax system and that change is necessary.With that change has come some enormous benefits that not only improve our tax system but also address some of the significant environmental concerns that we face as a nation. The environment is a big winner in the tax agreement. This bill boosts Australia's commitment to the long-term health of our environment. In particular, it puts into place concrete steps to improve air quality—the number one concern for most people, particularly in urban areas. It also helps to ensure that Australia meets the enormous challenge of our greenhouse gas reduction commitments. This package restores the price relativities between diesel and alternative fuels and incorporates new vehicle and fuel standards that will lead to substantial reductions in particle emissions, especially in metropolitan and suburban regions such as the one I represent. Particle emissions in cities are estimated to fall from 5.7 gigagrams in 1997 to 4.2 gigagrams by 2015—a 26 per cent reduction in those emissions. That is good news for our cities and for our environment. The renewable energy and transport initiatives, including support for alternative fuels, are estimated by the Australian Greenhouse Office to reduce CO2 emissions by 0.5 million tonnes by 2010. This estimate does not include the additional benefits that would come from greater market penetration of alternative fuels such as compressed natural gas.I could talk about a great many other measures but, given that time is moving on, I would like to point to something that is overlooked in discussions about alternative fuels. Tamme Klaster, who is a local LPG fitting specialist in my electorate and also Chair of the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce LPG Group, invited me to talk to the VACC group about the impact of the tax reform package on alternative fuels. We worked through the modelling of the tax changes and how the changes would position alternative fuels relative to more standard and more conventional fuels. In my view, issues of price movement, global parity measures and the like will have a far greater impact on these relativities than will the tax reform package.Most pressing in my mind is the fact that fuel itself has some dilemmas. LPG does not have a mandatory fuel standard. The composition of LPG can vary dramatically from service station to service station and region to region, and that is one of the great issues facing the LPG industry. One of the biggest disadvantages for the LPG industry is that, where you are getting these enormous variations in fuel quality, vehicle performance falls away. You are getting a very high consumption of LPG, which means that you are not getting full value out of the conversion. These are issues the industry needs to face. I have taken them up with the LPG producers, who tell me, `No, they're all pretty consistent.' The evidence does not support that view. On a tank of LPG, you can see up to a 100-kilometre variation in the kilometres travelled. (Time expired)11:26:009586Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999 and the Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999 are part of the government's compromise deal with the Democrats to get its new, simple and noexceptions tax on everything through the Senate. The food complications were bad enough. There was certainly nothing simple in all of that. I was not sure whether we were dealing with recipes for bread or disaster, or with the cooking or otherwise of chooks. Anyway, while the Democrats were in the kitchen they were `courageously'—that word was on everyone's lips at the time—forging a new alliance, a coalition indeed, with the very bastards they were pledging to keep honest.That is the Democrats' mission statement. That is why they have continued to win their single digit percentage support at elections, along with a once held—and, I think, sincerely held—commitment to protecting the environment from the greedy brigade who line up behind the Liberal and National parties. We have poked fun at their vision statement in the past, but at least they had one—fantastic though it was. Where is it today, now that they have married into the government and given issue to bills such as those before us? They have lost their sight. They have let down their own constituency amongst those who give conservation some priority.Now the Democrats are about to see how many friends they can lose among the booksellers. I know they have the best intentions and, like the Labor Party, were appalled at what the Howard government was proposing. It has always been an article of faith among civilised people that a tax on knowledge should never be entertained. You might as well burn books. That is the symbolism of it. After 500 years, books are still an economical, convenient and compact means of cultural, educational and information exchange. The Democrats recognised that from the start. Books should not be taxed, yet the GST does just that.Mr Deputy Speaker, you would recall that the Leader of the Democrats and four other Democrats left the chamber when the vote came up. They abstained to give the government the numbers. It was the same as saying, `Yes, we want a tax on books.' That has happened against the background of the knowledge nation, the knowledge based society and the knowledge economy. They should have voted no. It was that simple. Instead, we have this patchy bit of legislation to compensate for the imposition of a tax on books. It is far from simple. From what I can understand—and it is sketchy, because it is still to be worked out—booksellers will charge the GST but will get a subsidy to charge a lower price, cancelling out the GST. This applies only to textbooks for use in studying at an Australian education institution.I want to know when a book is a textbook. Can a publisher get a cookbook onto a text list at an Australian education institution in order to get the subsidy paid to the retailer? Can a publisher offer inducements to an Australian education institution to have the book listed, but not necessarily read? Why single out textbooks? What about dictionaries, atlases, literature and biographies? What about every other category? They are just as important as textbooks—in the case of a lot of textbooks, more important. That is making the same mistake. You cannot judge what is more important. To do so is a kind of censorship. So the GST does not discriminate. That is the beauty of the concept, but the bookseller, far from having an easy time of it, will now have to collect the GST as well as take on additional paperwork to get his cash back. He does not even get to go in the draw for a trip for two to Canberra to meet the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health and Aged Care. It is just extra unpaid paperwork.It would still be easier to exempt books from the GST, which, after all, was supposed to spare small business the red tape associated with sales tax. Of course, sales tax does not apply to books because, as a civilised society, we believe there should be no tax on books because of their cultural and educational value. There is no sales tax on textbooks, potboilers, romantic novels, do-it-yourself manuals, embroidery books, trashy books and bibles. There is no tax on books, but now there will be because it is easier and more simple that way. I cannot understand it, and I am sure the Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats and the book buying public cannot understand it.While administrative efficiency is not being served by this weird arrangement, transport operators can look forward to the diesel credit scheme as a test of what this government means by efficiency and simplicity. The deal itself is astounding. It has astonished even the Democrats' own people that the Democrats would subsidise pollution and seal the deal behind closed doors. The complexity of the zonal system is so great that everybody will be too busy to drive a truck to claim their cash. Estimates vary, but the ratio is some thing in the order of $7 of pollution encouragement for every $1 of cleaning up. It defies logic.The green measures in the legislation before the House are worth while. They are in line with the Kyoto protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A normal government would bring these initiatives forward in the course of normal business. I have previously welcomed the government's Living Cities program in respect of compressed natural gas which receives a positive push in this legislation. The plan for CNG under the Living Cities program is to establish a network of publicly accessible CNG refuelling stations to encourage greater use of this cleaner fuel. I speak from the point of view of south-western Sydney, which is a major transport gateway to Sydney, frequently clogged and frequently experiencing higher than acceptable levels of diesel and dirty diesel pollution. We in south-western Sydney are great bus users as well. I would welcome CNG fuelled bus fleets not only as a quality of life issue but as a necessary health protection measure. Given the traffic volume passing through Liverpool, an injection of $75 million into conversions for CNG or LPG is a constructive move.As I have said, the other components of this bill should arise as general business in the course of responsible government. Their Democrat authors have been selective, although one can detect some government influence in the drafting. I assume the greenhouse gas abatement effort would have been a necessary expenditure at some time, given the requirements of article 2 of the Kyoto agreement, but I have my doubts that solar cells would ever have been on the government's must-do list, despite the fact that our research efforts and our favourable daylight put us to the fore in opening up and exporting this technology.Waste oil recycling, renewable energy, cleaner electricity and emissions testing are all good green measures. This government, however, has used these sweeteners to dud the Democrats. The Democrats wanted so desperately to be in the game, to be a player in the big city. To do that, they had to want the GST more than John Howard did. That is the view that Sid Spindler, one of the Democrats founders, put at the time. He said:I can only assume we badly wanted a deal to show that we had arrived in the big time.The big time it is. They have made it into government, but they made it when they were already there. Their picking an issue like the GST and then negotiating significantly below the real value of their currency still has people in shock. The Democrats have moved from a position of real and independent power to junior partner. If this is the way they handle the environment, we await with interest when the next tax issue, the Ralph review, is finally, eventually and at long last offered to the stressed-out Democrats. I am sure the outcome of that will be equally bizarre.11:36:009588Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999 and Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999 are the final pay-off in a sleazy deal to push the passage of the GST. These bills are the final instalment in the debt owed by the Howard government to the Australian Democrats for agreeing to sell out Australians for a 10 per cent new tax on everything. What is it that the Democrats used to say about keeping certain people honest? I ask: who in the new coalition into which the Democrats have entered with the government will keep them honest?The bills seek to appropriate moneys from consolidated revenue for measures relating to book industry assistance and environmental initiatives, as agreed between the government and the Australian Democrats to pass the ANTS package—and a very sleazy deal it has been. Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999 seeks approximately $60 million for each of the four years from the year 2000 to 2004. Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999 is much more expensive, seeking to appropriate nearly $1 billion from consolidated revenue.We are debating today two proposals which we need not be debating if the Australian Democrats had not sold out and given the government a handshake in introducing the GST. We are debating the appropriation of $60 million over each of the next four years, starting next year, to the book industry. The book industry would not require this additional plundering of consolidated revenue if the Australian Democrats had stuck to their non-negotiable position on the government's GST.The Australian Democrats went to the 1998 federal election promising that they would be hard and uncompromising on the 10 per cent new unfair tax on everything. They put that sentence in their pamphlets shoved into letterboxes in my electorate during the 1998 election campaign. But, put to the test, they ran a mile and jumped into bed with the government at the very first opportunity.The Australian Democrats ought to understand that their record of support for the GST will be well understood by people in my region when the next election comes around. They will be held responsible, along with the Howard government, for the confusion and hatred the GST will engender in the community after 1 July 2000. Those who watch international affairs will well remember the fall of the Mulroney conservative Canadian government in 1993 because the people realised that GSTs are unfair, unjust and unacceptable.Mr Deputy Speaker Hawker, I do not know if you have been to Canada in recent years, but I was there a couple of years ago and talked to the people. There is hatred engendered by the GST they have in Canada. One has only to talk to anyone who lives there to realise why the government that introduced the GST was so soundly defeated. There is also confusion. We are always told that the GST is going to be a simple tax—a simple tax to administer and a simple tax to collect. Let me assure you that the Canadian experience is anything but simple. It is a very confusing as well as a very unfair tax.The transition to the 10 per cent new tax on everything in Australia will be very interesting to watch. I suspect that we will go the way of Canada, as we have in so many other ways. As the anger and hatred rise in the community against this GST, the Australian Democrats will not escape responsibility for its introduction, because its introduction rests on their heads. The Australian Democrats are linked to the Howard government like paint on a wall.It is also interesting, in the context of the so-called reforms to industrial relations, that the Australian Democrats are promising tough talk similar to that adopted during the long-running GST debate. Australian workers should be very afraid when the Democrats offer to be tough on any issue. They are as tough as the next blandishment from the Howard government. The next offer for the Democrats to jump into bed with the Howard government is there.The simple message I give to workers is not to trust the word of toughness in keeping the government honest on industrial relations. The Australian Democrats—always the marshmallow of the Australian political system—have always been appalling on industrial relations. People always come to me and say, `They're good on the environment and they're good on education.' They are good only because they have never had to introduce their policies. They have always been weak on industrial relations. They have always been a party of the business community on industrial relations and have always gone along with the bosses on industrial relations. That has always been their history. The record of the Australian Democrats on industrial relations quite frankly has been appalling.The Australian Democrats promised a non-negotiable position on the GST and then sat down and negotiated with the government, and the government, of course, as is well known now, rolled them. The Australian Democrats will try to build up the hopes of workers that they will be protected and that their entitlements will not be eroded. In the end, workers will suffer the same fate as those Australians who trusted the Australian Democrats to remain honest and tough on the GST.The bill to soften the blow on the book industry from the impact of the GST is laughable. Those going into the bookshop to buy their books will still have the GST imposed on them, and they will know that it is the Democrats who are solely responsible for that. The Democrats like to present themselves as enlightened and progressive. In their sleazy deal with the government, they have imposed not only a GST that will rise and cause misery to ordinary Australians but also a tax on learning—this is from the so-called enlightened and progressive party in the Australian parliament, the party that has been responsible for imposing a tax on learning.Books are not subject to any tax at the moment. Frankly, if you go into any bookshop in Australia today you will find that books are expensive enough. In trying to breathe life into this deal of imposing a new tax on books—on learning—the Australian Democrats have ensured a decline in the purchase of books in Australia, and the government has the hide to talk about literacy standards.We on this side are aware of the environmental consequences of the GST through the probable increase in the use of diesel fuel and in greenhouse gases. I would like to know how the Democrats, the so-called environmental party, the green party, can explain those increases to their people. There is also a reduction in the economic incentives to use alternative, environmentally friendly fuels and technology. That is what the Democrats have delivered because of their sleazy deal with the government. The Democrats, as I say, have prostituted themselves. If I were not so generous, I would say they have become the harlots of the Australian political system, but I do not want to say that—I will just refer to them as the marshmallows of the Australian political system. The Democrats have prostituted themselves on this issue by getting into coalition with the government.11:45:009589Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I rise to speak on the Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999 and the Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999 . These two bills are important as they will provide greater certainty to community and business regarding the commencement date of the GST and the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme.Bill No. 1 provides $60 million a year over four years for the book industry to assist both writers and book production. This will ensure that all involved in the Australian book industry—from authors to retailers—obtain assistance. Especially important and of great benefit to students, their parents and those interested in education generally is the finan cial assistance that will ensure that the retail price of textbooks for use in studies at Australian education institutes is reduced. This measure has a historic significance beyond its practical effect. It is the final piece of the new tax system to be put into place following the agreement between the government and the Australian Democrats.Bill No. 1 also provides for $15 million a year over the next four years, beginning in 2000-01, for the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program, otherwise known as SAAP. This is a critically important program which assists people who are homeless, at imminent risk of homelessness or in crisis to achieve the maximum possible degree of self-reliance and independence. It also includes support for women and children fleeing domestic violence. Some 1,200 community welfare organisations are funded through SAAP, with 36 per cent in regional and rural areas. In 1997-98 about 110,000 people were assisted by the program, which is cost shared between the Commonwealth, states and territories.Bill No. 2 provides a total of $896 million over four years beginning in 2000 for seven major environmental initiatives, including converting large commercial vehicles, ferries and trains to compressed natural gas or liquid petroleum; the development and use of renewable energy; diesel emission testing; and the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Program. The expenditure of nearly $1 billion over four years is a huge investment in a cleaner, safer environment and will be welcomed by all. These measures will not only ultimately mean a better environment but they should reduce our heavy reliance on imported fuel products and thus will mean a cheaper, cleaner fuel in many areas.There is no denying the importance of the measures funded by these bills, but I wish to make a few comments on an issue of equal importance—that is, the small business sector in regional and rural Australia. Small business is more important to a small regional or rural community than it is to a metropolitan centre. The reason for that obviously is that in most small centres there is one overwhelmingly large business—usually associated with agricultural or mining activity—and the associated processing plant, harvesting or whatever it might be, but the community and the township are always based on the small businesses. It is those businesses that provide an opportunity for work for young people in the community. They form part of the streetscape of the town. Frankly, Mr Deputy Speaker Hawker, being from a rural centre yourself, you would know they are really the heart and the core of those rural and regional communities.So not only is small business very important in terms of its contribution to the economy and employment—and we need it obviously to be as efficient and productive as large business—but it also plays a critical role in the social fabric of those in rural and regional Australia. I therefore want to turn to the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector, which has tabled its report entitled Fair market or market failure?It is significant that this report, prepared by members and senators from all political parties, was unanimous. Given the complexity and emotion of the issue, that unanimity is remarkable and gives the report and its recommendations great weight and significance. As I have said, I am a strong and unapologetic advocate for small business and its role in rural and regional communities. Not only is it the core and the heart but it is the engine room of local economic activity, a very important focus for community activities and the community identity, and a critical source of employment, particularly for the young. I have certainly been outspoken on behalf of service station operators in their battles with the big oil companies.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Well, support my bill.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—I have made submissions to the Queensland government defending, for example, the hotel and pharmacy industries against the ruthless and self-serving expansion of the major chains. I hope that the Beattie government in Queensland is going to pick up on the committee's recommendations. The member for Hunter is here telling us what to do, but I hope he tells Mr Beattie that we do not want to see liquor stores done away with in Queensland and liquor sold through the large chains. It would be a very backward step if the Labor Party in Queensland saw the destruction of country hotels and bottle shops in favour of the large chains. It would send the message that you can go to a supermarket and buy not only bread, milk and so on but liquor as well. In other words, liquor becomes simply part of the household budget. It is not; it is a specialist, luxury product that should be sold out of a specialised centre such as a liquor store. So before you give us advice, please relay our advice to the Premier, Mr Beattie.Those are two issues in Queensland that are of critical importance to us: we must ensure that small business continues to have a stake in the pharmacy sector and also in the hotel sector. I have to compliment the member for Hunter and also the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector. I notice that they have recommended as well that the pharmaceutical sector continue to remain largely the province of small business. I think that is a very welcome result from that committee.I certainly sympathise with those who have had a negative reaction to this report. When I first saw the report, I had the feeling you get when you go home and see one of your old cattle dogs: you are glad it still has some teeth, but it does not have the promise it had when it was young and starting off. I thought the report had more teeth than I expected—and I am pleased at that—but I do not think it really fulfilled the potential that was expected when the committee was first assembled.However, I make the point that the committee quite rightly suggested that the select committee be reconvened again in three years time to ascertain progress in the interim. I think that is a very sound recommendation and will certainly put the large chains on notice that there is going to be a continued monitoring by the parliament of their activities. I certainly hope that the government picks up on the very sound recommendations of that report.I now turn briefly to the National Association of Retail Grocers who have described the report as disappointing for not recommending a cap on the market share of the major chains. It is equally true, as the committee chair and member for Cook, Mr Baird, acknowledged, that the main chains are not actually out in the street celebrating the report. In fact, the major chains have been equally critical, saying that if the recommendations are accepted by the government there will be added compliance costs, an erosion of shareholders' funds and prolonged regulatory uncertainty—given the recommendation that the whole matter, as I said before, be revisited in three years.I certainly support the recommendation which puts the major chains on notice to be responsible corporate citizens. Again, the fact that all recommendations were unanimous underlines the determination of all political parties to ensure that the major chains act in the public interest. I also support the establishment of a government funded retail industry ombudsman, a mandatory code of conduct for the industry, and stronger powers for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.I note also that the committee recommended that in ascertaining whether to approve mergers and acquisitions `regional' be added to the definition of market. I think that is a very welcome initiative. Too often the ACCC has had to look at the effect of such a merger or acquisition in the nation, or perhaps in a state, not realising how vibrant some of our regions are and that there can be a fair level of competition across a state but a monopoly situation in one particular region.What is absolutely fundamental about the report is a process whereby all retailers, whatever their size and ownership, operate on a genuinely level playing field. So many of the factors and influences impacting on the retail industry are outside the power of the Commonwealth. Issues such as wages and conditions, opening hours, zoning laws, workplace health and safety issues and many others need to be considered. These are the responsibility of state, territory and local governments. For example, retail tenancies are a key issue outside the scope of this committee and the Commonwealth. The government is due to respond to the recommendations within three months. I urge the cabinet to endorse this report. While some in small business may not be entirely happy with the outcome from their perspective, it has to be acknowledged that compromise, as well as fairness and justice, is required.To speak further about small business, as I come from a rural and regional area I can see how there is a knock-on effect if one small business closes, and heaven help us if a larger business closes. It is very important that small business be generally supported. I was disappointed and pleased at the Productivity Commission's report on national competition policy. National competition policy has been somewhat demonised of late. For some it has been the excuse for many of the disappointments that they see in rural and regional areas but that come from a multiplicity of factors, such as a downturn in commodity prices and increased automation in many of the harvesting operations and rural and agricultural operations that take place.It is also perhaps a convenient scapegoat for those who are unsuccessful in business. But I think it would be equally true to say that there are deficiencies in national competition policy. The Productivity Commission, although they tried to hide it away in their dot point summary, certainly highlighted the fact that the concerns that those in rural and regional Australia have do in fact have a basis. While the Productivity Commission said that there was really only one regional area that had suffered a detriment due to national competition policy and most others had benefited overall, I notice that significantly they made two points. The first is that metropolitan Australia has benefited over country Australia. If you live in a rural or regional area, that is quite evident. The second is that big business has benefited over small business.I would not pretend that the Productivity Commission is an advocate for rural and regional Australia, but I thought that its observations were absolutely spot on and need to be considered if any further attention is to be given to limiting the scope of national competition policy to impact negatively on small business in rural and regional Australia. However, we certainly do have a champion for small business—that is, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Mr Reith. He has been a very strong advocate for small businesses and has assisted greatly in the opportunities for employment growth in rural and regional areas.I have mentioned this before, but it is really heartening to look again at the small area labour market figures for the December quarter of 1998. For my city of Mackay, in December 1997 the unemployment level was 10.9 per cent. In December 1998 that declined to 8.1 per cent. They are very heartening figures. That was repeated generally right across my electorate. Many of the changes that the minister for small business has implemented have really had a very positive effect in rural and regional areas.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—What will the GST do?FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—I will tell you one thing that the tax reform package is going to do: it is going to change some of the fuel excise costs we pay that your mob brought on us.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—What will it do for small business?FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—Oh, come on! What about the $530,000 for one transport company in my city of Mackay? We are going to be putting money back into the regions which you had taken from for years. I am supportive of the tax reform package and the very positive results we are going to get in small business and farming. For once, we have actually reversed some of the very negative initiatives you have taken.I would like now to talk generally about the economic outcomes in Australia. We have seen solid employment growth, as I have said, particularly in my own area. It has averaged 1.5 per cent per annum since March 1996—in stark contrast to the results that we were delivered by those opposite. Multifactor productivity has increased at an average of 2.4 per cent, compared to 1.4 per cent under the Labor Party government. Labour productivity for the same period has averaged 3.1 per cent, compared to our predecessor's efforts of 2.3 per cent. Inflation, as of March 1999, was at an historic low of 1.2 per cent, compared to an average of 3.3 per cent across the OECD.The level of industrial disputes certainly does tell the story. In 1998, for the second successive calendar year, Australia recorded the lowest number of days lost to industrial action since—wait for it—1913. That is an outstanding result. So there have been some very positive outcomes in terms of the ability to support and assist small business. Obviously industrial disputation is a severe setback to those of us trying to harvest cane and run businesses in rural and regional Australia.Inflation, driving up the costs for the farming sector, has been gnawing at those who try to make a living out of export industries. Commodity prices are set generally by the world market and domestic costs are going up and up. So controlling inflation has been a big plus for those of us who live in rural and regional Australia. I am greatly heartened by the results that have been achieved for small business in rural and regional areas.There is also a negative story to tell, unfortunately. The downturn in commodity prices is presently plaguing us. For instance, the sugar industry price has fallen from US12.6c per pound down to about 5.4c, although it varies. The coal price has been declining substantially, likewise with beef. The South- East Asian crisis has been impacting negatively on our tourism industry. It is not easy. Revenue for many businesses in rural and regional areas has, sadly, declined. As you would know yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker Hawker, the mighty wool industry has been experiencing many difficulties. The cashflow effects of that in towns are very negative.So while I am heartened by the employment figures and the efforts made by the government, particularly the minister for small business with regard to businesses in rural and regional areas, we certainly are facing a very difficult time with regard to commodity prices. I commend the government for the efforts that they have made but remind them that, in many cases, the strong growth figures that we see across Australia—heartening as they are—are not always reflected in those rural and regional areas.12:03:009593Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—The cognate debate on the Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999 and the Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999 deals with a series of matters, including those relating to the environment and transport issues. It is particularly to transport but also correlatively to environmental matters that I want to direct my comments today.Federal governments have responsibilities over a wide range of areas. In this cavernous chamber we hear most of those areas canvassed in debate. Outside here, in the cabinet room, key decisions by the executive have been made and will be made and need to be made on a range of issues. With respect to the transport and environmental issues impacting on Sydney and potentially impacting on regional New South Wales and running through to having an interstate impact, those issues which are currently before cabinet and have been before cabinet for a long period of time now need to be dealt with in a speedy fashion but thus far have not been.The cabinet has had before it the environmental impact statement on the second Sydney airport for some considerable time. As I pointed out in last week's debates, the cabinet has had ample opportunity, as has the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr John Anderson, to look at that document and to look at its conclusions. There are no recommendations, simply conclusions which are clear and compelling. There is virtually nothing of an environmental nature against building a second Sydney airport. The conclusion of that environmental impact statement is that it should be at Badgerys Creek, a site which was set aside after the 1985 EIS, a site on which $160 million of Commonwealth money has been expended to buy an ample site for—in terms of what Labor proposed previously—what is now called option A.This federal cabinet has had at least one full day on this issue. The delay in making a decision has simply allowed a plethora of vested interest groups to hit the airwaves and the newspapers of this country and to argue their particular case for their solution to what should be done. The federal government makes appropriations. They made appropriations for $12 million to fund the environmental impact statement. It was delayed because of the inclusion of Holsworthy for a period of over six months, going down a blind alley. We now have a very full document covering virtually all of the matters that federal cabinet needs to take into account.The delay is not just occasioned by the federal cabinet wanting to look more deeply into those documents or into other related documents. The delay is occasioned by a direct split within the cabinet about what should be done on this major infrastructure and transport problem. We understand from reports—and the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, who is at the table, would have a particularly good notion of what was actually happening, although he is not able to tell us at this point—that they are very split on the matter.What seems to be emerging is that one of the reasons for the extended delay is a proposal put up in the public arena, and initially floated by the Minister for Finance and Administration who has responsibility for these appropriation bills, on the basis of his own vested interests as the member for Macarthur, that Badgerys Creek was too hard, there would be too much impact on Liberal seats, including his—as it was then constructed prior to the redistribution processes being set in train—and the easiest thing to do was to dump as many aircraft as possible on Bankstown airport, in the electorate of Blaxland, my seat, and let the problem go away somehow.He has aided, abetted and encouraged all of those groups who want to find a solution that does not entail making a definitive decision about that site which the EIS reported on. He has aided and abetted all of those groups who want to put this off for another 10 or 15 years and who want to see the second airport outside the Sydney basin. He has apparently, in conjunction with the other members of this cabal, Peter Costello, and some other Victorian and South Australian ministers, allowed the space to be created. He has allowed the situation to arise where an entirely different approach from what was looked at in the EIS is now being suggested.The situation at Bankstown airport with regard to regional traffic is fairly simple. It has been looked at previously. We are dealing with an airport that employs more than 3,500 people. That is a significant number of people in my electorate drawing their weekly wages from the economic activity of that airport. We are dealing with a piece of infrastructure that was important in World War II, when it was established, that allowed integrated industries to be built up around it and that has continually changed and modified within the context of being a general aviation airport for Sydney—and the most significant one in the Southern Hemisphere. We have an integrated, well working structure that the people of Bankstown by and large support.They support it because of its employment effects and because of the amount of money brought into the area. They support it, and have done so recently very strongly during my by-election and the last election, because they know that when this federal government came to power they ripped more than 400 jobs out of Bankstown by moving people out of the Bankstown Taxation Office—and they would move the other 220 if they could. They know that the ballast that was there from the Taxation Office, some of the few federal government jobs we had there, has been taken away by this federal cabinet.They know that a move to move regional aircraft to Bankstown would inevitably displace the general aviation activity there either quickly or over an extended period of time. It would be entirely disruptive. It would knock the businesses and knock the people who are working there and dramatically change their circumstances and put a giant question mark over the future of those jobs.The simple proposition that just because 99 per cent of the current regional aircraft flying into Kingsford Smith can technically fly into Bankstown, and do when the weather is bad, and that we should simply lift those up and shift them to Bankstown and make it a regional airport fails on a number of tests. It fails on a number of tests when you are looking at how well you should integrate infrastructure that this federal government has appropriated moneys for in the past and will have to do so in the future.Where there would be an opportunity to open up 25 to 38 per cent of slots at Kingsford Smith airport for bigger jets, 737s and up to jumbos, where that airport would earn more money because every one of those jets landing would bring in more money, the people in regional New South Wales using the regional air services would not have an easy intermodal experience. They would not be able to fly into Kingsford Smith then on-fly to Melbourne, Brisbane or Canberra or go into the city or elsewhere where they have to do their business. They are being told that they would be treated as a group set apart.There is much more to this proposition than that inevitably you would move general aviation out of Bankstown and move all those jobs. One simply has to look at the current situation with regional airlines, and the fact that at Kingsford Smith the Sydney Airport Corporation would like to jack up their charges and attempt to shift them out, to see that this government could, through the Minister for Finance and Administration, say, `It would be a pretty good idea given all those sorts of pressures to actually go to Bankstown and then we will look after you. We will break our promise to give you guaranteed access to Kingsford Smith under the long-term operating plan, but we will guarantee you absolutely that you can use Bankstown and use that forever.'The reality is that cost pressures on regional aircraft and regional aircraft services will continue. We already know that Hazelton Airlines are thinking of moving their operations to Newcastle. What would happen if this proposal went through and general aviation was pushed out to Badgerys Creek, therefore denying the opportunity for 10 or 15 years? What is behind this proposal ensures that this federal government would not have to spend one zack on actually building a second Sydney airport and that they would allow Kingsford Smith airport to expand exponentially into the future. That is what this is about. It is the do nothing option that drills and bombards all of the people of Sydney because they would allow the total extension of Kingsford Smith airport. It is the direct implication, inference and outcome of such a measure.What would happen to those regional services moved to Bankstown? If they maintained the current structure of the airport and the Dash 8s, the SAABs, the BAe146s—that weigh 44 tonnes and can take up to 70 passengers—were based in Bankstown as well as the displaced general aviation, what would happen to them in the future? Would the regional airlines continue to come into the Bankstown airport when they found their customers did not want to get on to the M5? It was promised it would be 25 minutes to KSA. That is a laughable, stupid, ridiculous, impractical promise because anyone using the current M5 knows that it is not up to scratch, knows that it will not be able to get people from Bankstown to KSA and then go from there to the city in an extended fashion if they chose to go that way. It will not be a quick intermodal link. It is choked now and will be choked in the future.When they get problems from the people who want to use those services, they will also be under another set of pressures. The other set of pressures are the ones that will inevitably come in the future when demand from their passengers—that they really wanted to go into KSA—will move these regional airlines to look, as Hazelton is, at using regional hubs.It takes one transport minister in this country and the airlines to determine that they would be better served by creating a regional hub at Newcastle for northern flights to run into Newcastle to say: `You can have regional development at that airport and you can have the growth and the business that was otherwise not there because all those aircraft would come into Newcastle. And then we'll run jets straight into KSA and you can have immediate access—there's nothing to stop it.' There is also nothing stopping a west and south-west regional hub, for instance, just beyond the Blue Mountains.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am reluctant to interrupt my friend, but we are dealing with a cognate debate in relation to two appropriation bills. I fail to see the connection between the wide-ranging comments being made by the honourable member for Blaxland and the subject matter of the two bills currently before the chair.LN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTON—Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order, it has been past practice in this place when we are dealing with appropriation bills, including those that deal with supplementary measures, for there to be a very wide-ranging debate. We are dealing here with transport issues and those relating to the environment. I would put to you that I am entirely in order and that it is appropriate to speak to these matters relative to these bills, based on past practice.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—I would say to the honourable member for Blaxland that while it is true this has been a fairly wide-ranging debate these two appropriation bills are supplementary measures, they are not actually full appropriation bills. I think it probably would help the debate if you tried to keep more to the specifics of these two bills, only one of which is about environmental matters and transport.LN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTON—And environmental impacts and our problems with greenhouse gases. The greenhouse gas program—which directly relates to this bill—has a series of measures to encourage all of those people using public or private transport to change the way in which they do things in order to cut down the impact of greenhouse gases. Those services—the very fast trains, the high-speed trains—that have been proposed for the Sydney to Canberra route and the trains that are now being proposed for services from Melbourne to Sydney and Brisbane as a replacement for a second Sydney airport, how those services would use energy; how they would impact on greenhouse gases; how they would impact on the use of diesel and how they would impact on the diesel fuel rebate and all of those things directly relate to these measures.It is a question of what the Commonwealth will do or will not do in relation to decisions they should take on major infrastructure projects and the directly related energy conse quences of those projects, the direct implication of greenhouse gases and the direct implication of road, rail or air usage as a result of the measures encapsulated in this bill. This cabinet made a decision to expend these funds in relation to these appropriation bills; it has yet to make decisions about appropriations in the future because it has not made a decision about the second Sydney airport. But that will impact on Bankstown, as these measures will impact on Bankstown and Bankstown airport.The direct result of moving to use energy and transport services differently by hubbing out to those areas would be that regional air services would, over time, desert our airport at Bankstown. And in deserting the airport at Bankstown—where we currently have 3,500 jobs—the transposition of regional services there could, in the end, see the employment that we have in Bankstown entirely denuded. It would be ripped out because the decision that is currently before the cabinet has gone completely awry. It has gone completely awry because, in terms of the environmental questions raised by these appropriation bills—how we utilise energy and how we can better do that in order to ameliorate the effects of greenhouse gases—one of the things that has been put forward, based on what is here in this environmental impact statement which deals with these very issues, is that there should be a very high-speed train as a replacement for that airport; that the infrastructure demands of Sydney could be served by that. The environmental impact statement clearly looks at the potential for that.I must say that with all of the problems that both Europe and North America have with greenhouse gases, when people in Europe looked at very fast trains, transport usage and the conjunction between rail, road and air usage they made a quick decision. In Europe the very high-speed train system is used as a substitute for air travel. What is being proposed here is that a very fast train running from Melbourne to Sydney to Brisbane could entirely substitute for a second international airport and have different effects on the environment. The effects of airport noise on the environment are very well covered by this environmental impact statement; the ones in relation to a very fast train are not. The impact on energy usage, the impact of greenhouse gases—all of those things in regard to this train—are not set out, and yet people pop it up and say, `This is an easy solution to the situation.' Europe is a lot smaller in terms of the landmass served by those trains than is Australia.People who need to do business in both Melbourne and Sydney on any one day are faced with a choice of transport. They have the choice of a 1½-hour flight to Melbourne in the morning to do their business. They finish at 5 o'clock or 6 o'clock and then fly back to Sydney. Even with all the delays that we have had in the past, I think people would choose that rather than choose to take a very fast train, a high-speed train, which would take four hours at best to travel from Sydney to Melbourne. Using a very fast train, it would cost people four hours in the morning and four hours at night just to do one day's business. When people in Europe look at which mode of transport to undertake, they determine the mode of transport according to their needs and according to what they can do within a business day. It is lunacy—whether it is on environmental grounds, on the grounds of efficient use of our transport or on the grounds of efficient use of our fuels and creating a situation where the greenhouse impact would be ameliorated—for people to think that you can entirely substitute a slower form of transport.There is one minister in this government who is very supportive of the Maglev train, the German one which has not yet got a service in practice. This government chose the Speedrail one. It also appropriated moneys for the proving-up of that process. Now we see that the extension of that should run. In last Saturday's paper, Malcolm Farr reports:Speedrail has a $3.7 billion privately funded project to run a fast train, travelling at up to 320km/h, between Sydney and Canberra by 2004.It proposes extending the services along the east coast from Melbourne to Brisbane.Because of the scale of the project the Government would have to help, possibly through tax relief rather than direct cash contributions. All of this is related to how the government makes decisions and what it determines the infrastructure needs of Australia to be. We do not need a proposal that just will not work as a substitute for an international airport and for a government that is afraid to make a decision about Badgerys Creek but is, seemingly, not afraid of looking at imposing all of the regional services on Bankstown and crushing the existing Bankstown airport. (Time expired)12:23:009597Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—The Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999 and Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999 in themselves seem innocuous enough and straightforward but in fact, on consideration, they are about a $1 billion seduction. I particularly refer to the second reading speech where the words are identical on both bills:The funding proposed in this bill meets these environmental commitments—and these are the words that are common—of the government to the Australian Democrats in the context of our tax reform package.We are talking here about $1 billion of tax revenue being appropriated and spent. Mind you, it may not be spent. It might be appropriated, but lots of this money may never get spent. When one looks at the amendments and the complications of it, it is a bit hard to be sure just what will happen to the funds—if anything.For example, for 2000-01 in appropriation measure No. 2, $66 million is to be appropriated over each year for four years, supporting the use of renewable energy for remote power generation. Well, it is a bit hard to know where, when, how or if it will actually happen. I would not be at all surprised if we suddenly discovered each year that there were not enough projects to actually put these funds into. That would not be the government's or the Democrats' fault, but somehow things would not be there. How these numbers have been chosen is a bit of a black art of backroom deal making, and it is all about salvaging the Democrats' reputation and standing.When the government said it would spend $1 billion of taxpayers' money because of its commitments to the Democrats in the contents of the tax reform package, this was a bribe about the GST, to get the Democrats into the cart. But, looking at the bribe, you start thinking that it is so complicated and confused and confusing that there is a very high chance that it will never be paid. The example I mentioned was just one of those examples, but it does give us a very ready indicator as to what lies ahead.We are now seeing, day after day and week after week, more deals and more pay-offs. We know that there is always negotiation in politics—it is supposedly the art of the possible and so on—but it has never been so blatant, so expensive or so deceptive. The implication in all this is that these things are all somehow negotiated and worked out, and it is very obvious that they are not. The second reading speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration was half a page on each appropriation measure, so he has spent $1 billion in less than a page.If these things were done well, why isn't there a policy statement? Why isn't it expanded and spelt out just how the money is going to be used? All we have got is a series of dot points. This is the quickest spent billion I have seen in a long time. The amounts are appropriated quite carefully: $20 million here, $4 million there and $10 million there, and yet no indication of where and how—just the numbers in columns. I wonder how they are going to appropriate for, for example, the very fast train. Will we see a deal coming up in the next year or two where the government puts money into a very fast train to buy the Democrats' vote on who knows what—on reconciliation or on cuts to education?We have got it here. We see in the book appropriations the pay-off for the Democrats to break their own policy on the GST on books. We see a pay-off there which the book industry clearly does not support and does not accept as being adequate.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—It came cheap.FI4Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—It came very cheap, because it may never get spent. It is so caught up in complications and provisions that most of it will very likely never be spent. Yet the Democrats went to the election with a promise of no GST on books and no tax on knowledge—for which they had widespread support as a very principled and moral position, and one that I very much agree with and accept as being fairly important. To switch across to what we have got here now is a very shoddy and sleazy little exercise.One would have expected that the government, in spelling out the promotion of it, would have actually spelt out how it is going to happen. They have some wonderful objectives. All of these carefully phrased half-pages of dot points, about objectives and promotion of the intrinsic value of books and reading, is wonderful stuff. But the fact is that they are going to tax them. That is what it is about. This is about taxing books.What kind of hypocrisy, double standards, smokescreens and mirrors and magic tricks are we playing at here? If it was so well thought out, why aren't we told? This was done within a very short time behind closed doors by some skilful Treasury negotiators and PM&C bureaucrats and some very naive, innocent Democrat politicians who really wanted to be in the cart and wanted to run the country and have the significance of being in charge of things and yet still meet their promises. This was the snow job that was done; this was the $1 billion seduction bribe that we will watch played out month after month.I am really interested to know how the Democrats are going to support it on the VFT. We are almost certainly going to see from this government substantial tax concessions and tax bribes in that particular area, which the Democrats will probably put forward as reduced diesel expenditure. Having got the diesel fuel rebate going ahead now and having reduced the price of diesel, we will probably see the Democrats finding a way to tie that into the VFT proposal. Who knows, it may reduce GST expenditure for some sections of the community, but make no mistake about it: this government and our friends in the Democrats will find a way to sugar coat some of the nastiest measures that we have seen in many years.Appropriation bills are about spending money. The amount of $1 billion being spent here will not be available somewhere else. That is really the nub of the issue. If we take the book industry as an example, it is hard to equate what the GST on books will be because most of the figures from government projections that I have seen have been flaky and faulty. I do not trust the projections on the various levels of tax raising.The Democrats are giving the GST revenue on books to the state governments and then improvising some measures in here somewhere and somehow that are supposed to compensate the industry. But the fact is you cannot compensate for making books more expensive. Giving some nice objectives on the training of book producers, the promotion of literacy and so on does not make books cheaper. They are still going to be made dearer.Let us look at some examples that we have had in recent times of the government's reliability in this area of what things will cost extra. We all remember late last year the Prime Minister saying that funerals will cost only four per cent extra. So, for anybody buying a contract for funerals beyond 2000, the extra cost should be only about four per cent. I have now talked to many funeral directors, the associations and a range of other people, and the only thing we could find that would reduce the cost of a funeral would be the service if it is conducted by a clergyman, not if it is done by a non-clergyman. Out of an average $3,000 funeral cost we found that $150 would be exempt from a GST. That is 0.5 per cent of the cost. The tax being paid right now by people in Australia on funerals is in fact 10 per cent extra—not the four per cent that the Prime Minister said back in December but 10 per cent.When you look at the projections that this government has made on inflation, on the impact of the GST, on the revenue raised and so on, most of them to me look to be flaky and faulty. That view is being reinforced almost daily by people coming forward and explaining how their business will be affected and what the likely cost impacts will be.We have had this wonderful denouement in recent times about the difference between profit percentage and profit dollars. The government suddenly realised—when they talked about profiteering and the effect of a GST on small business—that if you reduce the gross profit dollars, which you would do by shifting the sales tax and switching the collection point and rate, you will reduce the gross profit in dollar terms for small business. This would mean that unless small business could increase their profit margin—and hence `profiteered' in the government terms—they would go broke. The government woke up to this only very recently.We saw that wonderful denouement where—shock, horror!—that was not what was intended and profiteering was not really about increasing margins at all. The government recognised that they had misled people for the previous year and a half on one of the most fundamental, simple aspects of business—gross profit and gross margin. We all knew that in this House because this issue was debated thoroughly back in 1992 and 1993. There was not a member of the House who was not aware of that. But the government allowed and promulgated the fallacy and the fiction that there would not be profiteering and that prices would go down because the government would make sure that business did not take any extra margin from those tax reductions that were supposed to be met.We had the same situation last December when the Prime Minister, in a sense, harassed the funeral directors by saying that funeral costs would go up by four per cent with the GST, not 10 per cent. The fact is he was wrong then and he is wrong now. People right now are paying and have paid in recent times 10 per cent extra for funeral contracts in advance. That is an inescapable fact. If the government can show the House and the funeral directors of Australia how they got the four per cent figure, then we would all be amazed. As I said, from my investigations and discussions, we cannot find anything that would be reduced through the removal of other taxes other than if a minister or a clergyman conducts the service. It appears that even the medical certificate that is required for a funeral is taxable because it is not strictly a health service. So, of the $3,000 cost that I have gone through and examined item by item with funeral directors and with the associations, the only one we could find that would definitely be reduced would be the funeral service.What we are seeing here is a cobbling together of $1 billion worth of PR—and `PR' in that context would actually mean promised responses—from the Democrats in an attempt to try to pretend that they did not break their word, which they clearly have. There is a GST going on books. That is clearly a breach of promise. No amount of cant or cobbling together of promotional literacy on the value of books and of reading is going to deny that. The Democrats have now gone down in history in the most tawdry way. For a party that for all those years insisted on full public debate, full exposure, full examination and so on, to allow this to happen is an absolute travesty of the arguments over all of their life.The Democrats have turned their whole history on its head because they no longer require accountability and full exposure. We no longer know the terms and conditions that underpin this. Clearly, behind this legislation, there are some other deals. How do we know what will happen, for example, if the money is not spent? Surely the Democrats have made a deal with the government that, if these estimates are wrong, other things will be done to make sure that the money is spent. What else is behind this? What other conditions are there? What other agreements have been made? Surely, the Democrats could not have agreed to things on such a flimsy, shallow basis. One imagines that behind this legislation, which is the tip of a very big iceberg, there is a raft of frameworks and agreements that will come into play if these estimates do not stack up.I think it is time for the Democrats to come clean and tell the community at large, particularly the parliament, just what in the hell is going on, what they have agreed to and what they have sold out for—because it certainly cannot be for the things we are seeing here. Of course, there is that wonderful contradiction of theirs about the diesel fuel rebate, and so on, which has brought such horror to so many Democrat supporters in the environmental movement. Clearly, without doubt and absolutely, the GST legislation and the diesel fuel rebate will increase the consumption of diesel. At the moment we do not know by how much—and, again, I would be very wary of government estimates. But what do they have in place to cope with it if it goes up by more than expected? What will the government do if in fact it has these conclusions from the Democrats with false or faulty projections? I expect that the Democrats do have things in place and I would be grateful if they would let the community know just what protection they have put in.The $1 billion that will not be available to the community or to Australian taxpayers because of this legislation is an important $1 billion. For example, it could have helped in the health bill. It could have helped in a range of other areas where we have had cuts. I hear the Treasurer boasting about the surplus—and he calls it his surplus. We know whose surplus it is. It is the surplus of the pensioners who cannot get access to dental care. It is the surplus of the people who cannot get into hospitals because of the massive cuts, the huge cuts that have been made over four years, commencing from the 1996 budget, to the state health systems. It is the surplus of the universities who have had their grants cut. It is the surplus of the child carers who have had their funding cut.Across the country, the poor and the disadvantaged have had their funds and resources cut to help produce a surplus. That is who the surplus belongs to. What is happening here? That surplus is being given away by the government to others to pay off the Democrats. The unabashed fraudulence of this whole exercise is mind boggling.We had the government defending itself in 1996 as to why its cuts were so essential and why they were in the national interest. We now have the Treasurer boasting about how he will give away tax cuts in the years ahead because a surplus is there. In other words, having taken it off people, it now becomes his to mete out as he wishes. If there is a surplus because of cuts from which people have suffered, surely the people who have paid for the surplus should get some of it back. Surely this government is not about transferring resources from the health system into tax cuts which obviously advantage the more highly paid.From my observations of this whole tax mix, GST switch and so on, I understand from accountants that an average parliamentarian's taxes will probably decrease by something like $4,000 a year. If I am $4,000 a year better off, who is paying for it? It cannot be true that we could all enjoy that level of benefit or that we even should. So if 224 parliamentarians are at least $4,000 a year better off—because I gather that ministers will benefit even more than that—what poor sods are paying for that? Surely, it is their surplus. How come it is ours? How come the surplus belongs to the more highly paid?The surplus has been taken off the lowly paid. It has been taken off the pensioner who cannot get dental work done. It has been taken off all the people in the areas that we know are being squeezed, whether that be a HACC program or a nursing home program—$½ billion for nursing homes was cut in 1996 and $80 million was cut from HACC. This surplus has been produced by all those cuts that this government has put in place. We are watching $1 billion of it being flicked away without debate, without discussion, without explanation, with ministers giving half-page speeches to the parliament.In any other country, the spending of almost one per cent of our national budget in such a flimsy, shallow way with so little explanation would be a scandal. We know that we have gone through massive shifts of funding away from areas of disadvantage, and we are not even being given the courtesy of a decent explanation as to why this shift of money has been so essential. All that we are seeing at the end of it is: this meets the commitment of the government to the Democrats in the context of a tax reform package. This was the bribe, this was part of the seduction—and they sold out cheap; they sold out real cheap. As I said earlier, I believe that in the time ahead we will see a lot of this money not being spent anyhow. In many cases, it is basically window-dressing. Yet the areas of real need that are deprived of funds, that are desperate for money, are being turned away. We all know about such circumstances. Week after week constituents are coming to us with difficulties. I know of 2,000 people who will lose their jobs in three weeks time. Those people will not be entitled to any income support until they have worked out all of their entitlements, including long service leave, any leave they did not take or were not able to take and holiday leave which they did not take advantage of and have therefore postponed and put off. They have to work out all of that before getting any income support from this government. That was a change. That was part of this surplus. That was part of the cuts. Those 2,000 people are direct employees of BHP. There probably are another 2,000 or 3,000 people outside of BHP who will be as equally worse off, who will have the same problem. That is how this government has achieved the surplus we are talking about. This $1 billion might have gone some way towards helping those people feel that they are part of our society, that they are entitled to some level of support. It is really nice that we have taken their money and given it to people on high incomes. As I have said, using parliamentarians as an example, a yardstick, if we are $4,000 a year better off, who on earth is paying for it? These bills are a scandal.12:43:009601O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—I will address my remarks particularly to Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 2), which incorporates some aspects of funding for environmental issues. But, before doing so, I would simply endorse the comments of my colleague the member for Newcastle. He has probed very assiduously the weaknesses that are quite apparent in the impact of the GST legislation and the deal that has been done with the Democrats.I have two reasons for focusing particularly on the environmental aspects in my speech. One is to point to the fact that I believe the world now is starting to close in on the Australian government in response to the pathetic position it took at the Kyoto conference two years ago. Australia is now suffering appalling after-effects in world assessment and is being focused upon with a flowthrough of requirements.Secondly, I want to put into context the appropriation in this bill. It represents, I suppose, almost picture-framing funding to appease the Democrats on some transport funding measures to try to offset the just criticism that comes from granting the transport industry a concession in diesel fuel prices with the obvious greenhouse impact that that is going to have. Thirdly, I would like to put that into context with a matter occurring in my own electorate at the moment relating to the forest issues that have to be resolved and that tie into this whole environmental approach. Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999 provides funding for a number of measures which I absolutely support, such as encouraging conversion to natural gas and LPG for commercial vehicles, particularly the larger vehicles, a stewardship system for the reuse and recycling of waste oil, the utilisation of photovoltaic systems on residential and community reuse buildings—in other words, the development and commercialisation of renewable energy and the use of renewable energy for remote power generation—more work on testing in-service omissions for diesel vehicles and providing for a Greenhouse Gas Abatement Program.Of course, the Australian government was at some point going to have to provide more funding for these sorts of activities. When the government came to office in 1996, it decided that the smartest action it could take was to slash all the Labor government programs and eventually come to the question of putting back those that had to be put back. Here we have a whole raft of such programs—programs that were in existence in one form or another and that, as part of the deal with the Democrats, are now being refunded and expanded. All that has happened really is that Australia has suffered a four-year fall-back in its work on alternatives to the normal fossil fuel energy consumption. There was, of course, the huge battle at Kyoto to try to get the world to accept that Australia might just stay a coal producing, mining, woodchipping and forest nation while the rest of the world focused on genuine greenhouse gas emission cutbacks. That approach failed at Kyoto—the world made it very clear that they were going to impose some disciplines on Australia—so there have to be some measures such as these to start encouraging the shift away from fossil fuel energy use.I absolutely support the funding of those programs. I just make the point that the government has been dragged into the cart very reluctantly. It has been dragged, kicking and screaming, into making these sorts of funding concessions. In saying that this has been a trade-off, I want to place on the record an observation that I think is pretty significant, and that is that the Worldwatch Institute has prepared a state of the world report on progress towards sustainability and, in that report, the institute views the cutting of fuel taxes in Australia with considerable alarm. Of course it would. We know that the modelling provided to the government predicts that there is going to be an increase of 60 per cent in greenhouse gas emissions from the commercial transport sector in Australia between 1997 and 2015. In other words, bringing in a diesel fuel pricing scheme that encourages even more use of diesel fuel cuts against the whole concept of Australia's international obligations and sensible environmental management. These measures are very important. I hope they are ultimately successful and that the government does get serious about encouraging the shift to alternative uses.That brings me to the matter that I really wanted to touch upon today which is very local to me—and it is an important time for some decision making locally—and that is how this all fits into the context of forest policy and the management of forests. It is all very well to try to deal with motor vehicle omissions, but this has to be in the context of Australia's continuing obsession with cutting down forests and exporting woodchips and the steps that we are going to have to take to continue to balance this up. In central Victoria, which is at the heart of my electorate, the RFA process is under way at the moment, and it is not going very successfully for the government. The Central Highlands RFA— which I might say was set in train four years ago by the former Labor government—has stalled because the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, Mr Tuckey, has come to the same conclusion that we have all reached over the years, and that is that you simply cannot trust the information provided to Canberra by the Victorian state government about the management of the Wombat and Cobaw forests. That is quite an extraordinary position to find ourselves in—the fact that you simply cannot trust the information coming from the Victorian government. On the basis of that, the federal minister has now appointed an independent environmental assessor to look at the process.We are moving into a Victorian state election in three weeks time. There is now emerging a very strong demand from the community to know the future of this forest and how it fits the National Greenhouse Emissions Strategy. In a normal RFA process where you can trust the information, the key criterion is that the state and federal governments can come to an agreement about the forest being well managed on a sustainable basis. That means that the timber allocated to the timber industry is in sustainable volumes, that the residue from that timber that is not suitable for value adding manufacturing is used in an appropriate way and that the environmental management strategy of the forest is consistent with a sustainable, long-term policy. In this particular forest area, we also have some significant water values because it is a catchment area for a significant amount of water both for the Murray Valley and for the south, for Geelong and Melbourne.The second component in all of this is that whatever policies you adopt need to encourage the industry to invest in significant and upgraded value adding and in research and development. We have always accepted that as part of an RFA process you would be giving the industry long-term security of access to quality timber. It also requires that you recognise the environmental values and the local perspectives and that if you are going to close down the forest, because the use of timber in the area changes or the community perception of the forest changes, the industry is entitled to compensation. All those things are an agreed set of values and an agreed process, but they all hinge on genuine and transparent information coming to the federal government that allows it to be confident about any agreement it reaches.What do you do when you cannot trust the state government? I am saying very clearly to the federal government that you cannot trust the Victorian state government. That has been very clear and has even been accepted by the federal Minister for Forestry and Conservation. What you do is you suspend the process. You say, `It is flawed, and we won't go ahead with it. We agree that, until the environmental assessment by independent auditors is carried through, this goes no further, because the process is flawed.' Secondly, you say, `Even if it does go forward down the track, what do we do with the woodchips?' Under no circumstances do you provide for woodchips from this forest to be export woodchips. In my time, when Labor was in government, we fought very hard to make sure that the chips residue from this forest went to the local value added plant at Bacchus Marsh, CSR. Since the change of government, CSR has closed, and there is therefore no market for those chips.This government has got to get off its backside and take the Australian industry to the point where there is an Australian pulp mill so there is somewhere to send these chips. I will not support any process that continues to think that the solution is sending chips out of the forest somewhere overseas so that we can continue to buy back the pulp. It is absurd. Four years after the change of government, we are still in the situation of not having a pulp mill in Australia, yet we send shiploads of chips overseas. And this is supposed to be part of Australia's environmental solution. It is supposed to be part of our sensible approach to greenhouse strategy.I am foreshadowing to the minister and the government a major local confrontation when this debate comes to a head—and we have not had one until now because we have been able to manage this through sensible principles. I think the state minister—who is attempting to transfer from his upper house seat to the lower house seat of Gisborne, which is right in the heart of this—should ignore Jeff Kennett's instruction not to debate these issues locally. He would be pretty stupid politically if he failed to take up the call to attend a public debate about these issues, because he is in the hot seat. It is his government that is feeding bum information to Canberra. It is his government that is planning to woodchip this forest into extinction. He has three weeks to get himself on deck and to explain his position to the people.I am publicly signalling here that, unless we get a sound and transparent management plan for this forest, a genuine commitment that any woodchip residue goes to an Australian pulp mill and a genuine, value adding and sustainable outcome for the local timber industry, this forest needs to be pulled out of the RFA process. If it is pulled out of the RFA process, that means no woodchips for anybody. It means the local timber industry is in difficulty, but it also means that you avoid the serious public confrontation which is brewing because the Victorian state government cannot be trusted and the federal government is so embarrassed by this performance that even the federal minister concedes that is the case.Mr Deputy Speaker, I have taken that opportunity to try and be as constructive as I can about this matter, because it is one I have been involved in for a long time. I have the corporate knowledge to know very well that what is happening here in Canberra is spot on. I am putting on the public record via this statement today my suggested approach to a resolution of this issue before it becomes a hot flame in central Victoria. That suggestion is put forward constructively with the intention of our industry building its value adding investment but giving the forest and the people a future.I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to put those points on the table. I reiterate my earlier comments that I support the investment contained in Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999 regarding alternative fossil fuel options. However, I make the point that it is very little. We should not have had the four-year lag in these programs. I think that circumstances are closing in on this government as its environmental performance and its performance at Kyoto comes under the spotlight.13:01:009604Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—The long title of these bills states:A Bill for an Act to appropriate the Consolidated Revenue Fund for certain purposes, and for other purposes.In the case of Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999 the words `relating to the environment' are added. The purpose of these two bills can best be summed up in the final sentence of the very short second reading speech delivered with these bills, both of which are basically the same sentence. In Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999 the sentence states:The funding proposed in this bill meets these two commitments of the Government—and with bill No. 1 that is to do with the Book Industry Assistance Plan and the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program—to the Australian Democrats in the context of our tax reform package.In the case of bill No. 2, the sentence states:The funding proposed in this bill meets these environment commitments of the Government to the Australian Democrats in the context of our tax reform package.That is what these two bills are basically about. These bills seek to appropriate funds for a variety of measures resulting from the government's grubby, puerile, sleazy deal—you pick the appropriate adjective, Mr Deputy Speaker—with the Australian Democrats to ensure the passage of its legislation to charge Australians 10 per cent on nearly everything they do or buy.These measures are part of the deal under which, after 1 July next year, every time Australians go to buy something, when they put their hands in their pockets into that pocket will go the hands of the Prime Minister, John Howard, and the Treasurer, Peter Costello, and together with them as partners in crime will be the hand of Senator Meg Lees, the Leader of the Australian Democrats. Over the next two and a bit weeks I will be reminding people in Victoria that, not only have they got all those hands in their pockets, but they had better have deep pockets because Premier Jeff Kennett was there as one of the partners in crime to ensure that the Prime Minister got his GST package up. The people of Victoria have to know that, despite his humping around the countryside saying what a tragedy to small business GST compliance costs are, Jeff Kennett was able to ensure at the Premiers Conference that the deal got through.When it came to books, housing and the environment the government and the Democrats were able to come to some arrangement to reach their deal. However, a casual glance at these two bills reveals just how greatly the government took the Democrats for an absolute ride. It prompts the question how and why the Democrats sold out so cheaply on issues that they professed to be part of their raison d'etre. If the Democrats' non-negotiable GST-free books election policy is looked at, it has been watered down to a book production bounty and grants to assist writers. Grants to writers are an admission that the GST will decimate the book industry, whether it be those writing them or printing them.These measures add up to $180 million over three years, or $240 million over four years in this bill, and they are vulnerable to budget cuts in the years after that. The Democrats have not in any way secured the future of the book industry in this country. If the government does cut these measures in outyears after that, the book industry is left to the full mercy of the goods and services tax. These measures do not compensate for the massive burden that the GST and compliance to it will place on the industry. They directly compromise the Democrats' GST-free education policy, which they also sold out on and showed no signs of wanting to—let alone being able to—secure from the government.These bills also appropriate funds for the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program, or SAAP. The extra $15 million per year appropriated with these bills to deal with a national crisis such as youth homelessness is totally inadequate, but totally expected, given the Howard government's whole attitude towards issues of housing and homeless ness since coming to office. The budget announcements on funding for housing were all recycled previous announcements. In some cases, the Minister for Family and Community Services tried to get away with announcing the same funding three times hoping no-one would notice that it was not new money.At the time of the budget the government did announce an additional $45 million over six years for the SAAP. Of course, this translates to a mere $7½ million per year. The great irony of this is that the funding is merely to allow SAAP agencies to pay their staff award wages. Of course, those staff deserve to be paid and should be paid properly for their work. However, the fact remains that none of the additional $45 million was to increase services for those in need.Now comes a paltry amount of $15 million in these bills each year which adds further insult to injury. It is widely known that this amount is too little, because last year the government sponsored a review by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute. The review recommended 25 per cent growth funds for SAAP just to service the current unmet demand. Now it is unclear whether this additional $60 million, which was supposedly extracted by the Democrats from the government, is actually more than what might have been announced late last year in response to other studies. The finding for the need for 25 per cent growth funds was supported by the Department of Family and Community Services, but has been totally ignored by the government. That gives the House some idea of the magnitude of the problem the nation faces with regard to issues concerning housing and homelessness and the total inadequacy of the Howard government's response to it. It also speaks volumes for the Australian Democrats and prompts the question why they sold themselves out on the issue of GST for so little.Of all the issues the Democrats sold out on in this deal, the environment is perhaps the most surprising, given their rhetoric over some 20 years. The environmental consequences of the GST were totally ignored by both the government and the Democrats. The GST is a disaster for the environment because of the likely increase in the use of diesel fuel and the increase in greenhouse gases. The Democrats' non-negotiable reduction of the tax cuts on diesel and petrol through increased weight thresholds failed to materialise in this shonky deal. Instead, the nation will be lumbered with a totally unworkable system of transport credits for so-called regional transport vehicles. The definition is yet to be outlined.The Democrats sold out to the government and handed a raft of environmental powers over to the states and territories in the biodiversity legislation. The government have been winding back funding for the environment steadily since coming to office under cover of the Natural Heritage Trust fund set up with the proceeds of the sale of Telstra. Now the Democrats have joined them in this attitude to the environment.As others have said in the debate, the measures contained in Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999 which relate to the environment of course have some merit. As was revealed in the debate and discussions which surrounded the talks the Democrats had with the government over the GST, a number of these measures had been earmarked as measures that the government would be putting in place. In fact, even in the measures which are to do with the environment, we find that all we have had is a public announcement that ties these measures into the deal done with the Democrats at that fateful meeting down at 4 Treasury Place in Melbourne after Senator Harradine had made his principled views known on the GST package.When all is said and done about this deal, after 1 July next year a GST will be put in place. All these measures came about when Senator Lees and Senator Murray sat down with the Treasurer and the Prime Minister around the table at 4 Treasury Place: they discussed the issues; they put certain ideas on the table; they sent Max Moore-Wilton busily off over the weekend, distracting him from what he was really going to say to Mr Barratt, the then Secretary to Defence, about his future; and they cobbled these measures together. Then they came back the next week and the Democrats rolled over and said they would tick off on the GST package. What we get—amongst other things—are the measures contained in these two bills.It is just not good enough. It is not good enough that a political force in Australia should sit down and so easily agree to measures that in many cases would have occurred; and to measures contained in these bills that go nowhere near far enough to redress the damage that has been done in the case of the book industry and a number of items dealing with the environment. They go nowhere near far enough towards redressing the difficulties that occur in the post-GST environment.Of course, the opposition have made it clear that they will be supporting these bills, because there is a certain inevitability that we have to in order to put some of these things in place. As I have said, a number of them have merit. But the Australian public has to remember that the issues that arose and that led to the need for these two pieces of legislation have their base in fact in a deal which was made between the Australian Democrats and the coalition government.As has been indicated in this debate, there are many provisions of these two bills that should have happened and would have happened without this tawdry deal. I would suggest that the next time the Australian Democrats enter into negotiations they ought to have a due diligence test where they at least look at what is actually in the pipeline, is near announcement or has been announced, and not sign off, underline and highlight announcements that are going to be made or have already been made, because that short-changes them on any decisions and deals that they make of this magnitude.I fear the consequences of the GST package and the damage that will materialise. I fear that, at the end of the day, the Australian public just might forget that it is not only the coalition they have to blame for those consequences, but they have to remember that the Australian Democrats played a very big role in putting those consequences together.13:14:009606Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—in reply—In commencing my summing up I would like to thank honourable members who have participated in the debate on these two important pieces of legislation—the Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999 and the Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999 —which, as I said in my second reading speech, deliver on the government's commitments to the Australian Democrats on 31 May 1999.It ought to be placed on the record and recognised that the agreement reached between the government and the Australian Democrats represents a defining moment in history. It secured the government's historic tax reform changes of which all Australians can be very proud. I would like to wholeheartedly applaud the words of the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Meg Lees, who when commenting on the tax package stated:The Democrats have won more in 13 hours of talks with the Howard Government than they did in 13 years under the Labor Government.The Democrats and the government have acted responsibly in securing genuine tax reform for this country, and the Australian people who voted for a new tax system in the October 1998 election will certainly be much better off for it. It is very sad that the Labor Party continues to criticise members of the government for being prepared to implement the very important changes voted for by the Australian people. It is also interesting to note the Labor members who stood up one after the other and bagged the very constructive role the Australian Democrats played in this legislation. We heard words like `puerile' and `tawdry'. The honourable member for Throsby claimed that the Democrats had jumped into bed with the government. The honourable member for Wills even attacked the Democrats for negotiating on environmental initiatives.It is interesting that members of the former Labor government who are now in this chamber have turned on the party with which they used to cooperate in the upper house just because the Australian Democrats are displaying incredibly positive initiatives in dealing with the government. Let us just look at editorial comment made following the GST compromise. The Sydney Morning Herald on 31 May said:The GST compromise between the Howard Government and the Australian Democrats represents a triumph for the Prime Minister. He held his nerve through the last election campaign, and for most of the ensuing tax debate.It went on later to say:The significant loser from the GST deal is the Labor Party, specifically its leader, Mr Beazley. For three years Labor has ditched the great economic reforms of the Hawke-Keating governments for a leftist populism that is associated with its prized recruit, Mrs Cheryl Kernot. The adamantine refusal to do anything but launch attack after attack on the GST has led Labor into a dry policy gully.The Adelaide Advertiser on 31 May said:The deal is to be supported and even applauded.. . . . . . . . .The overriding fact is that Australia has overdue tax reform and, had this compact not been made, that would have been impossible for the foreseeable future.The West Australian on 31 May said:The compromise deal agreed between the government in the Democrats shows that the system is working.The deal—finally opens the way for long overdue reform of our ramshackle, illogical tax system. It heralds the arrival of a transparent and equitable new system.The Labor Party—rendered itself irrelevant to the tax debate when it put perceived political advantage ahead of responsible reform.So, as a result of discussions between the government and the Australian Democrats, we will have a new tax system, and the two bills currently before the chamber are important elements in securing the passage of the legislation. The government is very proud not only about having reached an agreement with the Australian Democrats but also about the very positive measures included in these two bills.This government, despite what Labor members would have you believe, is the greenest government in Australia's history. We delivered the Natural Heritage Trust, which has spent well over $1 billion on repairing the impact of 200 years of European settlement in Australia. We have an enormous range of environmental achievements, and it is about time that those opposite gave the government credit—the very real credit—for what it has achieved, for what it is achieving through this legislation and, indeed, for what it will continue to achieve in the future.Labor members also sought to suggest that the GST in some way would adversely affect a greener Australia. The new $1.2 billion strategy to improve air quality and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions was negotiated with the Australian Democrats and will be implemented as a result of the legislation currently before the House. This new air quality package includes faster introduction of new technology machines to cut down on vehicle emissions; cleaner fuels to power those engines; increased support for alternative transport fuels, such as compressed natural gas and LP; incentives for households to switch to solar power; and an extra $100 million a year for increased efforts to combat global warming.The honourable member for Burke endeavoured to suggest that cheaper diesel would in some way create more pollution. That simply is not true. I want to place on the record that, thanks to the new air quality package negotiated with the Australian Democrats, there will be actually less, not more, pollution. There will be cleaner air and a better quality of life for Australians. The Bureau of Transport Economics has predicted that air pollution levels in the year 2015 will be lower than current levels, because of the changes to engine technology and fuel standards.The honourable member for Wills seems to participate in most legislation relating to Australia's tax system. He claimed that the process for distributing money with respect to the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program is not clear. I would like to reassure the honourable member that the Commonwealth government will agree on the distribution of the funds with the states in accordance with the normal processes for distributing Supported Accommodation Assistance Program moneys. The extra money being provid ed by this legislation will not adversely impact on that.The honourable member for Prospect and, indeed, the honourable member for Newcastle both claimed that a tax on books will make books more expensive, as they are currently free of wholesale sales tax. It is true that books will go up in price slightly. We anticipate they will go up by about four per cent—certainly not by the 10 per cent that was suggested by some. But one has to look at the global picture. One must also consider the very positive benefits for the book industry included in this legislation. In addition, it must be recognised that Australians will receive dramatic reductions in personal income tax. The wholesale sales tax is being scrapped. Other taxes are disappearing, and there will be a four per cent boost in pensions and benefits. So people will have more money in their pockets.The honourable member for Wills also claimed that the legislation before the chamber would provide an administrative nightmare for the book industry. The simple fact of the matter is that there will be less red tape as a result of Australia's new tax system. The government is distributing $500 million to small and medium business with respect to GST implementation, and it has been calculated that across the board there will be reductions in red tape rather than the reverse. Certainly we will be having consultations with respect to the industry, and we certainly intend to make sure that this very positive scheme introduced in this legislation works, and works well. It will work, and it will work in a very positive way.The honourable member for Prospect also appeared to be caught in a time warp, because a lot of her speech related to the situation that existed before the arrangements with the Australian Democrats. She spoke about what she perceived as being the impact of the GST on books. But one really has to look at the situation which will flow from the passage of this legislation to see the assistance being given to the book industry. I would just like to highlight a media release dated 20 August 1999 issued by the Australian Publishers Association. It said:The Australian Publishers Association today welcomed the release of details of the Book Industry Assistance Plan.Further down it said:Sandy Grant, President of the APA, said today, "I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Democrats in working together to arrive at a package which brings benefits to various sectors of the industry.It also said:Sue Blackwell, Executive Director of the APA, in welcoming the announcement said, "there has been full industry consultation on the components of this important package. The APA was consulted at several stages during the consultations and we were pleased to be involved."The legislation before the chamber certainly includes many benefits with respect to textbooks, and I refer to a media release dated 20 August 1999 issued by the Co-op Bookshop, a very well-known university bookshop. It said:Australia's largest tertiary textbook seller, the University Co-op Bookshop, which runs fifty stores Australia wide, has expressed its strong support for the 8% textbook subsidy announced by Democrats leader Meg Lees this morning.Further on it says:"The deal struck between the Government and the Democrats is very similar to the Canadian model proposed in the Co-op's own submission and I believe works very well in that country."The honourable member for Scullin claimed that this legislation meant that education would not be GST free. The lie to that particular comment is also enclosed in this media release from the Co-op Bookshop. It says:"The Government made a commitment last year that educational costs would be GST free and with this deal it has honoured that commitment."The honourable member for Scullin has been caught out with respect to that particular matter. The honourable member for Prospect also claimed that a tax on books would encourage book buyers to buy through the Internet and that money was leaving Australia. She mentioned certain of the difficulties which she considered the book industry was currently experiencing. People in this country, under Labor's old tax system, and in other countries are already buying books through the Internet, and many of the problems of the book industry which the member for Prospect highlighted have absolutely nothing at all to do with the legislation currently before the chamber.The honourable member for Mitchell made a very much more positive and erudite contribution to the debate on this legislation. He spoke about the benefits of it. He also praised, most appropriately, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs for his absolute determination to improve literacy standards in Australia. The honourable member for Dunkley also referred to the overall benefits of the tax plan. He pointed out, as I just have, that the difficulties experienced by the book industry mentioned by the member for Prospect have absolutely nothing to do with our tax reform proposals.The honourable member for Fowler joined her colleagues in what I thought was a fairly cowardly attack on Senator Meg Lees and the Australian Democrats. But she, unlike the member for Newcastle, did have the decency to actually praise the green initiatives in this legislation. The Labor Party is not actually opposing this legislation, but the honourable member for Newcastle said words to the effect that this legislation was disgusting and that the $1 billion being spent as a result of these bills was inappropriate expenditure whereas most people in this country, including those in the opposition, would say that these are very positive and important initiatives and certainly worthy of strong support.The member for Blaxland thought he was speaking on a bill related to Sydney airport, and he only peripherally touched the subject matter of this legislation. I thought it was a pity that he did not spend time praising the very important initiatives being brought about by the government.The member for Newcastle also criticised the government's responsible economic management. He forgot that when we came to government there was a budget deficit of $10.3 billion. He overlooked that we as a nation simply could not go on spending more than we in fact earned. This government did not create that problem, but we resolutely accepted that we had a responsibility to fix it, and fix it we certainly did.Certain members from Victoria failed to remember that they were in the federal parliament and sought to bring the Victorian election within the four walls of this chamber. I certainly do not intend to dignify their comments by participating in the Victorian state election.The government are very satisfied with this legislation. We are very proud of our record in the areas covered by the two bills before the chamber. We have been particularly pleased that what we are proposing has been strongly supported by people in the industry and by the community generally, and it is with a very great deal of pleasure that I commend these two bills to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.9610Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Motion (by Mr Slipper) proposed:That the bill be now read a third time.13:31:009610Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I rise to make a few comments on the third reading of the appropriation bills, as they relate to the changes in appropriation post the Democrat and government deal with respect to the introduction of the GST. I put on the record once again my concern with regard to housing and, particularly, the inadequate response with regard to homelessness. The bill allows for funding of some $60 million over four years to be allocated to assist in the increase in homelessness. I believe that is a totally inadequate response by the government, particularly in the context of the failure of the government to implement its own recommendations on the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program, SAAP.The government sponsored a review, undertaken by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, which reported in November of last year. It recommended a 25 per cent increase in SAAP funding. However, what occurred was a $45 million increase over six years in the last budget, amounting to just $7.5 million per year. In real terms that means not one cent in increased funding for services, because that funding was to go towards the award increases for staff employed in SAAP agencies. As a result of the deal with the Australian Democrats, we now have a completely inadequate response.We have an inadequate response with regard to SAAP funding and with regard to the deal that rents of public and community housing tenants will not be increased as a result of the GST. Whilst that is certainly good news for public and community housing tenants—there is no doubt about that—it is bad news for the public and community housing sector. The $70 million cut, as a result of public and community housing departments in the states having to forgo that extra revenue they would have got from the rent, has not been matched by them not having to pay the GST. That means a reduction of $70 million in the funds available in this country for public and community housing at a time when there is a crisis, with some 235,000 people on housing waiting lists in Australia.The Democrats failed in this arrangement to ensure that those funds were increased. When you add up the total cuts as a result of the GST—the increased costs of the GST, the failure of the government to index the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement and the demand for an efficiency dividend to be produced by state and territory housing departments—they come to some $461 million over the four-year period of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. That is an inadequate response.The issue of youth homelessness demands action and funds. Today we have seen an announcement by the Minister for Family and Community Services and the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, in response to the government's prime ministerial youth homelessness task force, which really is an insult to young people. There is not a single cent of new funding in the government's response. Senator Newman has now announced funding for the Youth Homelessness Early Intervention Program on four occasions since December 1998 and today we get a reannouncement. The extension of the Job Placement, Employment and Training Program was announced over four months ago in the budget. If funding for homelessness strategies multiplied every time Senator Newman announced them, we would have—$60 million multiplied by four times—$240 million. But we do not get that.The youth homelessness task force called for funding to be at appropriate levels to allow adequate coverage. But, based on a conservative estimate of 30,000 homeless Australians under the age of 24, the $60 million reannounced today amounts to a pathetic $1.30 per person per day. Ten months after the prime ministerial youth task force all we have after today's announcement, the only new announcement, is the establishment of yet another task force.These bills before the House represent the deal between the Liberals and the Democrats. The only thing that is consistent in the government's announcements is that they announce the same funding over and over again. There was an opportunity for the Democrats to achieve something, given the extent to which the government demanded, wanted and was desperate to get its sleazy GST up, but this inadequate level of increased funding just shows how cheap the price of the Australian Democrats is.13:37:009611Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I do not want to traverse the debate again, but I want to place on record that all of the GST revenue is being passed through to the states. They will have access to a growth tax. Therefore, they will have money to spend on state schools, hospitals and housing. So the states, for the first time in a very long time, will have access to a growth tax and all of the GST revenue will go through to them.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a third time.Bills9611r9039611Consideration resumed from 26 August, on motion by Mr Slipper:That the bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.9611Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper) read a third time.Bills9611r8859611Debate resumed from 30 June, on motion by Dr Kemp:That the bill be now read a second time.13:39:009611Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—The States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999 implements a number of the government's budget undertakings and, in particular, it provides an additional $36.3 million for the national literacy and numeracy plan and for literacy improvement strategies for the middle years of schooling and $26.4 million for the year 2000 to extend funding for the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools strategy.In the lead-up to the 1999 budget, the Prime Minister raised expectations amongst teachers, state ministers for education, parents and even a number of students who follow debate about education policy matters quite closely. The Prime Minister said on the Neil Mitchell program that the 1999 budget would be an education budget. Having made massive cuts to funding for education, including massive cuts to funding for universities and TAFEs, many people were hoping that the Howard government's 1999 budget would be different.When it actually appeared, unfortunately, the 1999 Howard budget turned out to be—certainly for education—unbalanced, short-sighted and unfair. The reason that we on this side of the House argue that the 1999 Howard budget could in no way be described as an education budget is that, in the first case, it was unbalanced as far as funding for schools was concerned. The government provided a massive increase in funding for non-government schools, with a minimal increase in funding for students at government schools across the nation, so it was unbalanced.It was unfair because the government abolished the merit based equity scholarships for university students. That was a token program that was established when former education minister Senator Vanstone made the massive $800 million cuts in federal funding for universities. Yet, the Prime Minister in his education budget abolished those merit based equity scholarships, so kids from poor families, rural backgrounds and non-English speaking backgrounds would no longer be able to receive those scholarships. In fact, the $700,000 that the Prime Minister has spent on renovations to the Lodge and Kirribilli could have paid for 200 of those scholarships for kids from needy backgrounds. So we would certainly say that it was not only unbalanced in the way it funded schools but also unfair in the way the merit based equity scholarships for kids from poor backgrounds who wanted to attend university were concerned.It was also short-sighted because in this so-called education budget no money was found to restore growth funding for TAFEs. Of course, as we have raised on many occasions, the government is continuing to cut back the Commonwealth government's investment in education, training and research. In the last year of the Labor government, Commonwealth investment in education, training and research hit three per cent of gross national product. I have met many people involved in schools, TAFE colleges, universities and vocational training who would argue that, even in 1996, an investment of three per cent of the national income of the Commonwealth's budget for education, training and research was not enough. But if three per cent was not enough to be investing in 1996, look where we are today—investment by the Commonwealth government in education, training and research has fallen away to only 2½ per cent in the most recent budget, with the forward estimates showing a further decline to only 2.3 per cent.I am sure that the students in the galleries today understand that if Australia does not invest more in their education, does not invest more in giving them opportunities to develop their vocational skills for employment, does not invest more in giving them the opportunities to become software programmers or medical researchers who discover the next big breakthrough for diagnosing and curing illness, and does not invest more in giving industrial researchers better ways to produce goods and services in Australia, then Australia's long-term future will be compromised.Australia needs to invest more in education, training and research. I know my colleague the member for Rankin, with a number of us on this side of the House, has played a very close role in putting together the figures that demonstrate quite clearly that the 1999 Howard budget—the so-called education budget—was actually a retreat in the Commonwealth's effort for investing in education, training and research.The point to make is that the government's legislation which is currently before us does a couple of things for schools. I will turn first of all to literacy. I will say a few things about literacy this afternoon, but the first point to make is that we currently have in Dr Kemp, the member for Goldstein, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, a person who believes that getting political coverage and grandstanding on literacy are more important than actually improving literacy in Australian schools. That is not the view just of the Labor Party. Speak to Liberal Party state ministers for education around the country and they will point out that in the current Commonwealth minister for education we have a person who uses literacy every time he is placed under pressure.0K6BARTLETTMr Bartlett—You would spend a lot of time trying to confirm that.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—We will challenge the member for Macquarie to indicate what his views are on these issues because I would like to contrast the views of the member for Macquarie with the views of, for example, the Victorian Liberal Minister for Education, Mr Phil Gude, who, on 15 September 1997, described Dr Kemp, the member for Goldstein, as a spin doctor on literacy matters. In a media release on 24 September 1997, he said, `This is typical schoolyard bully stuff.' On Four Corners a few weeks ago, on 9 August 1999, Phil Gude, the Liberal Minister for Education, said:Well I think what he was clearly trying to do was to gain a profile on an issue, and I thought it was not cricket if you like . . . to use the kids . . . 0K6BARTLETTMr Bartlett—Are you opposing—MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—These are not my words; these are the words of your colleague the Victorian Liberal Minister for Education. Let me give the member for Macquarie the full quote again. On Four Corners , on 9 August 1999—a few weeks ago—Phil Gude, Liberal Minister for Education in Victoria, said:Well I think what he was clearly trying to do was to gain a profile on an issue, and I thought it was not cricket if you like . . . to use the kids, use the teachers, use the profession in that way. I've found in my life that honesty has never got me into any trouble.The interviewer asked Mr Gude:You accused him at the time . . . [of] `Deliberately and mischievously manipulating data to portray literacy at a perilous level'?To which Mr Gude answered, `Yes, I did . . . because I believe that's what was done.' There you had the Victorian Liberal Minister for Education saying, `Yes, Dr Kemp, the member for Goldstein, the minister for education, deliberately and mischievously manipulated data to portray literacy at a perilous level.'83VEMERSONMr Emerson—A damning indictment.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—It is a damning indictment when the minister for education's own colleagues point out the truth about his attempts to use literacy to advance his own political career rather than to try to make sure that Australian kids have a better chance to improve their literacy skills.It has always amazed me that the federal minister for education would support state governments actually cutting back the number of teachers trying to help students to improve their literacy and numeracy. It has always amazed me that the minister for education would support conservative state governments which have actually reduced the number of teachers who are out there. We were just talking about Victoria. Mr Gude has presided over a reduction of 9,000 teachers in the state of Victoria—9,000 fewer teachers, 9,000 fewer people able to work one-on-one with those students who might be having difficulty with literacy and numeracy.How can Dr Kemp, the member for Goldstein, argue that you can improve literacy for Australian kids by having fewer teachers available to sit down and work with students to resolve their problems? It is our contention that if the federal government were prepared to work cooperatively and try to develop a spirit of bipartisanship in improving literacy, then we would do a lot better than by using bullying and headline grabbing as Dr Kemp, the minister for education, has sought to do.The most recent development is that the states have now sidelined the federal minister for education. We had an announcement on 4 August by the Labor government in New South Wales, the Liberal government in Victoria, the Liberal government in South Australia and the Liberal coalition government in the ACT that they would be undertaking nationally comparable tests, with the Labor government in Queensland to participate from next year. All of this completely excludes the federal minister for education. We welcome that the states are doing what Dr Kemp could never achieve. The states are getting together to make sure—0K6BARTLETTMr Bartlett—It was a Commonwealth initiative.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—So it was a Commonwealth initiative, was it? I hate to tell the member for Macquarie—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Dobell will ignore the member for Macquarie.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—I know he is testing your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker, but we do our best to educate members such as the member for Macquarie. We do our best to try to make sure that they understand that it is their own coalition colleagues who have sidelined the minister for education.It is certainly true that the federal minister for education stands up in this House and claims credit for the fact that the states have sidelined him and that the states have now established comparable tests in literacy. But I make the point that these are not tests that have been developed by the federal minister for education. These are tests that have been developed in spite of the federal minister for education. These are tests that Labor and Liberal states have put together through a spirit of cooperation. If the minister for education were more interested in advancing that cooperation and spirit of bipartisanship rather than seeking to grab headlines for himself, then even more progress could have been attained.You would almost think that there was no focus on literacy until the federal minister for education came along. That completely ignores the fact that as far back as 1987 New South Wales was conducting basic skills testing. In Victoria and South Australia, it has been taking place since 1995. Since his first day as the minister for education, the member for Goldstein has sought to use literacy as a platform for self-promotion. He has dishonestly portrayed the National Schools English Literacy Survey, set up under the Working Nation plan of the federal Labor government, as his own initiative. The member for Goldstein has never acknowledged that $17 million was provided in 1995 and 1996 under the former government's early literacy program.He has also never acknowledged that he manipulated the results of the NSELS in order to manufacture a crisis atmosphere. Of course, he was not happy with the initial results that were produced by that study so he had the figures redone to produce his own benchmark figures, which then allowed him to go on 60 Minutes—a disgraceful performance—in September 1997, where he suggested that there was some massive conspiracy between the teacher unions and state departments of education to cover up the fact that one-third of all kids cannot read and write properly. If that were true, how does the minister explain the results that have been coming through since the mid-1980s in states like New South Wales? How does the minister explain that his own Liberal colleagues, in states where his party has been in control, completely reject the bogus conclusions that he has developed? It is quite clear that on literacy more progress needs to be made.Just before I leave the matter of literacy, there is the important issue of parents working with their children to improve their literacy by sitting down at night and reading to their kids. Reading in the morning rather than letting their children watch TV would also help. A few minutes ago in this House we had a parliamentary secretary arguing that the government's new GST and its rebate for books will mean that education is now GST free. This bill provides funding for schools because it says there should be more money going into literacy. But what the government cannot deny is that its GST legislation places a 10 per cent tax on books such as this one—Test your child's reading level 3—that parents can use. A parent in your own electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker, can purchase this book at a bookshop in your electorate and work to improve their child's reading, assess the level of reading that their son or daughter may have and then work with their teachers to try to improve it. All of these books will have a 10 per cent GST placed on them. None of these books will qualify for the rebate if they are purchased by a parent, and it is completely misleading for the government to claim that education will now be GST free—let alone the GST that will be imposed on the uniforms, the bus fares, the lunches and all of the other expenses that parents have in making sure their children get a good education.I would like to turn to the second element of the bill that seeks to provide $26 million for the year 2000 to extend funding for the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools strategy. We note that the minister's praise for this program and its value in developing cultural understanding and skills for participation in the global economy never includes recognition that this was established under the former Labor government, with strong support from governments such as the Goss government in Queensland. It was through the cooperative efforts of the federal and state governments in those days that these Asian language programs were introduced in schools right across Australia. This is no surprise, given that the current federal minister for education also takes credit for other Labor government initiatives such as the Australian Student Traineeship Foundation and the Jobs Pathway program. He actually told the House in question time on 25 August that the Jobs Pathway program had been established by the coalition—a complete and utter falsehood. This minister tries to take credit for the good ideas of others when he has never had a single good idea himself.We believe this minister has an obsession with undermining our great public institutions—our universities, our TAFE colleges, our government schools. This minister has an ideological agenda about shifting education as far and as quickly as possible from our great public institutions into private institutions. It is effectively a privatisation of education. The point we make is that it is not the way the future of education in Australia should go.The other point is that on budget night there was a commitment from the minister to provide an additional $77.7 million for teacher professional development. `Teacher professional development' rang a little bell. While we welcome these funds, we have to point out that it was the former Labor government and not the Howard government that introduced funding for professional development for teachers. But it was the coalition that broke its 1996 election promise to continue to fund the professional development programs that the Keating and Hawke governments had funded.Mr Nairn interjecting—MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—So you do concede your promise on professional development funding was broken? I thank the member of Eden-Monaro for that concession. You promised in 1996 to provide professional development funding, and you broke that promise. In this budget you again promised $77 million for teacher professional development, but where is it? This is the bill that funds budget announcements from the 1999 budget. There is money there for literacy in middle years, there is money for rolling over the Asian language strategy, but where is the money for teacher professional development? That is the money that will give us the best chance to raise the quality of teaching in our schools, that will help teachers update their skills to make sure that they have the latest training and the latest information at their fingertips and that they are providing the best possible quality of education to students in schools right across the country. Where is it? We are entitled to ask.This is the bill that implements budget promises. The sum of $77 million was promised for professional development for teachers to increase the quality of teaching in our schools, but it is not in this bill. So this afternoon we challenge the federal minister for education to tell us where the money has gone. Where is the $77 million that was promised for professional development for teachers? The coalition broke the promise in 1996 to continue the Labor government's funding for professional development for teachers. Again the government promised $77 million in this budget, but it is not in this bill. So, as he enters the chamber, we challenge the minister for education: tell us what happened to the $77 million, David, for professional development for teachers. You broke the promise in 1996 and there is no money in this bill that implements the budget promises for the professional development of teachers. The point we make is that this money needs to be committed now so that the money can be allocated from 1 January next year.While the minister is in the chamber, let me set a question for the minister—a question that every primary school student who might be in the gallery here today can answer. What is 32 minus four? Every student in the gallery could tell us that it is 28. When David Kemp, the federal minister for education, subtracts four from 32 he gets 33. In this House he told us there was an increase in new apprenticeships from 204,000 to 232,000 and that that was an increase of 33,000. Do you remember that, Minister? Two days ago the minister said that 32 minus four is 33. You would fail a primary school student who made that mistake. We say this minister has failed on many occasions in the way that he has manipulated and distorted statistics. He is the person who needs some numeracy education, and today I am prepared on behalf of the Labor Party to fund a numeracy remedial course for this minister of education. We will pass the hat around to fund a remedial course in numeracy for this federal minister for education because he does not know that 32 minus four is 28 and not 33.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Ministerial Arrangements961614:00:009616Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Minister for Sport and Tourism, the Hon. Jackie Kelly, is ill and will be absent from question time today. The Minister for Defence will answer questions on her behalf.Questions Without Notice961696169616Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Minister, I refer you to the report released last week by the Australian National Audit Office entitled Managing data privacy in Centrelink . Didn't the report criticise Centrelink for breaches of privacy, including the insecurity of clients' paper files, the emailing of confidential client information, the downloading of client data for possible sale and the photocopying of customer credit cards with full details and expiry dates? In light of this damning report, if you were one of the 6½ million Australians who are Centrelink customers, would you be assured of the security of your private details?9616Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—I thank the member for Lilley for his question. Yes, I am aware of the ANAO report that was tabled last week. There were 11 recommendations. Six of the recommendations have already been evaluated by Centrelink, and they will be endorsing the lot.96169616Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise the House of the June quarter national account figures released this morning by the Australian Bureau of Statistics? What do the national accounts indicate about Australia's economic performance?9616Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Macquarie for his question. Today's national accounts for the June quarter showed that growth had moderated for the quarter to 0.2 per cent but showed an average growth throughout the year of 1998-99 as a very strong 4½ per cent. Four and a half per cent was a little above the government's forecast in the May budget of 4¼ per cent and indicates that during the year 1998-99 Australia grew faster than G7, OECD and regional economies. The government has been anticipating a slowdown from 4½ per cent plus rates of growth in 1999-2000. In the May budget, we forecast growth of the order of three per cent. The 0.2 per cent for the June quarter came on the back of a revision upwards of the March quarter to 1.4 per cent, showing trend growth of around 0.9 per cent, which is consistent with those forecasts for 1999-2000.The good news is that the national accounts show that inflation remains subdued in Australia, with the household consumption deflator rising only 0.1 per cent in the June quarter for 1.1 per cent through the year. The government has forecast a slowing in 1999-2000 ahead of a world economic pick-up in 2000-01, which will give external impetus to the Australian economy and allow it to resume somewhat stronger rates of growth in following years as the world economy generally picks up. Today's result is very much consistent with the budget forecast which the government put out. The government will be considering its official forecasts, however, in the context of its midyear review, expected this year to be released in November.96169616Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Minister, can you explain how 101 confidential social security files were dumped into two wheelie bins belonging to Harry's Hubcaps, a small business in the Queensland suburb of Brendale? They were the types of files which contain personal details of clients, their home address es, details of complaints they had lodged to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, personal correspondence outlining intimate details as well as the final recommendation of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. Will the minister urgently investigate and report back to the House on who dumped these confidential files in the wheelie bins, where they came from and why they were not properly secured? Will you immediately institute an inquiry into the breakdown of privacy safeguards within Centrelink and your department?9617Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—As always, I would like to thank the member for Lilley. It is one thing being in the gutter; it is another thing being in the wheelie bin. But I take very seriously the question put forward by the member for Lilley. Indeed, I am aware that there are a number of documentations, including Social Security Appeals Tribunal documents, which I might add are also given to customers and not just to Centrelink officers. These were found in these wheelie bins. I have asked that Centrelink ensure that there are no breaches and that there are adequate and secure disposal procedures. That will be well investigated.96179617Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, in recognising the great efforts of the government in ensuring the jobs of thousands of young Australians through the continuation of junior rates, would you inform the House whether any obstacles still remain which could see this deal on junior rates negotiated by the government overturned?9617Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Our understanding was that the Senate would deal with this matter this week and now we find that, to the convenience of the Labor Party, this issue is not going to be dealt with by the Senate. The shadow minister said this morning that he is having discussions with the Democrats.Mr Bevis interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane!Mr Bevis interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane is defying the chair, and any such defiance will be dealt with.WI4Mr REITH—Why would you be having discussions with the Democrats if you were going to support the legislation, as it went through this House last week? We find that the Labor Party has been having meetings with the ACTU. What do the ACTU say when asked to comment on the meeting? They say, `No comment.' We are entitled to be suspicious about your approach to this issue, particularly when only a week ago you were getting a dusting over by the very same ACTU that yesterday said `no comment' on the issue. There are four members of the shoppies union in the Senate—three of them in the Labor Party, two ex-state secretaries; people dependent on the shoppies for their preselection—and there is every reason to believe, as we believe, that the Labor Party is looking at what it can do to backtrack on last week's deal.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Last week you moved our amendments.WI4Mr REITH—I take the interjection. He said that last week he agreed to his amendments.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—No, you moved our amendments.WI4Mr REITH—Your amendments. Let us accept that they are your amendments. Why would you be contemplating with the Democrats what will transpire in the Senate if you are not thinking of moving away from your so-called amendments? I think it is great that you think they are your amendments.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under what standing order can I raise a point of order when a minister is talking absolute baloney?SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—If you don't know, sit down.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Is there one that enables us to deal with figments of imagination?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. He is aware that that is not a point of order. He is also aware that the answer is in the hands of the minister.WI4Mr REITH—If they were fair dinkum on this issue, this bill would have gone through the Senate this week, as understood, without any question about the Labor Party supporting Democrat amendments. The shadow minister said this morning that the Labor Party will not be moving any amendments. But, of course, that is not the game, nor is it the proposal from the shoppies union. It is a simple plan: get the Democrats to plant a poisoned pill in our legislation and in that way claw back from the position that you had.DT4CREANMr Crean—That's a lie.WI4Mr REITH—I will tell you the words that we did agree that were your words. Those words were that we would give an undertaking that, once this issue was dealt with last week, that would be the end of the matter. Those were the words that you put to us. It was fair enough that we would agree to them. Why wouldn't we? We got what we wanted. Why would we not want to see certainty in this issue for employers and young people, knowing that the legislative regime was properly in place? Now we find the Labor Party scurrying around the backdoor talking with the Democrats about what amendments the Democrats are going to be moving.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is there another standing order that enables me to deal with completely manufactured and preposterous propositions? There must be something there.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is well aware of the forms of this House.WI4Mr REITH—There is no hiding behind the fact that the Labor Party are under a lot of pressure. We know the Leader of the Opposition, from the words of Neal Blewett, has a long history of giving way to the latest bit of pressure put on him. He has had a heap of pressure from the trade union movement and he is sulking around the corridors of this place looking for a clawback for the ACTU as usual.DT4CREANMr Crean—You're a liar!WI4Mr REITH—The member for Batman said:In the world I was brought up in, it also means that when you give your word you honour your word. 5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The standing orders do say that it is unparliamentary to cast reflections on members, and this absolute lie that he is telling is an absolute reflection on the member for Brisbane and on all of us here who are not doing any of the things which this lunatic is pretending and inventing.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! Was the member for Gellibrand seeking the call?83KROXONMs Roxon—I was rising to ask a question. I thought that the minister had finished but, if he hasn't, I will wait.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I in fact had not responded to the comments made by the Manager of Opposition Business, and I was waiting for the House to come to order. I will recognise the member for Gellibrand in just a moment, as I will the member for Batman. The Manager of Opposition Business has raised a point of order about reflecting on members. I would remind him that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is, as he knows, equally guilty in having used unparliamentary language in reflecting on the minister, and I ask him to withdraw.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Ask him but not him.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—One issue at a time. I want to indicate to you that I had in fact not interrupted the minister, but the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had used unparliamentary language in reflecting on the minister, and I require him to withdraw.DT4CREANMr Crean—Are you going to require the minister to withdraw his blatant untruth?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is required to withdraw the statement he made during the ministerial answer, unconditionally.DT4CREANMr Crean—I withdraw, but he should too.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Unconditionally.DT4CREANMr Crean—These are blatant untruths, and he knows it. This is a man who cannot be believed.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—This sort of behaviour will not be tolerated. The minister has been unnecessarily provocative, but he has not used the unparliamentary language that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition used. Clearly, that is the reason I asked the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for a withdrawal.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am not inviting the member for Batman to ask a question. Is he seeking the call for a question or to comment?LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Mr Speaker, it goes to the question of the minister deliberately misleading this House. It goes to a question of relevance and parliamentary expectations of balance and truthfulness. My word is my bond.Mr Brough interjecting—Government members interjecting—LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—We will stick by our word. There has been no change to the Labor Party position. I ask the minister to stop lying to the House.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have just witnessed an abuse of parliamentary privilege from both sides of this House, an abuse that will not be tolerated and an abuse that the member for Batman knows he just deliberately exercised. I warn him.WI4Mr REITH—Mr Speaker, this is a pretty simple issue—5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, you have not actually ruled on my point of order, unless requiring the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to withdraw constituted ruling on my point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The point of order of the Manager of Opposition Business was not overlooked and, if he thought it was, I apologise to him. In fact, I had indicated simultaneously that the language used by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was distinctly unparliamentary. That was not a distinction that could be made about the language used by the Leader of the House.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, just to clarify my point of order: I was not saying his language was unparliamentary. I was saying it was a reflection on all of us and that we require his lie to be withdrawn.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business knows perfectly well that there is nothing that has been said by the Leader of the House that under standing orders he is required to withdraw.Mr McMullan interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business also knows that, if the chair were to require general reflections to be withdrawn, we would be perpetually having comments withdrawn. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition made an unparliamentary comment about an individual and I rightly required him to withdraw it. That is entirely consistent with rulings in this place over the 16 years that I have been in this chamber.WI4Mr REITH—We had an agreement with the Labor Party. I simply make the point that we would like to see the agreement that was reached in this parliament and which was announced publicly, an agreement effectively with the Australian people and particularly young people—Motion (by Mr Beazley) put:That the member be not further heard.The House divided. [2.22 p.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the negative.WI4Mr REITH—This issue could be settled this week. It could be settled by the bill going through the Senate this week without any changes.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I move that the member be not further heard.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has moved a motion that the chair cannot accept. The House has just divided on that matter.Dissent from Ruling961914:28:009619Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I move:That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the Opposition is perfectly able to move a motion of dissent from my ruling if he so desires. That motion currently has precedence. The House will come to order.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—The relevant standing order in relation to closure is standing order 94, which says:A motion may be made that a Member who is speaking, except a Member giving a notice of motion or formally moving the terms of a motion allowed under the standing orders, "be not further heard", and such question shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate.There is no qualification on that particular proposition. The member concerned here had started speaking again. That was quite clear. There was therefore a gap between the time when the House last considered the matter and the time when I moved the motion. That is the only criteria that ought to apply here. Of course, if I had moved it immediately he stood up, it would not be appropriate. I waited until he had got another couple of his utterly untruthful sentences out and then I moved it.It is necessary for me to move it—and, I am afraid, to move dissent from your ruling—because what is going on here is a get-up. That is what is going on here as far as this minister is concerned. He has manufactured out of nothing a set of propositions to overcome the smarting he has done from being obliged to accept our position on youth wages. I can comprehend his smarting on this matter, but what I cannot comprehend is why he would want to take it so far by being persistently and deliberately misleading in this chamber. There have been no meetings. The question of who is in control—WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House does not have the call and will not have the call until members on my left exercise some restraint.WI4REITHMr Reith—Under the standing orders you are not entitled to allege that someone has been deliberately misleading the House. It should be withdrawn and then we will get on to the debate.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has the call and did in fact indicate that he was withdrawing, but it may have been before the microphone was re-engaged.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I do withdraw, Mr Speaker. But I persist further with the reason why this person should be no longer heard and why it is in the standing orders that he be no longer heard on this matter. There is absolutely nothing in his claim: nothing, no meetings—WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—They are the people in control of the agenda in the Senate. Bring on your bill.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the House has raised a point of order.WI4REITHMr Reith—My point of order is that the motion before the chair is a limited one. I do not mind if he wants to go to the substance of the debate in the matters which I raised in my answer, provided that I will likewise be able to express my concerns about the Labor Party's attitude and caving in to a bit of pressure on this issue.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition does not as yet have the call. The Leader of the House has raised a point of order. There is some validity in the Leader of the House's point of order and the chair finds itself in some difficulty in ruling on a point of order on a matter of dissent from the chair's ruling. I would invite the Leader of the Opposition to confine his remarks more directly to the motion before the House.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Yes, Mr Speaker. But, of course, in the process of moving a motion that a person be not further heard, one ought to have a few reasons for it, I suppose. And in those circumstances it would be pretty reasonable to explain myself in that regard. It is a very easy explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will in fact refer to the motion before the House, which is not a matter of whether or not anyone be heard; it is a motion to dissent from the chair's ruling.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Mr Speaker, dissent from your ruling revolves around both the action of the minister in this regard and also, of course, the standing orders themselves. There is no qualification on the standing orders. There is no qualification which says that once a person has begun speaking again, you cannot move a motion that a person be not further heard. There may be an anticipation that that would not be frequently applied. In the course of standing orders on any particular day, there would be that anticipation that such a motion would not be repeatedly moved against a particular member.But of course this set of standing orders was written by somebody who did not have in the House the current Leader of the House, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. It would not be within the experience of the people who wrote that particular standing order that one would see in this House a person so mendacious in the way in which he presented himself and government policy on these matters. So perhaps there is a weakness in the standing orders, as the advent of the minister for workplace relations in this place could not have possibly been considered by any reasonable person when drafting the standing orders but, unfortunately, the accident has happened. The accident having happened, the standing orders have to be thoroughly tested. The standing orders have to be thoroughly tested in the way in which they are being tested here.It would have been—even though these standing orders are silent on the matter—unreasonable for me to have immediately moved a motion to no longer hear this particular minister. Therefore, it was necessary to wait for a moment or two—as any reasonable person ought to have been reassured that the views we have on this matter were firm and being proceeded with—so that we could hear the first two sentences of the minister. He could have said words to the effect of, `Oh well, despite the fact that I have wandered around the place misleading, in my usual mendacious way, I now accept the assurances from the Leader of the Opposition that I am talking complete baloney.' But because he was unable to stand up and confess that he was talking complete baloney, it became necessary for us to again move that he no longer be heard. And the standing orders protect the capacity of members of this House—which is why I am moving this dissent from the chair's ruling—to be able to deal with members who are standing up and talking complete baloney in this place in the way in which the minister for workplace relations was doing.Mr Speaker, you have a problem. You have a problem that you have to preside over these standing orders, which were drafted without the anticipation of the arrival in this place of the minister for workplace relations. You somehow have to attempt to deal with the problem of a minister who has engaged in the most extraordinary piece of fantasising for political purposes which any of us have seen in this place. It really makes you wonder whether this is a person you could possibly hold a discussion with, let alone deal with in this particular area. Mr Speaker, you have to preside over this set of circumstances in which we have an unusual minister in this place—a person who is prepared to stand up and, without one jot or tittle of evidence, use the cowards' castle of question time, which normally gives ministers the capacity to say anything they like.This minister is on notice and the government is on notice: they are not going to be able to stand up in this place and say anything they like. When they choose to stand up in this place and persist, despite the fact that they are getting from across the chamber total denial of what they are talking about, then the full force of the standing orders available will be used to deal with them. We will deal with them in the way the standing orders permit us to deal with them.We took a sensible decision on these matters underpinning a number of aspects of the development of our policy and we obliged the minister to come to the party. He has been smarting since he has been obliged to come to the party, but standing order 94 could never have anticipated that a person dragged kicking and screaming to a conclusion would then decide to stand up in this place, in order to try to bogusly get ground back, and accuse his political opponents, without a jot or tittle of evidence, of something that he conjured up in his own mind for political advantage.Why would he do that? Why would standing order 94 have to be put in place in this regard? He is absolutely determined to convey the impression, as far as this is concerned, that he has got what he wants. He is absolutely determined to convey that impression when he knows he has not got what he wants. He knows he is not going to be able to oblige the Industrial Relations Commission to mandate youth wages wherever a young person is employed in an industry. He knows that, much against his will, the freedom of action of the umpire has been preserved.This is indeed embarrassing for this particular minister. Therefore, it was necessary for him to confect in his mind a crisis and hope that the gullible in the media will think that something is on when nothing is on. He will hope that the gullible in the media and public will think that there are meetings taking place on this matter between the shadow minister for industrial relations and the Democrats, which is completely untrue. He would think that it is the Labor Party delaying the consideration of these matters in the Senate when, in fact, the Senate is, as usual, bogged down by the incompetence of the Manager of Government Business in the Senate. He would expect the gullible in the media to accept at face value that that is the situation that is taking place.We have standing order 94 to deal with these mendacious performances. That is why we have standing order 94. It permits a member in this place, when dealing with somebody talking absolute garbage, to take out the trash can, to take the garbage out in the wheelie bin, by ensuring that the person is no longer heard. That is what that standing order permits us to do. It permits us to do it at any time, except perhaps in the very reasonable circumstance of moving it immediately after a particular resolution on the matter had been considered. It would not, Mr Speak er, in moving dissent from your ruling, have been appropriate for me, having had the matter determined immediately before, to have stood up and moved it again.In those circumstances, I thought it would be useful for me to wait for a moment or two and hear the minister say, `I have tried my little trick on this matter and I now accept that my cover has been blown. There have been no discussions whatsoever between the opposition and others on this particular matter. The fact that I was obliged to get up and move the opposition's amendments to my particular bill still stands. That is the situation which continues to apply. I accept that now. It is a nice try on. That is the sort of thing I like to do—wander around and throw the odd bomb and see who it blows up on and hope desperately it blows up on my opponents rather than on me.' On this occasion what we have seen is a minister taken out by friendly fire—in this case his own; the fire is not friendly from our side.I find from advice from my Senate colleagues that what has been occurring in the Senate is that the ALP has been ready and willing to vote on the junior wages issue since Monday night but we have not been given the opportunity to do so.Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman has already been warned.WI4REITHMr Reith—I raise a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition is obliged to be relevant to the question at hand. If it is his view that he would be prepared to see the legislation go through this week without change then he now has the opportunity to say so.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—What point of order does the Leader of the House have?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—He cannot help himself. He blusters in here and says, `You move a motion in this place and give us an assurance that you will see this matter passed through this place this week.'Mr Reith interjecting—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Again, he uses the same tactic to assume that there was a problem in that regard. Why did you not move it on Monday night in the Senate. What is your answer on that? Have you been hanging on to it for some purpose?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition knows that he has an obligation to confine his remarks to the motion before the chair.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—That is why I moved and am entitled to move, under the standing orders, closure at any time. This is yet another demonstration of this. We have been in a position to vote on this for a couple of months now. We were in a position to vote on it in the Senate from the moment it came into that place on Monday. Who determines the Senate list? The government determines the Senate list. Why has it not been debated? It is reasonable to ask the managers of government business why they have not brought it on.Now, should I start a process of fantasy? Should my fantasy contemplate the possibility that they have delayed this precisely so that the Leader of the House can try to manufacture a bogus crisis? Is that why the government has not permitted us to discuss these matters in the Senate since Monday night, though they have complete control of the agenda as far as that is concerned? Would it be a fantasy on my part to assume that it was a deliberate strategy being pursued by this particular minister to confect this particular crisis or is it just as usual the bungling, bumbling ways of the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, replicated by the bungling, bumbling ways of the Leader of the House in this place?Mr Speaker, you cannot find anywhere in standing orders a statement which says that this particular motion of closure on a member cannot be moved at any time. There is, I think, a reasonableness test that would apply to it, and that reasonableness test would be that it persistently was being moved in the absence of a continuation of remarks. That would be a reasonableness test. There is, in fact, no reasonableness test here, for that particular test of being reasonable does not apply in these circumstances, either, because we had an opportunity to hear further from him. Unfortunately, Mr Speaker, you are a victim of the other side of the House in this regard. You have been obliged to make a ruling that cannot be sustained by reference to standing orders simply because of the behaviour of the government's bomb thrower; a bomb thrower who manages to throw them without powder so that all that is left is the detonator and, in this instance, the detonator has taken his fingers off with the launch. That is what has happened as far as this particular minister is concerned.It is a shame that the minister has produced a set of circumstances that oblige us to move dissent from your ruling. But I strongly suspect that after today, Mr Speaker, we will see one of two things happen. Either these standing orders will be altered in order for the government to be able to ram anything through this particular parliament that it likes or the behaviour of this particular minister will be markedly improved. That may be the triumph of hope over experience, but I certainly do not think his colleagues along the frontbench will thank him for raining on their parade during the course of today. It may well be that the general public finds this tedious, but what we will get out of this is a few standards from this minister.14:47:009623McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—I very happily second the motion because the standing orders make the right of the Leader of the Opposition to move this motion very clear. But we do have some sympathy for your position, Mr Speaker, because we know that nobody who proposed these standing orders would have envisaged anybody behaving like this. Alfred Deakin, when he proposed this particular standing order, never envisaged anybody would behave like this, particularly because you should not have exercised the discretion you have in interpreting the standing orders in the way you have. You have created an opportunity for this person, who knows what he says is not true because he is also the Leader of the House. He is also the person who gets advice about how the legislative program is going in the Senate.I used to be the Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate. We used to communi cate with the Leader of the House all the time about how the business was going in the other chamber. They would have told the Leader of the House that the RFA Bill has been dragging on all week, that the youth wages bill is next, that we are ready to debate it and that when the Democrats proposed sending it to a committee we said, `No, we're ready to go now.' On Monday we said that, today we say that. Tuesday, today, any day you want—bring it on now. We will vote on it now, and we will be very happy to be judged by our actions. But why has this matter come on? Why is there some speculation that we might change our position? Because he created that speculation. He went out and, on a doorstop, released his own transcript—because nobody else would do so—saying, `I think they might be about to reverse their position.'10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business knows he needs to bring his remarks back to the decision.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—Mr Speaker, my point is that you have exercised a discretion, and I am trying to put the argument why it is inappropriate.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You nonetheless understand the need to focus on the motion which is before the chair.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—I understand that, because failure to do so would be an effective endorsement of someone coming in here creating a circumstance in which they can say things which they know not to be true, in spite of the objections of all the opposition members, and persist. And, if your interpretation is upheld, there is no remaining protection for the opposition in the face of blatant untruths being told by ministers who deliberately fabricate a circumstance in saying that the ACTU thinks this might be right when the ACTU said your comments are an absolute beat-up. The ACTU said it was a beat-up. We say it is a beat-up. If we were supposed to have had a discussion, who was there who thinks you are telling the truth? There was an assertion, Mr Speaker, that we might have had a meeting about this matter with the Democrats. We have not. There has not been a meeting on this matter between our shadow minister and the Democrat shadow minister—none. There has been no contemplation.If we allow this sort of behaviour to continue, we are creating a circumstance in which this Kamasutra Pete can come in here, have all sorts of positions on everything and lower the standards of the place even further than he has already done. He, I remind you Mr Speaker, is the person who is supposed to assist you in the management of the place because he is the Leader of the House. The standing orders never envisaged a circumstance where an individual would come in and, knowing that it is within his capacity to have the matter dealt with, try to make an issue out of the fact that it is not being dealt with. He knows there has been no discussion. There has been no meeting.WI4REITHMr Reith—He said it publicly this morning.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—You have been eating magic mushrooms again, Pete. You are imagining it. You are hallucinating.Government members interjecting—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Manager of Opposition Business has the call. The House will come to order.Mr Crean interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—We suspect that the problem is that he cannot stand the fact that there has been an agreement. He has to foment conflict. When there is agreement, he has to overturn it so that there is a bit of conflict again, so that he can adopt a new position and try to find some new way of scoring political points. He was horrified at the fact that he has been forced to do something in the national interest. Youth wages has been an issue he has been playing with as a political toy since 1996. He has been playing political games with it and he has suddenly found that his toy is going to be taken away from him. So he comes in here—Mr Downer interjecting—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—and deliberately fabricates a circumstance—Mr Crean interjecting—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—which he then seeks to exploit at question time.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition!5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—He deliberately exploits it at question time. He cannot stand there being an agreement.Mr Downer interjecting—Mr Crean interjecting—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—I have in the past described negotiating with this Leader of the House as being—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! I warn the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I warn the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—We have previously described trying to hold discussions with the Leader of the House as `amiably useless'. The only thing that I would change now is that it is not going to be very amiable from here on in, because you cannot take his word. Nobody in Australia and nobody on that side of the House takes his word. The member for La Trobe has left because he probably does not want to have to vote on a motion in support of him—and I do not blame him. Nobody over there believes that the word of this minister counts for anything. And why? Because they have to deal with him more often than we do. He probably tells them they are going to go home on time. Leaders of the House have been known to do that.This is a very serious circumstance. The standing orders say that this is a motion that can be moved at any time. The House of Representatives Practice refers to the circumstances in which discretion might be exercised about accepting that motion, but it certainly does not envisage this circumstance; that is, the circumstance in which the opposition has been confronted with deliberate, provocative, misleading, wantonly irresponsible and untrue statements by a minister commenting on a circumstance which he himself has entirely fabricated, and then coming in as if that fabrication, which he has made and distributed himself, were a fact and then seeking to comment on those `facts'. It is as if he thinks, `If I say it, it must be true. If I invent this circumstance, it is now a fact upon which I can comment.'There is no justification for this at all. He starts his statement by saying, `I have great fears,' but there is no basis for it. He does not say it might be true; he does say, `We now know that the Senate is not going to deal with the issue this week.' How does he know it? Because the Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate told him, and he would have told him why. The RFA Bill is going on and on, not because of us—we are ready to vote on that too—but because Senator Brown has been going on and on. And they would have told this person, the Leader of the House, the facts of it. They would have told this person that, when it was proposed to send this bill off to a committee, we said, `No. Let's deal with it here.'We are ready to deal with that bill now. We were ready yesterday and we were ready on Monday and, if you move a motion to bring it on, we will do it. I was Manager of Government Business in the Senate and I know who sets the schedule by which bills are dealt with, and that is your problem. Every morning, they ask the Manager of Government Business, `What sequence do you want the bills dealt with in?' And you have a discretion. You can say, `I want Youth Wages first today,' and nobody can do anything about it. The opposition cannot stop you; the minor parties cannot stop you. All you have to say is, `That is what I want.' Any morning you could have rung up Ian Campbell and said, `Put the youth wages bill on now,' and it would have been on.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Manager of Opposition Business knows that we are straying a little from the dissent motion.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—It is absolutely why the discretion which you exercised was an inappropriate exercise of that discretion, because he knows—or should know and is in a position to know—that everything he said is untrue. He said it deliberately and he persisted in saying it up to the point at which—WI4REITHMr Reith—I have a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Manager of Opposition Business is in breach of standing orders, being unparliamentary. The fact is that we have asked them two of three times to put on this bill in the Senate this week and we have been told no on every occasion.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House has made his point of order and will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business will withdraw any reference to the Leader of the House deliberately misleading—5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I did not say `deliberately misleading'. I said he said something untrue that he knew was untrue. That is not unparliamentary; it is fairly standard. And I will say it again: he knew it was untrue and he repeated it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business understands that that does nothing to elevate the debate, but he has the call.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—I regret that it is true, but what I have said is nevertheless a fact. It is very bad for the parliament that it is so. Nevertheless, the Leader of the House knows, or should know, that the government can set the schedule every day. He is saying that we would not gag the RFA Bill, and that is true. They never would when they were the opposition. No opposition ever does in the Senate. That is not the way it works. But they could have deferred the RFA Bill and put this on ahead every day.If we do not stand up on this occasion and say that we must in these extreme circumstances have the right to move motions like this, the opposition is down to no rights at all. Remember, Mr Speaker, that we tried other avenues to protect ourselves from this deliberately untrue remark by this minister. We tried to say that saying that we were all telling an untruth was a reflection and we sought to have it withdrawn. You said it was not, and I do not dissent from that ruling. You said that we did not have that manner of protection of ourselves from this deliberate, wanton, untrue statement by this man.If we do not have that protection, what alternative do we have? We can say that he should not be allowed to continue to do this and so we moved that motion, but he persist ed, and so we moved it again. If we cannot do that, there is no mechanism that prevents the opposition from being harangued in this misleading, untrue way by this man every day. You are stripping away the last protection we had. If saying that we are going to do something which we are absolutely not going to do, and if saying we are going to breach our word when we are going to keep it, and if saying that we are going to act dishonourably when we are going to act honourably is not a reflection, we have no other protection but this.If this ruling of yours is upheld—this interpretation of standing order 94 which, on its face, says quite clearly that the Leader of the Opposition or any other member can move this motion at any time, other than when someone is raising a point of order or making a personal explanation—then we are in the circumstance where there is no protection left. We absolutely need, and every opposition that is ever confronted by someone of this type—someone whose word is so worthless, someone who cannot be relied on in any way—will require in future, the protection of standing order 94. There is no other.This is a circumstance which, as I say, I am sure the people who previously had to interpret the standing order never had to envisage. Let us think about the circumstance and the consequence of it because, if this ruling is upheld, these circumstances can continue—that is, someone can fabricate a story like this, can come in and tell lies about that thing which he has fabricated, reiterate them in here and persist in telling lies about every opposition member and reflect on the standing of every opposition member with no recourse in the hands of the opposition. Why did anybody expect that we would sit idly by and allow that to happen? Why would anybody accept that we would just sit here passively complaining?The other form of complaint we have is one which is also in breach of the standing orders and for which we might serially be thrown out, because the statement which you required the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to withdraw, I have to say, Mr Speaker, has been stated by all of us. I will collectively withdraw on behalf of us, but we all said it and we all meant it. It is clear that this person has no respect for the truth and no respect for telling the truth in this House. This person does not even understand the significance of the fact that, when he is caught out for not telling the truth, he might at least have the dignity and the grace to sit down and shut up. But he went on and on. If this ruling is sustained, Mr Speaker, there will be no protection for the opposition against any such arrant nonsense and deliberate untruth in this House and these sorts of attacks on the opposition which flow from that.15:02:009627Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Mr Speaker, the government obviously will support the ruling which you gave. It was a sensible one. It passed the reasonableness test, which is a fair guide, and, as I will demonstrate in a moment, it is also entirely in accordance with standing orders. That should be no surprise, Mr Speaker, given your comprehensive understanding of the standing orders. You certainly have a better understanding of them than anybody on the other side.Let me start by saying that today we have seen the death throes of the Leader of the Opposition. Today we have seen the most disastrous tactics by an opposition that have no policies, no direction, no idea of what they are doing and, to boot, are 10 points behind in the polls and very worried about that as well. We have an opposition leader who is a sucker to the last person who pressured him into a policy position different from the one that he had last week. This is a man who for years and years as a member of the Hawke-Keating government could never withstand a bit of pressure from a student group, from a bureaucrat, from a trade union leader, from an ALP member—he had a policy for each and every one of them and a different policy at that.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the House has an obligation to confine his remarks, so far as the previous remarks have been confined, to the motion before the chair.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Well, Mr Speaker, let them move their motions that I be not further heard. Let them move an amendment to standing orders to make me the first member of the federal parliament who was such a threat to the other side that a special standing order was required to deal with me—the Reith standing order. I thank them for their quiet compliment, I am sure they would think undeserved.I have seen a lot of ridiculous and stupid stunts during question time over the years, but this one takes the cake. Question time is when the opposition ask the government questions. There are 10 issues that an opposition that could organise itself might be able to think up for question time. But, no, it has decided—and I thank it for it—that the issue today is whether or not the opposition will be able to stick to a deal, an agreement, that it agreed to last week in this parliament.Let me deal briefly with the formalities—a moment will suffice to put away the motion of dissent. We should note—not that anybody would know it from listening to the two speakers—that the motion is a dissent from your ruling that you would not accept a further motion, namely, that I be not further heard. I was asked a question and I was giving an answer, expressing my concerns that the Labor Party might overturn a deal. I would have thought that was pretty simple and I will go through my reasons for saying so.The Labor Party then moved the extraordinary motion that I be not further heard and, as a result of that motion being put, it was defeated. When a motion has been defeated, I think it would be fair to say that it is rather repetitious to put it up again, especially when you know you do not have the numbers and you are not going to win it. It is clearly an abuse of process not to accept the umpire's ruling when we have had a ruling, it has been voted on and the motion has been put down.Not only does that proposition pass the reasonableness test—in other words, the House has just voted that I should be able to continue to speak, so naturally enough it would be reasonable for you not to accept yet another motion on exactly the same subject—but I had got out only three sentences. The three sentences, which were described as a lie by the Leader of the Opposition, were to the effect that we could easily settle this matter if you pass the youth wages bill this week and that, if my concerns are right, that would not be a problem for you, to which the interjections were, `Lies, lies' and `Shock, horror!'There was displayed an incredible sensitivity which, from my long experience, suggests that they have been looking for a deal. They say they are not. Well, that's great. If they are now saying that this legislation will go through this House, I can assure you, Mr Speaker, no-one will be happier than I if we can secure the jobs of hundreds of thousands of young people. That has been our policy for years. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition, all the way back in 1992, knew that the ACTU's position on this was a bad position. Very expressive remarks were relayed to us, courtesy of Neal Blewett's book, that years ago the Leader of the Opposition knew the ACTU's position was wrong but for seven years he was not prepared to act on the issue. He was not prepared to act on the issue, until he felt the heat of public opinion which would obviously support the government's position to ensure that young people can keep their jobs. It was not the light of day that he saw last week, it was the heat of political pressure, and no-one bends more quickly or further than the Leader of the Opposition under a bit of political pressure.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House will come to the motion.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Mr Speaker, on the question of the standing orders, in support of your ruling, I refer you to standing order 169:Subject to the provisions of standing order 233, the Speaker or the Chair may, in his or her discretion, disallow any motion or amendment which is the same in substance as any question, which, during the same session, has been resolved in the affirmative or negative.In other words, you cannot just put it up, have it voted on and then put it up again. That is exactly what has happened here. Mr Speaker, that is why, again, just as a matter of commonsense, now supported by standing order 169, your ruling was entirely fair. Furthermore, Mr Speaker, standing order 86 says:The following matters are not open to debate . . . . . . . . . . . .(g) Motion that a Member be not further heard (standing order 94) . . . Then further on in that standing order it says:Should any of these questions be negatived, no similar proposal shall be received if the Speaker or the Chair is of the opinion that it is an abuse of the orders or forms of the House, or is moved for the purpose of obstructing business.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—An absolutely open-and-shut case.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—An absolutely open-and-shut case. You could not get it clearer. No special Reith amendment is required here. This has been clear since the opening of the federal parliament in 1901—clear to everybody except the Labor Party. Certainly, Mr Speaker, it completely substantiates the commonsense of your ruling. In the event that anybody requires the matter to be put further beyond doubt—and none on our side would but maybe there are some on the other side—if you go to House of Representatives Practice , it says:The Speaker has the discretion to disallow any motion or amendment which is the same in substance as any question which has been resolved in the affirmative or negatived during the same session.So, again, Mr Speaker, not only according to the printed word in the standing orders but also in House of Representatives Practice , your ruling was entirely fair.Quite frankly, on this side, we are entirely bemused as to why you would take this matter as far as you have. We can only think that it portrays some sensitivity on the issue. The reason I have been concerned about this issue of junior rates is that obviously it is a big issue. The trade union movement is very unhappy with the result. I was trembling in my boots on the night before the deal was consecrated in the House—and why? Because they have a long history of giving into the trade unions. And why would I be concerned about that result? Because a lot of young people's jobs actually hang in the balance. A lot of young people need to have the security of having a job and knowing that they will have that job not just through to 30 June next year but also in July and August and every month thereafter.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House will bring his remarks back to the motion.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I was naturally concerned when on two, if not three, occasions we asked the Labor Party whether we could organise affairs in the Senate so that the youth bill could go through, and on each and every occasion we were told no, it could not. That naturally concerned me. It concerned me when the shadow minister told a reporter at 4QR—it was reported on today's radio—that Labor had spoken recently to the Democrats. Why shouldn't I be concerned about that?ET4BEVISMr Bevis—What's so remarkable about that?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I will tell you what is remarkable about that. If your position is that the agreement, as it is going through, will go through without any change, why would you talk to the Democrats?Mr Bevis interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane! The Leader of the House will bring his remarks back to the motion. A great deal of latitude has been allowed in this debate both to the Leader of the Opposition and to the Leader of the House.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I only ask for the same, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The same sort of latitude has been extended.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I do only ask for the same, Mr Speaker, and I think it is a fair point.Opposition member interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Well, it is a fair point. If you have agreed that the thing will go through chapter and verse, word for word, as it went through last week, why would you be talking to the Democrats? You are supposed to be new and liberated. Mr Speaker, they are supposed to be liberated. This is the New Labor Party—`We're going to stand up for principles.' This is the party that, 13 years after doing nothing for workers, suddenly reckons that it wants to help workers. This is the Labor Party that is finally interested in whether or not we have a surplus, the same party that for years gave us deficits. This is the New Labor Party that is pure as the driven snow. It will not have agreements with other parties, even though it did an agreement with me only last week. I think any reasonable person would say, `Well, if the Labor Party is talking to the Democrats about youth rates, then we are entitled to ask the question, "Are you going to stick to the agreement?"'10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House will bring his remarks back to the motion on the dissent ruling.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—For all the incredible excitement on the other side, we have simply raised that question today. We are entitled, on behalf of young people, to get from you a clear statement as to your position. That is not unreasonable. Certainly it is not unreasonable when we know that you have the ACTU breathing down your neck. When you go over to the Senate, Mr Speaker, you can see the Labor Party front bench in that chamber is full of people who are former shoppies union officials. In fact, you have four if you include Brian Harradine.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House must bring his remarks back to the dissent motion. Sufficient tolerance has been exercised.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Complete this sentence and bring it on now.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I must say that I am absolutely delighted if the consequence of my raising this issue today is our having flushed the Labor Party out. If they are now prepared to secure the passage of this legislation without any changes by the end of this week, then this government will have done a great job for young people. When Senator Ian Campbell asked on numerous occasions this week, `Can we organise it to get the youth employment bill though this week?' the answer from the Labor Party was no, on every occasion.Opposition members interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—It must be hard being the Leader of the Opposition because, when you get the blowtorch from one side, you bend one way and you are off talking to the ACTU. 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House will bring his remarks back to the dissent motion or resume his seat.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Mr Speaker, if I were the Leader of the Opposition and took a position which the ACTU did not like, do you know what I would do? I would stand up and say to their objections: bad luck! That is what I would say.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House will resume his seat.Mr O'Keefe interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke will resume his seat. He did not have the call. The member for Burke now has the call.Opposition members interjecting—CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The minister has made a complete farce of your position. You have asked him several times to come back to the dissent motion and he has just ignored you. What are you going to do about it?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke will resume his seat. The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition in dissent of the Speaker's ruling be agreed to.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order: I have not finished.Opposition members interjecting—Mr Bevis interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane will resume his seat. I call the Leader of the House.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Mr Speaker, I have abided by the practice that you have established, and that is that members do not return to the dispatch box until they are called. I have not finished with the Labor Party and I would like the pleasure of doing so.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The Speaker had, on a number of occasions, drawn the attention of the Leader of the House to the motion before the chair and asked him to resume his seat. The member for Burke raised a point of order, and I believe that it is now appropriate for the motion to be put to the House. For that reason, I—ET4BEVISMr Bevis—No, I am seeking the call.Mr Leo McLeay interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Watson. I was merely stating the motion to the House. As every reasonable member of the House was aware, the motion that I was stating to the House says that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition in dissent of the Speaker's ruling be agreed to. I call the member for Brisbane.15:17:009630Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—Mr Speaker, the motion is totally appropriate. This fellow has had four positions on this item in the last—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane will resume his seat.Opposition members interjecting—Mr O'Keefe interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Burke. I call the Leader of the House.Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:That the question be now put.Original question put:That the motion (Mr Beazley's ) be agreed to.The House divided. [3.23 p.m.](Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 ——Voting details are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Question so resolved in the negative.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I call the Leader of the House.WI4REITHMr REITH—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have completed my answer.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is the member for Gellibrand seeking the call?83KROXONMs Roxon—I understood that I was seeking the call before the Prime Minister. I was actually on my feet seeking to ask a question of the Prime Minister.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I was conscious of the fact that the member for Gellibrand during question time had been seeking the call. The House has just divided so as to allow the Leader of the House to continue concluding his answer, if he so chose. For that reason, I called the Leader of the House. The Prime Minister then determined that question time had concluded.Documents96319631Reith, 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:Letter from the Chair of the Committee to examine the use of the term `Drug Free' together with the final Recommendations of the Committee and Explanatory Statement.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There are forms of the House to enable people to draw the Speaker's attention to any inadequacy they feel in the way the House is being conducted, whether the microphones are turned on or anything else. The form, as every member knows, requires them to do nothing more than rise to their feet and seek the call. This chorus of intervention is totally unacceptable.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Personal Explanations963115:32:009631Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—On page 5 of today's Australian , an article headed `Apology doubts anger banker' states:The banks' top representative, Frank Cicutto, yesterday attacked federal Liberal MP David Hawker for claiming his apology for the John Laws cash-for-comment deal was not genuine.It then continues detailing an expansive apology not made by him previously. Further on, it says:"If Mr Hawker and his committee had contacted me I could have confirmed that for them."Another part of the article states:. . . Mr Cicutto also attacked the Hawker report for suggesting the banks made unreasonable profits at the community's expense . . . In his speech yesterday Mr Cicutto also said:No indication is given as to what constitutes unreasonable profits.The report he is referring to is the one by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration entitled Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia annual report 1997-1998 , which I tabled last week. Firstly, to address the point about contacting Mr Cicutto, on 22 June I wrote to the Australian Bankers Association, of which Mr Cicutto is the chairman, offering the ABA the opportunity to appear before the standing committee. That offer has not been accepted. Furthermore, in his speech to the Catholic ethics conference and at the following press conference, it was indeed, as stated in the committee's report, unclear as to whether it was an apology for the sin of being found out or whether it represents a genuine intention to take steps to raise the standard of ethical behaviour of ABA members.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Wannon must come to the point on which he was misrepresented and not his report.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—Secondly, to address the point regarding unreasonable profits, if Mr Cicutto reads the committee report that was tabled last week he will find on pages 41 and 42 the following quotes from the Governor of the Reserve Bank relating to the governor's views on the problems created by banks closing branches in country areas and unreasonable profits.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Wannon must come to the point on which he is now misrepresented, not the report.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—Yes, but he said it was the Hawker report, so it is me. I have not finished.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Wannon will resume his seat. He has indicated where he has been misrepresented. Misrepresentation of his report may reflect on other members as well as on him.15:34:009632Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?HQ5Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEY—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.HQ5Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEY—This morning the Daily Telegraph ran an article based on the assertions made yesterday afternoon in this House by the member for Werriwa. The member for Werriwa asserted that preferential treatment was given to Mr Max Dunbier, the owner of Oakdale Collieries, during the time that I was Premier of New South Wales. I categorically deny any knowledge of preferential treatment to Mr Dunbier or his companies during my time in the New South Wales parliament. In particular, I deny any knowledge of any loan of $1.8 million to Mr Dunbier, any state government contracts or road works beneficial to Mr Dunbier's haulage companies. Further, Mr Dunbier was never part of a fundraising group called The Friends of John Fahey.15:36:009632Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—I am misrepresented by the member for Macarthur, who has now conveniently forgotten his friends. Max Dunbier participated in a Friends of John Fahey fundraising event—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa must indicate where he has been personally misrepresented or resume his seat. The member for Werriwa is warned.Committees96329632963210000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip that he has nominated Mr Murphy to be a member of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in place of Mr Mossfield.Motion (by Mr Reith)—by leave—agreed to:That Mr Mossfield be discharged from the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and that, in his place, Mr Murphy be appointed a member of the committee.Matters of Public Importance9632963210000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Crean) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of the government to address the slide in household savings, widening household debt and the worst ever current account deficit.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—15:40:009632Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—On Monday, the Prime Minister claimed Australia as the `miracle economy'. Today's national accounts and Monday's current account figures should send him a wake up call. In all the government's hubris and arrogance, there are fundamental issues that need addressing—our current account, our savings, the composition of our growth and the sustainability of that growth because that is what determines whether or not we get the jobs.Not only are these issues not being addressed, the government will not even talk about them. It will not debate them. The Treasurer will not come into the House and debate the economic policy in this country. He sends his shadow into this place because he will not come and debate the issue.Opposition members interjecting—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—He is a very fulsome shadow, and gets more fulsome by the day. We are commenting about those new suits. It is all for the fitting.The truth of it is that, if we are to achieve sustained economic growth, all of the issues have to be addressed, not only those that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer choose to speak on. The Treasurer will not come into this place and talk about the current account. He will not talk about the increasing imbalance in our economic growth. He will not talk about his decimation of household savings or how he has lumbered households with debt.That is pretty extraordinary because, prior to 1996, you could not stop him talking about these things. This is the man who gave us the current account measured per hour in nominal terms and the foreign debt measured per person. In a week that has seen our nation's athletes strive for and win gold, the Treasurer has been racking up his own records. He is now the Australian record holder for a record high current account deficit, a record high foreign debt, a record high trade deficit, a record quarterly drop in business expenditure on capital, a record low household savings rate and a record high household debt rate. It is little wonder the cartoonists are lampooning him for the miracle economy.This is the Treasurer producing world records that he is ashamed of and will not talk about. These records are not the product of an accident; they are outcomes which neither the Treasurer's hubris nor his smirk can ultimately hide. It is the economy that Treasurer Costello will not talk about. It no longer surprises us that he will not come into this place when he is required to and debate it.This afternoon I want to highlight the Treasurer's wilful economic negligence in failing to heed the wake up call that has been sounding for months now to highlight the economy that he just will not talk about. But we need to look right across the economy, not just stand up and pretend that it is all good and that everyone is a winner. For all the rhetoric of miracles, there are underlying problems emerging in the economy. The benefits of growth are not being shared. This is the current reality. The future reality is that, without a rebalancing of the economy, the growth that he always wants to champion and rave about will not be sustainable. Quite frankly, the bankcard has its limits.Only this week when the Australian Bureau of Statistics released data on Australia's twin deficits—the current account deficit and the foreign debt—the Treasurer talked about everything but the current account deficit and foreign debt. This is the Treasurer who claims to have fireproofed the economy, but the current account deficit has blown out to a record 9.4 thousands of millions of dollars, to use the Treasurer's preferred linguistic term. One would have thought that he would have heeded his own advice of February 1995, when he said:I mean, look, my analysis is this . . . my analysis is that this is a government that has completely failed Australia on the current account deficit and produced the highest current account deficit ever, which is a total failure of economic policy. That's my analysis.But, when asked, the Treasurer simply dismissed the problem saying it was ignorant to use dollar figures. What hypocrisy! Not use dollar figures? Really? He claims it is ignorant today to use dollar figures but what did he say in 1995? I quote him again:A $1,500 million deficit is better than a $2,000 million deficit, but it's still a deficit—it's a jolly big one. If we were in government, we wouldn't be parading a $1,500 million deficit as a success.Sounds like dollar figures to me from the Treasurer who now says we cannot talk in them. Why? Because what they are exposing are the flaws in his economic management.Beyond the hypocrisy, his defence this week to his record current account deficit was, first, to blame the Asian crisis—but this is the same person who trumpeted about having fireproofed us from that same crisis; second, to blame the domestic economy; and, third, to claim the record a success because he had predicted failure and he achieved it. This is a Treasurer who believes success comes from predicting failure. This is a Treasurer who aims low and achieves it. This is a Treasurer not in control of the fundamental issues that need to be addressed so far as the economic management of this country is concerned. On 20 September 1995, the current Prime Minister launched the infamous debt truck.Opposition members interjecting—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Do you remember that? That was the truck that broke down on the hill up the Blue Mountains. It is now a B-double. The Prime Minister in relation to that debt truck made two promises to the Australian people.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! I would remind some members of the warning that they are under, and it would be most inconvenient for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition if I were to take any other action. Out of deference to him, I call him.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—This is what the Prime Minister had to say in making two promises about that debt truck:I can promise you that we will follow policies which will, over a period of time, bring down the foreign debt.What a joke. He continued:Our first priority as Peter Costello and I have made repeatedly clear, our first priority in Government economically will be to tackle the current account deficit.Two promises? The facts clearly speak for themselves. This week not only did the current account blow out to be 42 per cent higher in 1998-99 than in 1997-98, but Australia's foreign debt grew to be nearly 20 per cent higher in the period that Peter Costello took over the debt truck. As I said before, that debt truck has now been upgraded to a B-double.The current account deficit is really the manifestation of a more fundamental problem, an imbalance between savings and investment. Without genuine micro-economic policies, social policies and a coherent strategy for employment or a commitment to the future, neither the efficiency nor levels of investment and savings will improve. When the Treasurer slashed programs to help the unemployed, when he raised the costs on families by increasing child-care costs, when he pulled the shutters down on the futures of young Australians by cutting education and when he abandoned policies to increase research and development, he claimed that these would all rescue national savings.Despite destroying the basis by which we invest in our future, 3½ years later after all of that pain, national savings have barely moved but household savings have plummeted and household debt has skyrocketed. Not content with running down the savings of Australian families, he is now going to lumber them and Australian businesses with a new GST. His advice to families has been eat, drink and be merry, charge it up to the bankcard, but we won't mention the hangover. His response these days is to quote the balance sheet. What he will not tell you, though, is that households are far more susceptible today to changes in external factors. No doubt he will also be claiming that putting families at risk is another one of their successes.What we have seen under this Treasurer is an increasing imbalance in our growth. Consumption is dominating the composition of it, and it is beating investment by a long way. Whilst one would never begrudge Australians their consumption, and economic sustainability is importantly dependent on it, what we need for prosperity is a better balance between consumption and investment. I will quote someone who believes in that:You can't run sustained economic recovery without growth in business investment. You can't run it off diminished savings and you can't run it indefinitely off increased consumption and this is where the risk is going to come.Who said that? None other than the erstwhile Treasurer. This is the Treasurer's assessment about what needs to be the balance in growth, but it is a balance that we are not seeing. The economic facts again speak for themselves. Growth in private investment has slowed under Peter Costello compared to Labor's last three years. Today's figures demonstrate that the contribution of consumption for the quarter is 0.7 per cent but business investment is minus 0.2 per cent and net exports are minus 0.5 per cent. A sustained economy is one that grows from consumption, investment and net exports, but this one is going back wards on the latter two fronts according to the most recent quarterly figures.Last week, the Treasurer presided over the largest quarterly fall in private expenditure on capital since the ABS series began, and the average annual growth rate since he took over has been minus 0.2 per cent—minus 0.2 per cent in the time that they have held office and he claims that he has got it right. Research and development has been nobbled. Education has fallen dramatically. In short, what we are seeing the Treasurer preside over is nothing other than economic irresponsibility.What Labor wants to do is this: we want to invest in our people, in their education and in their wellbeing, in their ideas. We want to develop the knowledge economy, invest in our future and share the benefits of growth. We need a return to balance in the economy, to lift savings and to lift investment, to make them more productive and to foster net export growth. The national accounts today ought to be the wake up call, and we hope the government hears it. This is a nation of huge opportunity. But if we continue down this path we will squander that opportunity. Labor repeats its call for a bipartisan approach so that we do not squander that opportunity.The next important policy issue that this government has to address is business tax reform. Labor's position on this is absolutely clear: call on the government to release that report, not hide it. What are you hiding? Why won't you release it? We want there to be an opportunity for consultation around that report. We want the government to talk with us and negotiate to try to find the common ground. This, like so many of these issues, ought to be above the bickering across this table. It ought to be the basis upon which we do reach agreement, and I can assure you that there are many areas on which we can reach agreement. If we get that agreement, we will guarantee speedy passage for the agreed matters. We could leave it up to the leader of government business in the House to muck up that process, but we would guarantee speedy passage. Getting process right from the start obviates the need for a long Senate process. In this way, we can avoid the mess that the GST got the country into.These are issues of great national importance for which Labor offers its bipartisan support. The Treasurer has taken us down an unsustainable path. It needs to be corrected. We need a return to balance in our growth. We need to invest in education, training and innovation. We need to invest and save more and invest and save better. The Treasurer must start addressing these issues and deal with them—not strut and remonstrate, not show his hubris and arrogance every time he gets up at question time in the parliament but rather come in here and debate the issues sensibly to find the common ground. Labor stands ready to be a participant in it.15:55:009635Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—We have just had a dissertation from the sand boy—from the guy who runs on to the field and hopes one day to play in the game. Yet again we have heard from the Labor Party how they want to be in there, how they would like to have a bipartisan approach. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition comes into the House and says, `We want to work in a bipartisan way. We want to be there. We'll guarantee a speedy resolution to the bills before the House.' Why hasn't he the courage to come in here and lay on the table Labor's proposals for business taxation reform? He will not do it. I will tell you why he will not do it: because the Labor Party stand for nothing. They believe in nothing. They have no policies. They have no policy debate. When it comes to taxation and the economy, the Labor Party are bereft of ideas, especially at the leadership level.Let us look at their record. First, the Labor Party ran up budget deficits totalling $70 billion in their last five years of government compared to our surplus budgets, which are starting to pay off the Beazley black hole. Second, Commonwealth general government net debt rose from $16.9 billion in 1990-91 to $95.8 billion when we came to government—from $16.9 billion in 1990 to $95.8 billion when we came to office. We have already repaid $24 billion of their debt. Third, when Labor were in power, business interest rates, as so many small business people know in Australia, went to above 20 per cent per annum in 1989. Today, business interest rates are at their lowest rate in 30 years.Fourth, unemployment under the Labor Party and specifically under the now Leader of the Opposition as the then minister for employment reached the highest level since the early 1970s of around 11.2 per cent in 1992. So unemployment at a record level was 11.2 per cent. Today it is seven per cent. Fifth, inflation under the Labor Party averaged 5.2 per cent per annum. Today, under the coalition, it is one per cent. And the Labor Party has the gall to come into this House and lecture us about budget deficits and lecture us about unemployment and lecture us about the performance of the economy and lecture us about household debt when in every single case the Labor Party set records when it was in government.The credibility of your argument today is assessed on your performance in the past. Promises are absolutely meaningless if you do not have the capacity to deliver what you promise. The Australian people on every indicator will ask the Leader of the Opposition and will ask the Labor Party, `How can we believe what you are saying?' You know what, it is a fair question. The punters out there are smart. They know exactly what this mob are up to. They know the hypocrisy and the gall of them coming into this House and lecturing us about the performance of the economy. They know they are telling untruths. They know they are telling half the story. Why? Because seared on the minds of every Australian small business is a 20 per cent interest rate under the Labor Party. Seared on the minds and in the memories of every Australian mortgage payer—the battlers out there—is an interest rate of up to 22 per cent on their household mortgage.And seared on the minds of a generation of Australians is the performance of the Labor Party on unemployment. When youth unemployment reached 44 per cent, nearly one out of every two young Australians could not find a job under the Labor Party. And 11.2 per cent of the general population could not find a job under the so-called workers' party when they were in government. Yet this mob comes into this House and lectures us about economic performance.The Deputy Leader of the Opposition today decided that he was going to talk about a number of issues, including the current account deficit. He said, `The country is in a slide now.' The Deputy Leader of the Opposition comes into this House and talks about the country being in a slide because of the current account deficit, which came out at 6.2 per cent this week. What he conveniently forgets is that, in 1985-86 under Labor, the current account deficit was 6.5 per cent. In 1989-90 under Labor, the current account deficit was 6.5 per cent. In 1994-95 under Labor, the current account deficit was 6.5 per cent. Today it is 6.2 per cent. Do you know what was said in 1995 when the Labor Party had a current account deficit of 6.5 per cent—higher than what we have now? Ralph Willis, the then Labor Party Treasurer of Australia, came into this House and said:It is all about improving savings. . .The policy of the government is to improve national savings by reducing public sector dissavings.The Labor Treasurer of Australia came into this House and said that the way to solve the current account deficit was to increase government savings. He then went out of this House and lied to the Australian people, along with the Leader of the Opposition, about the state of the government's budget. They said that it was in surplus. They told the Australian people that we had a surplus budget, yet it was $10,000 million in deficit.Mr O'Connor interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The honourable member for Corio will withdraw that remark.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—I will consider withdrawing the remark if the minister withdraws his imputation about the Leader of the Opposition lying about the budget deficit.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member for Corio will withdraw unconditionally.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—Mr Deputy Speaker, in deference to your position in the chair, I unreservedly withdraw and ask you to ask the minister to do the same.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I was unsure whether the minister had actually referred to a serving member of the opposition at the time that he made that remark. That is why I allowed that to go through. I would hope that both the honourable member for Corio and the minister will take care in the comments that are made.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—The Australian people will judge him for that sort of activity. It is disingenuous. Everyone knows that the Leader of the Opposition as Minister for Finance pledged a surplus budget during the 1996 election campaign. This follows the words of the Labor Treasurer at the time saying, `The only way to solve the current account deficit is to have public sector savings, that is, run public sector surplus budgets.' The finance minister at the time ran a $10,000 million deficit. That was his solution. Over the course of two budgets, when the current Leader of the Opposition was finance minister, they ran up over $20 billion of government debt at a time when we had a current account deficit higher than it is today.It is hypocrisy. And the Australian people can pick it a mile away. They have a great capacity to see the wood through the trees. They have a great capacity to be able to see through the rubbishy rhetoric that can come out of this place and make a value judgment about whether someone is telling the whole story. So when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition comes into this House and starts talking about major problems with the current account deficit and about the diminution of household savings, the Australian population out there—the plumbers, the doctors, the lawyers, the factory workers, the farmers, everyone—makes an assessment on how many bucks are coming into their pockets each week, whether they can pay their bills, whether their kids can get into a decent school, whether they can give their kids a holiday each year. They are the sorts of issues that Australian people make a judgment on about the performance of the economy. I ask the Labor Party to speak with Australians and ask them if the economy is in terrible shape.It so happens that we have got the best performing economy in the world. That is not us saying that. That is every independent analyst. That is Paul Krugman from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the world's leading economists; the South China Morning Post; the Wall Street Journal; the Economist; Forbes magazine; and every investment banker in New York and London and Tokyo and Hong Kong and Singapore. They are all saying that Australia's economy is the best performing economy in the world. We have done all this when our two most significant trading partners—Korea and Japan—are in recession or depression. We have done it in the middle of the worst Asian economic downturn in history.Our trading partners have gone into depression and Australia is running the strongest economy in the world. Yet the Labor Party has the gall to come into this place and lecture us about the performance of the economy. They say, `No, no, no, we can do it a lot better.' I heard the words of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He said, `The best way to solve Australia's problems'—which he failed to identify—`is for the government to spend more money on a range of issues.'The solution is to spend the budget surplus—the budget surplus that has insulated us from the Asian economic downturn, the budget surplus that is repaying Labor debt, the budget surplus that has caused some political hardship on this side but we do it not because we like doing it but because we know it is in the best interests of the country. That is why we do it. The policies on this side of the House are not politically pragmatic, they are in the best interests of Australia. That is why we had the best performing economy in the world during the worst Asian economic crisis ever.Everything the opposition Labor Party do is aimed at destroying the initiatives we put in place, whether it is taxation reform—which Australians overwhelming support and which they re-elected us with—whether it is junior wage rates, whether it is workplace relations reform, whether it is the sale of Telstra. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition comes in here and says, `We want to be bipartisan on business taxation reform. Give us a look at Ralph. We will talk to you and we will give it an expedited trip through the parliament.' If they cared about Australia they would give it an expedited trip through parliament without any qualifications. Instead, as an opposition they choose to oppose everything that has been proven globally and historically to be in the best interests of our nation.We will talk when the opposition comes in here and says, `Let us work together. We will support you guys because you have runs on the board, you have delivered the fastest growing economy in the developed world, you have delivered a better outcome for all Australians.' That is a deal. But on every occasion until now the Labor Party has shown itself to be full of hypocrisy. (Time expired)16:10:009638Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—On Monday the Treasurer was finally forced to come back into this House and talk about the current account deficit. He was forced to do that because he had yet another bad current account figure. Before that, day after day, he has come in here and had a rave about how brilliantly the economy is going and a rant about how badly it went under Labor. All of the time I have been in this parliament, the one thing that he has stayed right away from talking about is the unsustainably high current account deficit. He has talked about everything except the one thing that he should be focusing on.Is he ignoring it? Does he hope it will go away? Or worse, does he not understand it is a problem? One thing is certain, he has taken no action to reduce the current account and he offers no strategy for reducing the current account. He will wait for world economic events to realign and solve Australia's current account problem. It is an optimistic strategy for an optimistic Treasurer—or a fool in denial. Rather than adjusting policy to meet the challenge, the threat, of a high current account deficit, the opposite has been the case.The fundamental cause of Australia's current account problem is Australia's poor domestic savings performance. In the March quarter of 1996, the last period Labor was in office, the household savings ratio stood at 5.6 per cent. Now after three years with Peter Costello as Treasurer it has collapsed to 0.4 per cent.On Monday, in one of his rare shifts from rhetoric to brief interludes of substance—and they were brief; there were only about four paragraphs that had any substance at all—the Treasurer used as an authority the FitzGerald report commissioned by Labor in 1993. Mr Costello said:The one thing that the FitzGerald inquiry and report made clear, the one thing that the Labor Party would agree with—and we do—is that building public sector savings is the best thing that a government can do in the face of a current account.This was confirmed as government policy by the Secretary to the Treasury in his post-budget Australian business economists speech, when he said:In recent years, we have not been asking monetary policy to address the current account problem. Rather emphasis has been appropriately put on the role of fiscal policy—the generator of budget surpluses and contributor to national savings—to do that job, leaving monetary policy free to concentrate on its objective of maintaining low inflation without undue constraint on growth.This is a very desirable balance in the use of monetary and fiscal policies which may hold part of the answer to our longstanding current account concern; it is also part of the framework which underlies the judgments on medium term growth potential.The simultaneous achievement of sustainable CAD outcomes and low and stable inflation would be put at risk by a complacent attitude to the use of fiscal surpluses. A breakdown in the performance of one policy inevitably compromises the other.My fear is that that complacent attitude to the use of fiscal surpluses is exactly what we are about to see with a dramatic loosening of fiscal policy provided by the Howard government's so-called new tax system. If fiscal policy is the chosen instrument to control the current account deficit, then why is the Howard government contemplating a large fiscal loosening through its tax package when the current account deficit is already historically high?A second related question is: how sound is the surplus on which this fiscal loosening is built? Let us look at the Treasurer's $5.4 billion estimated surplus this year. In it there is a 43.2 per cent increase in dividends from government business enterprises—that is, $1.8 billion. Take that away and you have a $3.6 billion surplus. That is a very modest improvement on the 1998-99 outcome of $3.1 billion.There are always extraordinary items in any budget or set of financial statements, but there has not been much, if any, real growth in the size of the surplus. Even after the big fiscal loosening next year with the introduction of ANTS, the surplus will be only $7.2 billion. However, when you look at the underlying cash surplus next year, that is projected to be only $3.1 billion. The principal reason for that discrepancy is the bringing forward under accrual accounting of PAYG, although the tax is paid in subsequent years. That suggests that after the introduction of ANTS the government will not be left with much latitude as far as the surplus is concerned. In his post-budget speech to the Australian business economists, the Secretary to the Treasury, Ted Evans, put all this in some historical perspective. I regret that the minister has left the chamber. Mr Evans said:Looking at Chart 1, which shows the underlying cash balance over a long period, we see that surpluses stretch out into the projection period. We should keep in mind, however, that of the six years of surplus there shown, only one is currently behind us. The 1999-2000 surplus we could take as being reasonably assured, but beyond that we are talking about mere projections, subject to all of the uncertainties of the world economy. Taking the 1999-2000 surplus as being `in the bag', the cumulative surplus over the three years would amount to 1.5 per cent of annual GDP. The scale of that might be assessed against the surpluses in the late 1980s, our last period of fiscal consolidation. On that earlier occasion, the cumulative surplus over the first three years amounted to 4.1 per cent of annual GDP—well over twice that achieved in the latest round.The original A New Tax System package had a negative effect on the fiscal balance of almost $5 billion. To that must now be added the further loosening resulting from the Howard government's agreement with Democrats—at least a further $1.4 billion. In my view these are risks which need to be considered after eight years of continuous economic growth when loosening fiscal policy to such a significant degree in the face of a record high current account deficit. The Treasurer's explanation for the high current account deficit is entirely an external one—it is not his fault. He said on Monday:. . . when you are running a strong domestic economy and you are in the biggest downturn of your time—meaning export values are low—you would expect pressure on your current account. We forecast it. We do not control the prices of Australian commodities.Australia is presently operating with a current account deficit of about six per cent. A large contributing factor is the high level of domestic demand which is sustaining a higher than expected growth performance. Admitting that fact might cause the Treasurer to have to do something about it. Instead the Treasurer thinks he can forecast the current account deficit away. On Monday he said:Why is it that we forecast the current account to come down next year? Because the international economy will pick up. The Australian growth rate will be lesser but the international economy will pick up.What does the Treasury say about that? The first sentence of Statement 1—Fiscal Strategy—of Budget Paper No. 1, says:The 1999-2000 Budget demonstrates the Government's commitment to maintain the budget in surplus while Australia's economic growth prospects remain sound.The key word is `while'. What does `while economic growth remains sound' mean? It depends on whether and how far economic outcomes diverge either up or down from the budget forecast. One of the reasons for the early election last year was that the government was, at the time it was called, much more concerned about the outlook for growth this year than it seems to be now.Statement 2—Economic Outlook—contains a section specifically dealing with risk in this year's budget papers. Weighed against doubts about the sustainability of recovery in East Asia and Japan is the possibility that the US could continue to exceed expectations. Of course, US economic performance may not continue to exceed expectations. Treasury admit that the downside risk is worsening of the current account deficit should the world economy not pick up. On the other hand, we must also look at the upside risks. If growth is stronger than expected, particularly if the contributing factor is higher than expected US economic growth and even a monetary tightening there which would be combined with the impact of the government's loosening of fiscal policy with its raid on the surplus and some additional inflationary pressure, including from the GST, then pressure on the current account will be higher than would otherwise have been the case and the momentary authorities may have to decide that interest rates will have to go up. This concern was raised in a Senate estimates committee by the Secretary to the Treasury earlier this year.The high current account deficit means this is not a good time to loosen fiscal policy in the manner prescribed by the renegotiated ANTS package. Australia is presently operating with a current account of six per cent. It has only had to do so three times previously in Australia's recent economic history. The first time was in 1986, and resulted in a currency crisis. The second time was in 1989-90, and it was corrected with monetary policy which resulted in recession. The third time was at the beginning of 1995. That was, however, controlled without crisis by intelligent use of both fiscal and monetary policy. On that occasion we recognised we had a problem, we told the markets and the public we had a problem, and we took appropriate corrective action on both the fiscal and monetary fronts. Let us hope that this current account deficit can be moderated without crisis.It is certainly the case, as was demonstrated in 1995, that as a result of the economic reforms of the last Labor government Australia is much less vulnerable to external shocks than was previously the case. However, without an appropriate policy response there is a significant risk that there could be a rapid market response with implications for the rest of the economy. (Time expired)16:20:009640Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—I can only interpret the remarks of the previous speaker as being a call for an increase in the interest rates. That is all I can see that Labor Party policy comprises—increase interest rates and release the Wallis report. What a policy you have: Australia living on more reports produced by the ALP and putting up interest rates. They are familiar with that story. They know those policies and they have rejected them. That was the whole theme of the address to the House by the previous speaker, as it was the theme of the shadow Treasurer. Sure, if one goes back over a period of time, one sees that during the Labor Party's time in office Australians did save. But we have to look at what they are doing now. They are not saving now. Why is that? I just looked at the statistics put out by the ABS, and I find that they are wealthier. How can they be wealthier if they are not saving? They are investing. That is why they are wealthier. They are investing.I refer the House to the statistics that are freely available to any member that wants to gets them. It just so happens that the Australian Labor Party has not chosen to draw on the full range of statistics. It is strange, isn't it, that it should half-tell the story? If one looks at what the average Australian citizen has done over the period of the past few years, one will see that during the mid-1990s, before the election of the current government and during 1996 and half of 1997, Australian families saved. They saved because they were concerned about the future. They did not know what was going to happen to interest rates and were uncertain about their jobs, and so they put some money away for a rainy day—very sensible people, the Australian people.If the Australian Labor Party ever learnt to trust them, they would know that they can learn a lot from their average fellow citizens. So, when things were uncertain, what do the statistics show? That Australian people, Australian families, were actually saving. They were putting money away because interest rates were uncertain and because they were unsure of their jobs. And they did not trust the current government either, for the first 12 months, to put interest rates down and keep them down. They were uncertain about whether we would create jobs as well. And so for 18 months after the election of the current government they kept saving.But from that point on they started to release their savings, and what do you know has happened? If you look at the value of the average Australian household and the value of unincorporated enterprises in Australia—which is the way we measure households—their wealth is increasing. Analyse the statistics, my friend. It is so easy to do. I know that the chief whip does this all the time in his spare moments. He understands the Australian people. He understands what they are doing and he understands the fact that they are not saving. Where is their money going? It is going into dwellings, superannuation and investments—into things like Telstra, with record sales.Australia is a high investment owning nation now, and that started about three years ago. As people relaxed and knew that the unemployment figures were coming down and that they could depend on the government to retain low interest rates, and as they learnt to trust that we would stick to what we had actually promised, they started to do other things with their money. Instead of squirreling it away at 1.5 per cent or two per cent in a bank savings account, they put it into something that was going to be of real benefit to their future. They put it into new homes or into expanding their homes. They put it into renovations and additions. They put it into superannuation for their retirement. It was far more important to them in many instances than having holidays was, to make sure that their retirement was safe.They also invested in great institutions. They put it into shares: into Telstra and even into the Commonwealth Bank—which you said you would not sell but which you proceeded to sell. Surprise, surprise! Another promise broken. The Australian Labor Party encouraged people, by that hypocrisy it put on the Australian people at the time, into investing in institutions. So what have we got? We have got a completely changed scene in Australia. We have got families who are now more certain of their future because they know what their home payments are going to be. They know that they can borrow to extend their mortgages to buy a new house and to do renovations. They know that their job is secure and that they will be able to continue to save for their retirement with superannuation. They also know that, if they continue to invest in the great Australian institutions, they will benefit by that ultimately.849SIDEBOTTOMMr Sidebottom—Where do you live?SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—Look, my friend, just read up on the statistics. The ABS can tell you everything. If you just pull out the statistics, I think even the simplest of the members opposite will be able to see for themselves the way that this government has changed the whole outlook of the Australian community. It is very interesting to read the press about the Labor Party's attitudes. I refer to the press of 24 August and the report of your caucus room. You do not like being told about your caucus room, but the report in the press says that Mr Beazley told Labor MPs and senators that a lot of voters could see that the economy was going well but believed that they were missing out on that success.He referred to some polling, we are told, which showed the confidence that is in Canberra by politicians and said that their confidence in the economy is not necessarily reflected out there in voterland—as a caucus spokesman told reporters. The caucus spokesman went on to say that Mr Beazley made a point that Costello's comments about there being sufficient in the surplus two or three years out to consider further tax cuts was a good omen from the point of view of the Labor Party, and that meant they might not be hamstrung in terms of the limitations of the budget, assuming they won the next election, than they thought they might have been.There you have it: a big spending idea of, `We hope they have got a real nest egg for us to get into if we should be elected at the next election.' It is out there in print. Fancy saying that in public. It will be quoted back to you, my friend, time and time again during the next election that you want the nest egg to fritter away and waste again. You will get into the hard-won savings of the Australian people and you will waste them. You will increase interest rates, because that was the argument here today. Higher interest rates was the call from your front bench today.Not only was it a call for higher interest rates but it was a call for irresponsibility as far as the savings of the Australian people are concerned. They are wealthier now. They have more assets than they have ever had before, because they can now trust the government with interest rates and with jobs. They have made that investment, they have made that decision and they will continue to support the Australian government that they have today.Let us go back through some of the statements of the Australian Labor Party over a period of the last week or so, because it seems to be that the call consistently for the past four or five months has been from the front bench to say, `Things are in a mess; you need to make a change.' At the time that the Labor Party leadership is saying that things are in a mess, Australians are investing in shares, in superannuation and in housing. That is because they are confident. If you want to spiral down confidence, I guess that you have to keep saying that things are in a mess. Mr Crean and Mr Beazley have been consistently saying that over the last few months.I take the House back to 1 June, when the opposition spokesman, Mr Crean, said that the Treasurer should take his eyes off the changes to taxation and focus on Australia's deficit. For goodness sake! If anything is going to encourage the accumulation of wealth and assets and a sense of security, it is going to be a better tax system. So here is Crean, the shadow Treasurer, calling on the Treasurer to take his eyes off tax cuts.Then just yesterday Mr Beazley said that we were paying a big penalty for our private savings—the same argument we have had here today. He did not look at where they are putting their money. They are putting it elsewhere. They are not saving it because they are confident and they have certainty. Mr Beazley on 24 August said that Australia has become a credit card economy depending on foreign savings and that the government is to blame. What a joke that is! He has not looked at any of the statistics. He has not looked at the real economy. He has not looked at what the small investors are doing. He has not looked at what the mums and dads are doing. He has not looked at what small business is doing.The Labor Party will never get into government if they continue to talk the economy down in that way. There has to be more substance to it than that, because the facts are not there. You have only to go through the basic statistics. I am sure that the Australian Labor Party would learn if they would only listen to the way the Australian people think. So, despite the talking down of the economy, despite this credit card talk of the Leader of the Opposition, the facts are quite different. The facts are that Australians have never been better off, they have never been more wealthy, they have never had better incomes and they have never had better job certainty. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion has concluded.Committees9642964296429642Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I present the amended report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members business on Monday, 20 September 1999. Copies of the report have been circulated to honourable members in the chamber.Report—by leave—adopted.The report read as follows—Amended report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 20 September 1999The Selection Committee has amended its determinations relating to the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 20 September 1999. The amended order of precedence and allotments of time determined by the Committee are shown in the list.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 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 a total time of 15 minutes.Speech time limits—First Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNotices1 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.2Ms 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.3Mr Pyne To move—That the House:(1) reaffirms the fundamental principles of human rights that must be practised by the entire international community;(2) condemns the false arrest and imprisonment of thirteen Iranian Jews on spurious espionage charges; and(3) 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.4Mrs 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.Bills9644s2079644Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.9644Bill (on motion by Mr Ruddock)—by leave—read a third time.Bills9644s2089644Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.9644Bill (on motion by Mr Ruddock)—by leave—read a third time.Miscellaneous964416:33:009644Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I 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 and Additional Protocols.On 12 August 1949 the international community took a momentous step in the name of humanity by adopting the four Geneva conventions to protect victims of armed conflict. The experience of World War II was still very much part of the global consciousness, and there was a determination to do all that could be done to ensure that there was no recurrence of it. At the same time, there was also a recognition that, where conflict does occur, it should be carried out according to rules respected by civilised peoples. The Geneva conventions represent this ideal and make comprehensive provision for the protection of those most in need of it—namely, the wounded on the battlefield, those shipwrecked at sea, prisoners of war and civilians in the hands of the enemy.The conventions also contain numerous other important rules. They proclaim that certain violations of them constitute grave breaches and that it is the duty of all states to investigate, prosecute and punish those who commit them or, alternatively, to deliver perpetrators into the custody of a state which is willing and able to do so. This duty exists regardless of the place where the offence was committed and the nationality of the perpetrator. The conventions also recognise the distinctive emblems of the Red Cross and Red Crescent and require their respect and protection.Today, the conventions have attained almost universal acceptance, having been ratified by 188 states. They are universally recognised as forming part of customary international law. During the 1970s it became apparent that there was a need for the conventions to be supplemented, based on experience of the changing nature of warfare and the development of new weapons.A series of international conferences was held, culminating in the adoption on 10 June 1977 of two protocols additional to the conventions. Protocol 1 deals with international armed conflict and makes detailed provision in relation to a number of areas. It provides enhanced protection for civilians. This recognises that, tragically, more and more civilians are the victims of armed conflict. It has been estimated that—whereas at the start of the 20th century 90 per cent of the casualties of war were military personnel—at the end of the century 90 per cent of the casualties of war are innocent civilians.Protocol 1 also attempts to codify some of the rules regulating the methods and means of warfare. It extends the grave breaches provided for in the 1949 conventions and also makes provisions relating to the conduct of civil defence tasks, meaning those humanitarian measures intended to protect civilian populations against the dangers of hostilities.Protocol 2 also recognises a harsh reality—namely, that most modern conflicts are fought not between nation states but among dissident groups within states. Protocol 2 deals exclusively with armed conflicts of a non-international character. The 1949 conventions had contained limited provisions about internal conflicts, but these are significantly supplemented by protocol 2, which enhances the protection of the victims of such conflicts.The two additional protocols have also been widely accepted in the international community. Protocol 1 has been ratified by 152 states and protocol 2 by 144. Australia ratified the conventions on 14 October 1958.This parliament enacted the Geneva Conventions Act 1957, the major purpose of which is to provide criminal sanctions for the grave breaches of the conventions and to endow Australian courts with jurisdiction to try them. Australia ratified the two additional protocols on 21 June 1991. The Geneva Conventions Act was amended at that time to include the grave breaches of protocol 1 within the jurisdiction of Australian courts and to provide for criminal sanctions for them.In Australia our national Red Cross Society has made an enormous contribution towards implementing the humanitarian ideals and principles expressed in the conventions and protocols. Praise is due to the many Red Cross staff and volunteers who have made individual contributions. Special recognition is due to Mr Jim Carlton, the former member for Mackellar, who is currently the Secretary-General of Australian Red Cross, for his tireless work in this and related fields. I also acknowledge the interest in the Geneva conventions and the Red Cross of a former Minister for Justice and senator, Michael Tate, who actually suggested this motion.I would like to conclude with mention of two recent examples of Australia's commitment to the ideals of international humanitarian law as expressed in the conventions and protocols. The first is the prompt ratification by Australia of the Ottawa Anti-Personnel Land Mines Convention and the implementation of our obligations under the convention in the enactment by this parliament of the Anti-Personnel Land Mines Convention Act 1998. This convention is an important step in the elimination of antipersonnel landmines and represents an enhancement of measures in earlier treaties, including protocol 1, directed toward the regulation of the destructive effects of weapons of war.The second is the adoption of the Statute of the International Criminal Court. The court is intended to try perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community. Included within the court's jurisdiction are the grave breaches of the Geneva conventions and other serious violations of international humanitarian law. It is a source of pride that Australia chairs the group of like-minded nations committed to the establishment of a viable court.In conclusion, it is appropriate that this House commemorate the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the Geneva conventions, that it recognise the role of the Red Cross movement in international humanitarian law and that it note with pride Australia's record in this field.16:39:009645McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—On behalf of the Australian Labor Party, I congratulate the Attorney-General for bringing forward this motion in the House today. We also recognise the work of the Australian Red Cross generally, and specifically in relation to this motion the work of former member Jim Carlton and former senator Michael Tate who have continued their public office at an international level.The Attorney spoke of Australia's honour in respect of international humanitarian operations and I think it is fair to say that not only has the Australian Red Cross been involved successfully in those activities but also the Australian defence forces are regarded internationally as the pre-eminent peacekeeping force in the world. Of course, they do apply the provisions and principles contained in the Geneva conventions and also the first and second protocols to which the Attorney has referred.I would like to speak about the background to the Geneva conventions and their implementation. The 20th century is often described as the century of war. With two world wars and countless regional and local conflicts, there has not been a single day of peace in 99 years. As the Attorney indicated, at the start of the century 90 per cent of casualties were in the armed forces and currently 90 per cent are civilians. They have been killed, and are increasingly being killed, in unparalleled numbers in the wars of the century.However, the 20th century has also seen the advancement of humanitarian treaties and organisations designed to prevent and respond to the excesses of war. Today, wherever we see war, we also see those who seek to mediate disputes and respond to the plight of those who are injured, captured or who are mere bystanders in conflicts they do not understand, let alone control.First and foremost among those many agencies is the International Federation of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent. The Red Cross was born from the vision of one man, Henry Durant. On 24 June 1859 Durant witnessed the battle of Salferino between the Austrian and French armies; 300,000 men fought in that conflict and 40,000—over 10 per cent—died or were wounded. In the aftermath of the battle, Durant commented on the sense of helplessness that he experienced, only able to assist those immediately in front of him when there were literally thousands crying out for help. But, rather than be debili tated by his despair, he acted and proposed the establishment of societies for the relief of the wounded and the adoption of a convention to protect the wounded soldiers and medical personnel on the battlefield who were attending them.On 9 February 1863 the Geneva Society for Public Welfare established a five-member commission to implement Durant's ideas. On 17 February that year the International Committee for Relief to the Wounded in Time of War was founded and on 26 October 1863 the now familiar symbol of the Red Cross was adopted. In 1864 at a diplomatic conference convened by the Swiss government, the first international humanitarian law, the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field, was ratified. In 1919 the International Federation of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent was established. The Red Crescent is used in many Islamic nations out of respect for the faith of those people that the federation seeks to assist.Today the federation has over 175 member societies and an active humanitarian presence in over 50 nations around the world. Beyond its duties to protect those injured or imprisoned by war, the federation also visits people deprived of their freedom, protects civilian populations, traces the families of those dislocated by war, conducts relief operations and helps prevent war through diplomacy and humanitarian action. It also provides an advisory service on international humanitarian law, including, importantly, in respect to the status of refugees. This year the federation is commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Geneva conventions through its People on War project. As the federation itself says:. . . the 50th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions should be more than simply a commemoration. On the eve of the 21st Century, this anniversary is a historic opportunity for the world to reflect on what has occurred in the half-century since the Conventions were adopted, to take stock of the present and to consider the future of international law and humanitarian action.I encourage all Australians to participate in this project. If the 21st century is to be, as we all hope it will be, the `century of peace', then commitment to international humanitarian law and action must be the cornerstone of all that we do. I commend this motion to the House.16:45:009647Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—As the chair of this parliament's Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I am very pleased to stand and support this motion introduced by the Attorney-General. The Geneva rules form part of international humanitarian law and are found, as we have heard, in the four Geneva conventions of 1949 and two additional protocols of 1997. The previous speaker has outlined where the Geneva convention came from and where the Red Cross came from all that long time ago in 1864 and 1863 respectively and the principles of the Red Cross.One might ask: what is the relevance to those things of so long ago to today? I would like to quote the UN Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, who made the same allusion as the previous two speakers about the switch from the number of casualties being 90 per cent soldiers to being 90 per cent civilians. She made the point that today:. . . conflict takes place within States, and 90 per cent of the victims are civilians—unarmed children, women and men, the elderly, the sick, and refugees. The greatest threat to human rights is war, but even war has its rules . . .Rather than writing new laws, she emphasised that what is needed is to implement what already exists, including the Geneva conventions. She called on states to abide by the conventions and to ratify the Statute of the International Criminal Court. It is interesting to note that 56 more ratifications are needed before that statute can enter into force.The United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, said in his address commemorating the 50th anniversary:While the United Nations Charter may be seen as a reflection of our experience, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights an expression of our ideals, the Geneva Conventions have for half a century represented humanity's determination to ensure, even in the midst of war, a minimum of respect for humanitarian principles. . . .In this final year of a century of war, genocide and immense suffering, we do not meet in celebration of the respect for these conventions. We cannot say that civilian populations have been spared in the conflicts of the last decade. And we should not believe that the next fifty years will require any less determination and commitment on our part to limit the suffering of civilians in war. . . .By making palpable the concepts of accountability and individual criminal responsibility for war crimes, the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda have invested the Geneva Conventions with new life and new relevance. . . . They continue to remind us that in every conflict where civilians are targeted—whether it is in Bosnia, Rwanda, Cambodia, Kosovo or Sierra Leone—there are violators and there are victims. The creation of the International Criminal Court is further evidence of the commitment to ensuring global justice . . .It is interesting to note that Kofi Annan and others launched an appeal in Geneva on 12 August this year. The idea of the appeal was to reject the idea that war is inevitable and to work to eradicate its causes; to demand those involved in armed conflicts and who are in a position to influence such conflicts respect the essential humanitarian principles and rules of international humanitarian law; to spare civilians the agony of war; and to foster relations between individuals, peoples and nations on the basis of the principles that inspired the Geneva conventions—namely, respect for human dignity in all circumstances and compassion for those who suffer.I have seen first-hand and experienced some of the impacts of war in a number of places in the last 40-odd years. I have seen it in Europe; I have seen it in Malaya as it was then, Malaysia as it is now; I have seen some of the incredible suffering on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area; and I have seen it in Laos. I am sure a number of other members of this chamber have had similar experiences. I therefore have no hesitation in strongly commending this motion to the House.16:50:009647Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—I am pleased to join with previous speakers in recognising the 50th anniversary of the Geneva conventions. I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the International Committee of the Red Cross for their humanitarian aid and assistance to those hurt and displaced by war and to compliment them on their People on War project. The International Committee of the Red Cross believe the Geneva conventions are central to international humanitarian law and recognise them as:. . . the most important international instruments to defend human dignity in war and among the most widely ratified treaties in the world.Under these conventions, countless numbers of people have been shielded and protected against war. But at the same time we must recognise that, despite these conventions, immense suffering, trauma and horror has stalked and struck down millions in war and conflict.Tragically, of course, given the modern nature of war, many of the victims of this trauma have been civilians—non-combatant women and children—inescapably caught in the horror of modern weaponry which does not discriminate between soldier and civilian, woman or child. Landmines are a prime example of such weapons but not the only one. Of course, this parliament has worked with the Red Cross and other NGOs and ratified the Ottawa agreement.Poised as we are on the threshold of a new century, we as a nation should reflect on how fortunate our country has been to largely escape the devastation of war on our own soil. With that reflection in mind, however, we must turn to the future and recognise the inevitability of armed conflict in the next century with the knowledge that, in the face of modern warfare, we in Australia are as vulnerable to its cruelty, its horror, its devastation and its ravages as any country in any other region of the world.Distance and isolation are no longer a means of defence, and morally as a nation we must recognise our responsibilities to continue to work toward a sense of global security by supporting the Geneva conventions. We must continue to stand strongly in support of humanitarian issues and, with resolve and determination, confront those who threaten these conventions in the recognition that every man, every woman, every child on the face of this earth is a potential combatant when these conventions fail.I strongly endorse and support the People on War project being run by the International Committee of the Red Cross and I quote from its document:People on War is a worldwide project that intends to increase awareness around the world of the rules that already exist for people's protection in wartime and to encourage discussion of humanitarian law in the context of modern-day conflict.It is designed to involve those who have experience of war.Those who are actually experiencing the reality of war are rarely consulted, because debates on the subject take place in meetings they cannot attend and the findings are reflected in documents which they do not write or have the opportunity to read.It is the ambition of the International Committee of the Red Cross to bring people in war-torn societies back into the global arena where the humanitarian rules and decisions of tomorrow are generated, and to make the process less of a monologue and more of a dialogue.The federal parliament of this nation, the House of Representatives, is the prime arena of Australia where humanitarian rules and decisions of tomorrow can be generated. We in this place must never lose sight of what our responsibilities are, not just in relation to Australia and our region but in a global sense. The International Committee of the Red Cross also says this:The purpose of international humanitarian law is to limit human suffering in times of armed conflict and to prevent atrocities.Further, it says this:Even wars have limits.Our strong support for the Geneva conventions will help set those limits, and I support this motion and compliment the Attorney-General on his bringing it forward.16:54:009648Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—What a pleasure it is to be able to speak on this motion. I stand in the parliament today and pay tribute to the Australian Red Cross members, individual Australians, volunteers and staff who have dedicated their lives to ensuring that innocent people are protected from the casualties of war and the collapse of governments around this world.In this last year of the decade, we have witnessed a past century of war and conflict that has evoked genocide and immense suffering. In fact, we have witnessed ethnic wars that have seen genocide and ethnic cleansing as almost acceptable in some parts of the world. We have seen violations of international humanitarian law in the form of rape, torture, mutilation, executions, denial of food and medicines and denial of basic rights.The year 1999 marks the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Geneva conventions. This anniversary is more than simply a commemoration; it is an opportunity for us to reflect on the past, to come to terms with the present and to look ahead to the future. There is no doubt that countless people have been protected by the Geneva conventions, and there is also little doubt that many hundreds of thousands more will need this protection into the future. As my colleague the member for Cowan has pointed out, we should not rest on our laurels. We should know that the next 50 years will require even more determination and commitment on our part to limit the sufferings of civilians in war and political treachery.The four Geneva conventions form a major part of the body of law known as international humanitarian law, which regulates the conduct of armed conflict. The conventions were adopted on 12 August 1949. They were one of the major responses of the world community to the horrors witnessed during World War II. However, we were to witness even more atrocities. These atrocities would astound the world and require a special commitment from leaders all around the world. Each convention is directed toward the protection of different classes of the victims of war, namely, the wounded and sick in armed forces in the field; the wounded, sick and shipwrecked among armed forces at sea; prisoners of war; and civilians in the hands of the enemy.It was the `civilians in the hands of the enemy' clause that led to the additional protocols of 1977 being adopted in recognition of the changing nature of warfare in the latter part of the 20th century. In particular, it was recognised that, to a far greater extent, the victims of war are civilians and that most modern conflicts are of a non-international character. The convention is a necessary international instrument and has a unique and important role to play in recognising that human suffering, conflict and war are not particular to time, race, religion or culture. The convention is important in bringing to justice those who violate the human rights of others.The International Red Cross has been instrumental in establishing the Geneva conventions and continually brings to our attention the importance of protecting individuals who are caught up in armed conflict. The Geneva Conventions Act 1957 makes provisions for the prosecution in Australian courts of grave breaches of the conventions, regardless of the place of commission of the offence or the nationality of the perpetrator. The act also provides for the protection of the distinctive emblem of the Red Cross, so often seen in the heart of war-torn countries and areas of civil unrest.Australia is recognised internationally as being at the forefront of those nations which respect and promote the principles of international humanitarian law. The world has now come to expect that war victims will be assisted by humanitarian agencies such as the Red Cross and that, for many, humanitarian aid is an essential lifeline. This is particularly so for women, children and the elderly, for whom aid often provides the very basis of their survival. I am honoured to offer my support to the Red Cross and the Geneva conventions, and I am proud to be part of this Australian parliament that encourages ratification by all nations of the conventions and additional protocols.16:59:009649Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—I support the motion moved by the Attorney-General and supported by other speakers. Some might argue that it is a contradiction to speak about human rights, especially international humanitarian law, in connection with war. Surely war, with all its horrors—not least the horror of armed conflict—is the ultimate breakdown of human rights. It is the very opposite to the ideals expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Geneva conventions—the 50th anniversary of which we are commemorating with this motion—have for half a century represented humanity's determination to ensure, even in the midst of war, a minimum respect for humanitarian principles. However, in this final year of the decade—in a century of war, genocide and immense suffering—one cannot say that civilian populations have been spared in the conflicts of the last decade. Indeed, when one looks at the conflicts, one aspect stands out—that is, the increasing practice of making civilians the very targets of warfare, genocide and ethnic cleansing. Increasingly, it is not a question of protecting civilians in armed conflict but of protecting civilians from armed conflict—and civilian populations are being used as instruments of war. These flagrant violations of international humanitarian law—the wholesale expulsion of an entire people from their native lands, summary and arbitrary execution, mutilation, rape, forced displacement and denial of food and medicines—are a sad litany.It must be made clear to the perpetrators of flagrant violations of human rights that the world will no longer turn a blind eye to what they do. By making individuals responsible—through the concepts of accountability and individual responsibility for war crimes—the International Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda have invested the Geneva conventions with, I suggest, new life and new relevance. As the Secretary-General of the UN recently reminded us, the Geneva conventions continue to remind each of us that in every conflict where civilians are targeted—be it Bosnia, Rwanda, Cambodia, Kosovo or Sierra Leone—there are violations and there are victims.The creation of the International Criminal Court is further evidence of the commitment to ensuring global justice. Of course, for this to be effective, it will require ratification swiftly and universally. I am pleased that this motion recognises the extraordinary contribution of 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 Geneva conventions and the additional protocols.We live in a far from ideal world. Even in our own region we have seen recent conflicts—for instance, in the Solomon Islands—and of course events in Timor over the last few days and today worry us all. We are sickened by the suffering of many people innocently caught up in conflict and used as pawns in a power struggle. It is time to reflect on the past 50 years. People point to civilian suffering—the very people that the conventions are supposed to protect. It is the atrocities—where the conventions break down—that regrettably attract attention. What is rarely reported or documented is the silent diplomacy. How many atrocities and how much suffering has been avoided by the Geneva conventions of 1949 and the additional protocols? It is also time to look forward to what may be achieved in the 50 years ahead. I congratulate the Attorney-General for bringing this motion forward and I commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills9650Message from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bills: Australian Sports Commission Amendment Bill 1999 Damage by Aircraft Bill 1999 Committees96509650965017:04:009650Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund, I present the committee's report titled, Examination of annual reports for 1997-1998 in fulfilment of the committee's duties pursuant to s.206(c) of the Native Title Act 1993—Fourteenth report , together with evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—by leave—Today, as Deputy Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund, I table the committee's 14th report. It examines the 1997-98 annual reports of the National Native Title Tribunal, the Land Fund and the Indigenous Land Corporation. The committee has now reported on the tribunal's first five annual reports and on the ILC's first four annual reports, in that the ILC did not commence until 1 June 1995. With one exception, the committee has held public hearings each year to consider the annual reports, which it has a duty to examine pursuant to section 206(c) of the Native Title Act 1993.The National Native Title Tribunal and the ILC have given significant assistance to the committee throughout the public hearings. Particular mention should be made of the senior officers of the National Native Title Tribunal who assisted the committee in its deliberations and examination of the tribunal's annual reports. In that instance, I want to acknowledge the contribution of Justice Robert French, who was the tribunal president from 2 May 1994 to 31 December 1998. As only the second president, he was responsible for much of the work to establish the tribunal's operations. He also made a significant impact in the provision of public information about the nature of the native title process. Justice French was supported by the tribunal's second registrar, Ms Patricia Lane, who retired on 31 December 1997. The tribunal is fortunate to continue to benefit from Ms Lane's expertise, in that she has been appointed a part-time member of the tribunal for a term of three years.In relation to the ILC, there has been a similar contribution from the persons initially responsible for the administration of the Indigenous Land Corporation. Mr David Ross was the inaugural chairperson, beginning his four-year term when the ILC commenced on 1 June 1996. Similarly, Mr Peter Yu has been the ILC deputy chairperson in a part-time capacity. He was appointed until 31 May 1999, when Mr Ross also retired.Both Mr Ross and Mr Yu have been available consistently to provide evidence to the committee about the ILC's activities. The committee has relied on their assistance. Notably, within the term of office served by Mr Ross, the ILC approved about 200 properties for purchase and divested about 30 to indigenous corporations. This is a significant achievement, for which Mr Ross and Mr Yu deserve to be acknowledged. The committee has wished them well for the future. On a personal level, I want to acknowledge their dedication, hard work and friendship.Turning to the committee's 14th report, mention should be made of the most significant matters. With regard to the tribunal, the committee commented on the issues of impartiality, workload, amendments to the act and public information. In its 13th report the committee noted that a tribunal member, Mr Sean Flood, resigned from the tribunal on 13 October 1997. At its public hearing on 30 March 1999, the committee heard from the new president, Mr Graeme Neate, that tribunal members must act in an impartial manner for as long as they hold office. The committee supports the continuation of this approach by the incoming tribunal president.The tribunal's workload has similarly been a matter of continuing concern to the committee. At the end of the 1997-98 reporting period, a total of 804 claimant applications were lodged. Future act activity was also intense, with almost 4,000 notifications. This significant workload confronted the tribunal at a time when there had been a reduction in the number of tribunal members through retirement and resignation. The committee has expressed the judgment that the tribunal should not retain consultants to manage this workload but provide advice to government so that an adequate complement of members will be available.With regard to amendments to the act, the committee was pleased to learn that, in the tribunal president's opinion, amendments passed in 1998 in the Native Title Amendment Bill have provided new tools for more flexible and expeditious resolution of native title claims. For example, before the amendments were made, the tribunal had relatively few statutory processes to deal with indigenous disputes. The committee has commended the tribunal for its efforts in disseminating information about native title. The committee will continue to consult with those who may be affected by the lack of information with a view to ensuring that adequate and accurate information is available from authoritative sources.In relation to the Indigenous Land Corporation, the committee's 14th report has similarly referred to substantive matters in regard to the ILC's 1997-98 annual report. These include land management and operational challenges. In its 13th report the committee had expressed concern that its recommendation to the ILC to provide a comprehensive account of land under management had not been followed. It is pleasing to note that the 1997-98 annual report has adopted this suggestion. Appendix 4 of the ILC report details land management expenditure during 1997-98 on land held by the ILC as well as assistance provided to indigenous land-holders. In addition, the committee has been able to confirm that the ILC was involved in the actual management of land purchased by the ILC in the 1996-97 period. The committee will continue to monitor the land management activities of the ILC, and it welcomes the ILC's assurance that its next annual report will treat the issue of land-holding costs in more detail than it has previously.Regarding this annual report, the ILC is to be commended for the way in which it has described the operational challenges that it faces. The ILC addressed matters such as land needs planning, expectations of property vendors and divestment of title. Another significant issue that the ILC has reported concerns obstacles confronting the purchase of grazing homestead freeholding leases and grazing homestead perpetual leases in Queensland. Under the Queensland legislation, these forms of tenure must be held by individuals and operated, in effect, as family farms. The ILC's legislation prevents it from acquiring land on behalf of individuals, and such leases may not be transferred to corporate ownership, including the ILC. The committee was pleased to learn at the public hearing on 25 March 1999 that a short-term solution had been achieved. The State Governor in Council agreed to exercise discretion to transfer the lease of a property to the ILC so that it could then be transferred to an Aboriginal corporation. The ILC is currently pursuing similar exercises in relation to a number of other properties. I commend the committee's 14th report to the House.17:11:009652Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—by leave—I rise as a member of the parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund to speak on the occasion of the tabling of the committee's 14th report, entitled Examination of Annual Reports for 1997-98 in fulfilment of the committee's duties pursuant to s.206(c) of the Native Title Act 1993 . The purpose of this report is to examine the 1997-98 annual reports of the National Native Title Tribunal, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Land Fund and the Indigenous Land Corporation. I also add to comments of the deputy chair regarding the recognition of the senior officers of both the Native Title Tribunal and the ILC who have always made themselves available to facilitate the committee's examination of their annual reports, as well as to provide information about their broader functions and activities.In his capacity as tribunal president from 2 May 1994 until 31 December 1998, Justice Robert French made a significant contribution to the establishment of the tribunal's operations and in raising public awareness and understanding about native title and the native title processes. I am pleased to note that the tribunal's second registrar, Ms Patricia Lane, who retired on 31 December 1997, has been appointed a part-time member of the tribunal for a term of three years. The tribunal will no doubt continue to benefit from her substantial expertise. I also recognise the work of the inaugural chair and the deputy chair of the ILC, Mr David Ross and Mr Peter Yu. The terms of Mr Ross and Mr Yu expired on 31 May 1999. Both Mr Ross and Mr Yu have provided significant information to the committee regarding the activities and role of the ILC since its commencement on 1 June 1995. The committee looks forward to a cooperative working relationship with the new chair and deputy chair of the ILC.The committee's 14th report contains a detailed examination of the National Native Title Tribunal's annual report for 1997-98. At the outset, it is important to highlight that, in the committee's view, the tribunal has pro duced its most accessible, accurate and professional report to date. The committee's report focuses on the most significant issues arising from the tribunal's 1997-98 annual report, including workload, impartiality and the effect of the Native Title Act amendments.Mr Sean Flood stood down as a tribunal member as a result of public comments he made about the government's native title policy. Mr Flood resigned from the tribunal on 13 October 1997. The committee supports the view expressed by the new president, Mr Graeme Neate, at the public hearing on 30 March 1999 that tribunal members must act, and be seen to be acting, in an impartial manner while they hold office.The increasing workload of the tribunal is also an issue that the committee takes a close interest in. At the end of 1997-98, 804 claimant applications were lodged with the tribunal, as well as almost 4,000 future act notifications pursuant to section 29 of the Native Title Act. The tribunal also convened some 5,000 preliminary conferences in relation to objections to the expedited procedure. This issue remains one of ongoing interest to the committee, particularly the fact that this increase in workload coincided with a reduction in the number of tribunal members due to retirement and resignation.In examining the tribunal's annual report, the committee was pleased to note that, in the opinion of the tribunal president, the amendments to the Native Title Act have provided processes for a far more flexible and expeditious resolution of native title claims. At the public hearing on 30 March 1999, the new president outlined a number of important developments arising from the amendments. These related to the registration test and its role in the reduction of overlapping claims, the ability to isolate and refer issues to the Federal Court and the ability to deal more effectively with intra- indigenous disputes.The committee's 14th report also reports on the most significant issues in the ILC's annual report for 1997-98. In the reporting period, the ILC approved the purchase of 77 properties, acquired 30 properties and divested 10 properties to corporations representing the interests of the traditional owners. This is a significantly greater number than in previous years. In total, to March 1999, the ILC had approved the purchase of almost 200 properties and divested almost 30 properties to indigenous interests. This is a significant achievement in a relatively short period of time. The ILC's annual report responds to the main issues raised in the committee's 13th report, particularly in relation to land management and consultancies.The ILC's report provides a detailed account of land under management, which has been an issue of concern in the committee's 13th report. Further, the ILC has confirmed that it did engage in actual land management activities on land it purchased in 1996-97. Further, the committee's 13th report recommended that a detailed list of consultancies be included in the ILC's annual report. Indeed, this recommendation is adhered to by the inclusion of such a list in appendix 3 of the ILC's 1997-98 annual report. In relation to its significant land management responsibilities, the ILC also announced its intention to establish a wholly owned subsidiary, Land Enterprises Australia or LEA. The role of LEA will be to manage the commercial aspects of the ILC's land management functions. The ILC also established two other subsidiaries in the reporting period relating to the management of particular pastoral properties.The ILC's annual report also deals comprehensively with the operational challenges it faced in the reporting period. In particular, the ILC reported on difficulties that it experienced in relation to vendor expectations that the ILC will pay higher than market value for properties it wishes to purchase. On 25 March 1999, the ILC's general manager reported that 66 per cent of the ILC's property negotiations had resulted in an acquisition below valuation, with the remainder being achieved at, or close to, market value. Due to public perception that market valuations are much higher than best industry practice could justify, there remains a necessity for continued committee scrutiny in this area. The ILC also reported in detail on operational challenges in relation to land needs planning and the development and implementation of its first land management policy, particularly as this policy represents a significant shift from previous land management policies. I commend the committee's 14th report to the House.17:18:009654Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—by leave—We are considering three annual reports prepared pursuant to section 206(c) of the Native Title Act 1993. They are examined in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund. They are: the National Native Title Tribunal annual report 1997-98, the Indigenous Land Corporation annual report 1997-98 and the report regarding the administration of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund for the period 1997-98. The committee has examined the annual reports prepared pursuant to part 4A of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989 and section 133 of the Native Title Act 1993. On its examination, the committee finds them to be satisfactory.We live in interesting times. I have some comments about Mr Sean Flood, who is now no longer a member of the National Native Title Tribunal. I should point out that I served with Mr Flood as a public defender before I came into parliament. He resigned from the tribunal and again took up an appointment as a public defender for 12 months, representing indigenous Australians. That was a funded position from ATSIC. At the end of that appointment, Mr Flood was appointed a magistrate in New South Wales by the New South Wales government, so he is still continuing to serve in a public capacity. There is great respect for him in the community. Mr Flood is a passionate advocate and has been in the past. His impartiality is beyond dispute, and I regard him as a personal friend. That is the end of that chapter. I did comment on him last time we were tabling reports. He continues to serve the community in that professional capacity as a magistrate in New South Wales.As to the Indigenous Land Corporation, the terms of the inaugural chair, David Ross, and deputy chair, Peter Yu, expired on 31 May 1999. They were excellent appointments by the Keating government. The Indigenous Land Corporation has been exemplary in the way that it has conducted itself, and those two people, together with the general management team and staff, have run an excellent organisation as far as the Commonwealth is concerned. On each occasion Mr Ross and Mr Yu have been before the committee in their offices, they have acted in a professional and courteous manner. They have provided committees continuously with any information that they have sought. They are two great indigenous Australians who also are passionate advocates for their people. They have not left the arena in the current debate on native title, land rights and a whole range of other things. They are out there in the public arena.They are not acting in a token way; they are acting in a passionate way on issues they believe in. In a way, I think that is engendering respect for them in the broad community. David Ross, in particular, is one of the most outstanding indigenous Australians in this country today. He does not necessarily have the flair in terms of advocacy, but he is as tough as teak and as honourable as they come. Peter Yu, in recent times, was prominent in debates over the Wik amendments. It is true to say that, in recent years, the indigenous community has been under siege with this government and people like Peter Yu and David Ross have been at the forefront of defending indigenous people.It shows that the old days of tokenism and compliance are over, that we have articulate, professional representatives prepared to stand up. There is a lot of misinformation out there in the community and it is not easy in difficult times. It is all right for members of the government who have not necessarily suffered discrimination, who have not had to speak on behalf of communities that have suffered the devastation that these people have. They are not homogenous communities. There is a perception out there, or a double standard, that Aboriginal people, or the migrant community, necessarily speak with one voice. I am a member of the Lebanese community. I am very careful when I speak on matters relating to that community because there are divisions in that community.Peter and David have always consulted widely with their communities. They have maintained links with elders in the community. They are well respected. Members on both sides of the House have seen their professional conduct when they have come before the parliamentary committees, and I pay tribute to them. I have always been a fervent believer in public service. Too often there are people who ridicule public servants or people who are committed to public service who say that you have to go to the private sector to get the best. In my view, David Ross and Peter Yu were the best of the best when they served on the ILC. They are big shoes to fill, but I join with the honourable members opposite in looking forward to working with the new appointments.They have different views, but we have to have the tolerance and understanding to listen to the other side, to respect that there are different views in the communities and try to embrace them. Recently, the member for Kalgoorlie, my friend the honourable member for the Northern Territory and I tabled a report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. We did not start off with the same views, but we ended up with a report that will withstand scrutiny.The people who have served during the period of these reports have served in a professional capacity, a capacity which the community and the parliament can be proud of. They hold strong views, but let us not attack the person; let us go for the policies. These people have been under siege, and I know in their own communities there is some criticism for the fact that they even engage in government. There are plenty out there in all the communities who like to be in the crowd on the sidelines who are the knockers. These people are not. They are in there having a go and they have not left the arena. I look forward to seeing them in the future. I commend these reports to the parliament. They have the big tick—one, two, three.9655Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—by leave—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills9655r8859655Debate resumed.17:26:009655Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Before question time started—YT4SCOTTMr Bruce Scott—What question time?MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—and was so rudely interrupted by a number of matters, I was actually making the point that the federal Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has a problem with numeracy. On Monday, he told the House:At the end of March 1999 there were 232,000 new apprentices in training, up from 204,000 at the end of December. That is an increase of 33,000 in the March quarter.I am sure that someone who is as good at arithmetic as you, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, knows that, if you subtract four from 32, you do not get 33. The point we make is that David Kemp is doing for numeracy what Dan Quayle did for spelling. If the federal minister for education does not know that 32 minus four is 28, he has a problem with numeracy, and the Labor Party repeats its offer to pass the hat around and fund the remedial numeracy course for the minister for education.I know these days that high quality staff are advising federal ministers of the Australian government, and I know the staff would not make a mistake like this. We can only put it down to the fact that the federal minister for education does need a bit of help on his sums. What made it worse was, instead of coming in yesterday and fessing up to the fact that he made a mistake, the minister said:Since question time yesterday—that is, Monday—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.So we are entitled to ask: if on Tuesday the minister could claim that there was a previ ously published figure of 206,400, why did the minister for education tell the House that it was 204,000? So he not only mixes up 32 minus four but also does not understand that four is not equal to six. We simply ask whether the minister will go for the trifecta and try to spell `potato' tomorrow because he does have as big a problem with numeracy as Dan Quayle had with spelling.The second point we made before question time was that the minister needs to explain whether he intends to keep his promise to provide additional funding to improve the quality of teaching for children in Australian schools. In the 1996 election campaign, the government promised to maintain the National Professional Development Program, a Labor government program. As soon as they were elected, that promise was breached. We hoped they had realised their mistake in the 1998 election campaign; they certainly promised to restore the program. Page 10 of the 1998 coalition schools policy said:The coalition will provide $75 million over three years to strengthen the skills of the teaching profession.That was announced again in the budget earlier this year, but here we have the budget bills before the House today and there is no money for professional development, there is no money to try to ensure that the quality of teaching in Australian schools improves. So we ask the minister: why is there no money in the school legislation before the parliament today? Where is that $77 million that was promised? How will the minister meet the commitment that this professional development for teachers will begin on 1 January 2000? I hope the minister will respond to those questions in his summing up.The other issue that needs to be addressed in the short time left to me is the government's claims that it does not favour one school sector over another. We know from the leaked minutes of a June 1991 shadow ERC meeting that the current minister for education has always supported government policies that encourage a steady, continuous decline in the proportion of students attending government schools. He has always made it clear that that is his preferred policy direction.The point we make is that, in the budget delivered earlier this year, there was a significant increase in funding for non-government schools and we welcome the fact that some needy non-government schools will get additional funding; but having provided a significant increase in funding for non-government schools, there was no balancing equivalent increase in federal funding for government schools. In fact, there was actually an average of $210 in additional funding provided in the discretionary decisions listed in the budget papers for every child attending a non-government school.Adding together the additional funding for Catholic schools and the new funding which is to be made available to non-government schools under the switch from the ERI assessment of needs to the SES assessment of needs will provide $756 million over four years. If you add to that 30 per cent—because about 30 per cent of students are in non-government schools in Australia—of the quality teacher money and 30 per cent of the new literacy money for middle years, you get an average of $210 for every child attending a non-government school in Australia.The extra amount on average given to students in government schools across Australia is calculated by simply adding together 70 per cent of the quality teacher money and 70 per cent of the new literacy money for middle years over four years. As I said, there is an average of $210 per child per year for the children attending non-government schools, and an average of $10 per child per year for those attending government schools—a ratio of 21 to one. For every extra $1 in discretionary decisions made by the government in the budget given to a child at a government school, $21 went to children attending non-government schools. That could hardly be described as fair, and it certainly does not address the great needs that are out there in public education. We would certainly argue that a great deal needs to be done.When we asked questions in Senate estimates about the need to provide more funding for public education, an answer which was presumably approved by the minister for education stated:In 1999-2000 the Commonwealth financial assistance grants paid to the states and territories will increase by almost five per cent in real terms providing additional resources for the funding of government schools.This claim is completely wrong. The additional federal funding provided to the states simply takes account of adjustments to movements in prices and changes in population growth. Budget paper No. 3 states that the FAGs have been maintained in real per capita terms, so once price increases and population growth are accounted for, states and territories have no additional funds to direct to government schools.So someone, presumably Dr Kemp, the federal minister for education, misled the parliament when, in an answer to a question in Senate estimates, they claimed that there was a five per cent increase in real terms in funding for government schools because the Commonwealth FAGs—the financial assistance grants to the states—had increased by five per cent in real terms. That was simply misleading the Senate and misleading all of us.We make the point that, through the introduction of the enrolment benchmark adjustment, through not providing balanced increases in government and non-government school funding and through undermining the quality of our universities and TAFE colleges, this government has set out on the deliberate policy of undermining Australia's public institutions in education. This government under this minister has an ideological obsession with privatising education and undermining public institutions. It is for that reason I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for:(1) using the important issue of literacy in a cynical political fashion;(2) failing to provide government schools with additional resources in line with its increased expenditure for the non-government sector; and (3) failing to meet its 1996 promise and 1999 Budget commitment to maintain funding for teacher professional development".10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—Is the amendment seconded?RH4KERRMr Kerr—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.17:36:009657Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—What we have just heard from the member for Dobell is fairly typical—high on rhetoric and distraction but rather short on pertinent facts. It is pretty obvious that the member for Dobell does not like good news. He tries to carry on as though there have been cuts to funding for schools. Let me remind him of the facts. In the last three years, this government has increased funding for schools by $800 million. There was $3.3 billion in funding in Labor's last year; in just three years, we have had an increase in spending from $3.3 billion to $4.1 billion.It is obvious that the member for Dobell does not like good news. He wants to scratch around like mad in a frenzy until he can find something he can present as bad news. That was typical of his comments regarding national literacy. Let me remind the member for Dobell of the comments in the Sydney Morning Herald on 4 August this year—just four weeks ago—about the national literacy program and the application of national testing for literacy and numeracy across the country. It said:Education ministers from five States and Territories have agreed to standardise primary school literacy tests, a move which for the first time will allow meaningful national comparisons of the literacy levels of Australian citizens.It represents a breakthrough in the ongoing row between Federal and State education ministers and comes on the eve of nationwide testing of children in Years 3 and 5.The article goes on to state:In a joint statement by education ministers from NSW, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and the ACT issued last night, the five ministers said the new approach would provide meaningful information compared to the previously unviable national literacy benchmarking process.They said the information would provide parents and teachers with comprehensive data about children's progress and allow extra assistance to be targeted at students identified as having poor literacy skills.That is a positive message in stark contrast to what the member for Dobell was trying to tell us.The third point I want to make about the comments by the member for Dobell is that he seems to be determined to continue with the divisive comments regarding the comparison between funding for public education and funding for non-government schools. I remind the member for Dobell that in the last three years direct Commonwealth government funding for public schools has increased by 20 per cent, by $243 million. That is in addition to the financial assistance grants and in addition to the indirect funding. There has been an increase of 20 per cent in direct Commonwealth government grants to public schools.I ask the member for Dobell this: if you are really saying that this government allocated too much money for non-government schools in this budget, which of the programs would you cut? Would you reduce the funding that increased spending for Catholic systemic schools that raised them from category 10 to category 11? Would you put the Catholic schools in the electorate of Dobell back down to category 10? Or would you oppose the measure to introduce the SES standard system for funding for non-government schools which gives greater equity, which changes the ERI system to an equity based, income based SES system? Would you change that, or would you just cut funding across the board? That is what I would like to know from the member for Dobell.Further, I implore the member for Dobell to stop this divisive approach that pits public school against non-government school. It is not helpful. It is fostered by the teachers unions. It is encouraged by the ALP, and it is doing nothing for the children in our schools. It is simply fuelling a sense of rivalry and antagonism that the Labor Party is keen to see grow. I urge the member for Dobell to encourage our teachers and to encourage our students, be they in the public system or the non-government system. We have a system that works well side by side. We do not need members from the other side like the member for Dobell trying to create hostility between the two school systems.This bill, the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999, reinforces this government's commitment to school education. As I have already indicated, there has been an increase of $800 million over the past three years. This bill recognises the vital importance of school education in the development of our young people, in developing their skills, in developing their values and attitudes, in helping them to attain their achievement, in helping to build confidence and self-esteem, in helping to prepare them for a fulfilling and meaningful place in our society, and in helping them to be prepared to enter the work force. As I said, this government has already increased funding by 20 per cent in the last three years with 6.8 per cent in this budget for government schools.This bill gives effect to a number of initiatives outlined in the budget earlier this year. Its provisions include $36.3 million next year for increased funding under the literacy and numeracy program to improve literacy and numeracy outcomes for students in the early and middle years of schooling. It allocates $26.4 million to extend funding for the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools strategy for the year 2000. It continues the previous capital funding arrangements for non-government schools. It provides contingency funding for those struggling non-government schools in the transition to the new system of equity based funding, to which I have already referred. This allocation is part of a broader range of spending commitments by this government in the last budget.I now turn in more detail to the issue of literacy and numeracy, the highlight of this bill. The emphasis on literacy and numeracy is part of this government's commitment to seeing that all young people reach adequate levels in literacy and numeracy by the time they leave school. It is to the shame of the former government that they were happy to support a system that let children slip through the net and leave school without adequate levels of literacy and numeracy. It must be a high priority of this government's program—of any government's program—to ensure that young people are literate and numerate by the time they leave school not only for their own self-fulfilment, satisfaction and self-esteem in life but also to enhance their employment prospects.There has been much said of the correlation between literacy and numeracy levels and employment. For that reason alone, it is essential that we do whatever we can to redress shortcomings in literacy and numeracy standards. The essential link between levels of literacy, numeracy and employment has been shown in a number of studies over recent years. For instance, a study released in 1997 by the Australian Council for Educational Research showed that males with poor literacy and numeracy levels were twice as likely to be unemployed in their late teens as those with average skills or better. A 1996 study by Miller and Chiswell for the ABS showed that unemployment levels for those with excellent literacy skills averaged 3.6 per cent, those with good literacy and numeracy skills averaged five per cent, and, sadly, those with poor literacy skills averaged 18 per cent. The connection is clear.Further, that same study showed that the length of time spent in unemployment is considerably longer for those with poor literacy and numeracy levels than it is for those with adequate skills. Finally, that study showed that the work force participation rate for those with high literacy skills is much better than those with poor skills. In fact, those with poor literacy skills had work force participation rates of less than 40 per cent whereas, according to this study, those with good or better literacy skills had work force participation rates over 85 per cent. The connection is quite clear, and thus this government has a commitment to do whatever it can to raise literacy and numeracy standards in our school system.The Commonwealth government are working closely with state and territory governments to raise standards of literacy and numeracy across the board. Their commitment in March 1997 to an agreed national literacy and numeracy goal made this clear, when they said that every child leaving primary school should be numerate and be able to read, write and spell at an appropriate level. Just last month, as I said already, a number of states and territories introduced a common literacy and numeracy test for year 3 and year 5 students to ascertain the level of literacy and numeracy across the country to allow meaningful comparisons and to allow us to better target policies to meet those areas of need. I have already referred to the article in the Sydney Morning Herald regarding that.This government has supported its commitment to literacy and numeracy with funding dollars. This government has put its money where its mouth is when it comes to literacy and numeracy levels. In this bill we have committed an extra $131 million over the next four years to literacy and numeracy programs, bringing it to a total of $869 million. That is, from the Howard government, a commitment of $869 million over the next four years to improve literacy and numeracy, with $216 million being provided in the next financial year alone.This $131 million has two main components: firstly, an extra $84 million over the next three years to government and non-government schools under the existing arrangements to focus on literacy and numeracy needs in the early years of schooling; and, secondly, a new initiative—an additional $47 million over the next four years for literacy and numeracy initiatives in the middle years of schooling to address the needs of those who have slipped through the net, aimed at identifying and providing remediation for underachieving students from years 5 through to 10. The Commonwealth will develop guidelines to tightly target those students in need in these years and address that need.As I have already indicated, these initiatives also include an extra $26.4 million next year and $90 million over the next three years for Asian language studies. This builds on programs already in place, particularly in the Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Indonesian languages. It aims at strengthening understanding of our region, at increasing the ability of our young people to engage in meaningful exchange with other countries in our region, at increasing meaningful and productive international interaction. It better places our young people in a position to capitalise on growing trade and tourism links and therefore employment opportunities.Thirdly and fourthly, the program includes ongoing capital funding arrangements for non-government schools as per existing programs and emergency funding as we switch from the ERI based system for non-government schools to a much fairer income based SES indicator—the socioeconomic status indicator—that will better target money to those schools in need. That is an initiative which will provide great relief to many struggling lower income based non-government schools.I would like to raise a few more general issues that arise both out of this bill and out of the recent budget in relation to this government's commitment to education and also respond to some of the comments of the member for Dobell. Firstly, this government's priorities to school education have been made clear. As I have said already, there has been an increase of $800 million over the past three years in the commitment of money to school education. This government is committed to quality education, with the commitment to literacy, the commitment to numeracy, the commitment to addressing those areas of need and ensuring that across the country we can reach sustainable, measurable and acceptable standards of literacy and numeracy. That shows our commitment to quality.Secondly, this government is committed to education which leads somewhere in terms of employment potential and employment opportunities. This government has increased spending over the past couple of years on vocational education programs. It has been committed to the Jobs Pathway Program to link young people from school straight into traineeships and apprenticeships and into employment opportunities. That shows our commitment to education for our young people will deliver results in terms of employment opportunities for them.Thirdly, it shows this government's commitment to choice in education. Contrary to the rantings and ravings of the member for Dobell, this government is not committed to any ideological position—either public education or non-government education. This government is committed simply to supporting the choice of parents. Parents have a right to choose whether they want their children educated in a public school or in a non-government school. This government is committed to supporting that choice in any way that we can that is equitable to both groups of parents. Seventy per cent of our parents choose to send their children to public schools. This government supports that choice and supports the education of those children in public schools. Thirty per cent of parents choose to send their children to non-government schools. This government likewise supports their choice to send their children to non-government schools and is committed to ensuring that those children also receive well deserved quality education.This government is committed to equity in education, be it in the public sector or the non-government sector. This government is committed to assisting families—particularly struggling families and young people from disadvantaged families—to receive a fair level of education. The changed funding that I have already referred to for the non-government system switches funding from a faulty, inequitable ERI system to a system based on needs and the ability of parents to pay. It is a strong equity measure aimed at helping our poorer schools and the children from families attending those poorer schools.The decision by this government to support parental choice and to provide assistance to non-government schools has, at times, brought a barrage of misinformed criticism from some parts of the teacher unions, from the ALP and, unfortunately, from some representatives of some of the P&C associations. These criticisms are not rational, not accurate and, as I said to the member for Dobell, not fair and not helpful in the debate about education. Instead of encouraging our schools to work together and instead of supporting our whole education system they attempt to make political mileage by pitting one part of our system against the other.This government's support for the non-government school sector, which is based on equity and choice, is not at the expense of the government sector. It is not at the expense of the public sector. We have seen a 20 per cent increase in direct Commonwealth government funding to public schools in the past three years. In the 1999-2000 financial year there will be an extra $243 million in direct Commonwealth government funding, in addition to the indirect financial assistance grants, to public schools. In the next quadrennium, we will see an extra $1 billion in direct Commonwealth funding to our public schools, bringing the total annual funding by the end of that quadrennium to $1.9 billion.I have a couple of other comments to make which the member for Dobell, many of those opposite and many in the teacher unions seem to ignore. It is the states that have traditionally had prime responsibility for the public school system and the Commonwealth government has picked up the bill for the struggling non-government schools to bring them up to a standard that is comparable. Over the past two years the financial assistance grants, from which the state governments fund those public schools, have increased by five to six per cent a year. That is extra from the Commonwealth government which the state governments use to assist public schools.It is surely fair to help the families who choose to send their children to non-government schools. After all, in public schools students are 90 per cent taxpayer funded and in non-government schools they are only 55 per cent taxpayer funded. The parents of children in non-government schools subsidise to a level of 45 per cent the education of their children. The average government funding per student for a secondary student in a Catholic systemic school is around $3,500. The average government funding for students in public schools is about $5,600. Parents who send their children to non-government schools subsidise the education of their children on average by $2,000 per head, thereby reducing the pressure on the public system and allowing public education money to be greater per student in the public system.The government support for the public and non-government system is based on choice, equity and a determination to maintain quality in both the public and non-government systems. This bill is a further indication of this government's support for the schooling of our children, be they in the public or non-government sector.17:56:009661Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—The States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999 , amongst other things, makes provisions in the year 2000 for $36.3 million in funding for literacy and numeracy outcomes for students in the early and middle years of schooling. I am glad the member for Macquarie got on to per capita spending on education. If he had developed that argument he may have come a bit closer to the truth about what is actually going on in education in this nation.This is a government, along with most state governments, which has simply lost the plot when it comes to the education, the schooling, of primary and junior secondary children. These governments once totally ignored primary education. That they now recognise the importance of literacy and numeracy outcomes is a little step forward, but that is all it is. There is little or no recognition of greater intellectual skills developing in children aged seven to 14. The lowly intellectual knowledge skills are praised. The higher intellectual skills of insight, analysis, synthesis, comprehension, translation, interpretation, comparison, prediction, probability, estimation, aggregation and so on are ignored.Literacy and numeracy skills are important, but so too are attitudinal skills, social skills, technological skills, physical skills, and, with respect to the wishes of families and communities, cultural and spiritual skills. It is the togetherness or the confluence of all these skills that determines the future success or otherwise of all people. The time that occurs is largely when a child is aged seven to 11.In a watershed longitudinal study published in The Times Education Supplement in 1986, the London Education Authority highlighted that the most successful determinant of future success or otherwise was the schooling re ceived by a child aged between seven and 11 and that schooling was far more important than race, socioeconomic background, gender, religion or ethnic background. Of course, in Australia there are far too many people who simply ignore the needs of not only our children but also this nation's future requirements. Drug programs and crime prevention programs are not worth the paper they are written on when seven to 12 year olds are overlooked.You can find numerous examples of the funding of education in Australia, public and private—it is not a matter of equity and choice; that is absolute nonsense—that reflect tradition and privilege but nothing else, and certainly not a sound education rationale. Funding levels in education fly in the face of commonsense and absolute truth in education. For example, the older the learner the more self-reliant, the more independent, the more self-directed and, just perhaps, the lesser the need for resources in many cases. The younger the learner the more vulnerable, the more dependent and the greater the need for resources.If a comparison is made between per capita grants in primary schools and universities, the differential is a whopping 400 per cent. The differentiation between primary and senior secondary schools can be over 100 per cent. Something marvellous must happen in the Christmas holidays if you can jump from 100 per cent to 400 per cent funding. By making these comparisons, I am not arguing for lower per capita fees at universities or secondary schools, but I am arguing for higher per capita grants for primary aged students.If I can use my own state of South Australia as an example, an examination of a current school budget is illuminating. The per capita grant for all children is $2,659—that is the basic grant. If a child is in reception to year 2, the supplementary funding is $709, making a total of $3,468. If a child is in years 8 to 10, the supplementary funding is $911, making a total of $3,570. If a child is in years 11 to 13, the supplementary funding is $2,142, making a total of $4,801. It is simply amazing what Christmas holidays do to resource levels. But what if a child is in years 3 to 7? That is the time when schooling is the single largest determinant of future success. What would you say would be a reasonable allocation? Three thousand dollars? Not quite. Two thousand dollars? No, not really. One thousand dollars? No, not quite. Five hundred dollars? No. Two hundred dollars? No. One hundred dollars? No. Fifty dollars? It surely has to be 50 bucks? No. Twenty dollars? No. Ten dollars? No. It is $6, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know that sounds incredible, but it is true. If it were not so sad it would be laughable.A number of voices have pointed out the stupidity of poor resource levels for primary schools, and I am pleased to report what is apparently one more. In the Adelaide Advertiser on 19 August, the following was attributed to South Australian Chief Executive Officer, Mr Geoff Spring, formerly Director-General in Victoria:Funding for schools also needed to change with primary schools becoming better funded than high schools.But we now need to recognise that we need to put more resources into primary schools.If we invest in the primary area we have less drop-outs.With more funding we can ensure there is more communication between teachers and schools to ensure students do not slip through the net.We need to make sure they get the teaching they need, and recognise at an early age the kids who need early help.Hear, hear! I congratulate Mr Spring on his sane and very rational comments. Since I made my maiden speech in this House some 11 years ago, Mr Spring, a senior bureaucrat, is the only bureaucrat of that status I have ever heard say something that should have been said 20 years ago when even simple-minded principals recognised there was a problem and mounted a campaign called `Primary Means First'.This attempted to rectify the unfair differential funding as existed then. Unfortunately, the bureaucrats of the day—the secondary school principals, the teachers union leadership and other sectors of education at TAFE and university—white-anted the `Primary Means First' campaign, as they did subsequent campaigns—`Into the 90s' and the `South Australian Primary Review'. Perhaps that is ready to change in South Australia, a state that, up to 1979, led the nation in innovations in education for over a century, but which has allowed itself to be dragged back to lowly lowest common denominator over the past 20 years. Let us hope Mr Spring withstands the coming white-anting which certainly will be directed at him. Notwithstanding that predicted reaction among the powerful tradition and privilege in education I wish Mr Spring deserved success, for if he is successful he will, within a generation, change the modus operandi and the whole psyche of South Australia for a whole lot better; certainly he will change the negative psyche that it is operating with at the moment.Much has been claimed by this government as to the improvement in literacy and numerary outcomes with their stewardship. Nothing could be further from the truth. The government have missed the point completely, as have members opposite, and people out there in the electorate know. On 3 August, A Current Affair ran a segment focussing on the literacy and numeracy needs of Australian children. I did not see the program, but I was called about it by a constituent of mine, Mrs Val Pudney. Mrs Pudney informed me that her interest in the literacy and numeracy issue stems from problems being experienced by a young family member. At the end of the segment the station provided a telephone number for viewers to call if they wished to express a view on the matter. Mrs Pudney called that number but she had to wait more than three hours to get through, such was public interest in the particular report. The level of concern in the community about this matter is emphasised by the fact that callers were being asked only for their name and contact details. No discussions were taking place—at least by the time Mrs Pudney got through.This is very clear evidence that government funding to help solve this problem—that is, the literacy and numeracy problem—is, in the eyes of the community, wholly inadequate. The view is that the government is merely skimming the surface, and that is true. There is enormous concern about this problem in the community, and this bill and the meagre increase in funds it offers is demonstration that the government is failing to take the matter seriously and is failing to listen to community concerns. It is a trivial allocation and just a bit of window-dressing. Furthermore, the issue is far more complex than simple literacy and numerary skills.Young people need those skills but they also need attitudinal skills, social skills, technological skills, physical skills, cultural skills and spiritual skills as well. It is the confluence of all these skills that enables young children to succeed in life. As far as attitudinal and physical skills are concerned, there are some splendid examples reported in today's Australian. Like other athletes, Ian Thorpe said it does not matter whether or not you come first, it is more important that you are having a go. He was referring to his pretty average `go' at sports. But his attitude is right.Mr Hockey interjecting—3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD—Mr Hockey, you do not know what you are talking about. Keep quiet. Nick Green is part of the Oarsome Foursome. He rows for Australia. He had a fantastic time at school. His attitudes and his physical skills were well developed. Moneghetti said that he certainly was not a star at school sports, but he loved them anyway. Gillian Rolton was a bit of a duffer at sport, but there is an interesting little comment about her from the age of seven to 11—everything went by the board when Rolton got her first horse at the age of 11 and became a great world champion.The federal government would have you believe that, by throwing a few million dollars here and there and having a testing program for years 3 and 5, they are serious about the needs of young primary age children. But of course they are not. As any parent or grandparent of a child having literacy or numeracy learning difficulties knows, the federal government's remedies to the problem fall a long way short of what is required. In fact, the government are quite perfunctory in many things and they are perfunctory in education: they just go through the motions.The government is trying to get away with a small amount of funding and a lot of rhetoric. But the community will not let the govern ment get away with taking this problem lightly. Whether you agree with the line taken by A Current Affair is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it focused on a great need of our young people, and the overwhelming response to the story right across the country is testimony to that.During the week beginning 2 August this year, in my home state of South Australia, literacy and numeracy testing programs were being conducted. Teachers, professional and union bodies opposed these testing programs. I suppose that on philosophical and educational grounds their opposition and stance are valid. However, in political terms, their opposition is short-sighted. The real problem in primary schools is a resource problem—which no-one, except maybe the current chief executive officer in South Australia, recognises is the problem.Since 1979, and despite the denials of state and federal governments, the real value of resources allocated to Australian primary schools, public and private, has diminished. You need to look at the per capita grants, which have all fallen. Whether they be for university students, vocational and TAFE students, senior secondary, junior secondary, primary or early primary, they have all fallen. Anyone familiar with resources that are allocated to primary schools knows this to be true. The $6 supplementary funding in South Australia for students in years 3 to 7 that I outlined earlier is testimony to this.That other sectors of education—universities, TAFEs and senior secondary—continue to fail to assist their primary school colleagues and their school communities in securing a higher level of allocation of resources is highly regrettable. That they continue to do this against their own future interests—because these primary students will all become TAFE, senior secondary or university students at some time in the future—is simply beyond my comprehension. For some reason, those sectors have been convinced that a fair deal for young children in resources means fewer resources for their particular sector, and they have behaved accordingly over the last 20 years.That is just gross irresponsibility. The overwhelming majority of these young children will in fact take their place at senior secondary, TAFE and university level at some time in the future. There are many examples of those three sectors criticising governments for taking on short-term goals, and we have had evidence of that almost every year for the past 20 years. But, in this instance, they are guilty of exactly the same offence.Why is there no effective voice in this country to defend and promote the interests of young children? It seems that it does not matter what is discussed—whether it be education, drugs, literacy and numeracy, family relationships or whatever—when the subject of the debate is children aged between five and 15 no-one is seriously interested. Take drugs, for example. Governments around the world are struggling to deal with the drug problem in their communities. At the risk of causing offence to others who have occupied this House, I suggest that no government has embarked upon a serious drug education program in this country.It is well known that prevention is always far cheaper and far more effective than cure. It is also well known that the attributes and skills of our young are largely acquired between the ages of seven and 12. If our efforts with that age group fail, then no program, no amount of money, no amount of bleating and no amount of rhetoric and grandstanding will solve the problems that drugs and dysfunctional behaviour are causing in our communities.Who in this House could identify a business, a union, a welfare group, a religious or community group or a teaching or political organisation that reflects accurately the needs of our developing young and does something positive about it? Absolute silence would greet that particular question. What happens in this country is a deliberate demeaning of any need expressed by any group of people trying to address the primary needs of young children. It is something to be greatly ashamed of and something which started very badly 20 years ago, and we are paying for the consequences now. This is a generational negligence. The negligence is demonstrated a generation down the track.The literacy and numeracy problem among young children should not be a partisan matter. It is a matter of national importance and should be treated as such. But the failure to do so has allowed the problem to become progressively worse. In 1979, it was largely accepted that 10 per cent of children had grave literacy and numeracy problems. In the late 1980s, the figure was 20 per cent. Now, in the late 1990s, it is 30 per cent. It is an escalating problem and it is about time that serious action was taken to turn it around. Bureaucrats have fudged their findings because they have averaged out the top 20 per cent of students, who over the past 20 years have done progressively very well indeed.The problem for the non-achievers has got progressively worse. The question is how much longer parents and grandparents will have to put up with an inadequate response to literacy, numeracy and other resource implication problems for young children in this nation. The answer is at least until the removal of the Howard government—and maybe a few state governments along the way—if the trivial provisions in this bill are any indication of their intentions.The bill also makes provision for the continued funding of the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools Strategy, an initiative of the previous Labor government. Labor instigated this program because it understood just how important it is for the future of this country that young people develop a better understanding of our near neighbours, including a competence in their languages. But the irony is that, while on one hand the government is encouraging young people to take up the study of foreign languages, on the other hand it is doing virtually nothing towards helping them gain a better grasp of their own language.It should be obvious that if they are unable to operate effectively in their own language then it is so much harder to learn to speak a foreign language. With grave literacy and numeracy problems on the rise, the study of foreign languages and the job opportunities it gives rise to is becoming an impossible goal for an increasing number of our young people. Perhaps if the world language were Russian or Chinese, then governments in Australia might do something serious about literacy and numeracy inadequacies amongst our young. But, with English being the language of politics, finance and trade, we continue to delude ourselves about the failings of the education system in Australia.Everyone in this House knows that those countries in our region and in Europe which have enjoyed great success in recent years have committed gross amounts of national gross domestic product back into massive investment in education, and they did it a generation ago. The latest figures I examined, which compared the investment in education by countries in the OECD, placed Australia right down near the bottom of the list. This fact does not seem to have registered with state governments and the current federal government, and that is a cause of great national shame.While the federal government must take the primary responsibility for this situation, the problem is endemic right across the country. Religious, other private schools and institutions also fail to acknowledge the differential resources between primary, secondary and further education. Business, union, welfare and other organisations still fail to acknowledge the needs of children in primary school. Until this outlook changes, until a more appropriate allocation of resources is achieved, the problems we are facing in this nation with our young will simply get worse. Unfortunately, this bill will do very little to address what is becoming a very grave problem in this country, and one that will harm our collective future. (Time expired)18:16:009665May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—Contrary to what the member for Port Adelaide says, this government has not missed the point with regard to funding for literacy and numeracy programs. It is not just going through the motions. I commend the Howard government's steps to ensure that Australian youth are equipped with the necessary reading and writing skills. In this modern age, if you cannot read or write it is very difficult to hold down a job. It is like when the starter's gun goes and you cannot get your feet out of the starter's block—you cannot move, your feet are caught. You cannot progress. You cannot even start the race, let alone reach the finishing line.Research shows that young Australians who have poor literacy and numeracy skills are more likely to leave school early. They also have poor access to further education and training and are at much higher risk of unemployment. Acquiring literacy and numeracy skills has been proven to reduce people's risk of unemployment by boosting their ability to participate in education. Acquiring literacy and numeracy skills improves one's ability to successfully participate in the work force, and acquiring literacy and numeracy skills enables one to make decisions in life.In the past, many young people could leave school early and get a semiskilled or unskilled job. Nowadays these jobs do not exist. Jobs have shifted as the second half of the 20th century has seen the explosive growth in communications and information technologies. The reality is that society has changed. We are moving into a society which is driven by technology and requires higher literacy skills. While at school, the experiences a child gains shape his or her skills, attitudes and knowledge. As a government, we have a responsibility to ensure that each Australian child has the opportunity to acquire literacy and numeracy skills.Dr David Kemp, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, said last week in this chamber that improving the literacy and numeracy levels of young Australians is probably the single most important thing you could do to assist the educationally disadvantaged people in this country. As a mother of three adult children who had tremendous opportunities in the government school system, I am a strong advocate of ensuring that every child is given the best chance to fulfil his or her potential and that each child has access to educational programs and resources to acquire the skills he or she needs for their future.I strongly support any government measures to ensure our children do not miss out on opportunities but are given the best chances for success in life. The States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999 reflects the coalition government's concern with literacy and numeracy achievements of Australia's school students. Literacy and numeracy have been a concern of the Howard government since coming to office, and Dr Kemp has played a tremendous role in ensuring Australia has a clear direction and goals for a national approach to literacy and numeracy.This government, for the first time, has put into place a comprehensive range of programs which are opening up for young people horizons and opportunities which they were denied for the 13 years that the Labor Party was in office. We now have a national plan to make sure that every child coming out of primacy school has the foundation skills for life. The governments of the states, the territories and the Commonwealth have committed themselves for the first time to national literacy standards, to a system of comparable testing for young children and to a national goal that every young person coming out of primary school should be able to read, write and spell at an adequate level.This plan follows the government bringing together the best experts in Australia to tell us what level of literacy skills children need to have at the end of year 3, at the end of those early years of schooling, to continue successfully through their schooling. Out of this we put in place the national literacy standards. We conducted the first national literacy survey. We analysed the results against those standards and found that 30 per cent of young Australians in year 3 were below that standard.The Commonwealth has agreed with the states that every child in the government system will be assessed against that standard and that they will report those results from year to year so that we can see whether every child is coming up to the standard. Following further negotiations with ministers, we have had another victory for Australian youth and their parents, with the standardising of primary school literacy tests across state borders to ensure that every young child acquires the literacy skills to enable them to read at the national standard.Since the beginning of last month, the states and territories have engaged in assessments of young people in years 3 and 5 against the national literacy benchmarks. As a result of these measures in developing a regime of comparable testing against benchmark standards, for the first time school children in Australia are being assessed as to whether or not they meet literacy standards and whether or not they have the skills to continue successfully with their education. As Dr Kemp said last week in the chamber:Parents have a right to this information. Young people have a right to learn to read and write effectively.The additional funding allocated through this legislation is a positive step in improving the literacy and numeracy skills of students in the early and middle years of schooling.A significant point I wish to make is that the legislation focuses on middle years of schooling. In the past, those years have not been addressed to such an extent as this. By `middle years of schooling', we refer to students in upper primary and secondary school through to year 10. In the past the coalition government has focused on numeracy and literacy standards in the early years of schooling and in the final years through the Full Service Schools Program, which caters for students who are at risk of not completing school or who have returned to school through mutual obligation requirements.The legislation currently before the parliament takes into account those students in middle schooling. An amount of $47.1 million over four years will be provided for strategies to improve the literacy and numeracy skills of underachieving students in the middle years of schooling. The funding will be directed towards students who have not developed basic literacy and numeracy skills and who, therefore, have difficulty coping with the demands of the school curriculum. Literacy and numeracy support for such students will reduce the risk of unemployment by increasing their ability to participate in education and training and improve their ability to successfully participate in the work force.The allocated funding is, in a sense, a completion of the government's policy focus on literacy and numeracy. It recognises that there is a need for support for improved literacy and numeracy achievement throughout schooling, particularly for those students who miss out on acquiring adequate skills in their early years of schooling. Ensuring that our children have adequate literacy and numeracy skills is vitally important in the education equation. As I mentioned earlier, research shows that those without these skills increase their risk of unemployment. Our unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in decades—7.2 per cent. The coalition government is committed to lowering this rate even further. I believe it is through programs like those of literacy and numeracy that we will ensure our youth have adequate skills for the workplace.Australia is a bountiful nation by any measure, including where I live on the Gold Coast, the nation's sixth largest city and arguably the nation's tourist capital. We are also rich in our diversity of people. Programs such as those of literacy and numeracy enhance opportunities for our youth and allow us to best prepare for the future. While in Japan recently at a lunch hosted by Japanese business organisations, the Prime Minister announced his intention that Australia become a can-do country. These simple words formed headlines in many of our Australian newspapers the following day. While they are simple words, they convey a tremendous amount about the will of the Australian people and the government's determination to ensure that Australians have a fertile ground in which to achieve their potential, whether it be through innovative business opportunity or fast growing industries such as biotechnology.Programs of literacy and numeracy are in line with the Prime Minister's vision to create a can-do country; literacy and numeracy programs parallel this vision. I would go so far as to say that the Australian government is taking steps to ensure that, as a government, we foster the development of can-do children so that, when they are ready to exit school, they have acquired adequate literacy and numeracy skills.The additional capital grants funding which forms part of this legislation is another real example of the coalition government's commitment to education in this nation. This funding for non-government schools is a continuation of the government's commitment to maintain funding at current, real levels. Likewise, the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools strategy is a forward thinking program, designed to equip our youth for the future. Asia is important to Australia and will continue to be so. This strategy goes far in supporting our links to key regional neighbours including China, Indonesia, Japan and Korea.Under this strategy, by the year 2006, 60 per cent of students in years 3 to 10 will be learning one of the four targeted languages—that is, Chinese, Indonesian, Japanese and Korean. The remaining 40 per cent will be learning other languages. Fifteen per cent of year 12 students will be learning one of the four targeted languages, and another 10 per cent of year 12 students will be learning other languages. All school students in years 3 to 10 will have Asia content incorporated into the subjects that they are studying.This legislation extends funding to the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools Strategy. The Commonwealth, states and territories have endorsed this strategy and its associated targets until 2006. If we do not continue with this strategy, I firmly believe it will be to the detriment of Australia in the medium to long term. Many leading authors and foreign affairs experts, including Professor Stephen FitzGerald, Australia's first Ambassador to China, have argued the point that, if Australian children are not educated about our Asian neighbours, we will be left behind in the next millennium as we participate in the global economy.This legislation takes funding for the strategy to the end of 2002. Including this funding, the Commonwealth will have provided $207 million to support the study of Asian languages and studies since the commencement of this strategy in 1994-95. This is a tremendous indication that we are committed to educating our Australian youth to ensure that Australia is in the best position to work with our Asian neighbours to benefit our nation in the 21st century.I commend the government's plans in allocating this funding in a move designed to develop students' understanding of Asian languages and cultures so that tomorrow's work force is well placed to participate in the global economy. Our children will be the winners out of the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999 . They will become better equipped with the vital skills of reading, writing and counting that will better prepare them for the decisions they will make in life. They will also be better prepared for participating in the global economy.The government's renewed commitment to literacy and numeracy and expanding education programs for our youth is an indication that the coalition is responding to the education needs of our young students. It is an indication that the coalition is determined to ensure that we have equity in our schools and attention is paid to the needs of students likely to be educationally disadvantaged. The policies this government is putting forward will create jobs for young Australians. I commend this bill to the House.18:30:009668Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—In the time allocated to me this evening I want to address two major issues in connection with the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999 . The first is the very severe doubt that has been cast over an election promise from the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, to improve the quality of schoolteachers in Australia through the National Professional Development Program. The second is the entire area of literacy and numeracy—where we are heading in improving literacy and numeracy in Australia.In relation to the first issue, I would be very interested if the minister could explain to the House and the people of Australia whether he intends to keep the promise he made to improve the quality of teaching in Australian schools or whether he has in fact scrapped that 1998 election promise. This bill was an ideal opportunity to include the commitments made by the minister in the lead-up to the 1998 election. Going back to the 1996 election campaign, the Howard government promised not to abolish Labor's Professional Development Program, but they did abolish it. I refer to a statement contained on page 2 of the `1996 Coalition Schools and TAFE Policy', which says:A Coalition Government will continue the National Professional Development Program.Obviously, this was a non-core promise. Just a couple of years later, in the 1998 election campaign, they realised their mistake and promised to restore the program. Here I refer to page 10 of the `1998 Coalition Schools Policy', which says:The Coalition will provide $75 million over three years to strengthen the skills of the teaching profession.If the minister plans to keep this promise, he must explain to us why there is no money in the schools legislation that is now before this parliament and how he will meet his promise that `program activities will commence at the beginning of 2000'. That statement was contained in the minister's press release of 11 May this year. How can those program activities commence at the beginning of the year 2000 if there is no provision in the legislation for that funding? It is an ideal opportunity lost. We would be very interested in the minister's explanation on this matter.I want to now spend some time discussing the second issue of literacy and numeracy. This legislation allocates $36.3 million for the year 2000 to increase funding under the literacy and numeracy program, especially for the middle years. So there is a special program to boost literacy and numeracy in the middle years. This is obviously something that we support. We think it is terrific that there is an increase in funding for literacy and numeracy, and we do not really have any difficulty with the concentration on the middle years. However, I do question, very gravely, the adequacy of funding for literacy and numeracy under this government.A very significant statement was made in March 1997 by the Commonwealth, state and territory education ministers. They agreed to the national literacy goal that every child leaving primary school should be numerate and be able to read, write and spell at an appropriate level. That is an admirable goal and one to which all members of the House of Representatives would be committed. However, my concern is that the minister is spending a lot of time trying to create some sort of political row over this issue of increasing literacy and numeracy in Australia—more for the sake of his own self-aggrandisement and getting himself on programs such as 60 Minutes, and less fortunately for him Four Corners. He is trying to fabricate some sort of fracas so that he can say, `I am the hero and the rest of you are the bad guys.' That is simply not true.In fact, in early August of this year there was a historic announcement by the state and territory governments of New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria, Queensland and the ACT that they would undertake nationally comparable literacy testing. That announcement has everything to do with a sensible, bipartisan, cooperative approach based on the basic skills test introduced by the New South Wales Labor government 12 years ago and nothing at all to do with the minister's bullying and grandstanding. My colleague the shadow minister for education and member for Dobell earlier in this debate very eloquently pointed to the deficiencies and criticisms of the minister in his grandstanding on this matter. I will simply repeat a number of the statements that have been made about the minister's behaviour—not by Labor state ministers but by the Liberal Minister for Education in Victoria, Phil Gude. He said, among other things, in the Herald Sun on 12 May 1997:Literacy is our highest priority and, despite Dr Kemp undermining the previous collaborative process, we are determined this important process goes ahead.Next, Mr Gude, in the Herald Sun on 15 September 1997, said:He ought to do the right thing . . . own up to the fact that he's manipulated the figures in a most dishonest and disgraceful fashion.Then Mr Gude, in the Age on 16 September 1997, said:It is a debate that has hit the public arena as a result of political grandstanding by Dr Kemp. The Liberal Minister for Education has exposed the federal Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs for what he is: someone who is content with grandstanding and creating division around this issue instead of using a collaborative approach. We should not be surprised about this, because the Prime Minister was very happy with the entry of the current Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs into the parliament. Mr Deputy Speaker, you may recall that the current minister took over from the then sitting member for Goldstein, Mr Ian Macphee, in 1990. Mr Ian Macphee would be generally regarded as a wet, someone with a genuine social conscience. He was preselected out of that seat by the present minister.I see the present minister as being someone from a long line of punishers and straighteners. He is more concerned with punishing kids and schools where there are real difficulties and funding problems. He has said publicly on a number of occasions that his own idea of a literacy and numeracy program is to have a national list of the schools, which then puts the students in those schools in the position of being shamed. What he really wants is a shaming list. Why does he want that? Because it makes great headlines in the tabloid newspapers, in radio interviews and on television. You get the television cameras and say, `The kids in these schools are illiterate and innumerate. Isn't this a terrible thing?' That is not a constructive approach to education and addressing a vital issue in this country, an issue that goes to the heart of inequality.The member for Curtin and I will be sharing a platform at the Sydney Institute on 6 October, where we will be talking on the issue of inequality. Going to the heart of inequality is the problem of literacy and numeracy in Australia. What is the minister's approach to it? `We'll get a list, and we'll expose the schools that are performing poorly, and then we can get the media and get photographs of the kids.' There is nothing more despicable, in my mind, than that sort of approach. That is self-aggrandisement and promotion on the part of the minister but absolutely devastating for the kids involved.The states have got their act together: they have been doing literacy and numeracy testing for a number of years—the Victorian government for 12 years. In my state of Queensland, they have been doing that since the mid-1990s, when funding was provided by the then Goss government for a literacy and numeracy program called the Year 2 Diagnostic Net. It is working extremely well. However it could do with a greatly increased influx of funding. The Year 2 Diagnostic Net identifies the kids who are having difficulties in reading and writing, and then a Reading Recovery program follows for those children so they get the intensive assistance—which is costly—to enable them to boost their literacy and numeracy.The results are tremendous. After the Reading Recovery program, more than 90 per cent of the children who are identified in the Year 2 Diagnostic Net in Queensland have been brought up to the appropriate level of reading and writing for their age. This is a tremendous result, made possible by the foresight of the Goss government and by the funding the Goss government provided. Here, I give credit where credit is due: the Borbidge government continued the funding for that program. Now the Beattie government has continued the funding and is applying additional resources. It is a very encouraging situation in Queensland. It is a less encouraging situation in Victoria where, I am advised, the state government has very substantially reduced the number of teachers. That then detracts from the intensive support that the children who are identified through these literacy and numeracy testing programs are able to receive.We do not need punishers and straighteners when it comes to literacy and numeracy and looking after the future of our children. We need expanders and creators. Sadly, the minister is neither an expander nor a creator. But that is the sort of approach that we need. In this budget, in the vital area of education, it is regrettable to report that the government has provided less than $10 a year of extra funding to the children in government schools. The minister likes to incorporate in his figures an adjustment for the cost of living and then say, `See—we're providing more money.' That is not more real resources. At a time which is absolutely vital to Australia's future, kids in government schools are receiving an extra $10 a year from this government. Yet, through its enrolment benchmark adjustment, the Commonwealth government has presided over a $21.1 million cut to funding for government schools. In my home state of Queensland, there has been a lift in enrolments between 1996 and 1998 of 9,351 students and a commensurate curtailment of funding of $3.5 million through the enrolment benchmark adjustment. What are the priorities of this government when they cut funding to government schools through the enrolment benchmark adjustment?As my colleague the member for Dobell, the shadow minister for education, mentioned earlier in this debate, if the Prime Minister of Australia had maintained the previous government's investment in education and research—that is, the Labor government's investment in education and research—at three per cent of gross domestic product, which is where it was when this government assumed office, Australia would be spending an extra $2.87 billion on education and research. Tragically, we are seeing a very substantial reduction in the investment in the future of this country and the investment in education and research.This should not really surprise us. On 2 March 1987, when he was under siege from the Joh for PM campaign, the Prime Minister boasted proudly in an interview with John Laws in these terms:Everybody who knows me knows that I am the most conservative leader the Liberal Party has ever had.There was never a truer statement, and he is at least as conservative today as he was then. That statement was made within weeks of a declaration by the Prime Minister that he would take a scalpel to Medicare and pull it right apart. He was beaten badly at that poll and decided that he needed to rescind that policy, but he has put a very large nick in the vein supplying funding to Medicare, and it is bleeding to death. He is still achieving his objective there.On industrial relations legislation, it is the same thing. His long cherished goal was to tip the balance in favour of employers over employees. Now we have the second wave of industrial relations legislation designed to do precisely that. Going back to his days as Treasurer, his other long cherished objective was for a GST. It has been a long time coming as far as he is concerned, but from 1 July next year we will have a GST. Yet on the fundamental issues of closing the loopholes and repairing the income tax base through the fringe benefits tax, capital gains tax and foreign tax credit system, the current Prime Minister described those taxes in debates in the parliament as `nasty', `stupid' and `madness'. There we have the attitude of the current Prime Minister and the attitude of the current Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. They come from the same stable. They boast about how conservative they are, and they are right.The future of federal-state relations is brought sharply into question through the legislation that has been through this parliament in relation to the tax package, the sorts of funding arrangements that are contained here and what will happen to those arrangements from 1 July next year. From 1 July next year, the untied grants from the Commonwealth to the states will not be reduced or diminished but will be abolished in their entirety. Eighteen billion dollars will be gone because the states are going to get the GST. It has been made quite clear that there are no guarantees from the Commonwealth about ongoing funding in the tied grants to the states after the so-called GST transition period. That transition period may be three or four years, but Treasury officials made it quite clear to their state counterparts at the most recent Premiers Conference that there are no guarantees on funding for the tied grants.What are the tied grants spent on? They are spent on literacy and numeracy programs. Australia is confronting the prospect of having those tied grants, including literacy and numeracy programs, cut back or abolished after the so-called GST transition period. Our fears about that were compounded the other day when the Treasurer declared, `I am an income tax cut man.' He wants to continually reduce the top marginal rate of income tax. He said a few weeks before that that he would like to see the top rate pushed out to many multiples of average weekly earnings. A couple of weeks ago, he said, `I am an income tax cut man. We've got to get that top rate down.' That is how they are going to finance it—they will keep reducing the top rate of income tax and providing extra income tax relief for high income earners, funded by cuts in these vital literacy and numeracy services through the tied grants to the states.The country's future is in the balance when we are faced with these sorts of choices. People say, `What really is the difference between Labor and the coalition?' There are fundamental differences, but nothing more fundamental than the commitment of Labor to invest in the nation's future. What is the nation's future? It is our children. I have three children. I want to see them succeed. There are children in Logan City who would love to get some extra support at school in literacy and numeracy through home visiting, parenting programs and so on.All of these possibilities are open to us, and the funding can be identified, except we are facing a choice between the government's risky tax scheme or Labor's commitment to provide affordable basic services. The Labor commitment is to provide decent, affordable services in the form of education of our kids and investment in the nation's future in research and development. That is the choice that we are looking at. That is the choice that will clearly be put in front of the Australian people at the next election: either further income tax cuts and a risky tax scheme or an investment in the nation's future by the Labor Party. (Time expired)18:50:009672Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—There could be few greater gifts to a young child than the opportunity to have an early and successful start to learning to read. If children are provided with the right literacy and reading experiences in their early years and learn to read, they will go on to read to learn. To introduce young children to lan guage and literature at an early age so that they learn to read successfully is to open a world of adventure to them, to feed their appetites for learning, wondering and living, as the member for Rankin rightly acknowledges. I look forward to our shared platform at the Sydney Institute on these issues on 6 October.The supreme importance of positive literacy, language and reading experiences for young children must surely be acknowledged as setting the stage for useful and productive citizenship in later years. Reading is indeed learned. It therefore must be taught, supported and sustained. Reading does not come naturally, as speech does. Reading the English language requires understanding of the alphabetic writing system. There has been research at national and international levels to support the view that effective classroom instruction in the early grades by well-prepared teachers is the most powerful method for preventing reading and learning problems. The most effective classroom method for early reading, so the experts say, involves a combination of explicit instruction in word recognition skills and reading comprehension strategies with opportunities to practise these skills in literature.The importance of a progressive and effective education system cannot be overstated. Our education system is the vehicle by which our young people learn many of the skills that will ultimately take them into the work force or into further education and training. Our education system should be the best it can be, constantly looking forward with new ideas and measures to provide the maximum opportunities for our young people in the increasingly competitive Australian and global labour market.I have spoken of the need for literacy skills. Numeracy skills are no less important. The ability to have a good basic understanding of mathematics is no less applicable in our information age of highly sophisticated computerisation. To prepare for further education, for employment or for everyday activities, our young people require basic numeracy skills. Mastering the challenge of mathematics for success in higher education is one thing, but basic mathematics can teach a way of thinking that will apply in every workplace and is essential for informed civic participation.We need numeracy skills to understand a daily newspaper, to pay taxes, to invest for the future and to participate in any community activities where budget decisions are made. Whether a young person aims to be a mechanic and needs to apply physics formulae to wire electrical circuits for today's cars, whether they aim to be a research scientist in the biotechnology industry or whether they want to work in a retail store, their introduction to numeracy skills in early school years will help set their path. Mastering basic mathematical concepts or more complex approaches to solving problems will prepare young people for the careers of the 21st century as well as the demands of everyday life.Possibly one of the most important policy decisions by this government in terms of education has been the focus on literacy and numeracy. This focus has extended from early school years now to middle school years and, in the context of employment policy, as an aspect of mutual obligation. Reading, writing and basic numeracy are amongst the most essential skills one needs in order to get ahead in life. The absence of such skills is a distinct disadvantage in today's competitive job market.With the emerging digital world and its driving force in the economic wellbeing of our nation, we must ensure that Australians have the necessary information tools and skills which will be crucial to their participation in the information technology age. In the 21st century, our work force will need to be technology literate. We must not allow anyone to be left behind because we did not give them the opportunity to get the fundamentals right in their early schooling. This government recognises the importance of literacy and numeracy and has done something about it. In March 1997, Commonwealth, state and territory education ministers agreed to a national literacy goal that every child leaving primary school should be numerate and able to read, write and spell at an appropriate level.The States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999 gives effect to the national literacy and numeracy plan and the subsequent initiatives announced in the 1999-2000 budget, building on the coalition's commitments to delivering better education for our young people—and I note the gracious acknowledgment of the member for Rankin in respect of his support for this bill, as far as it went. The bill does have a number of provisions, including a $36.3 million increase in the year 2000 under the literacy and numeracy plan to improve literacy and numeracy outcomes for students in not only early but also middle years of schooling.I have spoken of the necessity to improve literacy and numeracy skills in the crucial early years where there must be a mix of early diagnosis and assessment, appropriate teaching strategies and professional development. In 1998, the government focused on the early years of schooling when it provided $176 million for literacy programs. In the 1999 budget, there was a general increase in funding for the national literacy and numeracy plan, but it went further than that. The funding was extended to support new initiatives targeting students in the middle years of schooling, just beyond the early years, in upper primary and secondary school through to year 10.Why is this so? It is apparent now that those children who went through their early years of schooling more than three years ago, before this government came to office, did not have the benefit of this government's policies in funding literacy and numeracy programs for early schoolers. Labor did nothing of note in its 13 years in government to address the fact that we had an unacceptably low level of literacy and numeracy standards among our school children. It has only been since 1998 and the advent of the national literacy and numeracy plan that it has been an aim of federal, state and territory ministers for classroom teachers to assess the literacy needs of all children in their first year of school, with the aim of having every child reading and writing properly by the end of primary school.Having focused to date on the early years of schooling, the government also supported students, through the full service schools program in their final years of schooling, who were at risk of not completing school or who had returned to school as a result of the mutual obligation provisions of the youth allowance. The government is now completing the circle—mutual obligation, of course, being the concept we embrace; reciprocal responsibility being the British Labour leader's description of that same concept that he has embraced.The new literacy funding provided for by this legislation targets those students who have slipped through the net between the literacy programs for the early years and those directed to the final years. These middle years of schooling are also of critical importance in a child's literacy and numeracy skill development at a time when their rapid physical, emotional and intellectual development is crucial.The coalition's commitment to lifting literacy and numeracy standards has been adopted in a number of innovative ways, and not just in primary schools. A special school in my electorate of Curtin, the Speech and Hearing Centre for Deaf Children in Wembley, receives some funding under the national literacy plan for educationally disadvantaged children. It is an exceptional institution that works with children with hearing disabilities or hearing impairments and whose oral language or speech development has been retarded compared to their chronological peers. This school assists children with special language or speech needs to acquire skills so that they are able to enter regular school programs.Under the national literacy plan, a number of schools have shown great initiative in enhancing children's appreciation for language and literature. Another school in my electorate, Mount Hawthorn Junior Primary, introduced a program whereby older members of the community visited the school and told the children stories of their life and experience as they grew up in the area. The children then adapted the stories told to them by these older people and created their own pieces of inventive and imaginative work. This literacy program was designed to nurture their skills in comprehension, expression and language.This government is committed to raising literacy and numeracy standards to give young people the best possible chance in life. The total funding of almost $680 million over the next four years to 2001-02 is money spent that will have an immense impact on educational opportunities for young Australians in our competitive knowledge-based economy. The funding provision of $36.3 million in this legislation for the year 2000 is an increase to government schools grants in literacy and numeracy from $111.7 million to over $135 million and to non-government schools from $43.2 million to nearly $48.6 million. Grants for national projects to foster literacy and numeracy are to be extended into the program year 2000 with nearly $7.63 million allocated.It is perhaps a matter of serendipity that we speak on this bill just days before we celebrate National Literacy Week. Next week, Australia will celebrate for the first time National Literacy Week to coincide with International Literacy Day on 8 September. The federal government initiative has been developed in collaboration with state and territory governments and non-government education authorities to celebrate the progress Australian schools are making to improve the literacy and numeracy levels of all students, as well as acknowledge publicly the results that have been achieved. I am confident that National Literacy Week will raise the community awareness of the importance of all students developing effective literacy and numeracy skills.There is another important aspect to this bill about which I propose to speak—that is, the provision of $26.4 million to extend funding for the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools, the NALSAS strategy, for the year 2000. Just as the government wants to give school students the fundamental skills in literacy and numeracy to give them every possible chance to lead a productive life, we are also committed to giving our students a range of other skills to assist them in their employment opportunities.To speak another language is a much admired ability. If that other language has the potential to add to one's employment prospects in the short or longer term, it becomes a much sought after ability. The government's funding commitment targets the enhanced and expanded study of Asian languages, specifically Chinese Mandarin, Japanese, Indonesian and Korean. The aim of the government's NALSAS strategy is to ensure 60 per cent of year 10 students and 15 per cent of year 12 students are studying an identified Asian language by 2006. The $90 million allocated in the 1999-2000 budget provided for in this legislation extends the funding over the next three years to 2002.This far-sighted objective for Australian students recognises that closer engagement with Asia is a foreign and trade policy priority of this government. The study of Asian languages throughout the school system can only improve Australia's capacity and preparedness to interact with our Asian neighbours through their economies, their cultures and their communities. This gives our students greater opportunities when they enter the work force to participate in the global economy.I am personally aware of the impact a second language, particularly an Asian language, can have on a potential employer. As the managing partner of a large law firm in Perth, I was responsible for employing our solicitors. In that role, I was increasingly aware that there was a need for lawyers to work in areas with an increasing interaction with Asian clients or Asian businesses. Any prospective employee with Asian language skills was at an immediate advantage, for there was an escalating need for our law firm to demonstrate that it had the skills within its work force to do work for or with Asian companies and businesses. I know I speak for many other employers in that regard.Finally, this legislation provides for the continuation of previous capital funding arrangements for non-government schools to maintain funding at current real values. This is a continuation of our election commitment to provide additional funding to maintain capital grants in current real terms. Further, this legislation provides for contingency funding for struggling non-government schools in the transition to the new system of funding for non-government schools.In this year's budget, the government introduced some fundamental reforms to the way non-government schools are funded. We have moved away from the old notion that funding is based mostly on the way the schools structured their finances. This only limited the ability of non-government schools to respond to the needs of their communities or to raise additional income.The socioeconomic status funding approach is more equitable. It is a fairer assessment of the school's needs because it focuses on the school's communities, not the school's accounts. This funding model measures the ability of the school community to support a school, and thus their level of entitlement for federal recurrent funding. No school will be financially disadvantaged. No school will be advantaged over another.The additional short-term funding provided for in this legislation recognises that, if a school is affected by the changes in arrangements, there is a contingency fund to assist those schools that need support during the restructuring phase. These changed funding arrangements provide educational equity and offer choice. It better allows Australians choice in selecting a school which meets their children's needs. The increased funding has not been provided at the expense of the government schools.Government schools are of course the domain of the states essentially, but the federal government has added to that pool with an additional $243 million in this year's budget for government schools. There is an extra $1 billion from the Commonwealth over the next four years, which will build on the 25 per cent increase in federal funding for the government sector already provided by the Howard government since 1996. So this legislation increases the capital grants for non-government schools from $74.5 million to $84.6 million for the year 2000 and increases the amount of short-term emergency assistance for the transition phase in the funding model changeover from $614,000 to $2.5 million in the year 2000.This legislation is another step forward in the implementation of this government's education policy. It is a policy of equity, fairness, opportunity and vision. Labor's education policy? Total disorder. As the member for Werriwa said last October of the Labor election policy on education, `They stuffed it up.' Perhaps not how others would phrase it—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—You wouldn't use that language, would you?83PBishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP—I certainly would not, but we do get the picture. This government is working to prepare our young people for the demands and challenges they will face in the years ahead, in a world with a rate of change the likes of which we have not seen before. Tonight I recall the opening line in one of the books I studied, L.P. Hartley's novel, The Go Between , which goes something along the lines, `The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.' Perhaps a truism we would do well to recall from time to time, but the 21st century is also a foreign country and we must do whatever we can as federal legislators to ensure that our young people have the skills and the opportunities to not only survive but also thrive in their journey through that foreign country—beyond the year 2000. I commend this bill to the House.19:08:009676Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—One of the subjects which is never far from a parent's mind is the quality of their children's education. I know from very recent experience just how important this becomes when your children are about to start school. Parents know that the early years can be the most important. Problems that occur with literacy or numeracy in the very first years of schooling will be very hard to correct. When parents are worrying about that, they want to know that governments, both state and federal, share that priority. The only way governments can demonstrate that sense of priority is to ensure by their policies and funding that both government and non-government schools are able to provide the quality education that children need.More than ever before, it will be a good education that will be the key to your child realising his or her full potential. The States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999 helps by providing a modest amount of funding to the states as specific purpose grants for education in four areas: $36.3 million to fund literacy and numeracy programs for students in the early and middle years of schooling for the 2000 school year; $26.4 million to extend funding for the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools strategy for the 2000 school year; continuation of previous capital funding arrangements for non-government schools; and contingency funding for struggling non-government schools in the transition to the new system of funding non-government schools. The literacy programs funded by the Commonwealth provide grants to schools to foster literacy and numeracy development, targeting educationally disadvantaged students. The additional money provided by this bill will support new initiatives for middle school—that is, upper primary to year 10 students. The national Asian languages strategy deserves special mention. As a result of it, children in their first year of schooling are learning a language. My five-year-old son who has just started at a local primary school is learning Japanese. That will open up for him and his classmates 12 years from now opportunities which probably would not otherwise have been available to them. The capacity to speak Japanese will certainly improve their job prospects. Some examples are running a cellar door at McLaren Vale catering to Japanese tourists, working as an engineer at the local Mitsubishi engine plant and negotiating trade contracts for Australian products or commodities in Tokyo. Much of the credit for the national Asian languages strategy must go to my colleague the member for Griffith who, in one of his former professional lives as the Director-General of the Queensland Cabinet Office, extracted a commitment to it from the former federal Labor government.The additional capital funding grants for non-government schools honours a coalition commitment to maintain that funding at the same real value as was provided by the former Labor government in the years 1993 to 1996. The additional funding for short-term emergency assistance for non-government schools will assist those schools which are expected to benefit from the new funding system announced in the 1999-2000 budget but which are having difficulty surviving until it takes effect. But these modest provisions to help fund our children's education should not be looked at in isolation. What needs to be kept in focus is how the Howard government has reduced the capacity of the states to fund education.At the time the Howard government came to office, Commonwealth grants represented about 13 per cent of total funding on government schools with the balance being met by state governments. About 38 per cent of total support for non-government schools is provided by the Commonwealth with 18 per cent being provided by the states and territories and the remaining 44 per cent from private sources. The Howard government has cut financial assistance grants to the states and territories which has reduced their capacity to fund schools from the resources available to them. In both 1994 and 1995 the federal Labor government had provided the states and territories with a real terms per capita guarantee for financial assistance grants. But when the Howard government took office in 1996 it maintained the real per capita guarantee base but negated it by requiring the states to make a fiscal contribution to the Commonwealth.That fiscal contribution amounted to $1.5 billion over the first three years of the Howard government. The precise amounts were $619 million in 1996-97, $627 million in 1997-98 and $313 million in 1998-99. The liability for those contributions was allocated amongst the states on an equal per capita basis. That meant that the smaller states, like South Australia, carried a disproportionate burden given their relatively higher cost structures and smaller capacities to raise revenue. The result was a reduced capacity for the states to fund their school systems. The ABS government financial estimates show how much in total the South Australian government was able to spend on primary and secondary education since 1993-94.In South Australia's case, severe budget pressures predated the cut to financial assistance grants in 1996-97. The last year that Labor was in office at a state level was 1993. Because of Premier Arnold's commitment to education—he was both a former teacher and education minister—he had endeavoured to quarantine funding for schools from the significant cuts that were necessary elsewhere in his budget. Spending on schools from the state's own sources, including financial assistance grants, was $834 million in 1993-94. As soon as the Liberals took office, they cut it, first to $807 million in 1994-95 and then as low as $744 million in 1995-96. South Australia's education system has been struggling ever since.There was a small increase in 1996-97 to $776 million. Schools got a larger increase to $899 million in 1997-98, which was, of course, a state election year and a year in which the education department got some supplementation from the state government for a pay rise for teachers. Commonwealth grants to South Australia for current school spending over that period rose steadily from $198 million in 1993-94 to $208 million in 1994-95, $218 million in 1995-96, $213 million in 1996-97 and $261 million in 1997-98. However, in the Howard government's first budget in 1996, it made a general cut to direct Commonwealth funding for education by applying an efficiency dividend to Commonwealth own purpose outlays and specific purpose payments. The consequence for the total education budget was a cut of $13 million in 1996-97, $35.2 million in 1997-98, $46.5 million in 1998-99 and $55.4 million in 1999-2000. With this efficiency dividend spread over the whole of the education budget, the implications for school funding are small.The big issue with specific purpose payments for schools is the shift in funding growth from government to private schools. The 1996 budget papers showed expected growth in funding to government schools of 3.8 per cent in 1996-97, 1.1 per cent in 1997-98, 1.2 per cent in 1998-99 and 0.7 per cent in 1999-2000. By comparison, growth in funding to non-government schools was expected to be much stronger: 6.1 per cent in 1996-97, 6.9 per cent in 1997-98, 6.9 per cent in 1998-99 and 6.3 per cent in 1999-2000. This shift in funding is the result of a combination of factors, including higher average specific purpose payments for children in non-government schools and a growth in the number of parents seeking better educational opportunities for their children through private education.However, in the 1996 budget the Howard government introduced a more controversial factor—the enrolment benchmark adjustment. The Howard government claims that the cost to state governments of a child in a non-government school is some $3,400 less than the cost of a child in a government school. The enrolment benchmark adjustment uses 1996 as the base year and compares shares of enrolments in the government and non-government sectors for each subsequent year.Each year, if the comparison with 1996 shows a decline in the percentage of enrolments in government schools, the Commonwealth takes away approximately half the claimed savings to the states. That is around $1,700 per student represented in the percentage change. The calculation is done on a state by state basis. A buffer has been applied in each of the EBA's two years of operation—500 in 1997 and 1,500 in 1998. The Howard government claims that the states achieve significant savings from declines in government school enrolments, but in reality the changes that occur are spread thinly across the state education system and there are no significant changes in teaching or administrative costs.The enrolment benchmark adjustment has cost South Australia $2.28 in 1997 and $3.1 million in 1998. Nationally the savings to the Commonwealth were $11.9 million in 1997 and $21.1 million in 1998. The EBA cut is a cut in addition to any shift in per capita payments from the Commonwealth as a result of changing enrolment populations. Because the EBA formula is based on the proportion of enrolments rather than raw numbers, government schools can actually increase the absolute number of students they enrol and the state will still be subjected to EBA cuts.849SIDEBOTTOMMr Sidebottom—And still lose money.83UCox, David, MPMr COX—Yes, they will still lose money, because private school enrolments have increased by more. Fortunately, this has not happened in South Australia. It is also the case that the EBA does not work in reverse. That is, if the proportion of students in government schools grows, no additional EBA funds are provided.There is also a big question mark hanging over the future of Commonwealth funding for the states general purposes including schools and directly for schools. Financial assistance grants will be replaced by the revenue from the GST from 1 July 2000. Initially the GST revenues will not be enough to fund the states' current expenditure and the new responsibilities they will have to assume. The arrangements for distributing GST revenues between the states are yet to be worked out. That means that it is an open question whether the states, particularly the smaller states, will have a large enough revenue base to properly support their education system, in the long term. While there will be a transitional period during which the Commonwealth has guaranteed that the states will not be worse off under the new arrangements, this is far from a long-term guarantee of maintenance of all of their funding. Clause 5(v) of the Intergovernmental Agreement on Commonwealth-State Financial Relations says:The Commonwealth will continue to provide Specific Purpose Payments to the States and Territories and has no intention of cutting aggregate SPPs as part of the reform process set out in this Agreement, consistent with the objective of State and Territory Governments being financially better off under the new arrangements.The words `no intention' are very far from a guarantee that SPPs will not be cut. Even if they are maintained in aggregate, they may be cut in real terms or not given growth funding commensurate with growth in demand for the services they are supposed to cover. This is how the Howard government will claw back the growth in state revenues which the GST is expected to provide. Whenever it is necessary to cut Commonwealth expenditure, it will always be easier for a coalition government to cut specific purpose payments to the states for education than it will be to cut the federal government's own programs.South Australia's school system will be extremely vulnerable to any adverse changes in specific purpose payments or the level of GST revenues. One of the main functions of a federal system is to ensure that there is a fair redistribution of resources amongst the states to fund essential government services like education. Whether or not running a school system is, in the first instance, a role of the states, at the end of the day the federal government shares the responsibility to every child in Australia to see that their school is properly funded.19:22:009679Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—The member for Kingston reminds me of that lost ABC radio program The Could Have Beens . I do not know whether members recall that radio program. It used to be on late at night. It was quite a good program. One of the big features of that program was the regular appearance of `Stan the Statistician'. `Stan the Statistician' could prove anything by way of statistics. For example, he knew how many left-handed Australian batsmen were nightwatchmen in tests where the Australians had lost the toss. He knew important bits of information like that. When that radio program was gone, I lamented the loss of `Stan the Statistician'. At the time the program was running, I thought that `Stan the Statistician' was just an eccentric listener. It turns out that he was in fact the member for Kingston. I am relieved to be here to witness the wit of the member for Kingston and to hear some more of those great statistical high points.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—He was halfway there.84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—He was halfway there. I suppose it is a below par performance for a statistician, but it was a pretty good exercise in remembering past glories.The States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999 amends the States Grants (Primary and Secon dary Education) Assistance Act 1996. It enacts several initiatives from the 1999-2000 budget. I will refer to some of the budget announcements relating to education. For example, the budget increased funding for education of $870 million over the four coming years. This money will support higher standards, increased opportunity and greater choice in education for all Australians and in 1999-2000 represents an increase of $183 million over the previous year. The $11 billion allocated to education includes approximately $5 billion for schooling.Some of the other highlights included in the budget is funding for indigenous education programs totalling $996 million over the five years to 2004. The government announced strengthened accountability arrangements for particular programs, including literacy and numeracy programs, which are to be simplified and streamlined. In 1999-2000, $354 million is allocated for New Apprenticeships and $1.6 billion for vocational education and training.There was a provision for the maintenance of funding of about $13 million per year for the continuation of the Jobs Pathway Program to help young people move successfully from schools to work. Some $60 million is to be provided over four years to continue the Job Placement, Education and Training Program. The funding allocated to JPET will allow 40,000 young people to be assisted in that period. Those were the general attributes of the 1999-2000 budget.We are looking today at a couple of the important specifics announced in that budget. To begin with, I refer to increased funding of $36.3 million for literacy and numeracy in the year 2000. We find in the budget that the government has allocated an additional $131.1 million for 1999-2000 through to 2003-04 for literacy and numeracy programs for school students, making a total of almost $869 million to assist students with special needs in literacy and numeracy in those four years.There were some important milestones recognised with regard to literacy and numeracy. The increased funding supported two initiatives announced as part of the government's 1998 election commitments. The first is to improve literacy and numeracy in the middle years of schooling, for which $47.1 million has been allocated. The second is funding of $84 million for a national literacy and numeracy plan.At the time, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs stated that there was a great need for action to deal with the problems of the middle years of school because in many cases those students had missed out on acquiring vital skills in the early years of schooling. As a result, they have difficulties coping with the demands of the school curriculum. Dealing with literacy and numeracy problems does not end in the infant years of schooling. For the people experiencing difficulties with literacy, those problems can worsen dramatically as time goes by and their self-esteem and the problems associated with a lack of basic skill get worse.Another $26.4 million was allocated to extend the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools program, NALSAS, to the year 2000. That is an allocation dealt with in this bill. That harks back to the budget announcement of additional funding over the next three years of $90 million to continue NALSAS and recognise the important goals that NALSAS is seeking to realise. To highlight some of the achievements of that program, between 1994 and 1997 the number of students studying Japanese increased by over 50,000, the number studying Chinese by 20,000 and the number studying Indonesian by over 100,000. Those are important achievements and we must set about continuing to promote the study of those languages.Another area dealt with in this bill that reflects the budget announcements is the change to a more appropriate system for funding non-government schools. The budget announcement states that Australia's 2,519 non-government schools will get Commonwealth funding based on a socioeconomic status assessment of the school communities. That comes straight out of the very reliable and reputable ABS data, and it is an important improvement on what has gone before. The new arrangements will give non-govern ment schools drawing enrolments for low income communities a substantial increase in funding. Schools serving the neediest communities at present receive 56 per cent of average government school recurrent costs. Under the new arrangements they will receive 70 per cent. This represents, in 1998 dollars, an estimated increase of $672 per primary student and an estimated increase of $762 per secondary student in schools serving the neediest communities.Debate interrupted.Adjournment968010000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 7.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.968019:30:009680Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—It is a sad irony that, in this International Year of Older Persons, in Tasmania those responsible for caring for the aged in our community hold grave fears for the future of the nursing home sector. Furthermore, their frustration over this government's handling of funding to nursing homes is an indictment of the minister responsible. May I give you an example. Aged Care Tasmania, an association representing nursing homes in my state, tells me it has written to Minister Bishop no fewer than seven times in the past three months expressing its concerns and seeking answers to funding questions. It has had just one reply which, I am told, did absolutely nothing to alleviate its fears.Nursing homes in my electorate and around Tasmania are bracing themselves for harsh funding cuts that they fear will cost jobs and severely impact on the quality of aged care. In Tasmania there are currently more than 4,000 people in nursing homes and the demand for nursing home beds and quality care certainly is not diminishing. In my electorate there are 24 aged care facilities with a combined total of 800 nursing home places. Half of the elderly residents in these nursing homes require a high level of care, yet double the amount of beds would not even go close to meeting the demand. As I have just said, the demand where I come from is not diminishing. Close to 24 per cent of the population is 50 and over, and 10 per cent is 65 years and over. Nursing home operators are only too well aware of the demands an ageing population puts on the system, but the government has responsibility to look after the elderly in our communities.Aged care providers in Tasmania sum up one of the biggest threats to their industry in one word—coalescence. We have recently seen the second stage of this government's coalescence policy introduced, a policy aimed at equalising Commonwealth funding for aged care providers across Australia; in other words, working towards a national average. While in theory this may seem equitable, in practice it is a looming disaster for Tasmanian nursing homes and their elderly communities. It is recognised that the cost of providing aged care in Tasmania is considerably higher than in other states and territories. We cannot do anything about that—it is the price we continually pay for living where we live—and there is little scope for Tasmanian nursing homes to mitigate their relatively high cost structure. But at least the cost differential was recognised under the previous funding arrangements where sufficient compensation was paid for the higher input costs faced by Tasmanian homes. That is why Tasmania received the highest care subsidies in Australia and therefore stands to be the hardest hit and to suffer most under this policy.Aged care providers in Tasmania have done their homework. They have done the sums and they do not add up to a fair and responsible funding policy. They have calculated that cuts to nursing homes because of coalescence will see a reduction in Commonwealth subsidies to Tasmania of around eight per cent over the next six years. This will mean the loss of about $6.8 million a year to nursing homes in my state. On average each nursing home resident will receive $2,730 less a year—and it gets worse. It has been estimated that coalescence, once fully implemented, will result in the loss of more than 330 jobs in the aged care industry in Tasmania and will result in redundancy payments of more than $5 million. Not only will basic care standards be jeopardised; coalescence threatens to impinge further on the quality of life of elderly Tasmanians, affecting the little things that now may be taken for granted—things like the regular bus outings for residents of the Eliza Purton Home at Ulverstone. For this home, like many others around Tasmania, it will be a matter of survival. They will be forced to prune costs if they want to survive. Yet this Minister for Aged Care continues to turn a blind eye to the dilemma.It is claimed by the minister the impact of coalescence in Tasmania will be offset by a 38 per cent increase in aged care funding to Tasmania, yet despite its best efforts through the department and within its own membership the industry cannot find the extra money. In fact, by its own calculations funding from the Commonwealth this year is $20 million short. The industry is concerned someone is attempting to fudge the figures, so I challenge the minister to prove these concerns wrong and I urge Tasmanian Liberal senators to vigorously take up this cause. I join the providers of aged care in Tasmania in their challenge to the minister to implement the findings of this government's own Productivity Commission report into aged care. The Productivity Commission proposed the government identify a benchmark of quality care and then determine how much funding was required to reach that level of care in each state in regions like my own. As Aged Care Tasmania puts it:We support coalescence rates for the provision of care throughout Australia but we cannot support coalescence rates where money is taken from some and given to others to make it `even'.This policy of coalescence directly contradicts the overriding policy objectives in aged care of ensuring quality of access and a nationally accepted standard of care to all Australians in need, irrespective of their personal circumstances or where they live.968119:35:009681Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—This week in the Sydney Morning Herald it was reported that the Sydney Young Labor Annual Conference unanimously supported a call to the Premier to wind back the prevalence of pokies and the reliance of unscrupulous governments on gambling revenue, now topping $1 billion a year. It is a fact that New South Wales has one-tenth of the world's poker machines and a very high share of this nation's 330,000 gambling addicts. Still we have governments suggesting new forms of gambling to raise revenue. The terrible impact all this has on our fellow Australians is evident in this letter I received last week from a constituent, whose permission I have to use it. It reads:My name is Karen Richardson. I am 39 years old. I have two teenage children, Dale who is 17 and Kirby who is turning 16 the day before Father's day. Kirby won't celebrate her birthday or spend the following day, Father's day, with her Dad. She won't take him breakfast in bed, nor will she choose a gift for him. She will, as will Dale and I, take flowers to his grave, as we did one week ago when he had his 40th birthday.My husband's name is Gavin and, as well as being a hard-working man who joined the Navy when he was just 15 years of age, loved to play footie and have a beer with his many friends, he was addicted to gambling. At the time of my husband's death, he had accumulated more than $25,000 worth of debts. My husband gassed himself in one of our cars.We had two cars, a nice home, my husband did a lot of work, we both worked fulltime, our two children are both young people any parents would be proud of. But like most people in the world today, these things just aren't enough, people want more and they think that money will bring them happiness.Gavin (my Husband) took care of all our finances, so I did not realise until it was too late, that something was not quite right. Fifteen months approximately, that's all it took to hook my husband on the thought that he could beat the poker machine. Of course he hadn't done any research, as we now have, so every pay he took our savings card to a pub or club in our local town and put all of it in the poker machine—over two days of course, because you can only take out $500 at a time, which is what he did.When that ran out, he was able to get loans from finance companies who ran no credit checks and did their dealing with him over the phone. My signature is on most of these but I knew nothing about them. I did not have to speak to any member of staff from these companies, or say to them, yes, I want this loan and I do understand the details of it.Gavin did all his banking over the phone. When Gavin couldn't get the money that way, he cashed cheques—at a local Nowra hotel—which bounced, but that didn't matter, they cashed them anyway—$13,000 worth! Then he went to unsuspecting friends. Friends that would never dream that Gavin could do what he did.It was all so easy. Why is it you can put all your money into a poker machine? I've paid taxes and so did my husband, since I was 16 years old and over the last 17 years of our marriage, I have not received any assistance from the Government. Even in the last eight years I have not received family allowance. Was it not enough to take our taxes that you then had to take my husband's life?Poker machines are designed, as you well know, to take your money. Money that most families cannot afford to spend. Yet you allow these machines to take not only our money, but people's dignity as well, till there is nothing left. You the Government stand by and watch this all happen. You do nothing to stop this degrading practice that ruins families and leaves people broken hearted and grieving for what will never be.Millions of dollars a year go into building schools, roads and hospitals. Most of this money comes from gambling, but at what cost? At the time of Gavin's death, I was left with not one red cent, every household bill was overdue, school fees were not paid, cheques bounced one after another, finance companies accused me of being a cheat and banks threatened to take away my home. No assistance was available from the Government as I was not eligible. I was just another interruption to their day, as were my children.As leaders of this country you set the example of take whatever you can get, anyway you can get it. People's lives are not what's important. Money is the most important thing and with the Olympic Games coming up and overspending raging, poker machines and gambling in any form is a great way of getting easy revenue, and never mind the cost. It's only someone's Dad, it was only my Husband. He didn't keep you warm at night, make you feel safe; no, he was just a way to get more money faster.It is very sad that governments have forgotten the Ten Commandments, because if they had not, the world would be a place where people cared about people. To you, my Gavin is just another statistic. To us, he was our world, and because of your greed that's been taken away. When will enough be enough? When will you consider people first and money next?I have to budget each week to make ends meet and pay the many outstanding bills that are left to me. I do not blame my husband. I blame a system that made it all so easy. In the end, when the demons of gambling overtook him and he felt he had no way out, he did what he thought was best for all of us—he killed himself!! We all pay in one way or another for this problem. I hope you choose the right way or may God help you.I sincerely hope that there will be no more Karens, Danes or Kirbys left destitute and alone and without assistance because of the curse called gambling. I thank what is left of the Richardson family for bringing their grief to us. I urge all members to read the recent draft report into Australian gambling industries and to take action.968319:40:009683Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—Recently I supported a petition in my seat of Swan which addressed the issue of the proposed deregulation of the pharmaceutical industry. The text of this petition reads as follows:The petition of electors of Swan points out to the House our desire to see community pharmacists retain their unique position in Australia's health system.We trust and respect our local pharmacists and are opposed to any moves to allow supermarkets to compete against them. We believe that the community benefits from pharmacies being owned by pharmacists.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House heeds our wishes and allows our local pharmacy to continue to play a vital role in our health care.In only a period of weeks this petition received overwhelming support, with over 2,600 individuals becoming signatories. Currently Australia has a network of 5,000 community pharmacists who provide professional advice and service on over 270 million occasions every year. Independently owned pharmacies provide over 40,000 jobs for pharmacists and pharmacy assistants and the Pharmacy Guild spends $1.5 million a year on a national training scheme.In Western Australia there are 467 pharmacies and they employ 3,736 pharmacists and staff. These community pharmacies employ local people and provide a personal service to 494,000 customers every week and contribute more than $513.7 million per year to the state economy. In my electorate of Swan there are 40 such pharmacies that employ 213 people. Many of these businesses are located near or about large shopping centres. The average person visits a pharmacy 14 times a year.Current legislation ensures that pharmacies are owned and operated by a pharmacist who is qualified to dispense medicines and provide quality advice. Pharmacies currently operate in a market where 60 per cent of their business is deregulated, competing with other businesses to provide products such as cosmetics, hair and health products. The remaining regulated 40 per cent of pharmacy business consists of the provision of medications and drugs.Western Australian pharmacists currently provide Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme medicines at set prices—one of the most internationally admired pharmaceutical subsidisation programs in the world. Under the PBS, Western Australians have access to high quality medicines at costs that are around half the world averages. For example, one of the most widely used medicines for asthma, Ventolin, costs about $30 a unit in the USA but costs only $13 for two units in Western Australia.It is also of interest to note the equity argument. About 80 per cent of this PBS expenditure is spent on medicines for such people as seniors holding concession cards. It also represents an effective brake on escalating health prices, as the affordability of these medicines improves the quality of life through better control of symptoms and reduced hospitalisation.Deregulation could lead to higher priced pharmaceuticals, particularly in regional and remote areas. It would also lead to the closure of many smaller pharmacies. The current network of community pharmacies provides quality care and equal access to pharmaceuticals for all customers. However, the general public needs to be made aware of the significant loss they will suffer if the legislation that maintains industry regulation is abolished as a result of the national competition policy.The proponents of national competition policy argue that market forces should be allowed to operate freely in a truly competitive environment where no participant is given any artificial assistance or protection. But the reality is that pharmacists and their employees provide much more than just a product. Pharmacies provide advice to the community based on which product is best suited to their needs, regardless of price or brand. They stock generic products as well as specialist brands of medicine and provide cost alternatives for customers who cannot afford expensive medicine. Most importantly, they will often forgo a sale and refer to other health professionals when necessary. This is now under threat, as the government is poised to consider allowing large supermarkets to sell pharmaceuticals. This will inevitably lead to the loss of many community pharmacies and the expertise and valuable advice they provide. There is also considerable evidence that the deregulation of pharmacies overseas has shown that free market forces do not meet everybody's needs and the community bears the financial and social costs. I urge the government not to deregulate this industry any further. I will be supporting the views of my constituents on further occasions if this retrograde step is pursued.968419:45:009684Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—I rise to speak tonight not as the member for Bradfield so much but as the Chairman of the Sydney Airport Community Forum. Although it is not a job I coveted, it is one to which I was appointed in October last year ostensibly to oversee the implementation of government policy in relation to Sydney airport. Like all the issues that I come across, I always approach them with an open mind, examine the facts, examine the arguments both for and against any particular proposition and try to present, as honestly and as effectively as I can, the facts as they are.The government, prior to the March 1996 election when it was elected to office, developed a policy for air traffic management for Sydney proper called `Putting people first'. That policy had two essential pillars. The first pillar of that policy was to develop, in consultation with the community and the aviation industry including Airservices Australia, a long-term—noise sharing—operating plan for Sydney airport, known as LTOP. The essence of that plan was, as distinct from the north-south concentrated parallel operations under the Laurie Brereton regime from the time of the opening of the third runway, to try to distribute as fairly as possible air traffic throughout Sydney.The second pillar of the government's policy was to construct a second airport at Badgerys Creek. I will just read from the government's policy:The Coalition is committed to building a second major airport in the Sydney region.The Coalition will ensure that Sydney West Airport is developed to a full international standard as a matter of priority, subject to the results of the environmental impact statement.We will work closely with the New South Wales Government, local authorities and the private sector to ensure the necessary road and rail infrastructure is developed and to ensure that the land around the airport is zoned appropriately.At the time the Australian Labor Party criticised the coalition parties not because they were committed to building a second airport subject to the EIS but because the coalition was proposing to conduct another EIS. The Labor Party at the time criticised us for not simply proceeding to build the airport on the basis of the 1985 EIS. Well, $12.4 million later, we now have an environmental impact statement and an audit which essentially gives the environmental clearance for the government to implement its policy.One of the other things that needs to be emphasised is that it was not only a long-term operating plan but also a commitment to maintain continued access of regional planes to Sydney airport, to introduce and implement a cap on the number of hourly movements that would go through Sydney's airport and also to implement a curfew which goes from 2300 to 0600 hours. One of the propositions that has been proposed by some people in the air traffic industry is that regional planes or light planes which occupy 40 per cent of the slots at Kingsford Smith can instead be sent to Bankstown airport.One thing that seems very reasonable to those of us who do not understand how air traffic is managed at Sydney airport is that `Kingsford Smith airport can be run more efficiently'. Those who say that are quite right. If you want to run north-south parallel operations 24 hours a day with a precision radar monitor to the north of the airport, you can run up to 120 movements an hour. I have spent 18 months of my life fighting with Airservices Australia to get one simple thing—a 2,000-foot turn at the western end of the east-west runway—and after 18 months Airservices Australia have said they cannot do it. The reason they cannot do it is that they would have to re-sectorise Bankstown airspace.It is a nonsense and a lie for anyone to suggest that you can send 30 movements an hour into Bankstown airport and not have to resort to north-south parallel operations at Kingsford Smith airport. To send 30 movements an hour of instrument rated planes to Bankstown airport means—and make no mistake about this—the closure of the east-west runway. If the government adopted those recommendations it would be breaking not one but two of its policies: one would be to break the commitment to build Badgerys Creek airport which would serve, amongst other things, the economic development of one of the most impoverished parts of Western Sydney and, secondly, it would break the important long-term operating plan which we spent over a year developing in consultation with the Sydney community. (Time expired)968519:50:009685Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—I rise in this adjournment debate to highlight the disadvantage that people from central Victoria face because of the policies of both the state and federal Liberal-National Party coalition. I refer in particular to the City Link toll rip-off and the GST, plus the impact of Jeff Kennett on Victoria's health system.The City Link tolls on the Tullamarine Tollway will cost motorists around $150,000 a day. This calculation is based on figures of the projected use of the Tullamarine Tollway as given in City Link's own prospectus. This projects a weekday use on the Tullamarine Tollway by 104,000 cars, 21,000 light commercial vehicles and 7,000 heavy commercial vehicles. Over one year the total payout of tolls on the Tullamarine alone will be around $50 million. The projected figures for weekend use of the Tullamarine Tollway have not been given, but I calculate that the total City Link toll grab over one year will add up to close to that $50 million figure that I mentioned.Now add in the GST tax grab. The GST will add another $15,000 to the amount paid out per day on the Tullamarine Freeway, and $5 million more for one year. This is a huge financial drain on motorists from central Victoria and others who use the Tullamarine Freeway. The GST raises the cost of a day pass from $7 to $7.70 and a $50 electronic tag to $55. Add to that our region being especially victimised because we are automatically funnelled into the western link toll complex, which is now open. So motorists from the Bendigo region and others who use the Tullamarine Freeway and the western link will be bled with City Link tolls which will increase with the GST.This situation adds insult to injury. The Tullamarine Freeway is the only country access into the city where City Link tolls are to be imposed. Motorists from central Victoria are the only ones who will be slugged and taxed to drive into their own capital city. Therefore, if you live in Ballarat and drive to Melbourne, you do not pay a toll. If you live in Warrnambool and drive to Melbourne, you pay no toll. If you live in Shepparton and drive to Melbourne, you pay no toll. If you live in Albury-Wodonga and drive to Melbourne, you pay no toll. But, if you live in Bendigo and central Victoria, you pay a toll. So we have to ask ourselves: what has Bendigo and central Victoria done to the Premier of Victoria to warrant this impost?Transurban, the company that operates the tolls, can increase these tolls every three months for the next 34 years under its agreement with the Melbourne City Link Authority. So central Victorians who travel on the Calder Highway may face an ever-increasing penalty, plus a GST, thanks to Prime Minister Howard and Premier Kennett. This is just one of the many areas of state and federal coalition policies that have impacted so severely in regional Victoria.I now refer to the 12 small country Victorian hospitals that have closed and the public hospitals in Taralgan and Mildura that have been privatised by Mr Kennett—and, if this were not bad enough, the Premier is on the public record as wanting to scrap Medicare. Premier Kennett put his `scrap Medicare' plans on the national agenda at a Premiers Conference in July when he demanded that Medicare be abolished. The Kennett strategy is to force Victoria and Australia back to the bad old days before Medicare—the days of the two-class health system, when the public hospital system was third rate and run down and when people were forced to have private health insurance or miss out on quality care. That is another area that, as a result of Jeff Kennett's policies, will impact very badly particularly on Bendigo.Mr Kennett has been the manipulator of the coalition's ADI privatisation agenda ever since he was recorded as pushing it at a public meeting in Eaglehawke in March 1994. Mr Kennett privatised the Bendigo railway workshops some years ago and claimed that its work force would grow to equal that of the Australian Defence Industry's plant in Bendigo. What has really happened is that its work force has been slashed from 262 to 55 under that very policy.We do not want a disaster like that in Bendigo as a result of the privatisation of ADI. We do not want Jeff Kennett's philosophy imposing on the workers who are employed in that plant and their families. We simply cannot afford it. The region cannot afford it. Mr Kennett should be called to account for it.968619:55:009686Katter, Bob, Jnr, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyNP10—I continue reading a letter which I received from pork producers in my area, Mr Ross and Vicki Schmidt. It states:You and your government allocated $8 million to provide grants to specialist pig processors. The same processors are importing pork. Therefore, you are actually helping them to become more efficient in their importing. To qualify for these grants, you must have a minimum throughput of 250,000 pigs per year. Again, it is only the big boys who qualify. Now you have come up with $45,000 in grants for farmers when they have left the pork industry. We do not want to leave. Australia has the best pork in the world. Our safety measures are second to none. Canada and Denmark do not have the same high standards we have. If disease is found in an imported product, it is not going to be imported pork to the consumer, it is just going to be pork, and that will totally destroy our industry completely, even though we are totally innocent.You say we have to learn to export, but who is going to take our 30 pigs a week? We could expand but there is no bank who will provide finance for such a venture. There is no bank who will give us one more cent.Mr Minister, would you work 14 to 16 hours a day, seven days a week, if your profit was non-existent when in fact you are actually going backwards? All we want to do is work our farm. Many, many others produce excellent quality pork but still we cannot survive. We do not know what more we can do.When are you going to introduce tariffs? When are you going to look after your own country? Why do you need to look so good in the eyes of other countries? Doesn't Australia come first? We are the ones that pay your wages, we are the ones you are working for, not some other country. The rural industry in Australia is dying and you are directly responsible for this death.You must decrease the imports today, not spend another six months discussing it hoping it will go away. The only thing that will go away is the number of successful farmers. How many more farmers have to shoot themselves before you will do something? We need something done now, today. Tomorrow will be too late.Certainly a cry from the heart. Similarly, I will read another letter out. These letters tumble into our office almost on a daily basis and, wherever I go in my electorate, I confront the same sort of feeling—as I do in other parts of Australia. But, in reading this letter out, I will skip over the first paragraph which refers to me. It states:When this legislation goes ahead—this is a letter to me—it is estimated by the Queensland Hotels Association that over half of the hotels in Queensland will close down or become financially unviable.This refers to a proposal by the Queensland government, which is being addressed at the present moment, to allow alcohol to be sold by the big retail chains. The letter continues:My family has been involved in the hospitality industry for over 30 years. Currently three of us hold licences in Roma, Charters Towers and Rollingstone. From our experience, we can see it is inevitable that our businesses in country Queensland will not survive this latest attempt by the government to bow to the power and influence of multinational companies.In Charters Towers alone, it is a fair estimate that six hotels will no longer be viable if Woolworths is permitted to sell takeaway liquor. These six hotels employ 24 people. My business employs 12, eight of whom are under 20 years of age. My business sponsors local sporting and charity groups to the tune of $14,000 per year. All of my business is conducted locally and, if we close, approximately $300,000 worth of revenues will also evaporate. Obviously Woolworths will not be employing any of the staff who will lose their jobs, should these changes be allowed to go ahead.From a justice point of view, is it fair that we pay $80,000 each year to the government to keep my licence when now it appears that more licences are to be given free of charge to bigger companies? Three years ago I left the education system, seven years a school principal, to borrow heavily into a business, believing that no more licences would be given out in this town. Our future is not secure now the minister is considering changing the rules. Why? To please larger companies who have greater influence on him.What interest does Woolworths have in our community? How much does Woolworths contribute in cash or services to our community? What does the National Competition Policy do for consumers in our community? Does the minister think the nine existing licences do not compete for sales and therefore the good of consumers?Our business contributes over $1 million to the government each year in taxes. We are revenue earners and taxpayers. I am prepared to bet that, when this revenue is lost to the government, Woolworths contribution will fall well short, GST or no GST.Have they bothered to do their figures on this issue? This decision is yet another nail in the coffin of rural Queensland. Once again it is apparent that life away from the coast is inconsequential. Be careful, Bob. In a few years you will have no communities to represent.That is rather an interesting observation because more and more my electorate is becoming the suburbs of Townsville and Cairns. What the writer of this letter has said is absolutely true. I now read from the letter to the minister himself. It states:I know you are probably busy dining with the economic rationalists or board members of Woolworths and Coles and therefore have no time to reply to my letters.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 8 p.m. the debate is interrupted.House adjourned at 8.00 p.m.Notices9687The following notices were given:Dr Theophanous to move—That this House:(1) expresses its concern regarding the aims and content of Migration Series Instruments (MSI) 244, which permits the transfer of asylum seekers from Migration Detention Centres to State prisons, where they are then held without charges or court proceedings;(2) recognises that the actions permitted under MSI-244 constitute an arbitrary executive imprisonment of people, of the kind which Australia has condemned when it occurs in other countries;(3) recognises the concerns expressed by the Commonwealth Ombudsman, Amnesty International, the Refugee Council of Australia, the Human Rights Commissioner and others, concerning the arbitrary powers of imprisonment given to immigration officers and detention centre officials under MSI-244;(4) notes that MSI-244 itself states that "there is no clear statutory basis for the selective transfer of detainees" to a State prison, and that this specific provision has never been approved by Parliament; and(5) calls upon the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to immediately withdraw MSI-244 and draft a new MSI, that only allows transfers of refugees claimants to State prison in circumstances when they are being charged with an offence under a State or Commonwealth law, other than breach of migration visa laws).Ms Hall to move—That this House:(1) notes the progress that has been made by the States in moving towards truth in labelling for the egg industry;(2) requests the Commonwealth to show leadership and further facilitate all the States adopting national labelling standards; and(3) supports the phasing out of the practice of intense battery hen and egg farming. Mr Williams to present a bill for an act to amend the Copyright Act 1968, and for related purposes.Mr Williams to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to telecommunications interception, and for related purposes.Mr Anthony to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to social security, and for related purposes.Mr Slipper to move—That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Development of 90 apartments in Darwin.1999-09-01Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members968996899689Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I raise the issue of migration agency regulation. On the ABC's 7.30 Report of 25 August 1999, Mr Kerry O'Brien said:Thousands of hopeful migrants have had their futures cast into doubt following the closure of Australia's biggest immigration law firm. Barlow & Company—which had offices in Sydney and Melbourne has suddenly closed its doors after 20 years; its principal lawyer, Neil Barlow, declaring himself bankrupt. Of the firm's 3,000 clients, many stand to lose thousands of dollars in up-front fees.Reporter Jacinta Tynan noted:Just days before, staff at Barlow & Company were telling clients they would be closing for an inventory and back in business this week, in fact the firms's principal, Neil Barlow, had already filed for personal bankruptcy, the day after he deregistered himself as a migration agent.Clients were told nothing. Dr Charles Sinclair, a former employee, said in the report:A notice was put up saying that an inventory was being carried out. I don't know how you carry out an inventory in a law office. But the switchboard was also told that no calls were to be put through to us and that they could call back on 20 August, by which time, of course, we had all departed.The 7.30 Report notes Dr Sinclair worked as a migration agent at Barlow and Company for the past 15 months. Dr Sinclair became concerned about the firm's business practices. Clients were made to pay up front on the promise of a refund if the case was unsuccessful. Charles Sinclair believes those funds were being withdrawn before the work was complete. The 7.30 Report interviewed Mr Ray Brown of the Migration Agents Regulation Authority, MARA, who said:I can't say he was under investigation but there were complaints that were before us and we were looking into those complaints.MARA has limited powers to investigate agents or audit their books. Since Neil Barlow deregistered himself as an agent, he is no longer accountable to the authority. Dr Sinclair further notes:I think that the clients have really been short-changed. They have paid monies to have a contract executed. They have paid for a whole lot of work which will never be done and I feel very sorry for these clients because they have no redress at all now.The immigration department says that because of the `human impact' of the collapse of Barlow and Company it will grant special concessions to the firm's former clients by extending the deadlines for processing visas. But under present law there is little that can be done to prevent this happening again. Just two weeks ago Neil Barlow was advertising in the ethnic press, trading on his expertise as a lawyer, to attract clients.My electorate of Lowe is one of the most culturally diverse electorates in Australia. The vast majority of my constituency work is immigration work, resulting many times from constituents who have lost confidence in the legal system. I agree with Dr Sinclair's following comments:I think the Law Society has an utter hide, the way they have carried on in this case. They have a responsibility to clients. They have a responsibility to solicitors. There is no doubt at all in my mind that Mr Barlow was a solicitor.The Law Society is under a duty to all clients and society as a whole in this matter. I note Mr Bitel's comments:I'm amazed that . . . the Law Society won't speak to the 7.30 Report . I would have thought that whenever a firm goes under—and they do from time to time—the Law Society's public relations department should at least come on line and assure the community that the Law Society is in control.I urge the minister for immigration to conduct an inquiry into this matter, especially the conduct of the New South Wales Law Society because the Law Society refuses to intervene in assisting those displaced clients and restore confidence in the legal profession. (Time expired)96909690Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—On the weekend of 27 to 29 August, the Frankston community joined in the 75th anniversary celebration of Frankston High School. It was quite an experience for all involved, particularly as we look back over the history of Frankston High School, from its very early beginnings in the Masonic Hall in Young Street with 64 pupils, to the 1,500 students who gain a first-class education from Frankston High School, and the transition from ink wells to laptop computers, from simple woodwork models to a school that now constructs its own aeroplanes. A lot has happened at Frankston High School and there were plenty of good reasons for the celebration over the weekend.What I found most striking was the deep affection all those involved in the celebrations had for the school. The guest list read like a Who's Who of people that have come out of the Frankston community and made a very significant contribution to the nation more generally.Debbie Flintoff-King was there, and was delighted to have the sporting centre that has recently been completed at Frankston High School named in her honour. Also there were Graeme Horsburgh, Mary Evans and Heather Murray. Mary and Heather did terrific work in bringing together a history of the high school called Optima Semper, which means `The best always' for those who have not done their Latin. It was a great occasion for all concerned.What I enjoyed most of all was seeing the interchange between Harry Carter, an ex-principal, and Stephen Fyfe, a year 7 student, as they compared the experiences of their different times at Frankston High School. A lot of other first-class young people at Frankston High School were involved in the celebrations. Michael Caridakis, Ricky Taylor and Amey Lee talked about what Frankston High School meant to them. Associate Professor Anne Stonehouse, who is the school council president, also emphasised that the academic and sporting excellence that Frankston High School embodies is something they will continue to work to.The school has a terrific academic record. In 1998, the VCE pass rate was 99.3, with the highest university ranking at 99.55, and 83 per cent of students going on to tertiary education. The school has a strong music program; a laptop computer program, which is well recognised as a leading application of that technology in government schools; and a big international program where students travel to sister schools in Japan, France, and Soweto in South Africa.The school ventured into a new initiative in 1998 with the year 9 students studying aviation theory. This year that is going to the next step. The students are starting to build a two-seater Jabiru aeroplane for next year as well as obtaining a pilot's licence as part of their studies. There is a great deal of extracurricular activity. It is a first-class educational institution. Principal Ken Rowe, the school council and all those that have been involved in Frankston High School's development over the last 75 years deserve to be congratulated for their contribution to the Dunkley community.96919691Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—I have some important comments to make this morning about the government's so-called More Jobs, Better Pay legislation, and specifically the independent contractor provisions of the legislation, which take away a contractor's right to have an unfair contract addressed in the Federal Court. This leaves independent contractors shockingly exposed.I received a letter from the Victorian Forest Harvesting and Cartage Council. I share this letter with the chamber this morning for their benefit, because this area of the so-called More Jobs, Better Pay legislation has received very little attention. In part, the letter says:As you are probably aware, virtually all log harvesting and cartage in Victoria is done by individual contractors. These contractors usually carry a significant amount of debt on their machinery, often running over $500,000 and often the only job security they have is a verbal contract with the regional logging syndicates.These regional logging syndicates are owned by a handful of wealthy sawmillers who have been given a monopoly over logging in each region by the Kennett government. Since the introduction of these monopolies, there has been constant pressure to reduce harvesting and cartage rates, and those who object are threatened with the cancellation of their contract. In some cases, rates have been reduced by up to 15% and this is against a background of increased costs. There is a widespread view amongst contractors that this uncertainty and instability is a contributing factor to the high death rate in the industry. This view would seem to be logical—as rates and security are diminished, the pressure is on to work harder for less in a dangerous environment and this can only have one outcome.The only protection afforded these contractors has been the right to have their unfair contracts addressed in the Federal Court. The independent contractor provisions of the so-called "More Jobs Better Pay" legislation remove these protections entirely.In these circumstances Regional Forest Agreements are almost irrelevant. Resource security that delivers certainty only to a handful of wealthy sawmillers, is of little value to timber communities if those communities do not also share in that security.The way that this legislation is currently framed and the way that it applies to contractors, it should be called the "No Jobs No Pay" legislation.I think that the Victorian Forest Harvesting and Cartage Council have summed it up very well, and I think this points to Minister Wilson Tuckey's ineptitude in dealing with his portfolio area. He talks shrilly about how he is going to get resource security for the industry, and he holds up the RFA process as some sort of panacea for every problem confronting the industry. I tell you: it is not. His incompetence in dealing with and understanding the significance of this has also been shown by the fact that the CSIRO Forest Products Laboratory in Clayton, whilst he is the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, has just announced that they are going to cut half of the 83 jobs at the Clayton laboratory. (Time expired)96919691Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—Today I am going to talk about the importance of the University of Wollongong to the Gilmore electorate. But before I do, I congratulate Vice-Chancellor Professor Gerard Sutton and his team for the high standards they continually strive to reach and surpass. The University of Wollongong has just been awarded `best university in Australia' in terms of relative earnings from research grants and its outstanding research and development partnerships with local and international business.The drain of talented young people from the country to the city does not happen because young people want to leave but because they have to. Distance education is available in some courses but brings its own difficulties and furthers the experience of isolation for students from rural and remote areas. There have been no opportunities to gain a first-class, hands-on university education in Ulladulla, Nowra, Moss Vale, Bundanoon, Jamberoo or Kiama.Even if our young people come back after completing their studies, very few employment opportunities currently exist within easy reach of their home towns. Eventually they have to move away to suitable jobs or to give up their vocations before their potential has in any way been realised and work in casual jobs during the tourist season to earn a living. This also has an impact: those who normally would have the seasonal jobs are pushed out of their only opportunities for work.However, now it is a different story. The University of Wollongong has maintained a campus at Graham Park at Berry for some time, and in January 2000—that is, in four months time—the campus at West Nowra will admit its first students. A further campus in the Southern Highlands is mooted for the following year, depending on decisions made by the local people. All of these will create opportunities to stem the flow of young people out of the area and encourage others to move here to work with them.Others who might come to join them include lecturers, professors, researchers and businesses in associated research and technology industries. Creating and running a university campus also means jobs for builders, landscapers, carpet layers, electricians, cleaners, security people, cooks, clerical assistance and maintenance crews. Then, of course, there are the businesses that sell their wares to these tradespeople.As you can see, the spiral continues and we have not yet counted the new salaries being spent in the region. This highlights the ability of the university to create jobs and to significantly and positively affect our local economies. I and the residents of Kiama, the Southern Highlands and the Shoalhaven look forward to working with the University of Wollongong in the future. At each campus we plan to develop a centre of excellence in research, specialising in an area of local interest and expertise. In this way, together with the University of Wollongong, we will seek to attract rather than lose rural and regional young people.A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 9.51 a.m. to 10.05 a.m.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has now expired.Bills9692s207Consideration resumed from 23 August.969210:06:009692Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The purpose of this bill is to amend the Customs Act 1901 to address the possible consequences of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland in the matter of Prechelt. The effect of this decision is that customs duty would not be payable on goods that are not required to be formally entered for home consumption.In summary, the case involved the importation of 25 cartons of cigarettes with a customs value of $180. Under the current terms of the Customs Act, such goods are not required to be formally entered for home consumption. Instead, summary information in relation to such goods is required to be given to Customs in an approved form. Goods exempt from formal entry requirements include the personal effects of passengers and crew of ships and aircraft, goods of a value of less than $1,000 imported through the post, and goods of a value of less than $250 consigned otherwise than through the post.The Customs Act provides that the rate of any import duty payable on goods is the rate of duty in force when the goods are entered for home consumption. For the majority of importations, a formal import entry, which details between 50 and 60 items of information in relation to the goods, is required to be lodged with Customs either by document or by computer. Customs uses this information to assess the duty liability of the goods, and payment is required before they can be delivered for home consumption.As the goods the subject of the decision were exempt from the formal entry requirements, the court found that no rate of duty could be determined. As a rate of duty could not be fixed, the court went on to find that no duty was payable, despite the clear words of the Customs Tariff Act 1995 that impose duties of customs on goods imported into Australia.General application of the reasoning in the decision would mean that no customs duty is payable on imported goods for which no entry is required.This bill proposes amendments to the Customs Act to make it clear that duty must be paid on imported goods that do not require a formal entry before those goods can be delivered into home consumption. The amendments will also provide that the rate of duty is to be fixed at the time information in relation to the goods is given to Customs or the time when the goods were imported into Australia, whichever is the later.The amendments will take effect from 1 September 1992. This is the date when the import entry processing provisions of the Customs Act were completely rewritten to allow the electronic lodgment of entries via the COMPILE computer system. As part of that exercise, the replacement of a former provision that deemed goods delivered under similar permissions to be entered for home consumption was inadvertently overlooked.These amendments will confirm that the duty liability of non-entry goods imported during the intervening period was that which both the Commonwealth and importers had always understood it to be. They will impose no new duty liability on goods already imported into Australia. I commend the bill to the Main Committee and present the explanatory memorandum.10:10:009693Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—The opposition regards it as appropriate that this loophole be closed through the Customs Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 and it will facilitate the government in that regard. It is a matter of some regret that from time to time this parliament has to address issues which one might have thought would have been resolved by the courts in a more commonsense manner. I think the Attorney, in his very gentle way, indicated a similar view that the decision was at least unpredictable.It may well be that this decision might have been reversed on appeal. Nonetheless, there have been a number of instances where the parliament has acted quickly to deal with such issues. I instance the case some little while ago in which it was alleged that delegations given to junior ministers to carry out the work of portfolio ministers were invalid. In the Federal Court, Mr Justice Spender held that that was not an appropriate and lawful way to operate, save in some restricted circumstances, and held that those restricted circumstances had not been then in effect. Obviously, the consequence would have been extreme. In that instance, we also facilitated legislation to deal with the issue quickly but, in any case, the original decision of Mr Justice Spender was overturned on appeal. In that instance at least the reason which drove the legislation was removed. Nonetheless, we well understood why the government took that course.Similarly, in this instance we understand why the government is taking this course rather than pursuing potential remedies by way of appeal and the like—notwithstanding that the likelihood of success, I believe, would be high, given the terms of the legislation that the Attorney has referred to. But it does allow us at least to indicate that there is an obligation on the courts to look at the purpose and intent of legislation and to facilitate that.There has been some backsliding by the courts from a process of examination of legislation from the point of view of giving some regard to the underlying policy intentions of the parliament as expressed through the second reading speeches and the general intention that can be inferred from the framework of the legislation. In this instance, it could hardly have been thought to be intended that the revenue would not be protected because the goods were able to be entered for home consumption without formal entry requirements. We are content to facilitate the closure of the loophole.When the government introduced this bill into the Senate it asserted that the amendments were intended to ensure that they reached back to goods imported since 1 September 1992, which was the circumstance that they asserted the Commonwealth and importers had always understood to operate. On that basis, I think it is fair to say that this legislation, whilst formally retrospective, in practice operates in a way which imposes no actual retrospectivity other than that which the community at large expect to be in operation. To close a fortuitous loophole does not seem to be anything other than sound housekeeping.It gives us the opportunity to indicate that the government obviously is looking at these revenue issues—and it would not be expected by the community to do otherwise. It would have opened up the real prospect of large amounts of product being imported under the value of $1,000 through the post or of goods to the value of $250 being consigned otherwise through the post.Within that range, cigarettes, which carry a high rate of duty, would have been the obvious goods which would have been brought in by that mechanism. Other goods could also have been brought in, but I think that cigarettes and perhaps alcohol and some perfumery would have been the obvious items that would have been the subject of abuse.However, when we look at this legislation, we can contrast the approach of the government, in quickly moving to address a revenue loophole, with its approach in some of the areas where it seems to be finding it rather more difficult to make the hard decisions that are necessary. One instance is the situation with Coastwatch. The government has announced a number of measures, which includes additional expenditure, but it still has not addressed, or had a substantial review of, the way in which the Commonwealth does business in relation to the management and protection of our coastline.The surveillance and policing functions of the Commonwealth cover a whole range of agencies, not just Customs. It is also responsible for fisheries, quarantine and a whole range of other important matters. The Heggen and Max Moore-Wilton reviews focused almost exclusively on the issue of illegal immigration—I think to too great an extent. Whilst no-one denies that the problem of people smuggling is one which needs to be addressed and needs to have a much more substantial response given to it than the government has done hitherto, nonetheless, there is a whole range of other issues—including, not the least, the importation of drugs, quarantine issues, protection of fishery resources, economic interests and questions relating to the smuggling of wildlife—all of which were not addressed in any explicit terms by those reviews and which really still stand to be examined.There is no doubt, at least in the view of the opposition, that there is a widely held view in the community that the arrangements for the protection and surveillance of our coasts are far from adequate. I think a very disappointing feature of the report was that in a single line it dismissed the possibility of a more coordinated strategy, developing something in the nature of a coastguard service, of which many models have been developed in other nations. That opportunity went astray when the government was under pressure to bring down some response in relation to the number of incidences where boats had come undetected down the east coast of Australia. No-one doubts that that issue needed to be responded to, and responded to quickly, but there is another task yet to be undertaken. The government's dismissal of this, on what I thought to be an extremely superficial argument of more structural response, was very disappointing.Similarly, I think the government's approach to drugs with its Tough on Drugs strategy is an issue which the community is going to examine very closely. There is no doubt that the benchmark for success, that the Minister for Justice and Customs has asserted, of the Tough on Drugs strategy will be measured in terms of positive impacts on supply reduction, demand reduction and harm minimisation. There is very real doubt that the initiative is having the success that was forecast for it.The Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform recently issued a report card on the Tough on Drugs strategy, and they said what we have been saying ever since the Prime Minister launched this strategy: the government's approach has failed, and will continue to fail, to achieve positive outcomes in any of these areas which the minister has identified. The price of drugs is, if anything, reducing. Certainly, no-one contends that it has increased as a result of supply reduction, and availability is increasing—as, indeed, is purity. Drug use related deaths are rising. The Prime Minister's promised leadership in the area of drug law reform has consisted of using some language which picks up the concept of harm minimisation but which essentially, when you look at it, is evolving along the lines of the approach in the United States. It really is time for the government to admit that a zero tolerance approach to illicit drugs has been, and will continue to be, a dismal failure.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I am loath to interrupt the member for Denison, but I draw his attention to the fact that most of the things that he has been talking about for the last several minutes are not related to the bill.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—I grant that you are correct, Mr Deputy Speaker, that they do not arise directly from the legislation. I was simply making the point that we seek to be constructive in opposition and to facilitate the passage of this legislation. It is sound legislation. On the other hand, we have a responsibility to draw attention to other areas in the portfolio out of which this legislation arises, where we believe inadequate attention has been given by the government.More specifically, if I might be critical in relation to customs processing issues—again, you might say, not immediately relevant to the terms of this bill, but nonetheless relating to what customs agents and how Customs itself operates—I ask the Attorney-General to convey to his ministerial counterpart a concern we have heard recently from constituents who are not happy with the way that customs agents are presently operating.The problem is that customs agents operate on a basis whereby any liability that emerges for duties payable or penalties payable attaches to the importer, and, by law, importers cannot facilitate customs processing on their own. They must use a customs agent. It seems that customs agents are not regularly accessing the Customs database for tracking changes to regulations and keeping up to date. That means that from time to time they are making errors when declaring goods which they are bringing into the country in relation to their importer clients. One of the consequences is that the importer then becomes liable for penalties associated with the errors made by these customs agents.I am certain this issue has been brought to the attention of the government. It is an important one because, if you are by law obliged to use a customs agent, and then you are attached with the consequences of that customs agent making a mistake in relation to the rapidly changing legal environment, then there is a considerable degree of disquiet. It is a matter that needs attention. Perhaps there needs to be some examination of how agents can be better brought to understand their obligations. There does seem to be a large number of perhaps inadequately trained customs agents processing these matters, particularly as staff of licensed agents. It is not a situation which will do the reputation of the department good, if people find that this issue continues. When you have a system which does not allow people to process their own goods through the customs barrier but, rather, requires them to use the services of others, and if as a result of that they find themselves attached with some liability, you can imagine that this is not something that they feel particularly happy about. The mechanisms for redress are quite limited.With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I appreciate that my comments have been slightly outside the formal terms of the legislation but I think that in an opportunity in the Main Committee there is some flexibility for us to explore some of the issues that need attention. Having made those three brief side points on the legislation at hand, which we are content to assist the passage of, I would be grateful if the Attorney would pass those concerns to the Minister for Justice and Customs. I am certain that those concerns in relation to importers would have already been drawn to her attention, because much of the correspondence that we have received has been copied or directed initially to the minister. But I would appreciate it if the opportunity were taken today as well.The opposition is quite content to address the issues raised by the Prechelt case to ensure that a loophole which was potentially open, and which would have required the process of an appeal to redress, is closed by legislation. We are content that, in practice, it is not retrospective legislation. We support the Attorney's introduction of this legislation and its passage through the House and we will support it in the Senate.10:26:009696Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I am sure the government welcomes the opposition's assistance in dealing with this matter. After all, it is all about protecting revenue of the Commonwealth from the risk that importers of certain high duty items or commodities will change their importing practices to try and take advantage of this legislative loophole that has been around as a result of an oversight in the drafting of the 1992 amendments to the Customs Act. The effect of this Customs Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 will be to deal in a retrospective way, but at no additional cost to those involved in this industry, so that all the money collected as duty between 1 September 1992 and the date that this bill receives royal assent can be treated as having been properly collected under the act.What we literally could have seen, if we had not dealt with what the member for Denison described as a housekeeping item, was a circumstance where plane loads of personally addressed cartons of cigarettes could have been arriving here and people could have essentially been avoiding some of the duty. If you were to look at a standard carton of 200 cigarettes, the current approximate value and duty liability stands at a customs value of $10 and a duty liability of $50. If 20 cartons were imported as a low value consignment without entry requirements under the current paragraph 68(1)(f), that would carry a duty liability of approximately $1,000. If a plane arrived with 400 such consignments, the simple mathematics would be understood: if each of those assignments were ordered by and addressed to a separate individual—literally, 400 by 1,000—$400,000 in customs duty would be at risk.We were not about to see, I suspect, an underground movement to bring this about—but given human nature, when a loophole presents itself, one never quite knows exactly. It is probably the duty of every taxpayer to avoid paying too much tax, so, in a sense, a legitimate use of the unintended loophole would have proceeded. So it is a housekeeping matter, certainly. It is a matter that also emphasises that customs officials of the government have always had this traditional revenue collection role. When you see the word `customs' you normally would think of tax. It is a payment of a duty, a tax, and it is a measure which government uses directly to create revenue. This protects the national revenue—that is what this measure is about.I will address a couple of the matters that the member for Denison did introduce into this debate. I think it legitimately is hinged into this bill in that the other role of customs officials is as border protectors, dealing with the interdiction of illegal narcotics and illegal migrants into this country. Those people who are plying the trade of human misery—the importation of illegal drugs and illegal migrants into this country—tend to be the same people. They tend to be the same syndicates who are organising themselves in such a way that they are able to use their little boats to land drugs and people along our shore.If the land based version of the Collins class submarine—the Jindalee over-the-horizon radar network—were actually operating, it might have addressed a lot of the concerns of average Australians about how secure our coastline is to these breaches of our national integrity. I am confident that, once we do have an effective radar system operating in that regard, we will be able to even more effectively watch the movement of craft bringing illegal narcotics and illegal migrants into this country. However, more money has been put into that Coastwatch area by the government to try to offer an additional set of sea craft and aircraft for the greater confidence of the average Australian.Most of the illegal narcotics that come into Australia are coming through areas that are dealt with by the Customs department on an everyday basis, including our airports. The port of Botany would probably be the key place for heavy narcotics coming into this country. The fact that there is a great volume of items that comes through that port provides in itself ready cover for those who want to bring illegal substances—items that are never even going to be subject to duty but are illegal for other reasons—through that particular port.This bill is all about dealing with a housekeeping matter and taking away an item of administrative concern—an item that would perhaps keep Customs officials from performing the second half of their job, that is, as border controllers protecting the integrity of this nation. One of the downsides of having a strongly performing economy, as we have here—the world's best economy and certainly the region's best economy—is that our poorer neighbours, particularly to the north, are finding that there is greater return on the investment of their time, energy and money in certain agricultural efforts—growing more drugs. If there is a decrease in the cost of drugs at street level, as the member for Denison suggested, that would go hand in glove with the fact that there are a lot more desperate people from some of the countries to our north trying to turn a dollar and providing drugs at an even lower price than they had been doing in the past.The big concern for us as a nation is that, if drugs are cheaper, the chances are that those who, because of their own marginal utility, may not have purchased drugs in the past will be tempted to try them. We may actually be creating a greater class of drug users, and that would be of great concern to everyone in this place. The work of Customs officials and their ongoing coordinated efforts with the National Crime Authority, the Federal Police and state authorities are even more important. That also makes this bill important, because to delay these simple arrangements would delay the fight against drugs.I submit that the government has undertaken a very balanced approach in this area. The use of a number of new physical facilities that have been afforded to the Customs department to look at some of the containers that are coming into this country on a more regular basis can only lead to further advances. In a week or two, I am going to be in Miami, Florida, and will be talking to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms people, Customs people, the FBI and the U.S. Coast Guard about some of the measures they are taking in a similar capacity. I will be particularly interested to have a look at the large mobile truck X-ray unit and gamma ray container cargo inspection site that is in the Miami area. This will be an educative process for me as a member of both this place and the National Crime Authority's parliamentary oversight committee.There is a lot to be learnt from overseas, but I also applaud the efforts of Customs officials, on behalf of the government and on behalf of the people of Australia, for their dedication to the task of trying to stop the flow of drugs into this country. It is a battle that, in one sense, we will never quite win. I have spoken to a lot of people in my electorate about this at Neighbourhood Watch meetings, and everyone believes that, unless we attempt to take this head on, we will be letting the side down completely.The bill before us deals with basic housekeeping stuff but it does give me an opportunity particularly to reflect upon the member for Denison's concerns to remark that I think the government and the Customs Service in particular along with the other authorities are doing a tremendous job. The government's commitment to fight the importation of drugs and the use of drugs in our community is a strong one and second to none in previous governments. The loss of human potential as people take up drugs, essentially frying their brains and ruining their possibilities, is something we need to watch; it is something that this country cannot survive. It is far in advance of the loss of revenue that might have occurred if we had not closed this particular loophole. It has been closed as a result of this bill. I commend the bill to the House.10:35:009699Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—in reply—I thank the members for Denison and Moreton for their support of the Customs Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 . The member for Denison raised in the context of the second reading debate of the bill the subject of Coastwatch, Tough on Drugs and, as I understood it, an issue relating to the liability of an importer for the actions of a customs broker. He did not refer to the relevance of the first point. He said of the second that it was not directly relevant. I submit it is not relevant—either indirectly or at all. He said of the third that it was not immediately relevant. I would say that it is not even remotely relevant. It is not relevant at all to the subject of the debate. I will not add to the answer given in respect of the first two items by the member for Moreton. I would simply say that I am sure that the matters will in due course be drawn to the attention of the Minister for Justice and Customs.In respect of the third point, I briefly respond to say that I am advised that it is not correct that an importer is obliged to process their goods through a broker. They can do it themselves. But I will ensure that the matter is raised with the Minister for Justice and Customs. If she has the correspondence referred to by the member for Denison, I am sure it has already been drawn to her attention.The only other matter that I wanted to refer to is the question of retrospectivity mentioned by the member for Denison. This was actually the subject of a report by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. The minister responded to that—an extract of the response being published in the Scrutiny of Bills 12th report of 1999.The minister advised the committee in effect that the retrospective operation of these amendments does apply to the facts of the Prechelt case but in order to be able to collect the duty that was in fact payable on the consignment of cigarettes—the subject of the decision—the Chief Executive Officer of Customs must demand the payment of duty short paid within 12 months of the short payment. The minister advised that the CEO does not intend to exercise his discretion after the passage of the bill in a way that will reverse the outcome of the court's decision in the Prechelt case. The minister also advised the committee that there is no other litigation pending as a result of the Prechelt decision that might be affected by the retrospective operation of these amendments.The committee itself noted that, since the CEO of Customs does not intend to use the retrospective application of this bill to reverse the outcome of the Prechelt case and there is no other litigation pending as a result of that decision, it does not propose to make any further comments. I commend the bill to the Main Committee.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Bills9699s208Consideration resumed from 23 August.969910:39:009699Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time. This bill amends the temporary importation provisions of the Customs Act 1901 to address two aspects of their operation in relation to goods imported for the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, Paralympic Games and a number of other related events.First, the bill sets 31 December 2000 as the last date that goods temporarily imported for the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games can be exported. Second, it requires lodgment of a formal application for a temporary importation permission if goods are not accompanied by standard internationally accepted temporary admission papers.The current maximum period allowed before re-exportation under a temporary importation permission is 12 months, subject to case by case extensions. This time limit places an administrative burden on industry and Customs in applying for and processing extensions for goods imported for use at more than one of the specified events, many of which are already taking place. On the other hand, as none of the eligible events occur after December 2000, there is no need for any of the goods to remain in Australia after 31 December 2000.This bill introduces a set date of 31 December 2000 as the final date for exportation of goods imported temporarily for the purposes of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, the Paralympic Games and other related events. This date will apply whether the relevant permission was granted before or after the commencement of the amendment, but it is capable of being extended if, for example, genuine difficulties are encountered in arranging suitable transport within the time limit for some specialist equipment.The second aspect of the temporary importation provisions which this bill addresses relates to Customs' ability to require information in relation to those goods temporarily imported. This is in order to maintain an appropriate audit trail and to ensure compliance with temporary importation provisions.Generally, temporary importation permissions are granted to goods imported in accordance with the terms of international agreements on temporary importation. Eligible goods covered by agreements that Australia is a signatory to currently include motor vehicles used by private travellers, media equipment and goods for display at fairs and exhibitions.In most cases, the goods are covered by temporary admission papers known as `carnets' that are issued by sponsoring organisations and take the place of formal customs import and export documents. As the current temporary importation provisions were designed with carnets in mind, goods are exempted from formal import and export entry requirements.This exemption from formal entry, however, also applies to goods imported temporarily for the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, the Paralympic Games and certain related events—as well as some goods under international agreements—despite the fact that they may not be accompanied by temporary admission papers.Customs currently has no legislative basis to require information to be provided in relation to these goods. This bill introduces a requirement to lodge a formal application—either by document or computer—to import goods not accompanied by temporary admission papers. This will improve the Customs audit trail, assist in the acquittal of import permissions against export information and ensure compliance with temporary importation conditions. I commend the bill to the Main Committee and present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.10:43:009700Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—The Customs Amendment (Temporary Importation) Bill 1999 proposes to amend the Customs Act to provide that customs duty will not be payable on goods imported on a temporary basis for use in the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, the Paralympic Games, certain events in the Sydney Cultural Olympics and a number of events in the lead-up to the Olympics. The intention is that no duty is payable on these goods on the proviso that the goods are exported by the end of the year 2000. A regulation to this extent has already been made. The bill essentially is giving legislative support to the regulatory arrangements.The goods that will be covered by this provision are the vast amounts of infrastructure items such as desks, tents and chairs which will be and, in some cases, have already been brought in by SOCOG. Also covered will be motor vehicles, telecast technology and other goods which will be imported specifically for use in relation to the Olympics and related events and which will be exported again once these events are completed.Duty will become payable if the goods are used in contravention of the regulations—that is, for example, for a purpose other than one related to the Olympics or associated events or if the goods are not re-exported before 31 December 2000, unless there is a grant of an extension of time of the nature that the Attorney-General indicated.The opposition is willing to support these provisions. It does have some concerns. These are largely in relation to the issue of whether the government pursued with sufficient rigour the question of the provision of this infrastructure from Australian sourcing. The understanding I have from briefings we have received is that a very large amount of infrastructure material in the arrangements for the Olympics is going to be provided from overseas sources and re-exported. That includes items which are manufactured in Australia.It does trouble the opposition that so much of this material will be brought in and out under these arrangements when perhaps, with a little more creative endeavour from the national government, better programs could have been put in place to ensure that this material was sourced from Australian manufacturers or Australian providers of services. It is a point that does require examination.We appreciate that the arrangements for the Olympics are not solely under the control of the national government. They involve the International Olympics Committee and the arrangements put in place by the New South Wales government, the City of Sydney and SOCOG itself. The federal government's involvement is, however, a substantial one, particularly as its legislation is required for measures such as this.Much of the material that is going to be re-exported at the end of the Olympics could perhaps have been supplied for a reasonable cost by Australian manufacturers. It is an issue which I do not imagine the Attorney-General would be able to respond to today—although I would be grateful for a response if he is briefed on this matter and is able to do so. Nonetheless, it is an issue which leads us, whilst supporting the legislation as proper and necessary to the running of the Olympics, to raise the fact that it seems to be covering a wider range of material being brought in and out of the country to support the Olympics than one would have strictly thought necessary.There are some technical provisions in relation to this legislation. An audit trail will be required as the goods come into Australia to ensure that they are not left behind after the Olympics. The bill provides Customs with the power to demand information relating to the goods. Owners of the goods must also notify Customs of their intention to export the goods without entry documentation so that Customs has a complete record of movements of the goods. The bill will reduce the administrative complexity involved in large numbers of goods being temporarily imported into Australia for the Olympics and related events. It will ensure that Customs is able to track these goods and prevent them from illegally entering a domestic market.Whilst we support this measure, it is an interesting question as to whether or not the government could look at initiatives to improve the efficiency and solve the administrative problems relating to the system that the Attorney-General referred to as the carnet system, which goes to existing arrangements for the temporary import and export of goods, usually by travellers or short-term occupants who come to Australia. The arrangements put forward here might have broader applications, provided they were properly monitored and supervised, as no doubt they will be for the period of the Olympics.The other issue I should raise is the resourcing of Customs. I understand Customs has been provided with $6.6 million to provide additional resources for the Olympic period. I am not certain that the $6.6 million will be enough to ensure that the department has the ability to undertake all the tasks that will be required for the period of the Olympics. There is no doubt that Customs will be heavily tasked by the increased flow of traffic from the Olympics, the Paralympics, the Sydney Cultural Olympics and the increased tourism generated by these events.Reports are that all leave for Customs employees has been cancelled for the Olympic period and the periods just before and just after it. There have also been suggestions that Customs officials from all over Australia will be brought to Sydney to help the agency cope with this increased workload and that these extra officials will be billeted with officials who reside in Sydney. I am not certain whether those arrangements will be satisfactory. I am concerned also—and I imagine the community as a whole is concerned—that the increased focus which is inevitable during the Olympics should not lead to weaknesses in the system of Customs in other parts of its jurisdiction, at a time when its resources will be heavily stretched in the New South Wales or Sydney environs. The other work of Customs has to proceed whilst the Olympics are ongoing. I am not certain that $6.6 million of additional funding will adequately resource that.It would concern the community if, at a time when inevitably we have to focus much of the resources available to the national government on Customs in Sydney and on those travelling to and from those events, we were caught short in some other part of the system. Also, we ought not to find ourselves in a situation where people are expected to put up with inadequate arrangements. I appreciate that accommodation in Sydney will be short during that time, but, if officers of Customs are required to provide billeting facilities for fellow officers, that is a big call. It would be useful for us to have some understanding of what measures the government is putting in place to ensure that this does not place an improper strain on the service in other parts of the country or raise a personnel issue in relation to the support of those officers who are brought to Sydney, if accommodation is so stretched that the normal arrangements when public servants are transferred from city to city cannot be put in place.With those remarks, we are willing to support this legislation. We do not do so with any particular enthusiasm, because for all the goods that come in that are not manufactured in Australia obviously manufacturing opportunities are lost to those who could have undertaken the work and enterprise here. But we do accept that, for an event of such a dimension, inevitably there is going to be some material that needs to be brought in. We accept also that we have some international obligations in respect of the Olympics. It is part of the arrangements, I think, that go with becoming a host city for the Olympics that special arrangements are put in place in relation to transactions such as travel arrangements and the import and export of goods. Some of those other arrangements have been facilitated already. We have been willing to assist in the protection of Olympic intellectual property, particularly trademarks in relation to the Olympics. We accept that we have an obligation to assist with the passage of this legislation. We are not seeking to carp in relation to the questions we have raised about the fact that so much of this material could potentially have been sourced in Australia. I imagine that anybody looking at the position now, about a year out from the Olympics, would be concerned to know how much of this material which is being brought in could have instead been manufactured in this country.Nonetheless, on balance, failure to pass this legislation would create far greater problems than if we were to seek to address those issues now. The time for dealing with those matters has well and truly passed and arrangements are on foot now which are required to be completed. So, it would not only be churlish, it would be counterproductive for the opposition not to support these particular measures. We do so on that basis.10:55:009703Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—in reply—I thank the member for Denison and the opposition for their support, albeit qualified and equivocal, for the Customs Amendment (Temporary Importation) Bill 1999 . There were a couple of matters raised to which I propose to briefly respond. The first related to the sourcing of infrastructure from Australia. The member for Denison regrets the fact that more of the goods that were to be acquired by SOCOG, or others, for the Olympic Games and related events were not sourced from within Australia. I am advised that the relevant tenders were normal commercial tenders which were open to Australian companies. In fact, a number were won by Australian companies that then sourced the goods from overseas. An example I have been given concerns a tender for uniforms. It was won by an Australian company which then supplied material from Australia for fabrication in Fiji. There is more than one issue involved in this. The cost effectiveness of the tendering process is obviously relevant as well.In relation to the personnel deployment of Customs in and around the Olympic Games time, I am advised that there will be, at most, minimal movement of staff to Sydney from elsewhere, if there is to be any at all. Customs has brought forward recruiting of staff to cater for the additional demand so there will, in effect, be advance appointments to assist at the time when pressure is likely to be on. Planning is based upon the non day-to-day activities to supplement border activities.The bill seems to have the support of both sides of the Main Committee. I commend the bill to the Main Committee and to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Orderered that the bill be reported to the House without amendmentCommittees970397039703Debate resumed from 30 August, on motion by Mr Baird:That the House take note of the paper. 10:58:009704Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—It is a great pleasure to have the opportunity to comment on the recommendations of the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector. That committee spent some nine months investigating the dominance of the major chains in the retail market and the impact that dominance has on the small and independent sector.Labor, of course, was the first party to commit itself to such an inquiry prior to the last federal election, and the Liberals subsequently followed, reluctantly. After the election, I must say the government was somewhat reluctant to meet its pre-election commitment and some time passed before the committee was actually established and the inquiry got under way. I am happy to acknowledge the work of Senator Boswell and former Senator O'Chee in terms of the way they placed pressure on the government to put this inquiry in place.Labor supports the recommendations of the committee. We worked very hard. We put forward quite a deal of compromise to ensure that the recommendations of the committee enjoyed unanimous support of committee members, and we put maximum pressure on the government to move quickly to adopt the recommendations.To those who say that the committee has not been effective, I simply say that the recommendations do have teeth. The mandatory code, which will deal with relationships between all the players in the sector including consumers, retailers, wholesalers and suppliers of goods—including farmers, of course—will be mandated under the Trade Practices Act and will therefore have the full force of the Trade Practices Act. The Ombudsman will be fully independent of all industry players if the government agrees to the committee's recommendation and funds that position independently.The ability of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to take representative action on behalf of injured small and independent players is very significant. It was a recommendation which first flowed from the Reid committee but unfortunately was not picked up by the government. It is one which will deliver for the first time an opportunity to people who have been victims of bigger players misusing their market power to be recompensed for any economic loss. The recommendations include mandatory notification of acquisitions of small and independent players by the big chains and mandatory notification to the ACCC of acquisitions by retailers of wholesalers and vice versa.One of the most significant recommendations is the last recommendation, and that is the one that puts the major chains on notice that we want to review the situation—the market, the industry—in three years time with a view to checking on the success of our recommendations and making further recommendations if the recommendations we have already made have not achieved their aims. I think that is a very clear notice to the major chains that we are serious about addressing this issue which is causing very deep concern in the community, in particular in regional communities where the concentration of the big chains has led to a dramatic decline in small and independent businesses and therefore a decline in the basic infrastructure that makes up some of those communities.It was an interesting inquiry. I think committee members learnt very quickly from the outset that, with respect to the growth in the dominance of the major chains, consumers are voting with their feet. It was also very clear that, as a result of that intense competition amongst the large chains, food prices over the last decade or so have dramatically declined. It was important that the committee got the balance right between the interests of the small and independent sector and the interests of the major chains, but just as important were the interests of the consumer. I think that posed a very great challenge to the committee members.One of the great forces behind the establishment of the committee was NARGA, the National Association of Retail Grocers of Australia. Their proposition was that we cap the major chains in terms of their presence within the sector. Whilst that might seem very tempting in the first instance, it was very clear throughout the course of the inquiry, when we heard from market analysts, the big chains themselves and consumer organisations, that that would be a retrograde step. Not only would it impact upon consumers in terms of what it might do to competition in the market, not only might it impact upon Australian shareholders with an interest in the major chains, but it might be counterproductive for those with small and independent stores who actually have an interest in selling or taking up an offer from a large chain to purchase their store. Things are not always as simple as they seem. These are complex issues.I am a little disappointed that the committee spent so much of its time dealing with what I describe as a war between the three major chains and all those banner stores that fall under the umbrella of Davids Holdings, their wholesaler. I think we could have spent a lot more time dealing with the corner butcher shop, the florist, the greengrocer, the small clothing store, the candlestick maker or whatever it may be in regional communities. They provide the real impetus for community concern about the small business sector.I do not think the community generally really cares about the war between Woolworths, Coles, Franklins and those that fall under the banner of Davids. Many of those retail banner stores are as large as the retail chain store. What I think people do care passionately about is the CBD infrastructure of local towns, and of course that infrastructure is very largely made up of the local butcher store, et cetera. But that was somewhat outside of our control, because, throughout the inquiry, the sheer weight of submissions kept our focus on the war between the big chains and the banner stores, and it was very difficult to shift the focus.Many of the submissions that did come from very small players related very much to competition policy. Of course, competition policy was outside our terms of reference and not a matter we were able to deal with directly. At every opportunity, I recommended to the government that it look at the impact of national competition policy in rural and regional Australia to see whether, in some aspects, we might be getting some counterproductive results.I think that it was a very helpful inquiry. From the opposition's perspective, it was an inquiry which will provide a great deal of information as we approach the next federal election in terms of our policy development process. A lot of good information came from market analysts, lobby groups and the chains themselves about the nature of the industry, where it is heading and how changes in the industry are impacting upon consumers, particularly consumers in rural and regional Australia. The committee members worked very well together. We all went into it with common aims and objectives and with a shared concern about small business, particularly small business in rural and regional Australia.I thank the secretary of the committee, Andrea Griffiths, and her staff, who did an enormous job. I think it is fair to say that we were a very demanding committee—in our desire to seek further information on a range of issues and to travel widely. Early in the inquiry, because of the logistics of travelling so far and because of time constraints, there was a view that we might go only to capital cities, but I insisted that the committee should go to rural and regional Australia, particularly. That of course put an additional heavy burden not only on committee members but on those who were charged with keeping us tidy, driving the agenda and producing the submissions and the reports.Again, to those who say that the committee has been somewhat ineffective, I say that that is not true. These recommendations, including one that I did not mention—that is, an amendment to section 50, which will include the word `regional' in terms of what is a market for the merger provisions—give a very clear signal and message to the ACCC and to the wider community that we recognise that markets are not just markets and that how a merger impacts upon a metropolitan market might be very different from the way it impacts upon a market in rural and regional Australia.We all had a shared interest, and I am delighted that we were able to reach unanimity on the recommendations. I say to the government, `With the Reid committee you had the opportunity to pick up on representative actions and to pursue, for the first time, an effective national retail tenancy code. You dropped the ball in both instances.' We now present those to you again, and we ask you to reconsider them very keenly. We cannot now afford to have this committee document gather dust. The recommendations do have teeth. They are biased in the interest of the small and independent sector in order to give them a chance.I said from the beginning of the inquiry that it is quite clear, because of the complexity of these issues, that we should not be about reconstructing the playing field, but rather we should be about ensuring that all those playing on the field are playing fairly. The small and independent sector faces enough challenges dealing with the sheer purchasing power and economies of scale enjoyed by the major chains. What they cannot afford to be competing against in addition to that is misuse of market power. So what we have attempted to do is strengthen the Trade Practices Act to ensure that in the future, in all instances, the major chains are playing fairly.I thought it was very interesting that the boss of Woolworths, Roger Corbett, was prepared to appear before committee members early in the inquiry and admit that, while Woolworths does not seek to misuse its market power, he could not ensure that in every instance, in every store around the country, one of his overenthusiastic and ambitious managers was not misusing that power, in particular in the area of predatory pricing. That, to me, was an extraordinary admission. I say to the major chains: you have the resources, the technique, the money and the ability to ensure that all your managers, no matter where they are in this nation, are doing the right thing. The mandatory code will place down the markers for that behaviour and, on that basis, with the weight of the Trade Practices Act, I am very confident that that will ensure a much fairer game in the future.Indeed, throughout the course of the inquiry, we have already seen a change in the attitude of the major chains. I think that they were generally fearful of what may have come out of the inquiry, and that has already caused them to pick up their game. Of course, that last recommendation which I referred to is symbolic of a very big stick hanging over their heads for the next three years. I am very confident that that very big stick will cause them to behave themselves and to act in the interests of not only the Australian consumer but also the small and independent sector. I commend the recommendations to the House. I commend them to the government, and I call upon the government to act on them very quickly in the same spirit we enjoyed as a committee.11:12:009706Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—I would like to support the comments of the honourable member for Hunter in regard to the recommendations and other aspects of the report from this inquiry by the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector. I found it a fascinating inquiry and a very good committee to work with. We did a lot of work over a short period of time. Unfortunately, it is one of the aspects of parliament which do not get publicised enough, and that is why I will say something about it now. The workings of some of these committees and the particular cooperation that occurs between members of parliament to get the best possible result for the overall community are probably, as I said, not publicised enough.This committee is a good example of where members from the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Democrats all worked extremely well together. We all had a common goal in mind, with everybody taking a very pragmatic view and throwing around the issues in great discussions. The parliament is the better for those sorts of inquiries and those workings of the committee. It would be wonderful if we could get the message out to the greater public a little more as to how we do cooperate to get the best result—probably more often than not. But all they see is the adversarial aspect, unfortunately, and so the greater public thinks that that is the only part.We titled this report Fair market or market failure, which was really the crux of the issue. We wanted to make sure that there was a fair market out there and that market failure was not occurring. We went into this inquiry with a lot of anecdotal evidence and a lot of comment that probably was not able to be stacked up as high as a lot of people thought it would be when we really got to the nub of the issue, although I would also say that there were probably many people who were not prepared to come to the committee and give some information that would have helped. Some people were concerned about their particular business and whether it would impact on their business if they provided some information. But we did get a lot of information and we also took quite a bit of evidence in camera which helped the committee understand exactly how the marketplace works and the retail sector works behind the scenes, which was very useful.The reason the inquiry took place was the growth of the major chains. There was pressure on all parts of the parliament to have a look at this and to say whether this was good or not. It is fair to say that a lot of the growth of the major chains has taken place through the appearance of major shopping centres over the last couple of decades. We have moved away from the main street separate shops and gone into this major supermarket issue where eventually you see developers encouraging a major chain to establish in their complex, that then acts as the attraction for lots of people and, therefore, smaller shops tag along as well. That has been a phenomenon that has been happening for some time. When you throw in deregulated trading hours as well, that has been the crux of what has occurred in the retail sector and the reason the chains have grown to the size that they have in the time that they have.A lot of those matters are matters for state governments and local planning authorities—the issues of location of shopping centres and trading hours, et cetera. Although we do not have the power federally, it is an aspect that did come through in this report. I would hope that, in the future, local councils do look at some of these issues a bit more closely than they may have in the past, and at the effect of allowing new shopping centres to be developed often on the outskirts of town which takes the people away from some of the main streets. I am not so sure that that is actually going to continue as much, because I am seeing a slight change in people's shopping habits, and there could in fact be a reversal of those types of complexes.Consumer demand has contributed to this rapid growth as well, with people wanting the one-stop shop and being able to get a very large variety of goods all in the one place. So the major chains would argue, and I think quite rightly, that they have been providing a product that the consumer wants. If it is being done in a way that is fair competition, then that is probably good if the consumer thinks that is great. The concern that we had was that if the chains get to a point such that they can use their market power to dictate to the consumer what they will be given and then, ultimately, at a price which is not competitive, then that is when you have market failure. I do not think we have got to that point, even though there are some irregularities.The strong argument put to us was for a market cap. Once again, as the member for Hunter said, that superficially looks attractive. But when you start to look at how you implement that it is a different matter, particularly if you go along the line that was put forward of capping the majors to 75 per cent of the market overall. That is saying you can have three majors at 25 per cent each. Or you could say that one should not have any more than 25 per cent, and then you open it up for having four major stores at 25 per cent each, which goes against what is required. It also brings in train the problem of how you achieve that and how you define what that market share is at any one time. Certainly, you would have a situation where Woolworths, for instance, would have ultimately to divest themselves of almost a third of their stores. Woolworths is owned by 200,000 to 300,000 shareholders, predominantly individual Australians. You would probably see a rapid drop in their shares and you would probably see a rapid growth in the shares of Franklins because Franklins currently only have about 14 or 16 per cent of the market. They would be able to grow and they are in a position to grow rapidly. Most of the shareholding in Franklins is actually in Hong Kong. You would be having a very negative effect on many Australians. I think it is an interference in the market which really would not achieve a great deal in the long term anyway.We saw that strengthening the Trade Practices Act was a far better way to go than a cap, which I think would be very draconian and would not achieve the result required in the long term. There are two things we put in which I think will have a very good effect on this. One is the mandatory notification whereby stores buying an independent would be required to notify the ACCC that they were acquiring it. The other is the change to section 50 of the Trade Practices Act to include regional areas when we talk about market share.Currently, the ACCC, if it is looking at market power and domination, would have to look at the share of a major within a state. Some additional purchases of an independent in one part of a state would not seem to be a big deal as far as the market is concerned but, if you look at that little region on its own, that one purchase could provide a situation where the competition could disappear. If the change had been made to give the ACCC the opportunity to do that in the last couple of years, I am very confident that we would not have had the situation that occurred in Cooma and Batemans Bay in my electorate. There are currently two Woolworths stores in both of those towns. If this sort of test had been in place, I am sure the ACCC would have insisted Woolworths divest themselves of one store in Cooma when they took over Cannons because the ACCC would have been able to specifically look at the regional impact on competition. Similarly, in Batemans Bay, the two major supermarkets are both Woolworths stores. That is what, in a regional sense, we want to prevent. I think these changes will do that.The other aspect that came through very much in the hearings was in relation to competition and where fierce competition stops and predatory pricing starts. Once again, this is very difficult to get concrete information about but the committee was fairly convinced that those sorts of practices do go on. I think the code of conduct that we have recommended and a retail ombudsman are the way to overcome many of those problems. I think having somebody there specifically to look after the little guy and to be able to get in and talk to them early on will put a lot of pressure on the larger stores to convince them that they should not look at a process whereby they are virtually using predatory pricing to push somebody out.It is true to say that strong competition has in fact worked in favour of the consumer. We certainly had evidence of a reduction in the price of groceries over the last 10 or 15 years as a result of strong competition between Woolworths, Coles, Franklins and the independents. We want to make sure that that continues.The regional hearings that we held were very useful to the committee. We did them all in a four-day period. We were able to use a government plane to get to many regional areas in a short period. I found that that sort of concentration of information in four days was very useful to really understand what was happening out in regional Australia. We went to regional Tasmania, regional Victoria, regional New South Wales and regional Queensland in a four-day period. I think all the members of the committee found that very strong concentration of evidence in that period really helped us get a handle on what was happening out in regional Australia.I was certainly pleased that one of the places we went to was Cooma, in my electorate, where we took some excellent evidence. I think all the committee agreed with me on that. We had a very good cross-section of people giving evidence at Cooma, which helped us understand just what is happening. I would certainly like to thank Peter Wilson, who is a store owner at Adaminaby, a little town out from Cooma, and who is very innovative. A lot of the small independents could learn a lot from Peter and his father as to what little stores can do. They have been quite innovative in how they are doing things: they are a mini-distribution centre for a lot of the little villages around the region, and they have been able to grow their business in that way. They have found a way to compete with some of the bigger guys in a different way, which is great.We had some evidence from Greg Coombs-Pearce, the business development manager of Cooma Monaro Shire Council, as to what has occurred since Woolworths took over the additional store in Cooma, which meant that it had both stores. We also heard from John Mercer, the manager of the business enterprise centre, who had spoken to many small businesses and who provided a good amount of information as to what was happening in that town. We also heard from Stephen Bartlett, proprietor of Slater's Fuel Services. Terri Edwards is the proprietor of a cafe, and hearing about some of the dealings that she has with the suppliers provided useful information as well. I am really pleased that they were able to come along and give evidence which has helped the inquiry.In conclusion, I found the inquiry very good and useful. The team worked well together. There are some excellent recommendations. I support the member for Hunter in encouraging the government to take these recommendations up and act on them very quickly. I will certainly be interested in what happens in the marketplace, because I think we will see some changes in the way in which retailing will occur, away from some of the major supermarkets in complexes to smaller, niche stores. I think that even Coles, Woolworths and Franklins are thinking partly along those lines as well. A recommendation was that the government should reconvene the committee in three years time and I would encourage that as well, because the very fact that the committee is there will keep the pressure on those larger retailers.11:27:009710Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—I am pleased to have the opportunity to add to the comments I made upon the tabling of the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector. The subject matter that was investigated by the committee is fairly complex. The committee has had to sit in judgment about many accusations that are made about the behaviour of companies within the retail sector, and often it is difficult to know whether these are made in the context of the pressure that people feel from the very harsh environment of competition and whether it is a perception that these things are happening and they are offered because people genuinely believe that that is the reason that they cannot succeed, or whether they have a basis in fact.The difficulty in this inquiry was that we had a tight time schedule in which to report. We do not have complete investigatory powers to subpoena books and go through accounts to actually see what is going on. I suppose in reality we could, but whether we have the expertise to do that and whether that is not more appropriately done by other bodies was something that the committee had to decide. The committee believes that bodies like the ACCC should take many of these accusations and investigate them in a most rigorous way to try to find out more about people's perceptions of the reasons for the behaviour of some of the bigger players in the retail sector and whether the reasons for that behaviour are, in fact, going beyond what should be seen as fair competition.There is an expression used in the report about deciding whether things are either socially beneficial or socially detrimental. That is a fine line; it is a very fine balance for us as legislators to achieve. It is also a fine line for those who are the regulators. On balance, the committee believes that the recommendations that have been made arising from this inquiry, if adopted by government, will shift the balance towards the smaller players and give them greater confidence to go about competing in the market, because that is what it is all about.Regrettably, a problem that we had was that, whilst the terms of reference talked about the retail sector, because the major protagonists that came forward to give evidence were involved in the grocery part of that sector—supermarkets and the like—we tended to concentrate on that aspect. I hope that, at the end of the day, because we did that, we have not missed what might be going on in the wider retail sector. I believe that the recommendations we have made apply not only to supermarkets and groceries as a subset but to the wider retail sector in toto.That is a sector that has undergone great change. It is, in part, driven by what it is perceived that consumers are calling for. Often, those people say that that change is being driven by the consumers, but in some evidence people even admitted that they were delving into practices that could only be described as consumer engineering. I can think of the evidence given by Coca-Cola, as a manufacturer, which I would recommend should be read by all members, as it was an exercise not just in marketing 101, but in marketing 301. This was straight-out marketing whereby a company had decided that this was the way in which they thought their product should be out in the marketplace, and they were going to make sure that they offered it to the marketplace in that manner, and only in that manner. I do not wish to dwell too much on the practices of Coca-Cola Amatil, but I believe that they need to understand that the committee was of the view that the way in which they approached things represented a real case study, having regard to the way in which they were pushing the envelope towards what they believed consumers should do, rather than sitting back and analysing the way in which consumers operated.The interesting point about Coca-Cola as a manufacturer was that they have kept control of their distribution. They have many thousands of customers. In the main, we found with other manufacturers that they dealt through the wholesale chains that have developed, and they might only have in the order of six to seven customers. That is another aspect of the inquiry that was very important: we really need to look at the wholesale chain within which goods get to the retailers. At the core of this inquiry were the allegations that if the independent sector within the supermarket sector reduces too much further it would not be sustainable in that there would not be sufficient critical mass of market share to ensure that the wholesalers that the retailers depend on could go about their business. In fact, that probably was the central theme throughout most of the inquiry.To protect that market share, those who spoke on behalf of the independent supermarket sector suggested a cap. The report goes into detail about the many reasons why the committee decided that that form of cap was impractical; and why, therefore, the committee looked at other suggestions—especially, the strengthening of the Trade Practices Act—to give smaller retailers the opportunity to bring forward accusations that the ACCC might take up on a representative basis. If the amendments to the Trade Practices Act are made, the accusations should not only be taken up by the ACCC on a representative basis; the ACCC should call for damages for those third parties.The committee realised that the ACCC process could be a rather lengthy, time consuming process. We acknowledged, through our calls for representative action through to damages, that it was also a costly process which dissuaded some of the smaller players from taking that action.In calling for an industry ombudsman, we understood that in many cases the complaints were of a nature that could be better dealt with quickly by an independent arbiter. We understood that if it were put in the hands of a body that could take timely action, a body where there could be clarity about what is actually happening in the marketplace, then the cultural basis on which some of the players behave could be changed without taking it to the courts.The other aspect that is very important—and I did not get the chance to mention it in my tabling statement—concerns the changes that we have called for about the nature of a regional market. The present Trade Practices Act talks about substantial markets but uses as its basis either a national level or a state and territory level. It is a bit quaint now as we go towards 100 years of federation, as we go to the next millennium, that we are still hung up on the geopolitical boundaries of the colonies when we decide what is an economic market. We believe that the best way in which the ACCC should look at whether market dominance has gone too far would be if the ACCC were empowered to look at substantial markets being on a regional base. We think that could improve greatly the protection against further strengthening oligopolies or monopolies.The other thing that should be said is that we are calling for mandatory reporting of the so-called phenomenon of creeping acquisitions. That is where some of the major supermarket companies might buy up, on a one-by-one basis, independent players. We are saying that those sorts of purchases should be reported to the ACCC on a mandatory basis. The committee was of the view that the ACCC should look at those types of creeping acquisitions as acquisitions that might have a demonstrable effect on the market. We would hope that the ACCC is able to keep a close eye on those sorts of movements that are a result of creeping acquisitions, overlaid by what the major companies are doing by developing greenfield sites.Another important recommendation of the inquiry was to increase the limit for transactions that might be looked at under the appropriate sections of the Trade Practices Act dealing with unconscionable conduct. We recommended that the limit on transactions be increased from $1 million to $3 million because, as it was put to us, that would give greater scope for looking at transactions that might qualify under those sections. It is something that we had considerable debate on arising out of the Reid inquiry.The opposition felt that the only basis that need be put in place about whether a case could go forward was whether it involved a company that conformed to the ABS's definition of small business. The government at the time decided that the $1 million transaction limit should apply. We believe that has been a bit restrictive and the committee is suggesting an increase.Another important aspect is the code of conduct. It is suggested in the recommendations that the code of conduct include a number of items that we have highlighted. Of course, we do not believe that is a restricted list of items because the ACCC should consult widely with those players in the sector to come up with the code of conduct. But one of the important things that we believe should be in a code of conduct is truth in branding of companies. We believe that, where there are subsidiaries that are part of a wider umbrella organisation, the wider umbrella organisation should also be listed in the trading signage and advertising, et cetera, of that company.KV5NEVILLEMr Neville—Like Bi-Lo, or something like that.HH4Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINS—The honourable member's interjection, whilst not totally welcome, I take on board. Bi-Lo is an interesting example because not many people understand that it is a part of the Coles Myer group. They have two brands, for want of a better expression, operating in the supermarket area. Coles runs as Coles, but they also have Bi-Lo which is going for a different part of the market. It was surprising to find the number of people who did not actually understand that.The other important part of the industry code of conduct is the like terms for like performance for like customers. There is some belief by the smaller players that they do not have access to product on the same terms as the bigger players. Whilst under questioning the manufacturers believe that, except for discounts on the basis of volume, they are offering like terms for like customers, sufficient anecdotal evidence abounds that makes the committee believe that there is a need to put this in a code of conduct. Once it is in the code of conduct, which the committee believes should be mandatory, it is then subjected to the sections of the Trade Practices Act about unconscionable conduct. Therefore, the ACCC could look at these accusations of many of the below the line trading terms on promotions and the like that smaller players believe that they do not get access to.Another important point to stress is the need for education about what is available for the smaller players in the retail sector and the type of redress that they can use under the Trade Practices Act. A lot of those players act without full knowledge of what is possible for them to do. I acknowledge the comments made earlier that some of them will not come forward because they are concerned about what repercussions there might be if they enter into some form of legal action. But I think we have to take on board that often some people do not take action because they do not know what is required. We would hope that an ombudsman, if put in place, would be pro-active in making sure that those who could use the services of such an ombudsman realise that.The final thing I would like to say is that the retail sector will continue to undergo great change. That great change will be about not only who controls the market share but the way in which that retail sector interfaces with consumers and customers. We will see an increase in the use of electronic commerce. Some people believed—and gave us evidence—that by about the year 2020, some 20 per cent of the retail market share might reside in those using electronic commerce.To put that in context, that is about equal to the whole of the independent sector now, so the players in this market have to act very smartly. They have to rely on the speciality that they can put in. They have to rely on the way they can diversify and the way in which they can improve their niche marketing. Some of the successful people that came before us were able to do that. They were able to analyse their market and they were able to compete. All they were calling for was that they be able to compete on fair and equal terms with others. (Time expired)11:42:009713Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—It is my pleasure to speak in support of the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector. The report entitled Fair market or market failure was a review of Australia's retail market.Before speaking on the findings and recommendations, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the Chairman, Mr Bruce Baird, and the Deputy Chair, Mr Harry Jenkins, for the support and excellent cooperation between them and the committee members. It certainly paved the way for some very honest discussions. My sincere thanks also go to the secretariat and staff of the committee. They all did a fantastic job, in particular Andrea Griffiths. Nothing was too much for her and she is definitely a true professional. I give a huge thankyou to the Hansard reporting staff for their cooperation as we collected evidence from 103 witnesses in all states around Australia.As a committee we were asked to inquire into the degree of industry concentration within the retailing sector in Australia, and overseas development with respect to this issue, plus possible courses of action by the federal government. As stated by previous speakers, this was a very difficult inquiry, with small business expecting us to give them a quick fix. Personally, it was very rewarding to me to be given the opportunity to view the big picture. It was evident that there was definitely not going to be any quick fix by governments.I believe we will see substantial changes in the retail market and how they conduct their business deals over the next few years. This will not be brought about solely by the recommendations but by the fact that this inquiry gave the opportunity to 332 people to make submissions and voice their opinions on the many problems that exist in the retail industry. We were given a good insight into the problems faced daily by small business people, warts and all.I know that I speak for all members of the committee when I say that some small businesses have done it tough. Some have fought back and won the battle and others are hanging in there, and all they want is a fair go. I hope that these recommendations will send a clear message to our major chains that we have taken note of what small business has said during this inquiry and that we expect they will take responsible, self-regulated steps to ensure that they maintain a good corporate and community image and, at the same time, accept responsibility for being contributors to their local community.One thing was very evident in the inquiry we had: small businesses play a very large role in supporting their local communities, their sporting bodies and welfare groups. When our large major chains came into town they not only closed down businesses but also took out of town the income revenue that had been going to the local charities. They took it back to main headquarters and distributed it to major charities in that electorate. I hope the majors take this into consideration; I know they heard it at every hearing we had. At every opportunity, I think it was mentioned how they play a major role and have a responsibility to put money back into local communities if they are going to come into town and close down some of the shops.If they do not take note of what they heard through this inquiry, I think we would have no hesitation in implementing recommendation 10, which states that this committee will be reconstituted in three years from the date of the tabling of this report in order to review the progress of the recommendations and, in particular, the operation of a code of conduct and to determine whether further legislation is required. Such changes could include our asking them to divest their assets and, also, once it had been established that a corporation with a substantial degree of market power had used the market power, the shifting of the onus of proof to the corporation to prove that it did not use the power for prohibitive purposes. That is one thing we would have to make sure we did in three years time if we did not see a change in the market.During the inquiry we also heard evidence of unfair conduct, problems with franchising, misuse of market power, unfair conduct with predatory pricing, loss leader practices, the lack of legal successes and the lack of awareness by some small retailers of their rights and obligations. Some gave hard core evidence, other evidence was anecdotal and some was pure urban myth. In a few places in Australia, we heard how extended trading hours had helped small businesses survive and, in other towns, we heard how they had been destroyed by it.Evidence was given of how some small specialist businesses survived in the base that they were pulling. They were in shopping centres, the big majors were pulling people into that shopping centre, and those businesses were surviving and employing people. So small businesses wanted it both ways in some ways, as we saw it, because if they were not in a major shopping centre, there were large problems. But in major shopping centres there were a heap of speciality shops that were surviving and employing because there was a major tenant there.As a committee, we did not seek protectionist measures for small independent retailers. Rather, we recommended measures that we believe will enhance competition in the marketplace. The food industry is a $12 billion dollar market driven by consumers who appear, from the evidence in the report, to benefit from the competitive forces of the current market structure.Blame has been directed at the majors as the cause of structural change, but some of the blame has to be directed at governments. Evidence we received throughout the inquiry indicated that local councils and state governments could do more for better future planning to control the overdevelopment of large shopping centres in some towns. We saw first hand in the regional town of Bundaberg that there were five major outlets within a one-kilometre radius. It was really strange to see that any local government would actually allow that to go ahead. When we questioned them, they said their hands were tied due to state government regulations. Responsible town planning can stop an oversupply of large complexes like the ones we saw in Bundaberg and in other areas of Australia. Recommendation 4 covers that one quite well when it says:The Committee recommends that mandatory notification of retail grocery store acquisitions by publicly listed corporations be prescribed within the mandatory Code of Conduct . . . and approved by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, with a requirement that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission consult with local authorities and other relevant parties in order to make an informed assessment of the likely impact on local businesses of such acquisitions.As the report states, there were cases for the major chains to be capped at 25 per cent. This proposal would have required Woolworths, which is owned by 340,000 ordinary Australians, to shed one-third of its stores, while Australia's largest private sector employee, Coles Myer, would have been required to sell 100 of its Coles Bi-Lo supermarkets. More importantly, about 36,000 jobs would have been placed on the market. Some, though, would have been transferred to new owners.The committee heard compelling evidence that the cap would be unworkable and would effectively regulate the consumer. The ACCC Chairman, Professor Allan Fels, believes that, at least in some cases, some areas and some product markets, a market cap would mean that Australian consumers might be condemned to purchase and to be supplied with inefficient and high cost operations. On the other hand, evidence revealed that the majority of independent retailers felt that at some stage of their business careers they would like to be able to sell out to a major chain. The impact of a market cap would have the likely effect of preventing them from doing so, with a consequent reduction in the value of their stores. Finally, on this subject, should capping occur it would provide the opportunity for foreign retail chains to enter the market to the detriment of the companies owned by thousands of ordinary Australians.Small business is not dead in Australia. There are over one million small private sector businesses in Australia employing around 3.5 million people. Some are being squeezed out of the market by consumer choice. If we take our minds back a few years, we could all recall a number of family corner stores—and I owned one—in our local districts that were forced out of business by independent grocery stores which offered the consumer a wider range of products. We can see the same consumer demand today as the major chains provide over 40,000 products to consumers. However, we also saw evidence during our inquiry that there was a very viable and increasing market of small independent stores marketing their friendly and efficient service, providing what the consumer wanted, and succeeding. They are alive and well in our communities. We saw some very viable small business people out there competing with our majors and winning.In closing, I would like to sincerely thank all those who took time out of their busy schedules to come before our committee. They gave us a very frank insight into their daily battle for survival. I hope that these recommendations will give the support that they seek for a fair go.11:53:009715Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—I am very pleased to be able to contribute to the discussion about the report by the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector. What is very clear from listening to the debate this morning and looking at the recommendations is that the committee's work does strike a very good balance between the interests of small and independent firms and the interests of the larger chains and shareholders, and appropriately also gives weight to the interests of both consumers and employees in the retail sector.What I would like to do briefly this morning is comment on a particular aspect which is particularly important to the health sector, and that is the issue of community pharmacy. I am very pleased that, in its general review of the retail sector, the committee has included this issue and, in fact, made the following observation in recommendation 8:The Committee recommends that the major supermarket chains take note of widespread community and pharmaceutical industry concerns that the nature of the role played by pharmacists is unique, as it relates to matters of public health. The Committee is therefore of the view that expansion by the major chains into the dispensing of pharmaceutical products should be discouraged.This is very welcome news to the pharmacy sector, which has been living under the shadow of the government's competition policy review.Labor certainly supports the continuation of pharmacy ownership by pharmacists because the professional health care provided by pharmacists is a vital part of delivering health care to all Australians wherever they live—and I will talk a little bit later about, in particular, the rural issues. There are substantial benefits to the community from having a very strong network of community pharmacists delivering a wide range of health services throughout the country. These services are not—and I know that pharmacists know this—limited to the goods that a pharmacist sells as many free services and information programs rely on community pharmacies for widespread delivery.I am pleased to say that, at the last election, Kim Beazley gave a very clear commitment that we would oppose the removal of the requirement for ownership because it would undermine community pharmacy and inevitably result in American style service and standards. Under that arrangement, local pharmacies would be unable to compete with supermarket drug dispensing.The parliament has already received a number of petitions, I am pleased to say, including one from electors in my own constituency of Jagajaga where 2,000 people signed petitions located in community pharmacies, saying that they wanted their community pharmacies to stay. It has been the case that similar petitions have been presented from other electorates. Talking to my local pharmacists, I find that they are very apprehensive and concerned that their professional standing, which has been built up in the community, will be lost so easily if supermarkets are able to employ pharmacists and dispense medicines.We are concerned about the competition policy review that is under way, but I want to make it clear that this support for pharmacies is being given for a reason. On this side of the House, we are generally supportive of competition. We believe that many strengths have come to the Australian economy as a result of the many reforms that were implemented in the 1980s, but this notion that we are talking about with pharmacies is not about protecting pharmacies from competition. Pharmacy is, of course—and I think the committee heard a lot about this in their review—a very competitive business. They are not only competing against each other but, for many of their product lines, competing against other retailers as well. The public and the community at large benefit from competition by virtue of cheaper products and better service, but the problem is where that competition theory is taken too far and the community loses by virtue of the loss of specialised services that have been built up over the years and which are being provided as a package along with many other services.My judgment is that community pharmacy has achieved this because it is prepared to make a commitment to provide more than just the dispensing of prescriptions. What community pharmacy is showing is a new vision for pharmacy which puts the emphasis on delivering professional advice and services on the grounds that pharmacists are about creating a future which has appeal to the public. All of us, of course, have grown up with pharmacies in every shopping centre to provide a whole range of goods and services. Imposing open competition for this dispensing function without taking heed of all of the facts, particularly all of the other services, runs the risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Nevertheless, of course, the pharmacy industry must not be complacent—and I do not think they are. Making a distinction between supermarkets and pharmacies will only remain defensible while pharmacies continue to provide a unique service and enjoy the high level of public support that they currently do.I want to make a few remarks about rural access because I think we see the problems that exist for doctors—and they are very real—but there are also serious problems with access to pharmacy services as well. The government has recognised this and earlier this year it announced a number of incentives to try to encourage pharmacists in rural areas to stay. We recognise that it is early days. As to whether this will have a positive effect, it is too early to say, but we are certainly supportive of moves to try to do whatever can be done to keep pharmacists in, and to encourage younger pharmacists into, rural areas.There is a chicken and egg problem. If the doctor closes down in a small town, it is very hard for the pharmacist to continue. And if there is no pharmacy, it is very hard for the doctor because the patients have to go in to a bigger place to fill their prescriptions. The pharmacy profession has raised a number of other problems facing community pharmacy, particularly in rural areas—the need for succession planning and emergency locum relief, many of the things that face doctors as well. Hopefully, these initiatives that have been put forward by the government will work to make sure that pharmacy can remain, not just in our urban shopping centres but also in these smaller rural towns.A very good way that we can see pharmacy playing a role in the delivery of professional health care is in the management of medications, particularly for the elderly—those living in residential care and those living independently at home. Medication reviews undertaken by professional pharmacists can be a very important step in improving the quality use of medicines to avoid adverse reactions and to ensure that the best outcome for the user happens and also that costs to the overall community are contained.There is potential for the concept of an intranet to link up pharmacies to ensure improved medication records and that better practice takes place. Consumers would certainly benefit from this through portability of access to services, and pharmacists would have much greater information available to them. Anything that can be done to deter doctor shopping and the inappropriate use of medicines is something that across the parliament we should support. This is an area with great potential if, as we acknowledge, considerable technical and privacy issues can be resolved. Nevertheless, in the context of the debate we are currently having, this would be much easier to resolve within a network of professionally owned pharmacies then in a deregulated environment.Other examples of potential `value added' pharmacy services of the future include asthma management, diabetes care, wound care, monitoring blood pressure, assisting with managing incontinence and providing on-the-spot pathology and screening tests. There are many initiatives that I know community pharmacists are very keen to pursue. They know that this is necessary to maintain their outstanding status within the community.As I said at the outset, I am very pleased that this report recognises the critical role that community pharmacists play and recognises that that role will not be able to be maintained if restrictions on the delivery of pharmaceuticals are lost and that delivery is handed over to supermarkets. I am certainly strongly supportive of the recommendations on this issue that have been brought forward here today.12:03:009718Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—In making a few comments on the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector, I would like to focus on three recommendations: recommendation 8, which the member for Jagajaga has just spoken on, relates to the pharmacy sector; recommendation 3 goes to the issue of a retail industry ombudsman; and recommendation 5 goes to the question of a code of conduct. I will go through those recommendations. Recommendation 3 reads:The Committee recommends the establishment of an independent Retail Industry Ombudsman through which small business can bring complaints or queries relating to the retailing sector for speedy resolution. The Committee believes that the Retail Industry Ombudsman should consider, among other things, the application of the Retail Industry Code of Conduct (Recommendation 5) in his or her deliberations.Where complaints received by the Retail Industry Ombudsman raise issues that fall within the jurisdiction of another established body, such as the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, those complaints should be referred to such bodies for further investigation.The Committee recommends that the Retail Industry Ombudsman be appointed and funded by the Government.The Committee recommends that the Retail Industry Ombudsman be required to produce a bi-annual report to the Parliament in order to increase transparency in the retailing industry.I think this is a good recommendation and I hope the government does act upon it.I would like to make a couple of comments about the overall conduct of the inquiry. The fact is that the recommendations are unanimous. That has meant there has been an element of compromise to some extent, or an attempt, through goodwill from all sides, to try to come forward with a unanimous report which is powerful in its recommendations so that it will ensure that the government does take the report very seriously. Certainly, it is good to see a report where there are unanimous recommendations for government to act upon. It is not always the case. We believe that does require the government to look at these recommendations, hopefully, as quickly as possible.As I think we are all aware, the operation of the retail industry has been a matter of concern, particularly to small players within that industry, for quite some time because there has been increasing market share by the major chains on an ongoing basis. That has led to allegations of, and in some cases some proof of, predatory pricing arrangements and a range of other activities which have unfairly discriminated against smaller players in the field.Certainly, I know that a lot of the smaller players' organisations have been keen to see this inquiry go further than it has done with respect to its recommendations. But, with things like the retail industry ombudsman we see an example of something which, if it works properly and if it is implemented fully, should lead to some real and actual changes that will benefit competition and fairness within the operation of the retail industry. That will have a benefit for the average consumer and also ensure a better working and operating environment for smaller players within the industry.The committee has recommended that the ombudsman be funded by the government and appointed by the government. It is fair in terms of the overarching role of the retail industry across the country that the government is seen to be auspicing and partnering this approach. Here we are also talking about a mandatory approach in relation to the code of conduct beyond that. That is very important and I will come back to that a bit later on in terms of making sure that such an ombudsman has real teeth and the capacity to be able to really act upon recommendations and situations that the ombudsman may have raised with it. Ombudsmen have been patchy in some industries in terms of their actual real operation. The banking industry and the health industry are two examples. However, I think they certainly are a very important part of any regulatory framework in order to ensure that people do have somewhere where they can go to raise concerns.Recommendation 5, which is in relation to the retail industry code of conduct, is also very important. It says:The Committee recommends the drafting of a Retail Industry Code of Conduct by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in consultation with retail industry groups and other relevant parties for the purpose of regulating the conduct associated with vertical relationships throughout the supply chain.The Committee recommends that the Code of Conduct be a mandatory code, and should contain a precise form of dispute resolution, with the process of resolution clearly spelled out.The Committee recommends that the Code of Conduct be drafted to include specific provisions that address:(a) The general principle of `like terms for like customers'—where the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission may seek information from corporations, on a confidential basis, revealing key terms and conditions of contracts of supply.(b) Transparency in `vulnerable' supply markets—where growers have to deal with a range of market characteristics, including perishability, market volatility and a high degree of risk exposure.(c) Product labelling and packaging requirements—with a view to implementing a more equitable system than that which currently exists.(d) Contractual uncertainty—in particular, the passing of ownership of produce and the circumstances under which produce can be returned.(e) Truth in branding—so that businesses, which are subsidiaries of, or are substantially owned by, a listed public company or major retailer, note that association on shop front signage, in advertising, on stationery, and so on.The Committee recommends that disputes falling under the Code of Conduct should not be limited to resolution by the Retail Industry Ombudsman. For example, disputes raising issues relevant to National Competition Policy or the Trade Practices Act 1974 would be more appropriately dealt with by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.The whole point of having a code of conduct and taking a mandatory approach is to try to ensure there is a regulatory framework in place so that all the players within the industry are aware of their rights and responsibilities and so that the ombudsman or others who would endeavour to review that regulation have a set of firm rules to work off to ensure that decisions are properly made.Hopefully an approach such as this will lead to less litigation in a formal sense. One of the problems with having a voluntary code of conduct and having to go to other means to resolve issues and not having detailed and proper regulatory processes and forums for reviewing matters is that people will often end up in the courts. That, in itself, is incredibly expensive and can often be much more time consuming than other processes and, in those circumstances, not a desirable way to ensure that problems within an industry are resolved.Certainly those two recommendations—the ombudsman and the code of conduct—are positive steps forward. In an overall sense, there is a view in some of the comment the inquiry has gained so far that maybe it does not go far enough. I think we really have to wait to see whether, over the next year or two, that is in fact the case. The important thing is that the government needs to act upon it now.The other issue I would briefly like to talk about was covered in some detail by the member for Jagajaga in her previous speech. Recommendation 8 states:The Committee recommends that major supermarket chains take note of widespread community and pharmaceutical industry concerns that the nature of the role played by pharmacists is unique, as it relates to matters of public health. The Committee is therefore of the view that expansion by the major chains into the dispensing of pharmaceutical products should be discouraged.This goes to the issue of pharmacies being set up within supermarkets and as part of supermarkets. As has been said by earlier speakers, this raises a range of issues which cause quite a deal of concern. It looks to the question of whether the major role of pharmacies in the dispensing of medicines and advice to clients as to the appropriate medications required in their circumstances is an issue which can be handled within a supermarket scenario.That practice occurs in some places overseas, although I am not at all convinced that in fact it is a good idea. I think it does underestimate and undermine the actual professional role of pharmacists and pharmacies within a community. As has been said in many regional centres and country towns as well as in metropolitan areas, pharmacies are often the first port of call for those who require basic advice and assistance on medical matters and, with the range of medications available now, there is a need for professional advice with respect to what is utilised. I think a much greater role can be developed for pharmacists into the future as to what role they perform as part of general health care development within our community. Certainly, I know from discussions I have had with representatives from within the industry and also from some of the facilities I have visited—for example, at the University of Sydney—that there is great scope to develop the role of the pharmacy industry and pharmacists in providing a greater level of health care within our community.These days, when we look so much more to preventing illnesses rather than to actually dealing with them after the event, when we look so much to the different types of assistance that can be given at an earlier stage rather than at a later stage, that role of pharmacists is something that can be developed further down the track and that ought to be embraced and developed by government in any way that is of assistance. Certainly, I know the industry itself is keen to work down that track and to see a greater role for itself and for its members, but I think it is something which would be difficult to foster effectively in a supermarket setting. I think it does lead to the potential for an undermining of a range of conditions around the question of service delivery, and that is something we would not like to see.Overall, though, as I said earlier I think the report is to be commended to government as a report with a range of unanimous recommendations that deserve urgent and detailed attention. I am sure the chair of the committee and other government members will endeavour to take these recommendations forth to the relevant ministers. I certainly know they go with the support of the opposition in seeking that sort of action around these sorts of recommendations.To those who would say that the report could have gone further, I would say that I think that that is always a legitimate comment with respect to the consideration of an issue in some detail, as has occurred on this occasion. Now that we have a report that does have a range of recommendations which I think we all agree will lead to an improvement in the operation of the retailing sector, we have to give those recommendations a chance—give the government a chance to implement them and give the industry a chance to work with them. That will, hopefully, lead to a situation where some of the issues of concern that have been raised quite rightly over the last few years in particular will be addressed. Hopefully from there we will see a situation where those sorts of concerns will not be the concerns that they have been in the past. I commend the report to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Neville) adjourned.Main Committee adjourned at 12.17 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing9722The following answers to questions were circulated:9722(Question No. 565)5659722Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KerrRH4DenisonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 30 March 1999:(1) In undertaking normal value investigations overseas, what specific steps does the Australian Customs Service (ACS) take, in addition to examining so-called audited accounts, to check the veracity of an exporter's claims.(2) Do the steps referred to in part (1) include reference to third parties or independent and credible trade and industry sources; if not, why not; of so, will the Minister provide specific examples.(3) Does the ACS recognise the Corruption Perception Index (CPI) and its purpose to provide data on perceptions of corruption within countries by national surveys.(4) Does the ACS make allowances and adjustments to quantify the reliability of audited accounts supplied by exporters from countries which suffer from crony capitalism or corruption.(5) Is it a fact that (a) Indonesia scored sixth lowest of the 100 countries ranked on the 1998 Corruption Perception Index and (b) Australian paper producers contend that it has a high level of corruption; if so, has the ACS allowed for possible corruption in Indonesia during its recent inquiries concerning Indonesia; if so, how; if not, why not.(6) Does the ACS apply regulations to the conduct of its officers undertaking overseas investigations.(7) Are ACS officers cautioned about the essential need to remain at arm's length from former colleagues who may represent the interests of foreign exporters from time to time as consultants or lobbyists.(8) Does the ACS permit its officers to rely upon the statements of former colleagues in the circumstances referred to in part (7).(9) Does the ACS impose checks and balances to detect undue influence in the circumstances referred to in part (7); if so, what are they; if not, why not. (10) Is it a fact that the public file report of the ACS officer who conducted the overseas inquiries in Indonesia for the inquiry into dumping of coated papers contains comments and words of appreciation for a former ACS officer who is now a consultant; if so, how does the ACS explain the comments.9722Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) In addition to a company's audited accounts Customs relies upon verification against management accounts, source documents, ie invoices, payment advices etc, and other internal company records.(2) Where necessary Customs may resort to information provided by other sources as a means to check the veracity of the exporters claims or in circumstances where the exporter declines or is unable to provide certain information.(3) Customs is aware of the Corruption Perception Index as a result of a submission by Australian Paper in the context of the revocation inquiry involving A4 copy paper from Indonesia.(4) No. Australia's legislation and the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement only recognise adjustments to prices where it affects price comparability. Further, Australia's legislation and the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement require the use of the exporter's records where they are kept in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the exporting country(5) (a) Australian Paper provided Customs with a submission in the context of the revocation inquiry involving A4 copy paper from Indonesia. Its submission referred to the 1998 Corruption Perception Index and stated that Indonesia scored the sixth lowest of 100 countries.(b) Yes, Australian Paper has made this claim in the context of the revocation inquiry involving A4 copy paper from Indonesia. Customs addressed the issue of possible corruption in Indonesia through a thorough examination and verification of the exporter's accounts.(6) There are no regulations specific to undertaking overseas investigations. Customs officers are bound by the APS Code of Conduct as detailed in the Public Service Regulations (Amendment—Interim Reforms) 1998. Regulations 5—The APS Values and Regulation 7—The APS Code of Conduct are particularly relevant.(7) As for (6).(8) No, findings are based upon evidence.(9) The result of overseas investigations "the normal value report" is subject of scrutiny and assessment by other officers including senior officers to ensure that the recommendations are supported by the facts.(10) The report referred to contains the following statement "Tjiwi Kimia, together with their consultant, cooperated fully with Customs and met most requests for copies of documents etc." All normal value reports contain a section on Cooperation and Confidentiality. The visiting officers are required to give an assessment of the level of cooperation provided by the exporter. The assessment may have implications for how the information collected is judged and the level of any measures that may be imposed.9723(Question No. 566)5669723Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KerrRH4DenisonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 30 March 1999:(1) How does the Australian Customs Service (ACS) determine normalcy in its consideration of normal values in overseas investigations when the country in question is markedly disturbed by economic, political or social crises with resultant impact on local markets from lack of demand and excess manufacturing capacity.(2) Is it a fact that in Indonesia (a) exchange rates fluctuate by as much as 26 per cent in a day and regularly move more than 10 per cent in either direction in a week, (b) volatile currency movements cause the currency to decline to a small percentage of its original value, (c) inflation rates reach as much as 8 per cent in a month and then turn negative, (d) interest rates reach 50 per cent per annum, (e) the banking system is collapsing with 60 to 80 per cent of loans non-performing, (f) many of the country's enterprises are technically insolvent and (g) the currency is artificially supported by substantial foreign aid including significant funding by the International Monetary Fund.(3) Does the ACS use weighted averages in the circumstances referred to in part (1); if so, is this approach adequate in the circumstances referred to in part (2). (4) Do the circumstances referred to in part (2) warrant the use of a surrogate country to establish normal values; if not, why not.9723Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) `Normalcy' is not a term used in the relevant legislation or international agreements and therefore is not a consideration in determining normal values. Where there is a situation in the market of the exporting country which renders domestic sales as unsuitable Australia's legislation and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Anti-Dumping Agreement provide alternative methods for the determination of normal value; namely, sales to third countries or costs plus profit.(2) (a) to (d) The questions are imprecise, as they do not provide a reference period; (e) there is a high percentage of non-performing loans within the banking sector; (f) and (g) comments were included in a report which was considered by Customs.(3) Depending on the particular circumstances of an investigation weighted averages may be the most appropriate means to determine normal values.(4) The circumstances referred to in part (2), per se, do not authorise recourse to surrogate information. The Minister could only contemplate the use of surrogate information if satisfied that sufficient information had not been provided or was not available to enable normal values to be determined by reference to either third country sales or costs plus profit.9723(Question No. 681)6819723Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games, upon notice, on 2 June 1999:(1) Has the Government outlaid Commonwealth funds for a luxury "skybox" at Stadium Australia and a box at the Superdrome where basketball will be staged; if so, (a) further to the answer to question No. 515 (Hansard , 13 May 1996, page 4456), does the sum of $850,000 referred to in part (a) of the answer include the boxes at Stadium Australia and the Superdrome; if not, what is the additional cost of the boxes, (b) is the Government's use of the boxes confined to the Olympic Games and (c) what criteria apply to use of the boxes by the Prime Minister and other Ministers.(2) Does the sum of $850,000 cover all hospitality costs which will be incurred by the Prime Minister and other Ministers when entertaining guests during the Olympic Games. (3) Have the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Austrade finalised criteria for the distribution of tickets available to the Government for use at the Sydney Olympic Games; if so, what are the criteria.9724Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss Jackie KellyGK6LindsayLPSport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) The New South Wales Minister for the Olympics, the Hon Michael Knight MP, encouraged the Commonwealth to take a box at the SuperDome.The Memorandum of Understanding signed on 23 December 1998, which governs the provision of assistance by the Commonwealth to New South Wales for the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (SOCOG), provides for a total payment direct to SOCOG of $1.21 million for the purchase of tickets for the Olympic Games by the Commonwealth ($850,000) and the use of a 20 seat box at Stadium Australia ($240,000) and an 18 seat box at the SuperDome ($120,000). The Commonwealth so far has been invoiced only for the box at Stadium Australia.(b) The Commonwealth's use of the box at Stadium Australia is restricted to the periods of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is yet to receive a licence agreement for the SuperDome box but expects it will be available for the same restricted periods.(c) The guidelines for the use of the boxes restrict their use to the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and other Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries with a direct involvement in fulfilling one or more of the following:(a) direct Commonwealth constitutional and legal responsibilities in relation to the Games;(b) Commonwealth support to New South Wales, SOCOG and the Sydney Paralympic Organising Committee in staging the Games;(c) the Commonwealth strategy for maximising the economic benefits of the Games;(d) Commonwealth foreign policy objectives; and(e) senior Commonwealth officials required to represent or support their Minister in relation to the above roles.(2) No. The $850,000 only covers the purchase of tickets.(3) The criteria governing the use of tickets have not yet been finalised.9724(Question No. 756)7569724Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Attorney-General, 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 1998-99.9724Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(a) I am advised that the following sums were spent on purchasing new books in the periods referred to: (i) 1996-97—$68,815.59; (ii) 1997-98—$65,309.40; (iii) 1998-99—$17,986.44.Please note: These amounts are for expenditure on textbooks only and do not include expenditure on law reports, magazines, journals, CD Roms, newspapers etc.The amounts for the financial years 1996-97 and 1997-98 include figures for the Australian Government Solicitor's Libraries. Figures for portfolio agency libraries are not included.(b) Yes—a list is attached.AUTHORTITLEAkindemowo, OInformation technology law in AustraliaAmerican Society of International LawInternational maritime boundaries Vol IIIAusInfoLittle book of styleAustralia Parliament House of RepresentativesHouse of Representatives PracticeAustralia. Constitutional Convention (1998)Report of the Constitutional Convention, Old Parliament House February 1998Australian ArchivesFederation : the guide to recordsAustralian Bureau of StatisticsCorrection Services AustraliaMarch quarter 1998 Australian Bureau of StatisticsPopulation projectionsAustralian Institute of Health and WelfareHealth in Rural and Remote AustraliaAustralian Legal ConventionPapers 30th Convention 1997Australian Tax PracticeITAA 1997 Legislationmid year updateBailey, P. H.Bringing human rights to lifeBaker, Stewart & Paul HurstThe limits of trust: cryptography, governments and electronic commerceBalkin, RLaw of Torts 2nd ed.Ball, Desmond & David HornerBreaking the codes: Australia's KGB networkBartley,RegThe modern approach to statutory interpretationBates, Gerry & Zada LipmanCorporate liability for pollutionBayley, DavidPolice for the future.Bender, RalphLaunching and Operating Satellites, Legal IssuesBianco, David PPR News CasebookBirnie, P W & A E BoyleBasic documents on international law and the environmentBishop, JCriminal procedure in Australia 2nd ed(2 copies)Boele-Woelki, Katharina Internet : which court decides?Which law applies?Boer,Ben, Ross Ramsay, & Donald R RothwellInternational environmental law in the Asia Pacific.Borrie, Gordon & Nigel LoweLaw of Contempt 3rd ed 1996Briggs, AdrianCivil jurisdiction and judgments 2nd edBrown, DThe international law of the seaBrownlie, IanRule of law in international affairs: international law at the fiftieth anniversary of the United NationsBusiness Law Education CentreMedia law and practice seminar papersBusiness Law Education CentreAnnual joint ventures seminar papersBusiness Law Education CentreEnterprise bargainingButt, Peter & Robert D EaglesonMabo, Wik and native title 3rd edButterworths (Publishers)The New Corporations Law and RegulationsCaflisch, Lucius edThe Peaceful settlement of Disputes between StatesCameron, James & Karen Campbell edsDispute resolution in the World Trade OrganisationDispute resolution in the World Trade OrganisationCarey, Peter Blackstone's Guide to the Data Protection Act 1998Carney, Terry & David TaitThe adult guardianship experimentCastells, Manuel End of millenniumChapman, Simon.Over our dead bodies.Cho, George Geographical Information Systems and the LawChun Wei ChooThe Knowing Organization: how organizations use information to construct meaning, create knowledge and make decisions.Colvin, John H.C. & Graeme R.WatsonThe workplace relations handbook : a guide to the Workplace Relations Act 1996Conforti, BenedettoThe Law and Practice of the United NationsCope, MalcolmEquity : issues and trends Cornthwaite, Johnathan Intellectual. Property. @nd. the. InternetCrawshaw, R, BarryDevlin & Tom Williamson Human rights and policing.Cretney, S M & J M MassonPrinciples of family lawCretney, S MLaw, law reform and the familyCreyke, Robin & John McMillian edsThe Kerr vision of Australian administrative law—at the twenty-five year markCrock, Mary Immigration & refugee law in Australia(2 copies)Dawson, BrettThe evil deeds of the ratbag profession in the criminal justice systemDe Smith, S A & othersJudicial review of administrative actionMay 1998 supplement(3 copies)Dean, Mitchell edGoverning Australia: studies in contemporary rationalities of governmentDefence for Children InternationalTowards taking Australia's children seriouslyDenning, DorothyInformation warfare and securityDenza, EileenDiplomatic law 2nd edDepartment of Industrial RelationsThe APS AwardsDickey, AnthonyFamily lawDonnelly, AustinDo it yourself superannuation 2nd ed.Douglas, Roger & Melinda JonesAdministrative Law Commentary & materials 3rd edDugdale, A M & K M StantonProfessional Negligence 3rd edDupuy, Rene-Jean A Handbook on international organizations 2nd edEasteal, Patricia edBalancing the scales: rape, law reform and Australian culture.Eburn, Michael Emergency lawEdwards, Charles JChanging police theories for 21 st century societies(2 copies)Edwards, LilianLaw and the internet: regulating cyberspaceEnterprise Information ManagementEnterprise Legal Thesaurus 6th edEsty, Daniel CGreening the GATT; trade, environment and the futureEvans, Richard Lawful expressionFindlay, HA, Rebecca Bailey-Harris & Margaret OtlowskiFamily law in AustraliaFindlay, Mark The Globalisation of CrimeFindlay, Mark, Stephen Odgers & Stanley YeoAustralian criminal justice 2nd edFinn, D PEssays on law and government vol 1Fitzgerald, Anne et alGoing digital—legal issues for electronic commerce, multimedia and the Internet.Fitzroy legal ServiceLaw Handbook 1999Fleming, John GLaw of Torts 9th ed.Franck, Thomas M Fairness in international law and institutionsGahtan, Alan M, M Kratz and J MannInternet law ; a practical guide for legal and business professionals Galligan, Brian & Charles SampfordRethinking human rightsGiddings, JeffLegal aid in Victoria, at the crossroads againGilbert, Geoff Transnational fugitive offenders in international law Gillies, PBusiness Law 9th edGillooly, Michael Law of defamation in Australia and New Zealand (2 copies)Goldring, John, L MaherConsumer protection law 5th edGreen, MichaelFathers after divorce(2 copies)Gunningham, NeilSmart regulation: designing environmental policyGunther, Gerald and Kathleen M SullivanConstitutional law 13 edHanks, Peter & Deborah CassAustralian constitutional law : materials & commentary 6th edHaskell, G & Michael Rycroft edsNew space markets Hauritz, Marge et alJustice for people with disabilitiesHavermann, PaulIndigenous peoples' rights in Australia, Canada and New ZealandHeadon, David & Elizabeth Perkins, edsOur first republicansHorrigan, Bryan edGovernment Law and policy: commercial aspectsHutchinson, Anne-MarieInternational parental child abductionInternational Mediation Conference (2nd : 1996 :Adelaide, S. Aust.)Second International Mediation Conference : Mediation and cultural diversityJackson, John Howard The world trading system: law and policy of international economic relations 2d edJames, Matthew L.Electronic commerce: security issuesJones, MelindaGlobalisation human rights and civil societyKibel, Paul StantonThe earth on trial—environmental law on the international stageKinley, DavidHuman rights in Australian lawLane, P HAn introduction to the Australian constitutions 6th edLibrary of Congress (US)USMARC Concise Formats (1998)Ligertwood, A L CAustralian evidence 3rd ed(2 copies)Lindsey, Tim Indonesia: law and societyLoughlan, Patricia Intellectual property: creative and marketing rights.Mawby, R IPolicing across the world.McCullogh, CameronForeign Direct Investment in VietnamMcDonald, William F edCrime and law enforcement in the global village.McKenna, Mark The Captive Republic : a history of Republicism in Australia 1788-1995McMillian, John edThe AAT : twenty years forwardMelbourne University Law Review AssociationAustralian guide to legal citation(2 copies)Merrills, JGInternational Dispute Settlement 3rd edMichaelis, Frances B.International year of the oceans-1998 Australia's policies, programs and legislationMiller, Russell VAnnotated Trade Practices Act 20th 1999(2 copies)Mowat, Mary W Libraries and the Law: A guide to legal liabilityMullany, Nicholas J & Allen M LindenTorts tomorrowNew Zealand Privacy CommissionReport of the Privacy Commissioner on the First Periodic review of the Operation of the Privacy Act 1993 Dec 1998NGO Committee on DisarmamentDisarmament: the future of disarmament Nygh, P E Butterworths Australian legal dictionaryO'Brien, DavidSpecial leave to appeal : the law and practice of applications for special leave to appeal to the High CourtO'Connor, KevinThe new game : deregulation, privatisation and the state of the airline industryOdgers, J RSenate practiceOdgers, StephenUniform evidence law 3rd ed (3 copies)Palmer, AndrewPrinciples of evidenceParker, Stephen, Patrick Parkinson & Juliet BehrensAustralian family law in context : commentary and materials 2nd ed (2 copies)Pasuk PhongpaichitGuns, girls, gambling, ganjaPearce, D CDelegated legislation in Australia 2nd ed(2 copies)Posner, Richard AEconomic analysis of lawPritchard, Sarah Indigenous Australia, the United Nations and human rights.Richards, J R Transnational Criminal organizations, Cybercrime and money launderingRiley, JoellenWorkplace relations : a guide to the 1996 changesRoberts, GrahamEvidence : proof and practiceRonalds, Chris Discrimination law and practice(2 copies)Rose, Dennis Lewis's Australian bankruptcy law 11 edRoss, SEthics in law : lawyers' responsibility and accountability in Australia 2nd edRotenberg, MarcPrivacy law sourcebook: United States law, international law and recent developmentsRothwell, Donald R & Ruth DavisAntarctic environmental protection ; a collection of Australian and international instrumentsRoyal Historical Society of QueenslandGriffith, the law and the Australian ConstitutionRozenberg, PearlAustralian guide to uniform legal citationSamuel Griffith Society Upholding the Australian ConstitutionProceedings of the10th conference of the Samuel Griffith SocietySamuel Griffith SocietyUpholding the Australian ConstitutionProceedings of the 8th conference of the Samuel Griffith SocietySamuel Griffith SocietyUpholding the Australian ConstitutionProceedings of the 9th conference of the Samuel Griffith Society Sarnoff, IrvingInternational Instruments of the United NationsSarre, Rick and John TomainoExploring criminal justiceSassen, Saskia Globalization and its discontentsSchrijver, NicoSovereignty over natural resourcesSeddon, Nicholas & M P EllinghausCheshire and Fifoot's law of contract 7th Aust ed (2 copies)Shaw, MalcolmInternational law 4th edSimon ChapmanOver our dead bodies Simpson, R & G GriffithLaw and order legislation in the Australian states and territories, 1995-1998Slegers, Claudia & Supriya SinghSmall business and electronic commerceSmith, Robert EllisCompilation of state and federal privacy lawsStandards Association of AustraliaSAA HB104-1997Standards Association of AustraliaSAA HB99-1997(2 copies)Standards Association of AustraliaSAA HB4—1992Standards Association of AustraliaAS 4000-1997Standards Association of AustraliaMP 77Standards Association of AustraliaHB104Standards Association of AustraliaHB99Standards Association of AustraliaQuality Management & Quality Assurance:66 HandbookStandards Association of AustraliaAS/NZS 39005.5 1995 Guide to AS/NZS ISO 9001:1994 for education and trainingStandards Association of AustraliaSAA HB121-1998 (Y2K compliance for Pcs)(6 copies)Star, LeonieMaking sense of the Family Court (4 copies)Stone, Geoffrey Constitutional law 3 edSwain, MThe illicit drug problem: drug courts and other initiativesSweet & Maxwell (Publishers)Sweet & Maxwell's Family Law StatutesTaggart, Michael edThe province of administrative lawTetley, WilliamMaritime liens and claimsThacker, Anne edWomen and the lawTrindade, F A & Peter CaneLaw of torts in Australia 3rd edUnited NationsInternational complaints procedures under international human rights conventionUnited NationsUnited Nations International Study on Firearm ControlUnited Nations Colloquium on Progressive Development and Codification of International LawMaking better international law: the International Law Commission at 50United Nations Development ProgrammeHuman Development Report 1998United Nations. Codification DivisionAnalytical guide to the work of the International Law Commission 1949-1997Vermeesch, R B & K E LindgrenBusiness law of AustraliaVictorian Bar CouncilEquality of opportunity for women at the Victorian BarVicuna, F O The changing international law of high seas fisheriesWadham, John,Blackstone's Guide to the Human Rights Act 1998Wallace-Bruce, Nii LanteEmployee relations lawWallace-Bruce, Nii LanteThe settlement of international disputes: the contribution of Australia and New ZealandWeerasooria, W. S.Money laundering in AustraliaWilliams, GeorgeLabour law and the ConstitutionWilliams, GeorgeHuman rights under the Australian constitutionWinterton, George et alAustralian federal constitutional law: commentary and materials Zariski, A edEvidence and procedure in a federationZeller, BrunoInternational commercial law for businessZuckerman, A A S & Ross Cranston edsReform of civil procedure: essays on access to justice9730(Question No. 812)8129730McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 9 August 1999:(1) Will he bring up to date his answer to question No. 2610 (Hansard , 26 May 1998, page 3769) concerning the recognition of Taiwan as the Republic of China.(2) Is he able to say when members of the South Pacific Forum established diplomatic relations with (a) the People's Republic of China or (b) Taiwan.(3) Is he also able to say when and in what circumstances members of the Forum have contemplated switching relations (a) from Taiwan to the People's Republic of China or (b) from the People's Republic of China to Taiwan.(4) Has the subject recognition of Taiwan been considered at any meeting of the South Pacific Forum since his predecessor's answer to question No. 23 (Hansard , 21 August 1990, page 1210).9730Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) As at 20 August 1999, Taiwan had diplomatic relations with 28 countries. As at that date all 28 countries listed below recognised Taiwan as the "Republic of China": Republic of Malawi; Kingdom of Swaziland; Republic of Senegal: Burkina Faso; The Republic of Gambia; The Republic of Liberia; Sao Tome and Principe; The Republic of Chad; The Holy See; Belize; The Republic of Costa Rica; The Republic of El Salvador; The Republic of Guatemala; The Republic of Honduras; The Republic of Nicaragua; The Republic of Panama; The Republic of Paraguay; Dominican Republic; Commonwealth of Dominica; Grenada; Republic of Haiti; Saint Christopher-Nevis; St Vincent and the Grenadines; The Republic of Nauru; Tuvalu; Solomon Islands, Marshall Islands; Macedonia.According to Appendix 3-Table 3 of the 1998-99 Yearbook of International Organisations, Vol 2, Taiwan was in 1998 a member of 932 non-governmental organisations and 10 intergovernmental. The yearbook identified those latter organisations as: Afro-Asian Rural Reconstruction Organisation; Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC); Asian Productivity Organisation; International Cotton Advisory Committee; International Institute of Refrigeration; International Office of Epizootics; International Seed Testing Association; International Sericultural Commission; Pacific Basin Economic Council; World Trade Organisation (*application pending).Taiwan participates in intergovernmental and non-governmental international organisations under several different names. These include "Taiwan", "Taiwan, China", "Taiwan, Republic-China". Taiwan participates in APEC and the Olympic Games under the name "Chinese Taipei". Taiwan has applied for WTO membership under the name, "The Customs Territory of Taiwan, P'enghu, Kinmen, and Matsu". In addition, Taiwan participates in some international conferences and meetings as "China (Taipei)', "China-Taipei" or "Taipei, China".(2) With regard to (a), eight of the fourteen Forum island countries have diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. These are the Cook Islands (which established diplomatic relations in 1997), the Federated States of Micronesia (1989), Fiji (1975), Kirabati (1980), Papua New Guinea (1976), Samoa (1975), Tonga (1998), Vanuatu (1982).With regard to (b), four Forum island countries have relations with Taiwan. These are the Republic of the Marshall Islands (which established diplomatic relations in 1998), Nauru (1980), the Solomon Islands (1983) and Tuvalu (1978).(3) This is not an appropriate matter for me to comment on.(4) The subject of recognition of Taiwan has not been formally considered at any meeting of the South Pacific Forum since 21 August 1990.9730(Question No. 831)8319730Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 August 1999:(1) Has he accepted recommendation 1 of the expert report by Professor John Kaldor reviewing British and Australian studies of nuclear test veterans recommending that formal contact be established with the UK National Radiological Protection Board and Sue Rabbitt Roff to propose that cross-matching be undertaken of the two sets of multiple myeloma cases; if so, what action has the Government taken to pursue this proposal; if not, why.(2) Has he accepted recommendation 5 to establish registers and protocols for ongoing health assessments of Australian Defence Force personnel involved in deployments that have the potential to lead to hazardous exposures with long-term health consequences; if so, what will be the nature of such protocols and registers; if not, why not.(3) Did he announce that the Government will establish a scientific contact point on the health effects of ionising radiation; if so, how will he address Professor Kaldor's concern that any clearing house would need to be managed under a structure that would assure its clients of the independence of any advice that is provided.9731Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) On 27 July 1999, I wrote to Mr John Spellar MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary for Defence in the Government of the United Kingdom requesting his cooperation in arranging for the data compiled by Ms Rabbitt Roff and by the National Radiological Protection Board regarding the incidence of multiple myeloma among atomic weapons test "veterans" to be cross-matched as Professor Kaldor recommended. I also wrote to Ms Rabbitt Roff on 27 July 1999, provided her with a copy of Professor Kaldor's report and invited her comments regarding Professor Kaldor's report.(2) On 5 July 1999, I announced a new Defence Health Strategy. This strategy includes updating and validating the nominal rolls for all significant overseas deployments over the past decade. Nominal rolls will also be used to monitor the collective health of specific groups of deployed personnel. There will also be health studies for particular deployments where there is evidence of significant health problems from these deployments. In addition, there will be earlier and closer cooperation between the Departments of Defence and Veterans' Affairs over the health threats of, and the necessary precautions required by, given deployments.The Department of Defence has also developed an integrated occupational health and safety, compensation and rehabilitation management system which has the capacity to record exposures to specific health risks as well as actual injuries and incidents.(3) I did announce on 16 July 1999 that a scientific contact point would be established to gather international research on exposure to ionising radiation, which would be made available to participants in the British atomic weapons tests in Australia. I am working to establish a contact point at present which will meet the criteria recommended by Professor Kaldor. 9731(Question No. 832)8329731Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, upon notice, on 9 August 1999:(1) Which States have implemented administrative or legislative measures in line with the National Forest Policy Statement to provide approved private plantations and farm forestry projects with secure timber harvesting rights subject to appropriate conditions being met and what are the details of those measures.(2) Has the Commonwealth taken action to ensure that all remaining States introduce similar measures; if so, what.(3) Do States provide a specific legal mechanism to allow landowners to separate the ownership of trees from the ownership of the land on which they grow; if so, (a) which States, (b) what are the details of the mechanisms and (c) has the Commonwealth taken action to ensure that all remaining States introduce similar mechanisms; if so, what.(4) Has the Commonwealth conducted any review or studies since 1996 of the competitive impact on the plantation and farm forestry sector of State government pricing policies for timber harvested from native forests; if so, what are the details.(5) Has the Commonwealth conducted any review or studies since 1996 of the impact of local government planning codes and rating systems on the plantation and farm forestry sector; if so, what are the details.9731Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TuckeySJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Since the signing of the National Forest Policy Statement in 1992, most States have made progress in implementing arrangements to provide security in the form of `rights to harvest' for investors in timber plantations. The Commonwealth, the States and industry under the joint strategy, titled Plantations for Australia:—The 2020 Vision, have also recently committed towards a series of actions which are expected to provide clearer access to rights to harvest.Following is a summary of current State measures for rights to harvest, prepared from information available to my department:NSW The Timber Plantations (Harvest Guarantee) Act 1995 (The Harvest Guarantee Act) provides for accreditation of plantations by the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, on a voluntary basis. Accredited plantations are exempt from certain provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, the Heritage Act 1977 and the Local Government Act 1973. The Harvest Guarantee Act also provides for protection of the environment and provides for compensation in circumstances where harvesting must be suspended to protect wildlife values.Victoria Under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and in conjunction with Local Planning policy frameworks, timber production is an "as-of-right" activity in the system of rural zones introduced in 1997, subject to compliance with the State Code of Forest Practice. Local councils may require a permit for plantations above 40 hectares. Where a permit is not required, the developer must lodge a Plantation Development Notice advising location, extent, species, year of planting and expected year of harvest. A harvesting plan must be lodged prior to harvesting.Western Australia Specific legislation in relation to joint venture arrangements entered into by the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) provides harvest security for these growers.South Australia Under the Planning Act, local government has the right to determine land use. Environmental Management guidelines have been developed for plantation forestry by Primary Industries South Australia. Plantation forestry is not an "as of right use" in SA.Tasmania The Forest Practices Act 1985 provides for "Private Timber Reserves". Harvesting activity in Private Timber Reserves must be conducted in accordance with the Forest Practices Code, which is legally enforceable through the Forest Practices Board. No rights to harvest exist for plantations, which are not on Private Timber Reserves. The Forest Practices Code covers harvesting in plantations and native forest operations across all tenures and is legally enforceable through the Forest Practices Board.(2) and (3) (a) At the most recent meeting of the Ministerial Council on Forestry, Fisheries and Aquaculture, Ministers discussed the key priorities for further implementation of the Plantations 2020 Vision. One such priority was the need for legislative or regulatory changes at State level to simplify the planning approval procedures associated with establishing and harvesting plantations (including "right to harvest" and legislative arrangements to clarify ownership arrangements to recognise the rights of both tree growers and landholders).With regard to separation of ownership of trees from the land on which they grow, there is some form of legal mechanism available in all States.(3) (b) Details of legal mechanisms in States are available from respective state government agencies responsible for forestry. (4) No.(5) Yes.Planning for Plantations and Farm Forestry—Dec 1997, is a report commissioned by my department to examine the planning frameworks and planning requirements for local government in potential plantation regions and recommend a number of measures to address plantation planning issues.A Plan to achieve the Plantations 2020 Vision—March 1997, is a consultancy report prepared by the Centre for International Economics for the Standing Committee on Forests to report on how the industry's target of trebling Australia's plantations might be accomplished.9732(Question No. 842)8429732Edwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards83RCowanALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 11 August 1999:Is the Perth International Telecommunications Centre site at Landsdale, WA., large enough to provide full protection for the sensitivity of Telstra's radio frequency and communication network; if so, is a buffer zone required.9732McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:It is well known that there are a number of sources of interference to the operations at Landsdale/Gnangara located outside of the site. These sources of interference can be accounted for and managed so long as the rural (or an equivalent) zoning of the land surrounding Lansdale/Gnangara is retained. A "buffer zone" is not required.9732(Question No. 843)8439732Edwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards83RCowanALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 11 August 1999:Does Telstra consider there to be a difference between a buffer zone and a requirement for land surrounding its Perth International Telecommunications Centre, Landsdale site in WA to have restrictions on development; if so, what are the restrictions.9732McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:The term "buffer zone" generally describes an area of land surrounding a noxious or industrial land use in which no sensitive uses that would be affected by that industrial use can occur. The term is not applicable to Landsdale/Gnangara which is not an industrial use. Telstra does not ask for any additional restrictions on development over the land surrounding Landsdale/Gnangara, it simply advocates that due to a number of factors, including environmental, the existing rural zone should be retained, or if the zoning is to change, that a similar appropriate zone be adopted.9733(Question No. 844)8449733Edwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards83RCowanALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 11 August 1999:How many members of the Special Air Services had their medical classification downgraded from "Forward Everywhere" to "Medically Unfit" as a result of operational activity, in each year from 1979 until 1998.9733Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:To provide a complete response to the honourable member's question would require considerable time and resources, given the examination of thousands of individual paper records involved, and has been estimated to cost approximately $81,000 by my department. In the interests of efficient use of departmental resources, I am not prepared to authorise the time and effort required to provide the information.9733(Question No. 852)8529733McFarlane, Jann, MPMs Jann McFarlane83CStirlingALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 12 August 1999:(1) Further to his answer to question No. 789 (Hansard , 10 August 1999, page 6438), are Australia Post employees authorised to conduct passport interviews; if so which employees.(2) Has there been a change in policy since 1996 regarding who can conduct the interviews; if so, when did his department change its policy.(3) Is training given to Australia Post personnel in regard to the issuing of passports; if so, (a) what training is given and (b) is it (i) conducted by Passports Australia personnel on a one on one basis with Australia Post employees, (ii) conducted by Australia Post personnel on a one on one basis with Australia Post employees or (iii) in the form of a training video.(4) Does Passports Australia conduct a regular review process to ensure that passport interviews are conducted in line with Passports Australia's policy.(5) When passport renewal forms are lodged at a Post Office does Passports Australia require the person renewing the passport to attend an interview: if so, what mechanism does Passports Australia have to ensure that the interview is conducted in line with its guidelines.9733Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade signed an agreement with Australia Post on 27 June 1995 under which Australia Post performs certain functions as Agent for the department. These functions include providing a high quality interview service by trained and qualified personnel at the majority of its outlets. The Contract states that interviews must be conducted by responsible and mature permanent staff of Australia Post, or its sub-contractors as approved by the department, who are Australian citizens or permanent residents of Australia.(2) The Contract came into effect on 1 July 1995 and is due to expire on 30 June 2000. There has been no change to the Contract regarding who can conduct interviews.(3) Australia Post trains interview staff in respect of the passport functions they are required to perform. The department has developed training materials jointly with Australia Post and has provided a procedural Manual for interview staff. Training is provided by means of individual study of videos, computer-based presentations and workbooks. Training and testing is monitored centrally by Australia Post. The department also supports Australia Post's interview staff through provision of a 1800 telephone help line. All training and reference material was recently updated and re-issued following introduction of new passport application forms and interview processes.(4) On successful completion of training, interview staff are issued with an interviewer PIN to identify which applications they have processed. Regional passport offices identify and record interview errors, by PIN and type, on a central database. Consolidated error reports are produced each month and discussed in the monthly meetings between each State passport manager and his/her Australia Post State liaison officer. Departmental and Australia Post managers also discuss the reports to identify and address problem areas. Interviewers whose performance falls below the specified error-free rate may have their PIN number withdrawn.(5) PC7 passport renewal forms must be lodged in person. A streamlined interview is conducted to confirm the identity of the person lodging the form. The department monitors the quality of Australia Post interviews through the monthly error reports, liaison between State passport managers and Australia Post liaison officers and between the department and Australia Post.Any complaints directed to passport offices or the department about Australia Post interviews are addressed in the liaison between departmental and Australia Post managers. Australia Post has advised that clients can also have complaints about interviews investigated through the Australia Post Client Inquiry Line, 131118.