1999-09-023914REPS974701999-09-02Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Personal Explanations974709:31:009747Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?DG4Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHER—I claim to have been misrepresented by Richard Carleton.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member may proceed.DG4Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHER—Mr Richard Carleton made two accusations yesterday: firstly, that I had been aiding and abetting 60 Minutes and, secondly, that I was `in cahoots' with 60 Minutes . In clarifying this I need to make two quick points. An incident had occurred at Liquica on Monday afternoon which I witnessed in part involving a 60 Minutes team filming voters going to vote in the secret popular consultation, and they were being asked direct questions by a 60 Minutes team in a roped-off area. But I will leave that activity to one side for comment elsewhere.Subsequently, with part of the Australian observer team, I went to the Liquica police station at urgent request to find Richard Carleton under questioning and being abused by a leading member of the local and dangerous militia inside the Liquica police station. After some difficult negotiations conducted by the second secretary of the Australian embassy, the situation was in part defused. We were allowed to depart and take Richard Carleton and his team from the Liquica police station—where there were militia back out on the streets and creating roadblocks in the aftermath of that incident—and bring them back to the relative safety of Dili. But there was a condition, and that was that we immediately take them to the Dili police station.Upon arrival at the Dili police station there was considerable confusion and increasing tension as the police stepped up their calls for the media component of our convoy to be separated out from the Australian observer delegation. I note that one of the members of that delegation, the shadow minister for foreign affairs is in the chamber at this time. The 60 Minutes team was to be taken into the Dili police station for further interviewing, but by whom I did not know at that time.In the melee, I was faced with a split second decision as I became aware of the tapes, and four options ran through my mind very quickly. Firstly, use the diplomatic bag to get the tapes out of the situation. I rejected this. Secondly, use the RAAF aircraft, which brought our delegation back to Australia late yesterday. I rejected this. Thirdly, offer to get the material back to the Hotel Dili as I did not own the material, but it was material and other equipment belonging to the 60 Minutes team, to get it out of that police compound and back to where the 60 Minutes team were staying in the Hotel Dili. I decided to go with that option, because the fourth option was to let the tapes go in with the team into the Dili police station to be part of the interviews and whatever else might have happened in that situation.As a fellow Australian I made a split second decision that that would not have been correct in all the circumstances, and it was better to get the tapes away for the sake of Australia and the 60 Minutes team. I make no apology for making that split second decision. I did not touch the tapes at any stage, but I take full responsibility for the action I took in that particular circumstance.Finally, I would contend that this was in no way aiding and abetting 60 Minutes. It was trying to overcome a situation created by the irresponsible and reckless conduct of Richard Carleton in particular and one or two others of that media team. I separate that from the other Australian media up there who are doing some outstanding work. I wish all Australians up there in whatever capacity—and in fact all others—all safety in East Timor at this time.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I in fact allowed the member for Farrer a little more leniency than would normally be offered under a personal explanation. It would have been more appropriate for me to have extended to him the indulgence of the chair to make a statement like that. For that reason, I will extend indulgence—I would believe by agreement with the other members in the House—to the member for Kingsford-Smith.09:35:009748Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—I appreciate that very much, Mr Speaker. As a member of the delegation which was so outstandingly led by the member for Farrer, it is appropriate that I should make some remarks. Whilst I was not part of the convoy that Richard Carleton was following around, which was Mr Fischer's convoy, I had gone to another part of the island across in the west, Maliana, and had to return that afternoon through Liquica, the area where the Carleton incident occurred. In the whole of the day it was the only security problem that we faced directly, in that roadblocks were established after the incident and Senator Payne and I were forced to run the gauntlet of those.Our great concern was for the many journalists and international observers who had to travel that road later on in the afternoon without the benefit of the police escorts that were afforded to us. It was an incident that marred an otherwise enormously successful Australian contribution to election day observers, journalists and the parliamentary delegation itself, and it is extremely regrettable that Richard Carleton and these antics turned what was an enormously important event in East Timor into a media circus back at home.Miscellaneous974809:38:009748Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:Tariff Proposal No. 4 (1999)Customs Tariff Proposal No. 4 (1999), which I have just tabled, contains alterations to the Customs Tariff Act 1995. The alterations reinstate the five per cent rate of customs duty which applied prior to 1 September 1998 on certain goods classified in chapter 90 of the customs tariff.The alterations will operate from 3 September 1999.The goods in relation to which the alteration will apply are:. Certain drawing, marking-out and mathematical calculating instruments;. Certain wood or plastic rules;. Electrical test benches and certain machines for balancing mechanical parts;. Certain gas, electric and liquid meters; and. Steel tape measures.These products are currently free of customs duty following the implementation of the recommendations of the Industry Commission in its review of medical and scientific equipment.In implementing these recommendations, duty was removed from a wide range of goods, some of which were not medical and scientific equipment. Some Australian manufacturers have advised the government that the tariff reductions on such non-medical and non-scientific equipment have had an adverse effect on their manufacturing profitability. In response to these concerns, the five percent customs rate of duty is being reinstated on the goods which I have previously listed.A summary of the alterations contained in this proposal has been prepared and is being circulated for the information of honourable members.I commend the proposal to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Martyn Evans) adjourned.Bills9748r9109748Bill presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.974809:40:009748Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Bill 1999 implements the most comprehensive package of reforms to Australian copyright law since the enactment of the Copyright Act 1968. The reforms will update Australia's copyright standards to meet the challenges posed by rapid developments in communications technology, in particular the huge expansion of the Internet. This extraordinary pace of development threatens the delicate balance which has existed between the rights of copyright owners and the rights of copyright users. The central aim of the bill, therefore, is to ensure that copyright law continues to promote creative endeavour and, at the same time, allows reasonable access to copyright material in the digital environment.This bill and the recently passed Copyright Amendment (Computer Programs) Act 1999 are integral components in the government's strategy to develop a legal framework that encourages online activity and promotes the growth of the information economy. The information economy is developing from the revolutionary new opportunities for the use, storage and transmission of information being made possible by digital technology.Importantly, the reforms in the bill are consistent with new international standards to improve copyright protection in the online environment adopted in the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Copyright Treaty and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. Australia was an active participant in the Diplomatic Conference in December 1996 that agreed to the WIPO treaties, and the enactment of this bill will be a major step towards aligning our copyright laws with the obligations imposed by the treaties.The bill has been extensively revised since it was released for public comment as an exposure draft in February this year. The policy in the bill reflects a wide ranging and valuable consultation process with affected interests in relation to the exposure draft. The reforms in this bill are based largely on the proposals in the discussion paper entitled Copyright Reform and the Digital Agenda, which I released in conjunction with the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston, in July 1997. That discussion paper was also the subject of extensive consultation. The government has closely considered the outcomes of both consultation processes in formulating the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Bill 1999, which I am introducing today.Turning then to the major reforms proposed in the bill, the centrepiece is a new broadly based technology-neutral right of communication to the public. The new right will subsist as an exclusive right in literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, and in sound recordings, films and broadcasts.The new right of communication to the public will replace and extend the existing technology-specific broadcasting right which applies only to `wireless' broadcasts. It will also replace the limited cable diffusion right. The right of communication will encompass the making available of copyright material online, so as to provide protection to material made available through on-demand, interactive transmissions. An example of the exercise of this right would be the uploading of copyright material onto a server which was connected to the Internet.The new right will substantially improve protection for many important industries that publish or distribute copyright material on the Internet and will also protect copyright material included in cable pay TV broadcasts. Being a technology-neutral right, it will also mean that the development of new technologies such as `Internet broadcasting' will not require repeated technology-specific changes to the Copyright Act.To complement the introduction of the new right of communication to the public, the bill will introduce an important package of exceptions to that right. As far as possible, the proposed exceptions replicate the balance that has been struck in the print environment between the rights of owners of copyright and the rights of users. The extension of this balance into the digital environment was one of the fundamental principles underlying the 1996 WIPO treaties.The existing exceptions for fair dealing will apply to the new right of communication to the public. The fair dealing exceptions permit the use of copyright material for purposes including research or study, criticism or review, and reporting news.The new legislation also extends the existing exceptions for libraries and archives to the reproduction and communication of copyright material in electronic form. The library and archives provisions have been carefully reviewed to ensure that an appropriate balance is achieved between the rights of copyright owners and users. The definition of `archives' has been clarified to include museums and galleries which satisfy certain requirements currently specified in the act. This will allow such bodies to take advantage of the exceptions applying to archives. The extended exceptions in the bill will enable libraries and archives to undertake a vital role in providing reasonable access to copyright material in electronic form, whilst at the same time protecting new commercial markets for such material online.The reforms also extend the existing statutory licences in the Copyright Act for copying by educational institutions to the reproduction and communication of copyright material in electronic form. The new statutory scheme for the electronic use of copyright material by such institutions has been drafted in broad terms to enable it to adapt to future technological developments. The key to the new scheme is flexibility based on agreement between educational institutions, such as universities and schools, and the relevant collecting societies. I strongly urge, in the interests of both copyright owners and users, that the parties work together to reach agreement on issues such as process and the rate of equitable remuneration under the new scheme. However, the bill provides that, where agreement is not possible, the Copyright Tribunal has new jurisdiction to determine these matters.The bill establishes a similar statutory licence for the electronic use of copyright material by institutions assisting persons with print and intellectual disabilities.One of the government's central aims in introducing this legislation has been to ensure that the technical processes which form the basis of the operation of new technologies, such as the Internet, are not jeopardised. With this in mind, the new legislation includes exceptions for temporary copies made in the course of the technical processes of making or receiving a communication. Many temporary or incidental copies of copyright material are made in the course of making available and electronically transmitting copyright material on communication networks, including the Internet. The exception for temporary copies is intended to include the browsing of copyright material online.The bill introduces three new enforcement measures in response to the problems posed for copyright owners by new technologies. The first is the provision of criminal sanctions and civil remedies against persons who manufacture, deal in, import, distribute or make available online devices, or provide services, for the circumvention of technological protection measures designed to inhibit the infringement of copyright. Examples of such measures include password protection or computer program locks. The new enforcement measures are subject to important exemptions which will allow a person to undertake the proscribed activities for specific `permitted purposes'. These exemptions will facilitate the operation of specific exceptions to the rights of copyright owners and are vital for ensuring reasonable access to copyright material in electronic form. The `permitted purposes' relate to the operation of the exceptions for libraries and archives, educational institutions and government users. They also relate to the exceptions for the decompilation of computer software for the purposes of interoperability, error correction and security testing. A further exception to the enforcement measure provisions exists in relation to activities carried out for the purposes of national security and law enforcement.The second new enforcement regime is the provision of criminal sanctions and civil remedies against the intentional tampering or removal of electronic rights management information, or RMI. RMI typically includes details about the copyright owner and the terms and conditions on which the use of the material is or will be permitted. It is intended to include, for example, `digital watermarks' which are attached to or embodied in copyright material in electronic form. Certain activities in relation to copyright material from which the attached RMI has been removed or altered have also been proscribed.The use of technological protection measures and RMI by copyright owners is likely to increase in the near future as systems for the online trading of copyright material are adopted. The government wants to ensure that such systems are protected by the law. The two enforcement schemes described will provide copyright owners and licensees with a powerful weapon against the piracy of copyright material online. The schemes will allow copyright owners to confidently establish new commercial markets for copyright material in the knowledge that this legislation will offer them the tools to protect that material.The third enforcement regime will provide criminal sanctions and civil remedies against persons who manufacture, deal in, import, distribute, or make available online, devices for the unauthorised reception of encoded subscription broadcasts. Such devices include decoders which allow the unauthorised reception of pay TV signals. These provisions will enable subscription broadcasters to control the reception of their encoded broadcasts.The amendments in the bill also respond to the concerns of carriers and carriage service providers, such as Internet service providers, about the uncertainty of the circumstances in which they could be liable for copyright infringements by their customers. The provisions in the bill limit and clarify the liability of carriers and Internet service providers in relation to both direct and authorisation liability. The amendments also overcome the 1997 High Court decision of APRA v. Telstra in which Telstra, as a carrier, was held to be liable for the playing of music-on-hold by its subscribers to their clients, even though Telstra exercised no control in determining the content of the music played.Typically, the person responsible for determining the content of copyright material online would be a web site proprietor, not a carrier or Internet service provider. Under the amendments, therefore, carriers and Internet service providers will not be directly liable for communicating material to the public if they are not responsible for determining the content of the material. The reforms provide that a carrier or Internet service provider will not be taken to have authorised an infringement of copyright merely through the provision of facilities on which the infringement occurs. Further, the bill provides an inclusive list of factors to assist in determining whether the authorisation of an infringement has occurred.Finally, the reforms provide a statutory licence scheme for the payment of equitable remuneration to underlying rights holders whose works are used in retransmitted broadcasts. Currently, retransmitters, such as cable pay TV operators, are able to retransmit free-to-air broadcasts without having to pay remuneration to the owner of the copyright in the broadcast or the owners of copyright in the underlying works contained in the broadcast, such as any music, written material or film. The Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Bill will address this situation. The owners of copyright in a broadcast will be able to take advantage of the new right of communication to the public, which will allow them to control the retransmission of their broadcasts irrespective of the means of delivery of the service.In relation to the underlying rights holders, the bill provides a statutory licence scheme for such retransmissions. One or more collecting societies, to be approved by me, will collect and distribute payments under the scheme. In default of an agreement between the collecting society and the retransmitter, the rate of equitable remuneration will be determined by the Copyright Tribunal.In this regard, the scheme provided by the bill is consistent with the related amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 proposed in the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 . That bill is currently before the House. Those amendments will require retransmitters, subject to certain exceptions, to seek the consent of the owners of the copyright in the broadcast signal before retransmitting the broadcast. The enforcement provisions in the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 are intended to operate on an interim basis until the amendments contained in this bill commence.These are the major reforms proposed in the bill. It is intended that the bill commence six months after it receives royal assent. This period will allow affected parties to renegotiate, where appropriate, current arrangements in light of the comprehensive amendments provided by the bill.The amendments provided by this bill are at the cutting edge of online copyright reform and clearly place Australia among the leaders in international developments in this area. As a result, in certain areas of the bill we are entering uncharted waters. New technologies are changing rapidly and we wish to ensure that an appropriate balance is maintained between the rights of copyright owners and the rights of copyright users under the Copyright Act. I therefore propose that the operation of the legislation, particularly the extended statutory licence scheme for educational institutions and the new enforcement measure provisions, should be reviewed within three years of the commencement of the legislation. This bill will update Australian copyright law for the 21st century and its passage will be a key milestone in the successful development of our information economy. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Martyn Evans) adjourned.Bills9752r9179752Bill presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.975209:54:009752Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The bill has two primary purposes. The bill's first object is to strengthen arrangements for dealing with investigations of corruption by public officials, paedophilia and organised crime. The bill's second object is to implement a recommendation of the Telecommunications Interception Policy Review to continue the provisions allowing interception warrants to be issued by nominated members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.The interception of telecommunications by law enforcement agencies, and subsequent dealing with intercepted information, are regulated by the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. That act provides a detailed scheme of control designed to protect the privacy and confidentiality of communications passing over the Australian telecommunications system. Intrusion into a communication, even by law enforcement agencies, is subject to strict control. Interceptions can only be carried out by declared Commonwealth and state law enforcement agencies and only under the authority of a warrant.I now turn to the provisions in the bill that are directed against the problem of corruption by public officers, paedophilia and organised crime. The bill contains a number of provisions relating to the Queensland Crime Commission and the Western Australian Anti-Corruption Commission. The Commonwealth supports the government in Queensland in its moves to deal with paedophilia and organised crime and the Western Australian government in its efforts to excise corruption, crime and serious improper conduct of public officers. The Commonwealth is ready to assist in providing the Queensland Crime Commission and the Western Australian Anti-Corruption Commission with appropriate and effective powers. Experience has shown that covert surveillance is one of the most powerful investigative tools for uncovering and prosecuting crime.The bill will amend the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 to permit these commissions to receive and use intercepted information originally obtained by other law enforcement agencies where the information relates to a matter the commissions may investigate. The amendments also open the way for a declaration to be made which will permit either commission to apply for warrants on their own behalf once the Attorney-General, as the responsible minister, is satisfied that the statutory pre-conditions of a declaration have been fulfilled in those states. These amendments will provide both agencies with the best tools for fighting crime. The amendments do not involve any effective widening of interception powers.I shall now address the aspect of the bill which relates to the power of nominated members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to issue warrants. Section 3 of the Telecommunications (Interception) and Listening Device Amendment Act 1997 provides that the power of nominated AAT members to issue warrants will expire on 31 December 1999. Section 103A of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 required a review be undertaken on amendments made by the Telecommunications (Interception) and Listening Device Act 1997. This included the provisions conferring a power on nominated members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to issue warrants.The review found that the practice of nominated members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal issuing warrants has worked well. They bring to the task a seriousness of purpose and commitment to principles of accountability which serves the public interest well. The government believes that the nominated members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal have demonstrated both the independence and experience necessary for this role. In response to the review, the government will repeal section 3 of the Telecommunications (Interception) and Listening Device Amendment Act 1997, thereby allowing nominated members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to continue to issue warrants. The amendments have no significant financial impact. I commend the bill to the House, and I present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Martyn Evans) adjourned.Bills9753r9169753Bill presented by Mr Tuckey, and read a first time.975309:59:009753Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The government is committed to encouraging regional economic and jobs growth in an innovative timber industry, whilst also balancing responsible environmental concerns.An inadvertent consequence of the passage of the overall package of amendments to the modified ANTS Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme is that the forestry and timber processing industries would have been required to pay approximately 8c per litre more for off-road use of fuel than other agricultural industries. The intention of the government was always that these industries would receive the same rebate amount. The amendment contained in this bill ensures that this commitment is kept.The full rebate will be payable for fuel purchased for eligible forestry activities from 1 July 2000, and this amendment aligns the diesel rebate rate for forestry use with the rebate rate for agriculture.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum, which I present to the House. I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Martyn Evans) adjourned.Bills9753r9139753Bill presented by Mr Anthony, and read a first time.975310:01:009753Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill gives effect to a number of measures announced in the government's 1999-2000 budget. It also contains two non-budget measures that will assist in the effective transition to, and operation of, the new family assistance arrangements as well as the Bonuses for Older Australians scheme.This bill ensures that, in determining the actual means of a family for youth allowance purposes, the concession relating to income from employment is available regardless of the type of employment. Currently, income derived from employment in a family's business or farm by the youth allowance applicant does not attract the concession. This is inequitable and fails to recognise the particular labour market disadvantage facing young people in rural and remote areas. This measure will extend the concession to include all employment, thus ensuring the concession is applied equitably.This bill also provides for new income support arrangements for adults sharing the care of a child. Under current rules, only one person can qualify for parenting payment in respect of a child. When adults share care equally, Centrelink staff must decide, often on the basis of minor distinctions, which adult will receive parenting payment. If the other adult is unemployed, they may have to claim youth allowance or Newstart allowance and be subject to the normal activity test obligations. That approach fails to recognise that each adult has both caring responsibilities and a work force capacity.This measure recognises the constraints on labour force participation imposed by caring responsibilities and requires adults to participate only to the level of their capacity. Adults with over 60 per cent care of a child or children will be able to qualify for parenting payment. Providing other qualification criteria are met, adults sharing the care of a child within a 40 per cent to 60 per cent band will be eligible for youth allowance or Newstart allowance with a modified activity test. This recognises the labour force capacity of both adults and facilitates a balance between work and caring responsibilities.This bill also simplifies the operation of the concession that exists in relation to student boarders under the family actual means test. The existing complex formula is replaced by a fixed amount of allowable spending. The amount has been set to ensure there are no losers from this initiative. The measure increases transparency for the customer, as they will know precisely what their entitlement is, and simplifies administration.The bill also extends the eligibility for student financial supplement scheme loans. The 1996 paper released by the National Board of Education, Employment and Training advised that the isolated student participa tion rate in tertiary education was only 57 per cent and that financial support was a key barrier to continuing education. This measure will immediately alleviate financial barriers to participation in tertiary education for rural and remote students by extending the eligibility for student financial supplement scheme loans.The bill will also facilitate the transition to, and the operation of, the new family assistance arrangements and the Bonuses for Older Australians scheme, both of which will be the responsibility of the Family Assistance Office. As the agencies which comprise the Family Assistance Office have shared customers, this provides for the agencies to lawfully share information with the intention of ensuring the successful and smooth operation of those arrangements.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Martyn Evans) adjourned.Bills9754r8859754Debate resumed from 1 September, on motion by Dr Kemp:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr Lee moved by way of amendment: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".10:06:009754Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—If you ask any parent what the most important years of schooling are, you will hear the same answer almost every time. While there will be some concern for the senior secondary years, especially when students face examinations such as the Higher School Certificate in New South Wales, the greatest worry for parents is that their children should master the basics of literacy and numeracy in their middle years of schooling.Without these skills, students cannot complete the more specialised requirements of higher education. They cannot develop the vocational skills which will enable them to obtain employment, and they will have difficulty coping in the world of today. I have always found it surprising when talking to other parents that, while they may believe that literacy and numeracy standards have slipped, they do not seem to think that is the case for their own child's school.No matter how black a picture the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs wishes to paint of the standards that his testing has revealed, for a great majority of parents, the local primary school is doing a good job. Now it may be that this is because parents have more to do with their local primary school. When you look at the participation of parents in primary school activities, you will find that greater numbers are involved in parents and citizens associations, mothers clubs and fundraising committees than in secondary schools. It may also be as a result of a closer relationship between parents and the class teacher in the primary school situation.Whatever the reason, in my experience, parents are relatively happy with their local primary school. This would account for the fact that growth in demand for private secondary schools has been greater than that for private primary schools. For many parents, their choice is for their child to attend the local primary school but to then enrol them in a private secondary school.These middle years of schooling, taking in the later years of primary and up to year 10 of secondary school, should be seen as critical to ensuring that all school children achieve minimum levels in literacy and numeracy. But testing alone does not improve results. It does not matter how many times you weigh the pig, it does not get any fatter. You have to feed the pig to achieve that result. States which have been conducting basic skills testing for more than a decade appear only now to realise that.New South Wales recently announced that the basic skills test results from primary schools would be passed on to secondary schools. Parents and students can now expect that problems identified in years 3 and 6 may continue to receive remedial attention in early secondary years. Two things have prevented this so far: firstly, the mistaken belief that basic skills testing was an end in itself and once you identified a problem, it would go away; and, secondly, the lack of resources.Apart from the political benefits of testing, its only use has been to give parents a rough guide as to how their child is progressing at school. Basic skills tests are seen by parents as a yardstick that they can measure their child's performance against all others in their state or nationally. But what do the results mean? Does a poor school mean that my kid is dumb or lazy or both? Does it mean that my child's teacher is not competent? Does it mean that my child's non-English speaking background is a factor? Does it mean that my child's school is underresourced?Testing does not give the answers to these questions. It could, but that would ruin the plot. The minister has his own plans. To be a great education minister, he has to solve a big problem. He has to recognise the crisis and be seen to do something about it and then he can claim the credit for solving the problem. It is the oldest trick in the political book—create a problem then come riding in on your white charger to rescue the situation.That is why the minister threatened to publish the national year 3 reading data last April. That is why he has tried to blame everyone from state governments to teacher unions for the crisis. He refuses to acknowledge that New South Wales has had basic skills testing for more than a decade or that Victoria and South Australia are now in their fifth year of testing. He has to be seen as the one pushing the issue. That way he can claim full credit for any improvement.It is a bit like placing your bet when the horses are already in the straight. Ten years after the states have begun to address the problem, along comes the minister ready to claim the credit for any measured improvement. That is why even Liberal education ministers are critical of this minister's grandstanding. I could accept that the minister had a legitimate role to play in this matter if the government were proposing a real solution to the problem. Instead, we find another bandaid.As I said earlier, basic skills testing would not, in itself, improve literacy and numeracy standards. The goals of the national literacy and numeracy program are commendable, but the level of funding this government is prepared to outlay is grossly inadequate. All the government came up with is $36 million this year—$36 million to provide minimum standards of literacy and numeracy for students in our schools.It says a lot about the priorities of this government when you see this figure in the context of this year's budget. Looking at all new expenditure for the budget this year, we can see that it gives, on average, $210 per year to students in private schools, but only $10 to students in public schools. If literacy and numeracy are so important, why is the great bulk of new Commonwealth expenditure on education going to private schools? Just what are this government's priorities when it comes to education? As far as funding goes, we can clearly see that this government talks a lot about literacy and numeracy but, when it comes to the crunch, its funding priorities are not what they are claimed to be.If the government were serious about improving literacy and numeracy, it would be devoting much more in the way of funding to the most basic of education objectives. Its strategies would be looking at providing resources in the area where they are most needed. It would be committed to directing those resources into the classrooms where learning takes place. It would be doing much more than just talking about the problem. The whole issue would be more than just an ego trip for the minister. Instead of having a crisis of his own making which he can then claim credit for overcoming, we could continue to work cooperatively with the states to develop the means of improving the literacy and numeracy standards of all school children in Australia.The other part of the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999 that I would like to comment on is the provision of some $26 million for the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools strategy. The Fowler electorate has the highest proportion of people of Asian descent of all electorates. Over 23 per cent, almost a quarter, of the electorate are of Asian descent. Many school children in the electorate come from homes where Asian languages are spoken and many are fluent in both English and the language of their parents. The Chinese languages, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Lao, Thai, Tagalog, Bahasa, Hindi, Tamil and, depending on your Asian geography, Arabic are spoken in many homes.Regrettably, we risk losing the invaluable resource these language skills represent. For those families dedicated to ensuring that their original language is maintained, a system of Saturday schools has provided language and cultural classes. Attending Saturday schools involves some sacrifice on the part of students and parents, in particular their time. There is also concern that work completed at Saturday schools does not receive the recognition it deserves.A priority of the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools strategy must be to develop the language skills of students in areas such as the electorate of Fowler, which I represent, to ensure that language skills are not lost. A further requirement should be to develop the reading and writing skills of Asian language speakers. While many children have retained the language of their parents without formal instruction, their reading and writing skills in the language are poor. Whilst some may argue for an even spread of this funding, I believe that by concentrating on students with a high interest and some existing knowledge of an Asian language, the program would be far more successful.The benefits of maintaining a multilingual population are enormous. International com munication with Asia is a requirement for Sydney to become a major regional centre. The opportunities for call centre type operations are great. Two weeks ago I visited the Centrelink call centre located in my electorate. Indeed, it is in the same building as my office. The Liverpool centre provides the national facility for callers with languages other than English. Callers in almost all languages spoken in Australia are able to be answered by an officer fluent in the caller's language. Without the need for an interpreter, the officer is able to deal directly with the client in their own language. This has been achieved without any great expense in language training. The staff already possessed those skills.This language resource is also available for commercial organisations. The people have the skills—they learned them at home—and they require little or no further language training. For future generations, however, there are no guarantees that children will continue to speak the language of their parents and grandparents. We have already seen this occur with the children of European migrants. We must not continue to squander this valuable resource. Programs such as the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools strategy are essential. They should be targeted to areas where there is already a high proportion of Asian speakers. One of the most important objectives of the strategy must be to ensure that the language skills base that we have is not lost.Labor could not oppose measures which increase spending on education, but we are certainly critical of the inadequate amounts contained in this bill. In relation to the provision of funding for the literacy and numeracy program, it should be seen as a welcome but totally inadequate contribution to this critical area of education. Again, with the funding proposed for the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools strategy, it is a case of too little but, hopefully, not too late.10:19:009757Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the presence of Charlestown Public School in the gallery. I would like to welcome them to Parliament House. I think it is highly appropriate that they should be here when we are debating this issue, because Charlestown Public School is a great public school and bears testimony to the value of public education here in Australia. It is one of the schools that this government's policies are disadvantaging. All those children up in the gallery are victims of this government.The Howard government promised the people of Australia an education budget, one that would meet the educational needs of all Australian students. But it failed and this legislation before us today, the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999 , is a testimony to its failure.We live in a changing world. Once having an economy based on strong primary industry would have ensured wealth and national prosperity. Now, however, this is not enough. Now it is knowledge and expertise that ensure that same wealth, and that starts in the schools and that is what this government is attacking. If Australia is to maintain a high standard of living and the quality of life that this ensures, then we as a nation must make a commitment to education—education at all levels, primary, secondary and tertiary; and education for all Australians, not just an elite few who attend private schools.Education is the key to success, both within Australia and on the world stage. If we do not have strong education within our country, we are going to continue to have high levels of unemployment, we are going to have some people in our country who can enjoy the fruits of success—those who attend the private schools that this government is so committed to funding—and then we are going to have those other Australians who are going to be forced to live in poverty and take second best all their lives.I am really shocked that a government is so sectional in its interests that it will not care for all Australians. On the world market, if Australia is to be a competitive nation and take advantage of the advances in technology, research and development, we must have a sound educational base. Without a sound educational base, Australia will fail and as a country we will become more and more disadvantaged.Historically, if you worked hard in this country you were guaranteed success. It did not matter whether you had a sound educational background because hard work was once enough to help you achieve. But, unfortunately, the world has changed. Along with that change there is a need for countries to make a commitment to education. It is those countries that make the commitment to education and fund education for all people which succeed. If people do not have skills and education, they are going to be left behind. That is what is happening in this country. We are seeing the development of a two-tiered system. Countries that invest in education do have that knowledge and expertise. We are in a situation now where we live in a high-tech society, where investing in information technology and other high-tech industries guarantee success. It is those countries world wide that have made that investment who are succeeding.If Australia is to embrace the new millennium, then we must be an educated country where all Australians have equal opportunity to access quality education—all Australians, not just some Australians. Unfortunately, this government fails to do this. It particularly fails Australian children, Australian children like the children from Charlestown Public School who are here in the gallery today. In failing to provide equal quality educational opportunities to all Australian students and children, it is condemning Australia to mediocrity and to the two-tiered divided society I was speaking of—those with knowledge, those with education, those with skills, those who have the opportunity to succeed and prosper and those who do not have education, those who do not have knowledge and those who do not have skills.The key underlining factor in all this is education, because a person's ability to access education determines who a person is and what a person will achieve in life. I believe it is the right of every Australian child to be able to have that quality education and to be able to have equal opportunity, not to be treated as a second-class citizen because they attend a public school. Let us face it, that is the kind of school most Australian students attend. This government is driven by its philosophical commitment to the private sector. That is why it has invested $210 per student in private schools whilst only investing $10 per student in public schools.The children at Charlestown Public School are disadvantaged. They are only being given $10 per student in this budget whilst if they went to King's or Sydney Grammar they would be getting $210 per student. I find that despicable. Despite the fact that 70 per cent of all students in this country go to public schools, this government is putting money towards the private sector at the expense of public school students. Some 21 times more funding is going to private schools than public schools. That is just a disgrace.The ideologues on the other side of this House are determined to undermine everything that is public. Whenever they have a chance they attack the public sector. Be it education, be it health, be it telecommunications, be it any industry whatsoever, this government attacks the public sector. We have seen what has happened in Centrelink. We have seen what has happened with the CES. We have seen what has happened to all the public enterprises within this country. And who is disadvantaged? The people of Australia. It is the majority of the people of Australia who are disadvantaged. There are an elite few who benefit from these policies, but overall it is the people of Australia who are disadvantaged.It advantages the wealthy. It advantages the people who have money, education and resources. It disadvantages the average Australian, the average Australian that we in this House legislate for and should protect. It subsidises the wealthy at the expense of the average Australian. It is a kind of reverse concept of cross-subsidisation. I have always been under the impression that cross-subsidisation is to create some sort of equality in the country to help those people who may be a little more disadvantaged. But, unfortunately, this government has a different concept of cross-subsidisation. They believe that you should subsidise the wealthy, those people who already have resources and knowledge. I really find this quite despicable.I have a letter from Caves Beach Public School, another very fine school within the Shortland electorate. Just after the budget, they wrote to me and said:We the teachers of Caves Beach Public School wish to register our disgust at the funding allocation in the Federal Budget for children in our care.They are children in the care of the teachers of a fine public school. The letter goes on to state:$10 additional funding for each child in Public Schools compared to $220 for each child attending Private Schools is grossly unfair and discriminatory.Maybe you could address this injustice and voice our concerns in Parliament.I have done that. It is signed by the teachers of Caves Beach Public School. They are right to be concerned about the direction this government is taking education in Australia.This is not a government for all Australians. It is a government for an elite few. In education terms, it is making a commitment to 30 per cent of Australian students. Some 30 per cent of Australian students will have increased funding. They will be able to get more computers in their schools and they will have access to special arts, music and elite sporting programs. Schools like King's will be able to have their great rugby sides. They will be able to encourage students to attend their schools and participate in their elite programs because they are subsidised.Overall, this government only pays lip service to education. How can any government that has reduced the percentage of GDP spent on education, research and training from 2.99 per cent to 2.53 per cent claim to be committed to education? The figures do not add up. If it were committed to education it would increase the percentage of GDP spent on education.It is interesting to note that a 1998 OECD indicators study by the Centre for Education Research and Innovation entitled Education at a glance noted that countries that have higher than average enrolment rates also spend more of their GDP on education. Higher enrolments usually mean more money spent on education. The report said that a notable exception is Australia, which has an above average enrolment rate and only an average percentage of GDP spent on education. In other words, we have a high average rate of enrolments but we are not committing the funds to make sure those young people enrolled in education actually benefit from their enrolment. They are getting a second-class education because this government will not fund education. They do not have second-class teachers. There is a lack of resources due to the policies of this federal government.There is a lack of commitment by this 1950s style government to adequately fund the demands of education in Australia. I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, that those on the other side of this House would like to see class sizes of 40 plus like you and I were in. The government has a 1950s mentality. It is constantly looking back to the 1950s for inspiration rather than looking ahead to make sure that we are there to embrace the new millennium.Given this government's budget initiative to increase funding to private schools at the expense of government schools, the logical conclusion is that the schools that 70 per cent of Australian students attend are not going to get anywhere near their share of the education dollar. This government is attacking the schools that the majority of Australians go to; it has a hatred for the public system. As such, I believe it has a hatred for the average, ordinary Australian students who attend those schools. It is elitist and has this born to rule mentality. It wants to make sure that its friends who are part of this born to rule set continue to maintain their position. It has a very elitist approach to education, as with everything else.This is not the only attack the government has waged on public schools. Through its enrolment benchmark adjustments, John Howard, his ministers and the government have ripped $20 million out of public schools. There has been an increase of 9,000 children attending public schools, yet, because of this benchmark, there is $20 million less to go around in those public schools. Because of this government's program, those schools are getting fewer resources and the education of those 9,000 students is suffering.It is unfair and it is driven by a right-wing agenda based on its ideological obsession and hatred of any public organisation: if something is not private then it is not effective or efficient and not economically sound. On the other side of this House, we have the ultimate in economic rationalists—people driven by their philosophy.We have noticed that the government has heralded the funding of literacy and numeracy programs. This is a very noble policy and we should support it. But literacy and numeracy is not about testing every Australian to see whether they can read or write. It is about ensuring that the resources and programs are in the schools, it is about acknowledging the school programs which, at the moment, work and it is about moving on.As the member for Fowler mentioned, in New South Wales we have had basic skills testing for some time now. This federal government are seeking to reinvent the wheel. They are heralding their great commitment to literacy and numeracy, but really they are making a commitment to testing. Anything the government can do to increase the level of literacy amongst Australians is to be commended, but I am sure the way they are going will not work. Everything this government does is about cutting back, testing, assessing and saying, `We are the best. We are making this commitment.' Let us see some results.One interesting fact is that in this budget the government promised to introduce a national development program for teachers. The program is there, but where is the funding for it? No money has been put aside for this. There is no dollar commitment to the national development program for teachers. If you make a commitment to increase the professional development of teachers surely you have to fund the programs. They do not run by themselves. I know that schools, particularly within the public sector, by virtue of this government's vendetta against them do not have the money to fund those programs themselves. If you are going to have a program for the professional development of teachers, you need to fund it. I think that the government probably needs to withdraw its legislation and bring it back with some funding details for this program. This government has no commitment whatsoever to public education. It has attacked the public education system at every turn. It has starved our primary and secondary school students that are attending public schools of funding—and it is getting harder and harder every day. I believe this government stands condemned for its philosophical commitment to the private sector at the expense of the public sector.10:38:009760Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—This bill, the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999 , provides funding for the national literacy and numeracy plan for literacy improvement strategies for the middle years of schooling and extends funding for Asian languages and studies in Australian schools. It also increases the level of capital funding for non-government schools by $10.1 million, and provides a measly $1.9 million for short-term emergency assistance during the transition period to the new SES funding model. It also fiddles around with changing in the act the name of the literacy program to the Literacy and Numeracy Program, which supposedly makes it more encompassing to somebody.What worries me about the approach this government has taken to curriculum and funding is its assumption that everybody who goes to school is capable of the same rate of learning. This government has a tendency to think that people learn at the same time and that they can be made to learn. It seems to be in the minister's mind that there is some simplistic way that people learn. The government also assumes that those who achieve or have the highest incomes are those who should gain the most from funding. I have no problem with some funds going to private schools to help develop their programs for those they support in the community, but there should be at least equal amounts available to the state schools which are the basis of our education system. It does not make sense to cut children off from education programs that are beyond just literacy and numeracy. It will be back to the Dickens days with the poor only being allowed to read and right and do a bit of counting. They will be cut off from any real educational activities where they can learn skills to give them broader opportunities to enhance themselves as human beings.This week is Literacy Week. I have heard nothing from the government about it—no banner headlines of what they have achieved, no encouragement for those adults who are still struggling. What is this government doing? Let me tell you what it is doing. It is systematically cutting off all funding for programs that resource and organise voluntary literacy programs. I will repeat that: it is systematically cutting off all funding for programs that resource and organise voluntary literacy programs. We have a minister who stands up in this parliament and says, `I am involved and this government wants to encourage lifelong learning.' But the government is taking away resources to enable this to be achieved. It is reducing people's opportunity to learn for life. These programs have been the backbone of the effort to get the many people who have been unable to learn at school back to the learning process. Teachers have spent thousands and thousands of hours working with people who have never been able to read and write properly to get them back to work in a more rewarding and compassionate way. But this government is systematically cutting off all funding for programs that resource and organise voluntary literacy programs. I was horrified to learn that the group in Tasmania that once helped me many years ago is on its knees and is desperately trying to find ways to keep its program going.This government, this minister, are making a point of putting hundreds of people on the scrap heap in punishing them for not learning when they were at school. Forced learning in TAFEs and schools is not the answer. Saying, `If you don't learn we won't pay you the dole,' is not a process which will achieve results. There is a whole manner of mechanisms to encourage people to learn and to undertake programs. Standing over them with a big stick—which seems to be the approach of this government and the preferred option of this minister—will achieve very little. By all means, have programs to improve the opportunity for young people to learn, but you cannot cut them off as a proportion of society and punish them if they do not learn. You cannot and should not punish people if they did not learn at school. This government seems to think that is the approach that should be taken.Education cannot be privatised or, to be precise, degovernmentalised completely. Education programs and directions are the responsibility of government. Education policy must be set by taking into account the world in which we live and the needs of those who are the likely employers of those people.We have a moral responsibility to help people to continue to learn throughout their lives, whether they are working or not. People who have benefited from learning can especially help others, especially their young, to develop an interest in learning. Half the battle, as any educator will tell you, is to get people to think about learning and to take on the learning process, to believe that they can gain from learning and participating in the process of taking in information.Yesterday morning I was reading the Australian newspaper and I was interested to note a whole section of it devoted to our young sports people and their achievements. There was a little piece at the bottom called their `report card', in which their various school sporting achievements were noted—but nothing about whether they had managed to learn to read and write or had learnt to spell. Fine, I know Australians love their sport, and I do as well and have participated in sport all my life. But there are no double-page spreads on those who have achieved national mathematics prizes. Where are the in-depth articles about how the international science winner undertook his or her prize-winning paper?I had to battle to get coverage for one of the private schools in Launceston, St Patrick's College, a couple of years ago. They had an exchange between Ireland and Launceston with a couple of students who undertook to do a science program measuring the light in the mall in the Launceston area and the light in Dublin when they went over there. They had an enthusiastic teacher and she was going on the trip with them. We battled and we got that together, but it was hard to get any recognition for that. We need to do that. There needs to be that recognition and there need to be opportunities for that to be highlighted.What about a monthly feature for all those young adults who read a whole book for the very first time? And what about a thankyou feature for all those thousands of volunteers who help people of all ages redefine their lives by being able to pick up a newspaper and actually read it, or calculate their weekly budget or go to the bank and write a cheque and sign it with their own name and write the figures across the cheque? Those people are worth recognising and are certainly worth supporting with the small amounts of money which this government is tearing away from them, from the organisational activity which needs to go on for them to be able to carry out their volunteer work.Our values are really up the creek. I do not believe the media helps very much. They say that good news stories do not sell newspapers or bring in electronic advertising. I do not think that is really true. I think people in our community really do care about other people and that they want to hear and read stories that are encouraging, where youth is making achievements or has achieved things, or where people are putting in to their communities. We should encourage that, and our newspapers should get more onto the front foot on those issues. I think that the culture which says that good news stories do not sell newspapers or make good television is wrong and should be challenged.If we take those who have been helped—who have let or have had society pass them by so that they end up in jail—we find that many of them will admit that they would have gone back to prison if they had not got into a program. People have gained that way and have gone on and done considerable things. There are whole case histories that one could add in a speech like this.We constantly hear nothing from this government of that dedicated group of volunteers who have encouraged and fought for those who, through no fault whatsoever of their own, have managed to slip through the lines of formal education without making it mean anything for them. Because of that, the government takes this attitude: `You should be punished, and we will take the dole away if you do not come and learn something. You cannot get a job because you are illiterate, so you have to come and sit in a classroom and learn something.' It is just an impossible circumstance to put people into that situation, and it will have a very low success rate.At least in Literacy Week I thought that someone would make an issue of literacy. The ABC did a program a couple of weeks ago highlighting funding of adult literacy being guillotined with barely any notice, and they laid the responsibility certainly at the feet of the federal minister, whose performances in this parliament are sometimes rather strange. He seems to have some really intense feelings towards some people. I do not think he likes teachers very much at all. The feeling you get sitting on this side of the House when you hear him speak about education and answer questions is that he certainly has some intense feelings about those things.Literacy cannot just stop at school. It should start in the home and should go on through life, right through until the grave. Look at the third-wave learning opportunities that people in their 60s, 70s and 80s are undertaking to continue learning. My mother-in-law is 82 and has a philosophy of `use it or lose it' as far as she is concerned, and she is certainly in there in the third wave of learning. She is also teaching people to read and write and giving up one night a week to contribute as a volunteer tutor.Of course, adult literacy has been my crusade and will continue to be so. But it is the young people coming out of school with poor literacy who also should be given some consideration. Where do they go if school has failed them? Who do they approach? Often it is nobody, until they find some sort of work or until some social worker has picked up the signals that someone does not read.The Minister for Employment Services, Mr Abbott, writes them off. He is now in the process—and it is the policy of the government—of saying to people at that level, `You're finished.' This is especially so if you are in the 45- to 50-year-old age group; they say you are finished. If you are that age and your literacy level is very low, they are basically saying to you that you are finished, that your working life is finished.I look forward to seeing the report of the House committee inquiry into unemployment in the 45 years and over age bracket. I look forward to that report. I certainly hope that inquiry highlights some of the issues that are affecting those people and that it might have an effect at a policy level. When you see what this employment minister is doing to employment in regional areas, and what he is doing to write people off at that end, it is just a terrible piece of public policy.Our volunteers play a crucial role in assisting some of these people that fall through the system. They do not want to be paid but they do want to be resourced with the small needs that they have. They need a coordinator to help develop programs so that volunteers can be taught how to perform their duties, how to go about giving assistance and where to find assistance when they have a problem to overcome. They also need to know where to gather material for teaching aids to run seminars on new approaches to learning so that they keep up to date. They need help with teaching techniques and how they pass on their knowledge. That side of it is beyond the scope of volunteers and you need a professional person. In my experience, in most cases, these people work 10 or 20 hours a week on this sort of work and they have usually come from a professional education background. Money is being ripped away from the system so that we do not have those sorts of support mechanisms in the process. They need a paid group of professional teachers to keep them going and properly resourced.There are all sorts of studies that one can look at and talk about. I know somebody who had help for two years, and then he wrote out his first cheque and went overseas on a trip. He was a man of about 60 and he had never had the confidence to write out a cheque or to go to an airport and get on an aircraft because he did not think he could read the processes properly. I think he has had several trips since. A very small roll-up of volunteers was all that was needed to give that person that opportunity.The funds the government is saving on traditional adult education are huge. That money should be put back into adult education. It goes back to what I was saying earlier about lifelong learning. They should not just give us rhetoric, they should give us funding. How about having a proper look at what people are achieving? The minister should look at the Victorians, and what they have done, and at the Tasmanians and the incredible results they have achieved against enormous odds. Let the minister have a look at those things and give us a response here in the parliament.If we do not want an illiterate country the funding, which is being so narrowly dished out, needs to greatly increase in this area. Poorly resourced child care does not allow for the very young to be helped towards the learning process. Our children need to be encouraged right through formal schooling and out into the world—where learning should continue, whether it be TAFE, home learning, university and onwards into adulthood—that life is exciting and worth while, and that they should be making the most of the learning programs. With new technology, this should become an expanded opportunity. If we want to be considered a clever country, our children need to be taught to quest for the best at all times. We cannot do that on the basis of just literacy. It is the most important part of learning but it is not the only part, either in the school or in adulthood.I support this bill as it provides some funding for education, but I deplore the government's failure to provide adequate resources to government schools and the providers of adult literacy teaching. I think that is a grave mistake, and I will keep on telling the government that until someone does something about it. We need to get this minister to focus on the issues that are there, issues like lifelong learning, which we hear the rhetoric about but for which we do not see any funding or the jingle of change to make it work.10:58:009764Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—The Greek cynic Diogenes said around 300 BCE:The foundation of every state is the education of its youth.I think it is something we might all agree upon over 2,000 years later. Just how solid is our foundation? On any measure, Australia presently has a universal education system in which divisions and tensions are becoming more apparent. The old-fashioned ideal of a general liberal education is caving in to the demands of work. Schools and universities previously controlled from the centre are splintering into self-managing, self-funding autonomous units. Cooperation is faltering under the pressure of competition. Increasingly, government and private funding disparities perpetuate greater choice—that is, choice for those who can afford it.In my home state of Tasmania, in 1998, 225 government schools provided education for nearly 70,000 students from kindergarten to year 12. I publicly acknowledge the excellent work of teachers and support staff in producing this education. Unfortunately, 41.8 per cent of these students receive student assistance support to cover the costs of schoolbooks and compulsory levies. In 1998, 23.4 per cent of Tasmanian students, or 21,200 students, attended non-government schools. In 1997, Commonwealth grants made up 40.1 per cent of total income to non-government schools in Tasmania.Australia-wide, around $30 billion a year is spent on education. More than five million students are spread across 11,000 institutions, and education is Australia's fifth largest export earner, generating something like $3.2 billion in 1996. Australia-wide, education employs nearly eight per cent of the work force. Strange then, as Catherine Armitage of the Australian writes, that, as big as education is in terms of customers and employees, as a federal political issue it is a dead duck. She recently wrote in relation to the 1996 and 1998 federal elections:Surprisingly for a country which once aspired to be known as `clever', issues of learning and knowledge scarcely registered a blip on the national consciousness.To many observers, the nation has no education policy per se. It has in effect a hotchpotch of nine separate systems, state and federal, pursuing discrete, sometimes conflicting, agendas across three sectors of education. Since 1996, this government has done little to improve the situation and has failed to articulate a vision for an educated citizenry.Australian education nears the 21st century in a state of growing anxiety. Despite strenuous denials to the contrary, public education systems are being asked to do more than ever, but with less. Polls consistently demonstrate that parents are worried that the system is overloaded and standards are slipping. Teachers are ageing, recruitment is slowing up, and burnout is taking its toll. Families are paying more, rekindling fears that two education systems are in the making, a good one for those who can afford it and a residual one for those who cannot. More people are fearful that a decent school education—let alone a university one—will elude their children.This coalition government took office in 1996 on a platform of no basic change to education policies, but massive cuts soon followed and it has been catchup ever since. I note with interest that in 1996 the Howard government promised not to abolish Labor's professional development program, yet it was cut. In 1998 we got a promise that $75 million would be restored to this program, yet we have not seen it. This is just one example of many of this catchup policy. In the meantime the coalition has lifted restrictions on private school growth, making it much easier to start a private school at public expense, because private school growth is funded by a direct reduction in grants to the states for public schools.By 1996 the education system was already reeling from two decades of unprecedented change. For example, in 1960 Australia had 2.3 million students, or just over one-fifth of the population, yet by 1995 there were 5.4 million students, just under one-third of the population. In post-compulsory education, participation has doubled in the past 25 years. Why is this? Simply, the alternatives have narrowed.As we are constantly being told, full-time work for young people has collapsed. There has been a 47 per cent decline in 10 years. In the jobs race, educational qualifications count for everything. Since 1970, the youth unemployment rate has escalated from around three per cent to 17 per cent. Study after study affirms that those most at risk are those with least education. Clearly, those who do not complete year 12 are three times more likely to be unemployed than those with degrees. If schooling in the three R's alone was ever enough, it certainly is not now. You just have to look at the list of skills and competencies that exist in school curriculums today.Work is harder to get, and it is getting harder. It is estimated that the 21st century worker will have not one but six or seven careers in a lifetime and that 75 per cent of the job categories of the year 2020 do not yet exist. The pressure is on education to be flexible, adaptive, responsive and accessible. It is expected to deliver learning which is lifelong, learner driven, just in time, customised and transformative. But this is not all. Education systems are also called upon to socialise individuals to create citizens. As societies become more complex, so do the systems tasks. School curriculums have expanded to include sex education, stranger danger, personal development, children's legal rights and so forth. The 1998 report of the Senate inquiry into the status of the teaching profession rightly observed that:. . . teaching in the 1990s was `a profoundly more complex and professionally demanding activity than it was 20 years ago' . . .In the growing movement towards `full-service schools', the local community school becomes a one-stop shop for the provision of government services to at-risk students. But, just when the demands for education provision are greater than ever, the public's purse strings are tightening. As a proportion of GDP, government education spending has fallen since 1975 by around one per cent, to 4.9 per cent—that is, from just above the OECD average to just below it. Public spend ing on education is growing, but costs are growing faster. In effect, more is required to be done with less.The almost evangelical drive of this government and conservative state governments to reduce public outlays mirrors the ascendancy of free market ideology in advanced Western nations. The public good argument for education—that is, that a well-educated populace serves the interests of the whole society, which should therefore pay for it—has given way to the idea that it is the educated person getting the most benefit from their education who should pay. Alan Reid, of the University of South Australia, has written of this government's economic, social and educational policy thrust since 1996. He has said:The ways in which (the Coalition) is slowly dismembering our public education system is one of the least understood and discussed aspects of this policy objective. Using the rhetoric of consumer choice and user pays, the Coalition has subtly altered the terrain of educational debate.Reid argues that one of the significant effects has been to blur the distinction between the public and private education systems, thus challenging the notion that public education is a public good. When teaching and learning are governed by the market, education becomes a product, teachers and employers are stakeholders, students and their families are customers. The market theory is simple: customers force improvements in the product by exercising choice.Until the 1960s, private schools operated without government funds. Since the mid-1970s, we have lived with a peculiarly Australian educational settlement where publicly funded private schools coexist with public schools. The private school sector has significantly expanded, particularly since 1996 and the coalition's abandonment of Labor's new schools policy. In 1997, for example, 111 new non-government schools were approved for recurrent funding. Current budget forecasts project funding growth of more than 19 per cent to 2002 for non-government schools, compared with six per cent for government schools.More recently, according to Dr Tony Townsend, Commonwealth and state expendi tures see an average of 71c spent on a non-government school child for every dollar spent on a government school student. In addition, there is an increasing trend in state expenditure towards the private school sector. In 1996, the coalition introduced a mechanism for a direct transfer of federal funding from the public to the private system, namely, the enrolment benchmark adjustment. Commonwealth predictions are for a 7.24 per cent increase in enrolments for private schools by 2000 and a 1.56 per cent increase for government schools. In effect, because of the government's financial transfer policy, this is an estimated loss of $130 million to government schools by 2001, even while government school enrolments grow. Alan Reid estimates a shift of between 55,000 to 98,000 students to the non-government system over the next three years.A 1997 Senate inquiry into funding into government schools clearly demonstrated that the decline in government funding to government schools meant that schools have had to rely more and more on privately raised funds for essential school services. Figures vary but, increasingly, these funds make up a sizeable proportion of school income. The diminution of government funding to public schools and the substantial diminution differential between government funding of public schools and non-government schools has led some, such as Brian Caldwell and Don Hayward in 1998, to argue that all schools in some ways are now public schools. Conversely—or perversely, depending on your point of view—one could argue the opposite. Given the following—the complementary policy of the coalition government and several state governments towards fund shifting to the private sector, the Australia-wide drive to self-managing and self-funding schools, the increasing power of school councils to hire and fire staff, the additional demand for parent funding and fundraising, and the imposition of compulsory fees for public schooling, as in South Australia—it could be argued that all schools in some ways are now private schools.A number of government school councils in my electorate—for example, Yolla District School, Ulverstone High School and Hellyer College—- have been publicly suspicious of this minister's commitment to public education. They rightly question and oppose the EBA policy and its negative effect on the public funding of government schools. They have publicly rejected Minister Kemp's claims that government schools in Tasmania are 20 per cent better off since 1996 and will be 25 per cent better off in 2000.To argue that the financial assistance grants to Tasmania have risen by five per cent in real terms to use for additional funding for government schools is a nonsense. The fact is that this restores FAGs only to pre-1996 levels when they were butchered by the Howard government. Dr Kemp's deceptive and continuous use of FAG figures to argue the Commonwealth's commitment to funding for public education through the states has been well documented and refuted by the AEU. No amount of creative bookkeeping will hide the fact that this government is lessening its commitment to the government system and increasing it to the non-government system.Part of the smoke and mirrors show of Minister Kemp and his coalition minions is the allegation of a $1 billion increase in funding to government schools in the period 2001-04 over the previous quadrennium of 1996-2000. This amount, however, refers to the compounded total increase in funding of one quadrennium over the other. What is not explained is that these funds are locked in legislation to take into account increases in the average government school recurrent costs index to fund previously announced programs and increases in per capita funding shifts in enrolments. The Howard government's 1998-99 to 2002-03 estimated specific purpose payments to the states for funding to schools shows a percentage increase to non-government schools of 3.3 per cent and a decrease to government schools of 3.4 per cent.A key education measure of the current budget is the restructuring of the Commonwealth's recurrent funding for non-government schools based on a socioeconomic status funding model. All parties accept the principle of funding non-government schools. But there are considerable differences in the mechanisms to be used to do this, the degree and extent of funding, and the intention and ideology behind the principle.Labor does not object to restructuring the Commonwealth's recurrent funding of non-government schools to implement a more equitable and adequately resourced system for those non-government communities in genuine need. However—and it is important to understand this—because of this government's assurance that no non-government school will be financially disadvantaged by the move to the new funding system, there will in fact be a net increase in funding to all non-government schools. Even the most privileged non-government school will receive a 1.7 per cent increase in funding while, at the other end of the scale, the most needy non-government school will receive a 14 per cent increase above the current education resources index.The increases are to be phased in over the 2001-04 period. Because of the no disadvantage clause, the new funding model will not come into effect until at least 2005. In addition, the non-government school recategorisation process begun in 1997 and its backdating payment provisions will see approximately $85 million in additional Commonwealth recurrent funding for non-government schools.This minister claims that his policy is designed to offer choice to Australian families and students. The problem is that choice is in the eye or pocket of the beholder! There is little to no choice for those who cannot afford a private school education. Government funding of private schools will only continue a shift in enrolment composition from that sector of the government school community currently at the margin of being able to afford non-government school education. The effect of this may be a further weakening of the government school sector by enticing away from the sector those families who currently have the greatest capacity to contribute to government school communities, both financially and in a qualitative sense.The zealous push to autonomous schools in the public sector also has the potential to create a division between schools and communities based on competition and choice. The jury is out on the effects of this concept of greater autonomy for schools and their local communities. However, it is interesting to note the trend towards what might be described as `reinvented traditionalism'—or back to the basics in a postmodern guise. Whatever the case, in the drive for what Ken Gannicott of the University of Wollongong calls `structural reform in order to liberalise the supply of schools and make them more responsive to parent choice', it is important that schools which are publicly owned and publicly financed, or have students who are publicly financed, are accessible to all and that assessment, reporting, curriculum, staffing and financial details are transparent and subject to democratic governance and oversight.On the national level, the key for our liberal democratic system is to ensure that lifelong learning opportunities are available to all, no matter what the means employed. I would question, however, the record of various governments—not least the record of this government—in promoting and achieving a free, comprehensive and universal system offering education opportunities to all. For all the rhetoric to the contrary, two unequal systems are emerging in primary, secondary and tertiary sectors—a rich and varied one for those who can afford it, whether this be in public or private systems, and a poor one for the rest. Indeed, what do we make of the poll published in the Age in 1994 which found that `if money was no object' almost 60 per cent of respondents would prefer to see their children in a private secondary school? An optimist like me would say that a similar result would never occur in Tasmania.A cynic like Diogenes, however, might conclude that the resilience of public education in the face of fund shifting and a fall in spending relative to GDP of 0.6 per cent may merely reflect the fact that, in the market system, true freedom of choice is restricted to those who can afford it. It is time perhaps, as our world gets smaller but ever more com plex, to comprehensively review the entire Australian education system—to affirm or reject those ideals, values and institutions which have traditionally underpinned the Australian approach to developing an educated, democratically minded citizenry who are ready and able to work and function in our world. The Australian Education Union claims that the public school system is underfunded by $2 billion. This is difficult to evaluate, but to dismiss this assessment as part of a union wish list—to say, `What else would you expect from the AEU?' and that is what we hear from this minister constantly: `It is the AEU, so it must be wrong'—is a great disservice to teachers, parents and, most especially, public school students.If there is a widespread perception that standards in public education are falling, that teachers are declining in both quality and number—indeed, the university entrance scores for teachers are among the lowest of all courses; a shortage of 7,000 teachers is predicted by 2003; the average age of teachers is now 46; and teachers' pay has declined by 25 per cent in real terms in the past two decades—and that governments are not strongly committed to the ideal of a free, comprehensive and universal system offering education opportunities to all, then I believe that a comprehensive review is long overdue. Dr Kemp must fully understand that public education is not for sale at any price.I would like to conclude by congratulating Smithton Primary School and Sheffield High School for receiving literacy awards. (Time expired)11:18:009768Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—The question of fairness and parity in education funding between private and public schools in Australia has been one of the most contentious and bitterly fought policy debates of the last 30 years, if not longer. It is a debate that this present government seems determined not only to prolong but also to exacerbate. As the Leader of the Opposition said in a recent speech on education:Education today is the foundation of our future national competitiveness. It is the foundation of fairness for all our people. Take away the equity in education funding and you take away the foundation of fairness. Take away the equity in education funding and whatever problems that exist among our students in regard to literacy or numeracy, particularly in lower income areas, will only become worse, not better.The States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999 provides $36.3 million for the government's national literacy and numeracy plan and for literacy improvement strategies for the middle years of schooling. It further provides $26.4 million to extend funding for the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools strategy. This bill also provides us on this side of the House with an opportunity to reflect on the government's performance in regard to funding private and public schools and the questionable way in which it has gone about structuring its policies on improving literacy and numeracy among primary and secondary students.In its previous budget, the Howard government resurrected one of the age-old arguments concerning education in this country: the striking of a fair balance in Commonwealth funding to public and private schools. It did so in the most dramatic way: by substantially increasing funding to private and independent schools around our nation, while not delivering an equal increase in funds to government schools. As the Labor opposition has repeatedly made clear, we do not begrudge private and independent schools receiving increased education funding from the Commonwealth. On the contrary, we welcome it. Of concern to us is the government's willingness to fund one education sector over and above the level of money provided to another, especially when the other—being the public school sector in this country—educates over 70 per cent of our nation's children.The Howard government's previous budget allocated an extra $210 a year on average for every child in the private school sector—an admirable move—but at the same time it allocated less than $10 a year to the 70 per cent of our kids in public schools. Indeed, compared to children in funding starved public primary schools, who only get $10 extra, children in the very richest primary schools will now get $76 per child from this government. Perhaps a more telling statistic is that, after this budget—over the next four years—for every dollar the Commonwealth spends on private or independent schools, public schools will receive just 57c. The Howard government's commitment to public education has been under question for each of its three years in power. It has done nothing to convince us that it is committed to maintaining or improving the quality and standard of education offered in this sector. If anything, through its actions it seems to have set out to convince us otherwise.Of the $2.7 billion worth of education cuts that the government has delivered over the past three years, $130 million has been cut directly from government schools while a further $400 million has been cut indirectly due to a reduction in grants to the states. It has also introduced the EBA, or the enrolment benchmark adjustment, a policy that penalises public schools for enrolling more students. I believe a more vindictive education policy you will never see. Under the Howard government's EBA arrangements—whereby funds are transferred from the public to the private school sector—state government schools lost $11.9 million in Commonwealth funding in 1997, even though nationally these schools lifted their enrolments by 8,500 students. In an area like mine, which has seen an estimated 700 extra year 10 and year 11 students enrol this year as a result of the introduction of the Common Youth Allowance, the EBA means less money for more kids. It is madness run riot.The enrolment benchmark adjustment is wrong in principle and a mistake in practice. The Howard government and, in particular, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs have approached the question of funding private and public schools with ideological zeal rather than a determination to see that the correct thing is done. It has been a trait of this minister, in whichever portfolio he has turned his hand to, to base his decisions on ideology rather than commonsense. Remember the nightmare of the original Job Network? Remember voluntary student union ism? He has continued the habit in his current ministry. The minister's aim is not, as he says, to make sure that parents at all income levels can exercise choice regarding their children's education. The minister's aim is to draw a line between private and public schools and to transform the education system in this country to the extent that private schools are used by people on middle and higher incomes while public schools are solely the domain of parents on low incomes. That is what this government is setting out to achieve with public and private hospitals in this country, and that is what it is setting out to achieve with public and private education.When the minister talks about improving parents' choices regarding their children's education, he really means improving the level of choice for those parents who can afford to pay private education fees for their kids. According to the minister's ideology, public facilities should exist only as a safety net for people who cannot afford to go private. He intends to let the public system run down to the extent that families who can afford it withdraw their children and educate them in the private sector. The longer the minister is allowed to mould our education system in this country along these lines, the greater the damage he does. If we allow public education in this country to become welfare education or a second best option for parents, we are doing a disservice to us all. If we allow a situation to develop where the standard of education offered in government schools is below par, we sew into our nation's social fabric seeds of inequality that we will reap in the years to come in the forms of unemployment, rising crime, community division and other associated problems.Unfortunately, that is the road that this government is heading down. The irony is that, as long as public education struggles for funding and its standards fall because of the Commonwealth's willingness to make it the poor cousin of the private education sector, the government's great literacy and numeracy drive—the campaign which we are led to believe is the minister's most important project—will be doomed to fail. It will be doomed to fail, because improved literacy and numeracy levels are directly related to improving public education standards in poor socioeconomic areas, and improving public education standards is directly related to resources and funding.Dr Brian Cambourne, a well-known academic from the University of Wollongong's Faculty of Education and a published author on children's literacy standards, said in a Four Corners story on this subject not too long ago:All the tests that I've ever seen about literacy are highly reliable indicators of socioeconomic class. You don't need to give kids those kinds of tests. We can tell you now according to post code which kids will pass and which kids won't pass.Professor Alan Luke, from the University of Queensland's Graduate School of Education, supports him in this view. Professor Luke states:Testing systems will . . . just corroborate what we already know, which is the most at-risk segments of our community are struggling with literacy and they need targeted resources and targeted programs.Indeed, when the previous Labor government commissioned the Australian Council for Educational Research to coordinate its national schools English literacy survey in 1994, it found that students from non-English speaking backgrounds performed on average at a lower level than children from English speaking backgrounds and that children from lower socioeconomic groups performed on average lower than children in higher socioeconomic groups.In low income areas such as the one I proudly represent, the vast majority of students—well over the 70 per cent national average—attend public schools. It is in these same schools and among these students that the majority of problems with literacy and numeracy are found. It is elementary that, if the government is depriving these public schools of the funds they need, the government's battle to improve literacy will fail. An ABC Four Corners report stated on this subject a few weeks ago, `Money and resources go to the heart of the literacy debate.' You cannot improve literacy and numeracy standards among our children and starve public schools of funds at the same time. But the minister thinks he can.In the same Four Corners program, the minister for schools said that literacy had less to do with resources than it had to do with the ability and will of teachers in the classroom. He said, `If the will is there to teach young people to read and write, then success can be achieved.' How very convenient for the minister: after he starves public schools of funds he can then wave around the questionable results of his literacy tests—and the literacy figures the minister relies on are questionable—as evidence that the public education system has failed, the end result being that more and more parents will be convinced to flee to the private education sector.The analysis of literacy standards in Australia by the member for Goldstein, the minister, has been roundly condemned from pillar to post, not just by his political opponents but also by senior members of his own party and by those academics and professionals who work in the field of children's literacy. They rightly accuse the minister of blowing the literacy problem among Australian schoolkids far out of proportion and creating an atmosphere of crisis that has no foundation in reality.The results of the national schools english literacy survey, which was commissioned by Labor in 1994 and which I mentioned earlier, were presented to the minister in 1997. The survey found that the majority of students were achieving well, and many students were working well ahead of expectation. The minister was not happy with the results. They were not bad enough. He wanted the figures to tell his story: that there was a crisis in Australia's schools and that he was the minister to fix it. He commissioned another survey which moved the goalposts to guarantee students were placed into two camps: pass or fail. It was by this method that the minister was able to show that 30 per cent of Australian schoolkids had failed their literacy exam. To announce the study's results, the minister did not come into the parliament to table a report and he did not hold a press conference; he went on 60 Minutes to beat up hysteria and panic among the nation's parents.One of the greatest critics of the minister's literacy testing and the subsequent broadcasting of the results on 60 Minutes has been one of the minister's own colleagues, the Liberal Minister for Education in Victoria, Mr Phil Gude. At various times, Mr Gude has made the following comments about the member for Goldstein's literacy campaign. He 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.He went on to say:It is a debate that has hit the public arena as a result of political grandstanding by Dr Kemp.They are not my words or the words of the Labor opposition; they are the words of a Liberal colleague of the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, the Victorian Minister for Education. Mr Gude also accused Dr Kemp of:. . . deliberately and mischievously manipulating data to portray literacy at a perilous level.Like most state and territory ministers for education around Australia and most members of the teaching profession, Mr Gude cannot see the literacy crisis that the minister has created. They cannot see it because it is artificial. Mr Gude also says:I've been to around 900 of our schools over the last few years and I don't see all these illiterate kids that the Federal Minister is talking about. What I do however see is that there are a group of kids that have special needs.The minister has sought to sensationalise and politicise child literacy, one of the most delicate and important issues in education. He deserves to be strongly criticised for that fact.His hypocrisy is exposed not only by the fact that he is starving the public school system of the funds that it needs to help our kids with learning difficulties but also by the fact that the government of which he is a member abolished the disadvantaged schools program, the very scheme that was specifically targeted at assisting these kids. The government did it soon after it came to office. His concerns as Commonwealth minister for the education and welfare of the nation's children are also exposed as a fraud by the following statement from Phil Gude in an interview on the ABC's Four Corners:Journalist: "Can you recall exactly what the threat was that Dr Kemp made to the states?"Gude: "Well basically what he was saying was that schools that didn't reach the (literacy) benchmark wouldn't be funded, and to me that was a little outrageous. Those who, through no fault of their own—perhaps a socioeconomic circumstance, perhaps a high proportion of youngsters from overseas coming into a testing regime had a difficult year . . . why would you then turn around and punish the kids in that school by not giving them the funding? The reality is they're the ones who need it most. And I just couldn't see the logic in that."Logic does not seem to rank very high on the minister's scale of importance when it comes to providing adequate funds for Australia's public school system and running programs that will make a real difference in improving literacy and numeracy in our schools. He and the rest of the Howard government are content with resurrecting and reigniting that very bitter and divisive debate between the private and public school sectors concerning adequate Commonwealth funding. They are content to point the public education sector towards a day when it will serve only low income families while private education will become the sole bastion of the rich or well-off. To this end, they are bent on creating a crisis of confidence in our nation's schools, particularly in public schools in our low income areas, and in the professionalism of our teachers by making wild and untrue accusations about literacy and numeracy standards.Education is far too important an issue to have ministers and government use it as a tool for political point scoring. It is certainly far too important in the maintenance of fairness and equity in our society to be manipulated by the government to suit its own ideological ends. As the Leader of the Opposition recently stated, education is:. . . one of the few remaining areas where government can make a difference for their citizens in a global economy.What a good quote that was.This government needs to ask itself what sort of difference it wants to make. Does it want to make a positive and constructive difference for all of our kids, or a difference for only some of our population—those who can afford it and those who have access to the best levels of education—while others have to make do with what is left? This government is on a path towards the latter. It needs to stop in its tracks and make amends for its mistakes before it is too late.We are here as legislators to see the folly in the minister's moves. I believe we must raise it at every opportunity we have. Our nation will see problems in years to come if the best of education is not provided to all of our young students. They qualify because they are our young, whom we should be protecting and providing the best course of action for. Legislation like we have seen under the Howard government over the last three years, where unnecessary cuts are made without looking at the long-term ramifications, has to stop.Education is one of those areas where we reap the benefit in the long term, not in the short term. We will certainly not reap the benefit if we are going to make sure in years to come under this government's instruction that our public education system suffers while the private and independent schools prosper. This is not about equity in education; it is foolhardiness and absolute madness. I implore all of those members who make up the government benches to reiterate to their leaders and to the Prime Minister that education is a right. It is not something that should be bought. It is a right of all our kids who come forward in the system to have the best possible advantages. If we do not provide that as a right, we as a nation and as the nation's legislators will make mistakes that our children will curse us for in the future.11:37:009772Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—The member for Prospect summed it up perfectly in her conclusion: education is the best way for governments to make a difference on behalf of their citizens in an era of globalisation. Education is the best way for governments to disperse opportunity, income, privilege and power in a globalised environment. This is a wonderful opportunity for socialists on this side of the parliament. We have always been frustrated in industrial age politics with concentrated economic power and privilege—big holdings of industrial capital and people deprived of a decent income and decent opportunities in life because of the holdings and the concentrated power of a privileged few.Now in the information age economy we have a magnificent chance to disperse power and privilege because so much more of the opportunities, the incomes and the privileges of our society lie in the skills of our people—in the opportunity for everyone to have a good education. This is a liberating opportunity for government because only government, only the public sector, can give each of our citizens the opportunity of a good education. Only government and the work of the public sector can skill up each and every one of our citizens to be competitive in the global environment.Education policy now is a wonderful chance to disperse social and economic opportunity. If we in this country could truly develop a learning society, one where each and every citizen has good skills and good educational qualifications, we would have produced not only a good society but an inherently fair society. That is the magnificent opportunity of the information age. If so much more of economic and social power is going to be determined by skills, government has a magnificent opportunity to equalise society through its work in education policy—that is, to give everyone the skills to compete, to participate socially and to be involved in their local community. Education has just become so important not just for the growth of the economy but for the whole fairness of our society.That is why bills such as this—that is, the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999 —are critical. They are critical to recognise not only the benefits of the knowledge economy and the knowledge society but also the need to engage in fundamental education policy reform. Schools funding and schools outcomes in Australia need to be massively improved if we are to disperse economic and social power and produce a fair society.Let us have a look at the way in which we have structured the funding of schools in Australia. We have a dual funding stream where predominantly non-government schools are funded by the federal government whereas government schools are funded by state government budgets. The end of the state aid debate in the 1970s was never designed to produce this particular outcome: where the states are engaged in cost shifting.The Victorian government closes down government schools, knowing that a federally funded non-government school can open up on the same site, use the same buildings and provide an educational service to the same community. The end of the state aid debate was never designed to produce this outcome. It was never designed to allow the states to shift the cost of education onto the Commonwealth, knowing that the Commonwealth picks up the costs of the expansion of the non-government sector. We need to unite the two funding streams. We need to bring the federal and state government money together—a single pool of schools funding in Australia—and distribute that funding according to equity principles.Unfortunately, we have a situation now where the non-government school budgets have grown because the Commonwealth budget is relatively strong, whereas government school budgets have been squeezed because of the financial problems of state governments. As I say, the end of the state aid debate was never designed to produce this outcome, particularly a government such as this which increases non-government school funding for political reasons—appealing to some constituencies, allocating scarce school funding for a political reason instead of an equity reason.We need to unite the two funding streams and produce equity funding throughout the school system. In practice, this means we have to define a minimum national standard for every school in the country. We have a strong schools system throughout Australia flawed only by the fact that its quality is very uneven. I have been to schools in the north of Queensland which can barely afford airconditioners let alone computers to improve the skills of their students. I have been to schools that are in old buildings with antiquated facilities, with antiquated teaching arrangements and a shortage of staff. Compare those schools in regional Australia to some of the high-tech, modern, advanced schools that we can find in some of the inner city areas.We have schools that are all about the information age of the next century, schools that are very advanced. If you took people from that school environment and put them into the disadvantaged schools, they would not believe that it was still called a school. They would have to go back to the 1960s—the era of chalk and talk—and they would not think you were still talking about the same learning institution. We need to even out this very imbalanced quality in our schools system. We can do that only by defining a minimum national standard for each and every school. The purpose then of the single pool of school funding would be to fund every school up to the minimum standard.Let us set the standard as to what we want every school in Australia to achieve by way of information technology, quality facilities, teacher-student ratios and vocational education facilities. The minimum standard is not hard to set. Equally, it is not hard to pool the Commonwealth and state funding, but it is difficult to get a proper distribution system.Things have been happening within the federal department that point the way forward. For instance, the distribution of non-government school funding in Australia is now according to a sophisticated formula based on the need of each and every non-government school. If it is possible to determine the needs of non-government schools and have a sophisticated method of government funding distribution, it is possible to apply that same methodology to government schools.So why couldn't we have a single distribution system with one variation: recognition by the federal and state governments that, if someone makes a choice to put their children into a non-government school, there should be a parental contribution? It would be possible to have a single funding pool, a single minimum standard throughout the country and a distribution system that brings every school—whether it is government or non-government, whether it is in urban or regional Australia—up to the appropriate standard. As I say, the only variation would be the commonsense recognition that those who use non-government schools have decided to move outside the public system, and therefore should pay an appropriate parental contribution.Even there, it is possible to have an equity weighting for what sort of contribution should be made. I would argue that in the eastern suburbs of Sydney—in some of the elite private schools—the parental contribution should be massively greater than in the non-government parish schools in my electorate. The equity tools are available, and they are being provided by the advanced information technology now deployed by the federal department. We can produce a proper equity distribution of funding in our schools, we can end the problem of state cost shifting and we can at long last overcome this barren, bitter and divided debate about state aid. It still concerns me today that we have people in the education sector in Australia who say, `This is a contest between government and non-government schools.' It is not. It is a contest between the schools that are doing well, the schools that are rather affluent, versus the schools that are still in need. That is the great issue. It is not about ownership in the Australian school sector; it is about equity and opportunity, bringing every single Australian school up to a decent standard and doing it on the basis of enlightened federal government intervention.I now move to the question of literacy and numeracy. Again, we have had something of a divided debate on this issue. There are those who say we should lower standards, we should relax the requirement for testing in our schools. I say that is a misguided approach. I say a school without testing is like a hospital without nurses, a school without testing is like a police station without policemen. We must have testing in our schools. Testing of students, assessing their learning abilities and disadvantages, finding out the results, putting in place the remedial strategies and encouraging competition and improvement among students are the basis of a good school. So there should be strong regard for testing and standards in our school system.Just the same, we should not associate that with a narrow, fixed curriculum. We should not associate that with inflexible teaching methods. There should be a third approach, one which recognises the benefits of customised learning. I have argued previously in this parliament that one of the mistakes we have made in education is to assume all students learn the same way, to assume there is only one form of intelligence. We need to recognise diversity—different types of intelligence, different learning habits, different ways of educating young people in this country. There are different types of intelligence, and we need early assessment of those intelligence types in our schools. The curriculum, learning methods, teaching materials and facilities—the entire teaching approach—should be built around the intelligence type of the student.Some countries overseas are pioneering this approach and it is producing magnificent results. It is a customised approach to teaching. It is not an argument about standards and testing; it is an argument about how students best learn. That surely is the best way to run our schools and our classrooms. We need to end the barren debate not only about state aid but about standards and testing. In this country at long last we should build teaching methods and curriculum around the intelligence types and learning methods of each and every student. That is the best way to improve standards and literacy and numeracy outcomes.Another point needs to be made on literacy and numeracy and that is that you can never start soon enough. You can never have enough early intervention in this sector. I am an advocate of universal preschool in Australia. Each and every four-year-old in this country should have access to preschool education and, as they go through that system, there should be some early assessment of their learning ability and learning disabilities—such as a hearing or speech impediment. By the time they turn five and move into the school system, their teacher would then have an inventory, an assessment, of their learning abilities and disabilities upon which they could then act in the school environment. So we cannot start early enough in the challenge of improving literacy and numeracy.I know the member for Lilley, who is at the table, has been talking about early intervention in parenting; that is very, very important. But early intervention in parenting needs to be matched by early intervention in education policy. We should have in this country universal preschool. Every single four year old in Australia should have access to a preschool education. There should be an assessment of their learning situation at that age so the school teacher and infants have a flying start. The school teachers would have the flying start of knowing the issues concerning their pupils and they could then put in place the appropriate early intervention literacy and numeracy strategy.The other thing that needs to be done on this agenda is to broaden the learning environment. We have this bad habit in Australia of thinking that learning only comes out of institutions, out of the formal school institution. In fact, learning in our society is a 24-hour-a-day habit. Learning does not stop when students leave the school boundaries at 3 o'clock in the afternoon; it carries on in the home learning environment. It is long overdue for Australian governments to have close regard for the importance of the home learning environment. We need a national effort to improve the outcomes of parents as educators, to make sure all parents, particularly in disadvantaged areas, are familiar with the curriculum, have good literacy and numeracy skills themselves, can help out with homework in the afternoon and can provide a good role model valuing education. In fact, we need not only good results in the school learning environment; we need good results in the home learning environment. This is a critical extension of government education agendas.As I said, it is most important in disadvantaged areas. I believe each and every parent in Australia would want to improve the learning opportunities for their children, but some are reluctant to get engaged in homework, some are reluctant to value education in the home because of their own skill difficulties with literacy and numeracy.We should have a system that identifies those parents and helps them out. This government talks about mutual responsibility. It should apply to educators—not only requiring people outside the labour market with time on their hands to undertake these programs but also giving them the training and the skills to be effective educators in the home. For instance, why don't we bring in retired teachers to help out with homework in disadvantaged areas? Why don't we bring the retired teachers in each afternoon to show how homework is conducted, what the school would be expecting and the appropriate role of the parent? If the parent still has a difficulty, they should move into literacy and numeracy programs that improve their own skills because, ultimately, that is the best way to improve the skills of their children.We need a national effort, a parents as educators program, that links the home and the school learning environment and ensures that every young Australian grows up with good opportunities in the school and the home. One of the problems we face is the tragedy of intergenerational unemployment in some parts of Australia—families where the cycle of employment disadvantage passes on to education disadvantage. We are talking about grandparents, parents and the next generation who not only lack employment opportunities but also lack basic education skills and qualifications. We need to bust that crippling cycle. That crippling cycle needs to be busted up by this parents as educators program and the fundamental recognition that learning happens outside school institutions. The home is all important.I mentioned the importance of customised learning earlier. This is the other big initiative that needs to be pushed in schools policy—to have a learning profile for each student so that curriculum, learning methods and learning materials can be built around the student. This is the best way to not only deal with literacy and numeracy issues in the early years of schooling but also deal with the growing middle school crisis in this country. We have an enormous crisis in middle schooling years with the huge drop-out rate of 10-to-15-year-olds. This is, unfortunately, a problem more among boys than girls—young men rebelling against the school, rebelling against the whole idea of gaining an education and, sadly enough, rebelling against society itself.Anyone who drops out of school at an early age these days is effectively dropping out of society because they will never have the skills to be effective in the labour market. They will never have the skills to give themselves a good career. We need to address this middle school crisis. Unfortunately, the Howard government has done nothing about it. The minister talks about a lot of issues in education, but he never talks about the middle schooling crisis and the need to build improved learning opportunities for early adolescents.I now turn finally to the question of choice. The minister's rhetoric is based around choice, but choice can be a false concept in schooling. Choice can be an exclusive concept. If you are a low income family in a disadvantaged part of Australia, you have no choice in your education opportunities. The only choice is the local government school, the neighbourhood school, provided by the public sector. There is just no room in the family budget for any non-government school fees. Choice is an illusory concept as developed by the federal minister, Dr Kemp. The real issue of choice in the school sector should be about school governance. The choice that should be opened up in all our schools is for parents to play a bigger role in the governance of their local school, whether in the government or the non-government sector.I am a supporter of the charter school movement. This is where the government remains a provider of school resources with school management devolved to self-governing groups of parents, teachers and citizens. Advances in information technology have made it possible for governments to fund the education needs and risks of a particular school catchment. Research has shown that this approach positively affects the level of trust and mutuality among parents. It also improves education outcomes. Every single survey in the school sector has shown that if parents are more involved in the school their children will have better results at the school. Again, it is the link between the home and the school learning environment.The real choice that should be developed in the Australian school system is for parents to become more involved in the governance of their local school. I am not a supporter of big centralised government departments. I am not a supporter of big centralised unions or big corporations. I believe in the dispersal of economic, social and political power. That is how I began these remarks. In the school sector, dispersing power relies on a decentralised system of school governance. The charter school movement needs to come much more on to the agenda of federal and state education policy. It is part of a long list of reforms. We have a huge job in this area. Unfortunately, this government does very little to build up the importance of education in the public sector and very little to produce meaningful school education reform.11:57:009776Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—Firstly, I want to compliment the contributions which have been made by some of the speakers this morning. I particularly want to acknowledge the contribution of the member for Braddon. I listened closely to it. I thought it demonstrated that the member for Braddon not only has a great deal of knowledge and experience in relation to education but also knows about the reality of schools, the reality of teaching in a school and the reality of schools in different communities. Whilst there are many members in this place who posit views about any range of things, there are very few who have any experience or background in the particular area they are talking about, to be very frank. I think that is known to us all.But, in this particular instance, we have in the member for Braddon someone who has come from the education sector, someone who, like myself, has spent time teaching. Those of us who have had the fortunate experience of being involved in the education system know full well some of the difficulties associated with providing services to students, wherever they might be. I want to place some emphasis on that a little later in my contribution.I also want to acknowledge the contribution of the member for Werriwa. As always, he has thought deeply about the issue and has come up with some innovative approaches. I am not sure that I agree with all of them—in fact, I do not. The sort of thought that the member for Werriwa has given to the subject warrants a great deal of consideration.Whilst I acknowledge and support the proposals in this legislation, I want to reinforce the remarks made by the shadow minister in his contribution to this debate yesterday in response to the second reading speech of the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. I am not going to repeat them. He demonstrated very clearly the fallacies in the minister's arguments in terms of his approach to the education system and the funding of education as a result of these budget appropriations.Whilst I am encouraged to see that the government have recognised the importance of numeracy and literacy, I point out that we have already had a discussion in this place about what they have done with the advice they have received on numeracy and literacy. We need to comprehend that the impact of this money where it is applied will vary according to the range of circumstances that schools and students find themselves in.I want to talk particularly about the Northern Territory. Not only am I the member for the Northern Territory but I taught in the Northern Territory education system and I have children in the Northern Territory education system. I know the vagaries of the Northern Territory education system. One of the things that ought to be of concern to the government, if it is not, is that whilst it can allocate the financial resources, as it has done in this instance, there are a range of issues which go towards ensuring that you get successful educational outcomes. Not only do you contemplate the issue of testing, which has been discussed previously, but you need to look at the testing programs applied—where they are applied and if they are appropriate. I do not think that in every instance the literacy tests are appropriate.In the Northern Territory, almost 30 per cent of the population are Aboriginal Australians and English is primarily their second or third language. We have had discussions over the last couple of weeks about the government's approach to bilingual education. There have been demands placed upon the Northern Territory education system by the Northern Territory government that they stop bilingual education on the fallacious grounds that somehow or other it means that the educational outcomes are lowered because students participate in bilingual education.Thankfully, the decision made by Minister Adamson of the Northern Territory government has been overturned and money will be made available to the bilingual program, although it will be called something else because there was a desire not to embarrass the minister because he made such a fool of himself. I am concerned that this minister is making a fool of himself, because the real issues involved with literacy and numeracy go far beyond the provision of financial resources in the way which has been proposed by this minister.There is a real problem in the Northern Territory with the resourcing of the public education system as opposed to the private system. I acknowledge that in these appropriations money is being made available for the private sector. That is all well and good, but I am very concerned—and I note the member for Braddon was this morning—about the diversion of funds out of the public system into the private system. There needs to be an increase in funding for the private sector to ensure that we get the level of educational outcomes.I am a great supporter of the private system, but, at the same time, if we cannot ensure that we are increasing the ability of the public system to provide the sorts of educational outcomes that we all require, then we are making not only an error but a very bad error, and we are not doing Australia a good service. That is where I think the minister has a problem. I do not think he is doing Australia a good service in the way he is administering this portfolio and the way he is seeking to direct funds into the private system at the expense of the public system. That is something that as Australians we should be concerned about.I note that this morning the member for Braddon mentioned—I think I am correct in saying this—that within a couple of years we will see another 55,000 to 80,000 students move out of the public system into the private system. I do not think that is good enough, frankly. What we ought to be doing is ensuring that the public system has the resources to retain those students and the family support for those students within the public school system.A lot of debate takes place about how money might or might not be spent. One issue we need to comprehend is that the people who are responsible for administering the programs, the people at the coalface, are school teachers. What we have done in this country to undermine the confidence of the community in school teachers is nothing short of breathtaking. What we need to be concerned about are the continual attacks of this minister on the Australian Education Union and the job that it is doing in representing the interests of its members who are, after all, those people who provide the services for which he is providing the funds.I would have thought that, if the minister had any confidence in the way in which he was expending this money, he would try to develop a partnership with the Australian Education Union and those professionals who are required to provide the services for which he is providing the money. Still this minister appears not to be able to come to terms with the reality of his position—that is, that he has a responsibility not only to the private education system and the Liberal Party but also to every Australian parent and every Australian taxpayer to ensure that every dollar allocated for education is spent in the most appropriate way and we get the best outcomes. The only way to get the best outcome is by making sure that those people in charge of spending the money at the school level, the teachers, are properly resourced themselves.What we are now seeing in this country is that teachers are not being offered long-term contracts. The member for Werriwa talked about the charter movement. I have to say to him that I think he is making a bad error. There is a fundamental issue here about the role of school communities and the role of the state. We have to understand that the state has a responsibility to ensure that every school in Australia is properly resourced to carry out the functions that we demand of them.That is not what is happening. I know from my current experience in the Northern Territory that the schools cannot attract staff. There are teacher shortages on a daily basis. Whilst this minister can talk about the need to increase numeracy and literacy levels, it is not much good if you do not have a teacher in front of the class. If you cannot attract qualified professional teaching staff then you may as well give up the ghost.Frankly, I do not think that the resources which have been made available and the approach which has been taken by this government and the various state and territory governments are appropriate in this regard. I know that in the case of the Northern Territory, including at the local primary school which my children attend, there are staff shortages. They cannot even get relief teachers because people are not attracted to teaching. They are not attracted to teaching in the Northern Territory because the teachers are underpaid, undervalued and underresourced. They are not being provided with the attraction of a professional career. They are being provided with short-term contracts which do not give them the sort of security that they obviously require as professionals in this country. Yet this is the approach which is being promoted by this government.I say to those people who advocate the devolution of power to the local community that that may be well and good in terms of decision making and providing some management responsibilities for the allocation of resources within an approved budget, but it is not well and good when you underresource those school communities to ensure that they cannot do anything else but bleat for more money. They know that when they make decisions about the schools for which they are responsible they do not have the funds and that the resources will not be made available so that they can provide the appropriate educational programs that will give the sorts of educational outcomes that we demand as a community and as parents. I have to say that in the case of the Northern Territory this is what is happening today.There is another issue I am very concerned about. I take the argument of the member for Werriwa about the charter schools. He talked about the school community having responsibility for managing the school and about parent involvement. I think that is absolutely fantastic. But many of the school communities in remote and rural Australia do not have a parent body which has the level of expertise that you might have in, say, Liverpool, Hobart or Canberra. There are many communities in Northern Australia where the parent population itself does not have basic education. There are parents who are not numerate and not literate. There are parents who do not have the capacity. Many of them are in the position of not having jobs. These parents are committed to their children's education, but if you handball them the responsibility for managing the funding, budget and resourcing of their schools, you know what will inevitably happen. Those schools will go without because they do not have the resources in their community to secure the same level of funding support as do schools elsewhere in Australia. You need to be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there is a very obvious outcome to this—that is, lower educational attainment levels throughout the community.Whilst I concede that there is a very important role for parents in schools, I will relate a recent experience. The Northern Territory has what they call a `devolution' approach to providing school councils with the management responsibility for school budgets. In the case of the local primary school that my children attend, the school principal was put in a position where he went on leave and his position became vacant for a short period of time. The school community decided they would advertise the vacancy and appoint a new principal for the period that teacher was away. The school community decided that the interview panel should consist of the principal who was leaving—the incumbent—a parent and a member of the education department. Those people sat, interviewed people and made a recommendation. They made a recommendation which subsequently was overturned by the department because the department did not like the recommendation. It seems to me that you cannot have it both ways. If you like the idea of devolving responsibility for these decisions to schools, if you believe in basic fundamental rights and democracy, and if you appoint a panel to make an appointment and they make a recommendation as to who that person should be, you should, at the very least, accept the recommendation—but, no, not in this particular case. There was a great deal of angst in the school community about that approach. It is not that the school is dissatisfied with the appointment which was made, but that the process which was put in place and administered by the government under the guise of devolution was a sham.We know that, in the case of the Northern Territory, schools in all localities, including Darwin and Alice Springs, are extremely short-staffed. It is extremely difficult to find relief teachers. Last week more than 25 classes around the Northern Territory did not have a teacher. There simply were no teachers available to fill the positions. The government has recently been recruiting international travellers to work on short-term contracts in our schools until their visas expire. These teachers are short-term. By their very nature, what impact do they have on the school community and the students that they are supposed to be teaching? In this context, the recent offer by the Northern Territory government to Northern Territory teachers in a pay and conditions dispute is pitiful. Currently, Northern Territory teachers are the fifth best paid out of the eight states and territories, and the current offer will not improve that situation dramatically.This is not good enough. One of the real issues involved in education in the Northern Territory is the situation in bush schools. The fact is that the educational attainment levels of children in the Northern Territory are well below par. Only 42 per cent, or thereabouts, of students in the Northern Territory reach year 12. That is about half the national average. So we are in a position where large numbers of students in the Northern Territory do not achieve the maximum outcome in the school, that is, year 12. There is not even a minimum requirement. Many of these students have not, by the time they leave school, had access to high school. They have had no high school education whatsoever. They are lucky to have the literacy and numeracy levels of a year 3 pupil by the time they are aged 15. This is the responsibility of the government. We hear the minister in this House talking about the importance of parents taking responsibility, and we hear the Northern Territory government talking about these things as well. But it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that these services are provided.Recently, Madam Deputy Speaker, there was a discussion about `welfarism'. You will have seen the term people use to describe the fact that in areas of Australia where Aboriginal people in particular live they rely on welfare. You have got to do something about it. You have got to have some process of mutual obligation. As I have said in this place previously, it is all very well to talk about blaming the victim when it comes to welfarism—if that is the term you want to use. I do not; nevertheless, it is a term which has been thrown about recently. The fact is that the government has an obligation to ensure that every Australian child in this country, no matter where they live, has access to preschool, primary school and high school education, and then an opportunity to pursue post-school education after they have had access to those opportunities.The fact is that, in the Northern Territory, a large proportion of the school population does not have access to high school. There is not one high school—not one mainstream high school—in an Aboriginal community in the Northern Territory. That means that those students are being disadvantaged. Those students and communities have the highest unemployment rates in the Northern Territory and some of the highest unemployment rates in Australia.The fact is that, when people talk about these communities being reliant upon welfare, they need to come to terms with reality. The reality is that you cannot expect people to achieve outcomes in the labour market if they do not have the basic skills. The only way they will get the basic skills is to have a good education. The problem is that this government and the Northern Territory government are not committed to providing these students with the sort of education they require to ensure that they have got the skills they need so that, when they leave school at age 15 or 16 to look for a job or get into a vocational education and training course, they have actually got some fundamental and basic skills. But they do not have these fundamental skills.I have spoken earlier in my contribution about teachers. I have to say that I have come across some very good professionals indeed in the teaching game in the Northern Territory over many years. This Friday I am attending a 25th anniversary celebration for one of those people. He has spent 25 years working at an Aboriginal community called Yirrkala in north-east Arnhem Land. He is the principal of the Laynhapuy Homelands schools and is responsible, as the head of these schools, for providing resources to a number of homeland bush schools around Yirrkala. It requires him having an understanding of the local culture and of the education priorities of those parents. The gentleman's name is Leon White. He is committed, and has been for many years, to the concept of bilingual and bicultural education.We are seeing that the approach that is being adopted by the Northern Territory government is to undermine the very approach that people like Leon and his community, the Yolngu people of north-east Arnhem Land, demand for their students. We see the minister in this House talk about making additional funds available for education and for improving numeracy and literacy. He has got to come to terms with his responsibility as minister; and the responsibility of state and territory ministers is how to get the educational outcomes that communities need—not the educational outcomes that he thinks are appropriate, but ones which will meet the needs of those communities, wherever they might be around Australia.I ask other members, and particularly the member for Werriwa, to reconsider their approach to school charters—because, whilst that has some attractions to some areas and some communities, it is not the panacea that he thinks it might be. I would ask him to perhaps talk to some people who have been involved in, and are currently involved in, the education system and then he might actually develop a different view. (Time expired)12:17:009781Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—I also have pleasure in speaking in the debate on the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999 , which is very important because it has allowed us to have a wide ranging debate on issues concerning education, especially school education. The fact that we are involved in this debate is a positive thing, even though obviously the government's agenda is unfortunately a narrow one when you consider the very many issues that have been raised, especially by the Labor members, in relation to education.We should begin with a statement of a fundamental principle, and the fundamental principle is that education is a right. It is not a privilege. It is a fundamental human right, a right which is recognised in international forums and also recognised as part of the Western tradition and, indeed, increasingly now throughout the world—even in those countries which unfortunately, because of their poverty, are not able to provide educational systems.Australia, of course, has the ability to provide a very high quality education system for its citizens. It is not a poor country in that sense. Unfortunately, many children do miss out on a quality education and, in that sense, we are limiting their ability to fulfil and achieve what is their right in society. In my book Understanding Social Justice in 1994, I spoke about the universal social right of education and I said:It is of critical importance in ensuring that the individual achieves their full potentiality and plays a full role in society. And in making this decision, the value of education should not be assessed only in terms of economic efficiency and social welfare. Equally, if not more important, is the role of education in enabling a person to enjoy the culture of his society and to take part in its affairs, and in this way to provide for each individual a secure sense of his or her own worth.If we begin with that starting point and we look at what is happening in Australia in terms of education, we see that there are serious problems. For example, we have the situation where an increasing number of kids are now actually dropping out before they finish high school. That is the reversal of a trend where, during the years of the Labor government, we had increased the participation rate and the number of children that finished high school.I was very disappointed to receive recent figures which show that that trend is now going the other way—in my electorate, for example. In other words, more children are leaving school before they finish secondary education. This is something that we ought to be ashamed about because, as I mentioned before, we are a society that can afford to put resources into education both in the public schools and in the other sectors and to ensure that children are encouraged to stay at school at least until the end of high school.Of course, education has a quality dimension, and we need to talk about that as it is important. But we also need to ensure that children have the capacity to stay at school and to get that quantity of education over the years. As society gets more sophisticated and more complex, and as the demands on the individual in terms of his or her education become greater, it is ludicrous that we have a situation where children are not staying at school for as long as they did a few years ago. This is of course a class phenomenon. The minister talks about how, with this bill, he wants to reverse the class phenomenon and do something about disadvantaged children, but he has certainly not tackled the full sense of the problem. If we look at the poorer, working class areas of Australia, it is there that we are seeing an increase in the number of children dropping out before the end of secondary education.The minister thinks that one way of achieving a better result here is to insist on greater numeracy and literacy. I do not disagree with that. I do not disagree that we ought to be looking at literacy and numeracy as a major factor but it is not the only factor; it is not the only reason that we have children from poorer backgrounds dropping out of education. There are other significant and important reasons, and they have to do with the circumstances of the parents and the families from which those children come.The fact is that under this government, and all of the indicators show this, the poor are getting poorer. Poverty is increasing in this country—notwithstanding the gloating of the Treasurer about a growing economy—and so are social dislocation and social problems. This is due to unemployment and other factors. The fact is that the salaries of the poor are so low that they are not able to afford certain basic things. Sure they can afford food, but can they afford school books for their children? Can they afford a tutor, if one of their children is having a problem? Can they afford any additional resources? The answer is no. Invariably what also happens is that the schools in those areas do not have the support for the teachers—in terms of teacher aid, et cetera—to help these disadvantaged kids.So we have a cycle of poverty and disadvantage. We have a situation where the resources provided, especially to the government school sector in those areas, are insufficient and so the situation gets worse. The minister thinks that if he gives some money to the schools—in terms of a program to improve literacy and numeracy—that is going to help the situation. It will help it to some degree but it is not seriously tackling the problem. There is no doubt that, unless we put in more resources to balance educational opportunities and allow every Australian child to at least have an equal chance, we will not have a situation where they can go to university or college.When I was first elected, which is some time ago during the last period of the Fraser government, the number of kids who finished secondary education in the Broadmeadows area, which is the poorest area in my electorate, was appalling. As a result, those children never had the opportunity to go to college or university or to get into a profession even though, in terms of intelligence and ability, they compared equally with children from other areas. Indeed, those children who managed to break through and get to university did extremely well compared to children from private schools and other places. But those that did not break through never got the opportunity—at least not for many years; some of them went back as mature age students and pursued various things—to do further education.Once the opportunity for education is lost, it is lost for a hell of a long time, if not forever. That is why the teaching of children at school should be a major focus of this nation. We have to compete with the rest of the world where, in per capita terms, spending on education is much higher than it is in Australia. We think we can just get away with the bare minimum but that will not work. We need to spend more on education because it is an investment not just in the future of our children but in the future of our whole society.Having said that, we need to talk about the direction of our educational programs. It is very interesting that the minister has in here additional funding for the Asian Studies Program. I support that funding but the problem is that it is one-dimensional. It should be part of an overall program that concentrates on developing the cultural resources of our people and that means focusing on ourselves as a multicultural society and a society with an indigenous culture.If you look at what has happened, you will see that, while we have put some additional resources into the Asian Studies Program, we have actually cut back on community language programs. We have cut back on those programs that have helped to maintain links with the cultures of the people of our multicultural society. This not only will result in a situation where we become culturally poorer but also will be to the economic disadvantage of Australia. If we have people of Italian background whose children learn Italian, or people with a Russian background whose children learn Russian, or whatever it is—QI4PRICEMr Price—What about Czech?QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—Any language the honourable member for Chifley would like to pick. I was just picking a couple of examples. Take someone with an Arabic background who speaks the Arabic language: their children will be bilingual and will then be able to help us with those languages in an international context. We can spread our educational resources internationally. We are doing that, but we can do more, and we would do more if we paid more attention to these issues. In addition, economic and trade links with those nations around the world are strengthened when we have people who are bilingual and able to communicate with those nations.Unfortunately, bilingual education in Australia is going down according to recent statistics. This is a very sad thing. It is very sad that bilingual education is going backwards in a nation with such a multicultural background. Of course, the minister thinks that we will have this Asian Studies Program so that we can encourage people to study four key Asian languages and that might help. It may help the situation, but it is not enough. We need to draw on the fact that we have many citizens who come from a range of backgrounds and we need to support resources in bilingual education.While we are discussing this, there is another matter. I have here a statement released today by ATSIC which is headed `Northern Territory bilingual education loss, a breach of human rights'. That is a statement from ATSIC issued today. What has happened is that the Northern Territory government has withdrawn funding for bilingual education for Aboriginal children. On the one hand we are saying that we want to support reconciliation and the Aboriginal people, and we want to support them in the retention of their cultural traditions, but on the other hand, instead of putting resources into these things, those few resources that existed are actually being withdrawn.This is a disgrace on the part of the Northern Territory government—especially the Northern Territory government—but the Commonwealth has a responsibility in these areas and we should be showing a bit more backbone in relation to actions against the Aboriginal community in the Northern Territory. It is not as if overall education for Aboriginal people is progressing. In fact, we are finding it very difficult to retain it at the same level. We should be providing a lot more resources for the education of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.When it comes to the question of providing resources for multicultural education, which I have mentioned, we should be aware that this is not merely the provision of money for language teaching. We need also to have programs in our schools that are directed towards giving children an understanding of the nature of the society in which they live, and that includes something about our history and the role of the indigenous people in our history.It also includes an understanding of the fact that we are a society which is based on a migration of people from nearly every country in the world and that we have come together in the building of a multicultural policy. Since we have come together in the building of that multicultural policy, we need in our educational resources to provide for an understanding of this multicultural society by all children, whether they have a mainstream or ethnic background. We need our children to have an understanding of the diversity of our society. We need them to understand the richness of the different cultures participating in our society and, as I mentioned earlier, we need access for children to other languages. This understanding can be greatly enhanced through bilingual education. Way back in 1975 the federal Schools Commission provided a report which stated:Comprehensive planning to meet the needs of migrant children must address itself to the question of their identity and self-esteem. The migrant child needs to be viewed in the context of his family and ethnic group affiliation if his individuality and integrity are to be respected and if his educational experiences are to be directly related to his actual life. . . . The variable interest among adult migrants and their children in maintaining dual cultural identity must also be taken into account in planning. It follows that the multicultural reality of Australian society needs to be reflected in school curricula . . . Since that report, we have made significant developments in multicultural education and in bilingual education. But, as I mentioned, in the last few years we have been going backwards. Let me illustrate this with an example: in my electorate I had three communities come to see me the other day—Turkish, Arabic and Vietnamese. For more than 20 years they had been using the local school for Saturday teaching of languages and culture. What happens? The recently elected school council decides that they no longer want this, even though more than 70 per cent of the people who go to the ordinary school during the week are of non-English speaking background from these societies. This is the sort of thing which shows that we are going backwards. (Time expired)12:37:009784Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I rise to speak on the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999 and in particular I want to support the second reading amendment moved by the honourable member for Dobell, which reads:"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".In listening to the debate on this issue, I was particularly struck by the comments of the honourable member for Macquarie who—I thought quite unfairly—accused our shadow minister, the member for Dobell, of being high on rhetoric and a distraction but rather short on pertinent facts. Indeed, he accused the shadow minister of being divisive and trying to pit non-government schools against government schools. It is consistent with the line of the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs which suggests that we are only in favour of government schools and, somehow on the Labor side, creatures of the Teachers Federation.It is true that the Labor Party has raised the discrepancy in the increase in funding going to private schools as compared with government schools. I stand here unapologetically and unashamedly in support of all of the schools in my electorate, which include all the public schools, the Anglican school, the Coptic school, the Catholic schools, the Christian school and the Moslem school that I am very proud of in my electorate. I certainly welcome the increase in funding going to the non-government schools. I think it is important.What I deprecated was the government's failure to be even-handed and to look at the needs of government schools. We do not get this divisiveness in our society unless there is a competition for dollars. The real tragedy of the federal government is that, in this day and age when we need an increasing investment in the young people of Australia, dollars are short in the community for education.The one way in which we mark something, regrettably, that is important in our society is by tracking the dollars going to the particular activity—in this case it is primary and secondary schools—or the dollars going to the professions. I am quite pleased that New South Wales has the highest rate of pay for teachers in Australia. But, if you want to rank how society is valuing teachers as a profession, I regret to say it is not high enough. We will pay a longer term price for this.No member in his or her own electorate has fought longer and more consistently about some educational issues with the Teachers Federation than I have. I make no apology for that because I am always going to stand up and fight for what I perceive to be in the best interests of my school students. But, having said that, I am the last one to deprecate the importance of teachers. It is really appalling that we have a minister for education who just loves getting stuck into teachers for the sake of it—and their union. This is not helping education at all.This government has made one commitment towards improving the lot of teachers—that is, a $77 million undertaking for professional development that is to be introduced on 1 January 2000. But where is it? Where is the money? Not one dollar has been organised to be spent by 1 January 2000. I think it behoves the government to say what it is doing with this commitment, or is this just another broken commitment in the area of teachers' professional development?Although it is not directly related to the bill, let me make another point about the teaching profession. Firstly, I have said I believe they are deserving of a higher remuneration. The second point is that I believe we need to have more of an injection of teachers from people who have already been in the work force. That is, if you like, an adult entry scheme for those people who seek to join one of the noblest professions—the teaching profession. I do not think we encourage this sufficiently and I think the federal government could assist the states by allowing this area to develop more.The third point I would like to make—and in some ways the New South Wales Minister for Education, John Aquilina, has moved in this direction—relates to providing a sabbatical for teachers. But I guess more than a sabbatical, we need those teachers who have done nothing else but teach for 10 to 15 years to actually get out of teaching for 12 months and get into the work force, have another job for 12 months, and then come back into teaching. I think these are two real needs that this federal government is not addressing.Part of this bill is for funding of literacy. A number of reports tabled in this parliament have indicated that the functional illiteracy rate in Australia is something like 30 per cent—that is, three people out of 10 are functionally illiterate. These reports also indicate that, prior to the changes that have taken place in the economy—that is, the shedding of all the lower skilled jobs that were in the economy—people were quite able to work in the economy, notwithstanding their functional illiteracy. That is no longer the case. If we are producing students who are functionally illiterate when they leave school, their job prospects are absolutely minimal.We have a great stake—a self-interested stake—in embracing the notion that no-one in Australia should be illiterate. In economic terms, we have a great stake in ensuring that people overcome their illiteracy problems. I am pleased to say that Jim Anderson—the state member for St Marys in my own electorate—and I have looked at literacy problems in primary schools. I want to thank Chris Evans, the district superintendent, and others who were involved in the discussions—mostly in my office I might say. We developed a specific program to address literacy at primary schools that has been implemented and is working well in schools in both my own and Jim Anderson's electorates.But the real tragedy so often in my electorate was that, if a student in primary school still had a literacy or numeracy problem, once they got into high school that problem was never recovered. It is not as though illiteracy is a terminal disease—that is, if you suffer from being illiterate, that you somehow cannot be cured of it. I warn the departmental officials in the chamber that, if we have schemes to encourage adult illiterates to come forward in an attempt to address that problem and they are unsuccessful, getting these people up to the mark a second time is really difficult.I have commented in the House before that this government now imposes on unemployed people a requirement to address their literacy problems. Often, when this is the case, there are a whole range of other problems that the providers may not be able to address but are crucial to success. From my own experience, something like 70 people came forward to the Mount Druitt TAFE, when this measure was introduced, to enrol in courses and there were only 18 places. I think it would be most useful for the minister to indicate just how many more places are now available for people who want to attend courses to have their literacy problems addressed.I guess that is getting a bit away from primary schools and high schools. Clearly, literacy problems should be addressed at primary school, but we need to ensure that we have the resources in high schools to address any that slip through the net. Regrettably, again in my electorate—particularly in the public high schools—so many resources were being devoted to small numbers in years 11 and 12 that the remediation required in years 7 and 8 was not being addressed. I am pleased to say that, with the advent of Chifley College in the year 2000 school year, the teaching resources that have been saved with the introduction of this senior high school and its junior campuses—notwithstanding, I might say, the huge range of subject choices now available that were not previously—are going to be devoted to remediation. I think that is an excellent outcome that my students, in particular, are going to benefit from. While I can say that this issue is being addressed in these high schools, I am not so confident that these measures are going to assist other high schools throughout Australia.I also want to briefly comment on Asian languages. I think the Queensland, Northern Territory and Western Australian governments are doing an outstanding job in encouraging Asian languages to be taught in primary schools in their states and territory. In the Northern Territory, in particular, Indonesian is a compulsory language in primary school. It is not that students cannot pick up languages in high schools, they can, but if the processes have been started in primary school it makes it so much easier for the students. One of the primary schools in my electorate, Clergate Primary School—a school that I have a great deal of affection for—is teaching Indonesian. However, this is an somewhat ironic situation, as I will turn to in a moment. I should say that Clergate Primary School is a real innovation centre and has won an award for the way that it has encouraged primary school students to be able to use computers and the Internet—but that is by the by. I think it is very important that we encourage students to learn Indonesian. There is no doubt that Indonesia is our most important neighbour and the more Australians who can speak Indonesian and understand Indonesian culture the better it will be for people to build the cultural bridges that are so often talked about.Notwithstanding how well Clergate are doing this and the enthusiasm of the teachers and the school community for it, when those students progress to St Clair High School or Colyton High School—which are the natural draw high schools for the Clergate students— Indonesian is not taught at either. I think that is a tragedy.It also underlines another very serious and important point. In recent years there has been a concentration on high schools and, in particular, on year 11 and year 12. The federal Labor government was part of that. Without necessarily intending it, there was a lack of attention to the critical role primary schools play in developing the building blocks of learning. More importantly, there is a real break for students between primary and high school. Yes, I know primary school principals are invited to speech days by high schools and vice versa—I have attended many of those—but I do not think we can claim to have a policy that interconnects primary schools and high schools Australia-wide.I would like to recommend an important change for the federal government to think about. We ought to have a system where the communication flow and interaction between primary schools and high schools is much greater and cement that with some of the high school teachers coming down and teaching in the primary schools. That is difficult, because high school teachers are specialists whereas primary school teachers are generalists. In a primary school, there is usually one teacher for one class who takes that class for the whole year. As we all know, the reverse is the situation in high schools, where teachers are specialists on one or a number of subjects. High school teachers take a class for that subject and then someone else takes the class for another subject further on.I know not all states have a divide between grade 6 and year 7 at high school, but a number of them do, including my own state. Perhaps we need to rethink how year 7 is organised to minimise what is a huge transition for the individual from primary to high school. Perhaps we need to have a system where one teacher is far more involved with a year 7 class than is ordinarily the case now. Maybe that will facilitate it. I can quite confidently say that we need to do far more to interconnect primary and high schools. It is really a flow-on of students. They both own the students at some point in time. It is ridiculous to have criticism along the lines of, `We've done the job. What has happened to my student in year 7?' or, in year 7, `The primary school hasn't done the job.' Primary schools need to have a sense of ownership beyond grade 6, and high schools need to have a sense of ownership that reaches down beyond year 7. Perhaps I will see that come to fruition as a federal member, but I am not confident of that while we have a federal government like this.I regret that I do not have more time, but I will finish with the way the current Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs uses literacy and numeracy as a stalking horse in any debate about education. You would not think, for example, that we had testing in New South Wales in 1987. I have argued with the Teachers Federation over this, but I like testing because it allows a community to recognise problems—particularly when these tests are made public—and to participate, with the school, in remedying problems. I have often mentioned Cockburn Primary School in Victoria, which was rated horribly in terms of testing. When the results came out and there was community action in conjunction with the school, the performance of those students was lifted enormously. Literacy is too important an issue to politicise in the disgraceful way the minister has done—to the dismay and public disappointment of his colleagues: for instance, the Victorian Liberal Minister for Education, Mr Gude. (Time expired)12:57:009787Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—I thank members who have spoken on the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999 , which amends the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act 1996 to give effect to initiatives announced in the 1999-2000 budget. Briefly, these initiatives will specifically provide $38.3 million in 2000 to increase funding under the literacy and numeracy program to help schools measurably improve the literacy and numeracy skills of students in the early and middle years of schooling. This funding will support two initiatives: support for the national literacy and numeracy plan and strategies to improve literacy and numeracy in the middle years of schooling. These initiatives also include $27.9 million to extend funding for the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools strategy in 2000.The bill also contains provisions which provide an additional $10.3 million for each of the program years up to and including 2003 for the non-government component of the capital grants program to maintain funding at the same real level as for the period 1997-99. The bill will provide an additional $2 million for short-term emergency assistance in 2000 to allow schools experiencing severe financial hardship or facing problems of viability to apply for assistance during the transitional period to the new SES funding model for non-government schools. The bill will also make a minor technical amendment to the headings in the act to change the name of the literacy program to the `Literacy and Numeracy Program'.The government's continuing support for improvements in school students' literacy and numeracy skills, once again demonstrated in this bill, is a key aspect of the government's overall strategy to improve the literacy and numeracy skills of young Australians. The 1999-2000 budget provides an additional $131 million under the Literacy and Numeracy Program for disadvantaged school students, making a total of almost $869 million for literacy and numeracy in the next four years to 2002-03. The additional funding will help schools measurably improve the literacy and numeracy skills of students in the crucial early and middle years of schooling. The bill also provides $27.9 million to continue funding for the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools strategy in 2000 to support enhanced and expanded Asian languages and Asian studies provision through all school systems in order to improve Australia's capacity and preparedness to interact internationally, particularly with key Asian economies.This extra funding for the NALSAS strategy will be used to provide continued support to teachers and students. The government's funding policies for schools will assist in ensuring quality educational outcomes for students in government and non-government schools. Total direct Commonwealth schools funding will amount to $17 billion over the period 1997 to 2000. This funding affirms the Commonwealth's commitment to schooling in Australia, but I will have more to say about this issue after I have addressed some of the comments made by opposition members during this debate.The member for Dobell has challenged the government to show what has happened to the funding announced in the budget for the new Quality Teacher Program—an amount of $77.7 million over three years. If the member had taken the time to check his facts, he would have found that on 30 June this funding was provided for in Appropriation Act (No. 1). The bill before this House is a special appropriation. In fact, I am surprised that the member for Dobell did not know of this since the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, in a letter dated 7 June 1999, provided him with a breakdown of the education funding in the then Appropriation Bill (No. 1), which separately identified funding for the Quality Teacher Program. Further to this, the member for Dobell actually spoke on the appropriation bill in June and welcomed the funding for teacher development. I might add that I have been amazed at how many opposition speakers have continued to repeat this blunder during the debate on this bill.The member for Dobell is also trying to create the impression that there is division between the Commonwealth and the states over literacy testing and benchmarking. This is wrong. The fact is that the Commonwealth and states are working together cooperatively to establish appropriate testing regimes and benchmarks.The member for Rankin has taken an extremely cynical view of the literacy initiatives of this government by implying that the purpose of national comparable literacy testing is to compile what he terms `a shaming list'. This of course is far from the truth. What the government wants are clear statements of comparable outcomes of students across Australia so that parents can be assured that their children are receiving a quality education. National benchmarks provided to parents will let them know how their child is progressing. That the states have agreed to participate in such an exercise should reassure the member for Rankin that the governments of Australia are working together for the best interests of Australian school students.Both the member for Rankin and the member for Kingston questioned whether specific purpose payments would be reduced because of the introduction of the GST. The member for Kingston even answered this question by quoting clause 5(5) of the Intergovernmental Agreement on Commonwealth-State Financial Relations, which makes it clear that the Commonwealth has no intention of cutting aggregate specific purpose payments. States will be financially better off under the new arrangements provided by the tax reform package. The GST will provide growth funding for state revenues, giving states access to additional funding which they can apply to providing better services for the community.The member for Kingston spoke of the reduction of financial assistance grants through state fiscal contributions to the Commonwealth over the last four years. I would like to inform him that the states have agreed to various methods of deficit reduction, none of which involves a reduction in expenditure to schools. There is no evidence to suggest that the level of financial assistance grants applied by states to schooling was reduced during this time. The member for Kingston also stated that this government's first budget made a general cut to direct Commonwealth funding for education by applying an efficiency dividend to the Commonwealth. I can assure the House that no efficiency dividend was applied to Commonwealth schools specific purpose payments. The fact is that the two million government school students in this country are supported by a combined annual budget from Commonwealth and state governments of $13 billion.Despite the rhetoric and misinformation distributed by education unions and their political wing—the Australian Labor Party—this government is spending a record amount on schools. The Commonwealth's contribution to this $13 billion in direct funding for schools is a record $1.9 billion in the year 2000. This is a 25 per cent, or $382 million, increase over 1996 funding levels—which, of course, was the last year of the Labor government.Government schools get 85 per cent of their public funding from state governments and 15 per cent from the Commonwealth. Non-government schools get 18 per cent of their public funding from state governments and 37 per cent from the Commonwealth. The federal budget reflects these funding arrangements, which have evolved over the last 30 years. A similar pattern of government and non-government expenditure was evident in Labor's education budgets without campaigning or complaint from the Education Union. All state budgets are overwhelmingly in favour of government schools, but no-one claims that state governments are opposed to non-government schools for this reason. When all sources of public funding are taken into account—Commonwealth and state—these governments spend on average $5,600 on a government school student. The same figure, on average, for a non-government school student is $3,500. In wealthier schools, this figure can be as low as $1,500 per student.The fact is that parents who choose to send their children to private schools have already paid taxes that go towards the provision of public schooling. Some would argue that they effectively pay twice for their children's education, save taxpayers a fortune and free up public sector resources. Because funding will now be based on the socioeconomic mix of students at a school, non-government schools which extend their services to lower income communities will benefit financially. More families will have a choice of schooling.The real benefit of this reform will go to the majority of students in non-government schools that serve the most disadvantaged communities. These typically include small private Catholic schools such as St Margaret Mary's at Croydon Park, St Gabriel's at Enfield and St Brigid's at Kilburn—all in my electorate of Adelaide. I might add that I am proud to be part of a government that has thrown its support behind these schools, the children who attend them and their parents. I have been astounded that the Australian Labor Party has attacked these measures—measures that some would claim benefit Labor's heartland and that others, as you would understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, would say support Howard's battlers.The truth is that there have been no cuts to school programs in any of the Howard government budgets. Education will be GST free, funding for schools is at a record level, and yet these efforts are still attacked. This is because the Australian Education Union is totally opposed to any education reform, whether it comes from the Commonwealth or from state governments. Nowhere is this better seen than in my own state of South Australia. Janet Giles, State President of the Australian Education Union, has not had a positive thing to say about either state or federal government initiatives to provide both parents and schools with more choice about the type of educational environment they want for their children.The union leadership has attacked Commonwealth and state efforts to raise literacy and numeracy standards and has never endorsed the national goal of the national literacy and numeracy plan. The union has opposed all attempts by state governments to provide better reporting to parents on their children's schooling. The union consistently denies that parents have any right to choice in schooling and has campaigned against any funding for non-government schools. The union has fought against attempts to give schools greater control over their own affairs. And the union has contested state government efforts to sack incompetent teachers and to make teachers more accountable for the outcome of their teaching.It is ironic that the same unions that claim government schools are underfunded are opposed to greater parental involvement in schooling, to the payment of voluntary fees in government schools, even by those who could well afford it, and to more corporate sponsorship of government schools. These are all mechanisms that would increase the resources available to government schools. I would remind the Australian Labor Party and the Education Union that the last Commonwealth budget delivered $320 million in election commitments. For government schools, it delivered an extra $32 million for literacy in the middle years of schooling, $64 million additional for literacy and numeracy in the early years, $61 million additional for the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools strategy, $54 million for a Quality Teacher Program in government schools, $13.8 million for a school drug education strategy and $13.7 million assistance for isolated children.At the cost of defending parental choice, especially for low socioeconomic families, the ALP have aligned themselves with the Teachers Union. They stand against choice, flexibility and greater opportunity. The primary responsibility for decision making in the area of education must be to the welfare of students and parents—not vested and marginal interests like those of the teacher unions.Some members of the Labor backbench, such as the member for Werriwa, know and understand this. In his article in the Financial Review earlier this week, he lauds an approach to politics that bypasses sectional interest groups and emphasises the importance of getting results. He heralds the death of the old predictable politics of the traditional Left and Right. What better example of sectional, ideologically outdated politics is there than the ALP's approach to school funding? It is opportunistic, negative, inflexible and driven by the dictates of the union. The member for Werriwa also talks about how the electorate is looking for new ideas based on incentives and responsibilities. I would argue that the greatest responsibility you can provide citizens in modern society is that of choice. In educating our young, all parents must weigh up the types of values, educational opportunities and subject emphasis they want for their children. This is both their right and their responsibility, and it is the role of the state to provide the choice between a healthy private and public sector.As for the member for Werriwa's comments today on a national effort to improve liter acy—the innovative use of former teachers to go into schools to teach literacy—I would hope that the Australian Education Union is as supportive of such a strategy as the member for Werriwa. This bill is another example of the government's firm commitment to quality schooling, whether it is in the private or public sector. It is aimed unashamedly at the wellbeing of students and the enhancement of their parents' choice.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for the bill and proposed amendments announced.979013:16:009790Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—by leave—I move:(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 12), omit "84,670,000", substitute "86,448,000".(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 16), omit "84,670,000", substitute "86,448,000".(3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 20), omit "84,670,000", substitute "86,448,000".(4) Schedule 1, item 5, page 3 (line 24), omit "84,670,000", substitute "86,448,000".(5) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 1), omit "2,501,000", substitute "2,639,000".(6) Schedule 1, item 9, page 4 (line 11), omit "135,028,000", substitute "142,261,000".(7) Schedule 1, item 10, page 4 (line 15), omit "48,669,000", substitute "51,539,000".(8) Schedule 1, item 11, page 4 (line 19), omit "7,629,000", substitute "8,049,000".(9) Schedule 1, item 12, page 4 (line 22), omit "43,750,000", substitute "46,156,000".I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.9790Bill (on motion by Ms Worth)—by leave—read a third time.Bills9791r8969791Debate resumed from 11 August, on motion by Mr Slipper:That the bill be now read a second time.13:17:009791Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—It has taken from 12 May last year until today for the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999 to come before the House. The opposition will be opposing this legislation. Labor is opposing this legislation for a number of clear reasons, which are: first, that it represents an extension of the government's sustained attack on superannuation in Australia; second, that the government's continued backflips on this bill have created enormous uncertainty and confusion not only amongst small businesses which run excluded superannuation funds but also amongst excluded fund members, trustees and administrators; third, that the government has completely failed to provide any evidence of the need for the major policy changes proposed in this bill but has simply asserted that such change is necessary; fourth, that there is no evidence that this measure will result in budget savings or lower outlays; and, finally, and very importantly, that this bill will adversely affect thousands of small businesses which may have to sell assets or restructure their current excluded fund arrangements, costing potentially thousands of dollars.On this final point, the government ought to be condemned. On the one hand, it claims it represents small business and is in favour of market forces; but, on the other hand, it brings legislation like this before the House and expects small business to swallow rather foul tasting medicine with a few grains of sugar that the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has been able to cajole out of the Treasurer. It is not good enough, and Labor will not support this legislation until the government provides evidence to the contrary. Indeed, when the time comes, it will be very interesting to see how the minister for small business votes on this bill. If the minister does not support Labor in opposing this bill, he will be con demning thousands of small businesses which operate excluded superannuation funds to increased costs and enormous confusion.We will give the government the opportunity to convince the opposition of the need to support this legislation: we will propose that this bill be examined by a Senate committee. The government is on notice that, as from today, Labor will not support this bill without some evidence that the major policy reforms in this bill are necessary for the efficient, effective and equitable operation of Australia's retirement incomes system. Efficiency, effectiveness and equity are not words many would use to describe the Howard government's changes or its attempted changes to superannuation. Just ask the millions of low and middle income fund members who have had their retirement incomes reduced as a result of having to pay the over $190 million in superannuation surcharge tax administration costs.We have now before us a bill which deals with excluded superannuation funds. It is a very heavy blow indeed, particularly for those funds operated by small businesses. I challenge the minister for small business to vote against Labor's proposition, because it is the minister for small business who stands squarely in front of the gun in relation to his position on this bill.The bill purports to give effect to a 1998 budget announcement to change the investment rules for super funds by limiting the extent to which a fund can invest the in-house assets and further prohibiting the purchase of assets from members of funds or their relatives. Specifically, the bill proposes to insert a definition of a related party, associate and related trust of a superannuation fund. It proposes to amend the coverage of the in-house assets rules so that they include investment in, loans to, leases of and lease arrangements with a related party of the fund, and the in-house assets will also include investments in a related trust. The bill seeks to ensure that the in-house assets rules do not cover real business property leased by a super fund or investments in widely held trusts. It provides transitional arrangements applying to the changes to investment rules. It amends the rules prohibiting the acquisition of assets from members and relatives so that they apply to acquisitions from all related parties with some exceptions. Finally, it allows super funds with fewer than five members to use up to 100 per cent of their assets to purchase business real property.This is, therefore, a complex and technical bill which contains a range of substantial policy initiatives, none of which the government has provided any evidence in support of. On that basis alone, we believe that it is appropriate that the bill be examined by a Senate committee. This, indeed, should be welcomed by the government because it gives it an opportunity to present some evidence in support of its bill. If that evidence is compelling enough, then the opposition may reconsider its position in the Senate with regard to this bill.However, to date there is little evidence in support of the passage of the bill. It is essentially a bill which does nothing to revenue or the budget bottom line, yet it imposes enormous costs and confusion on those associated with excluded superannuation funds. So it is appropriate that Labor is opposing this bill and seeking the support of the House for our second reading amendment. I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"the House condemns the Government for:(1) its continuing attack on superannuation, this time to do it yourself superannuation funds;(2) the uncertainty, confusion and cost this legislation will force on small businesses which operate a superannuation fund;(3) imposing on businesses a destructive superannuation policy which is unsupported by evidence that it will achieve a positive outcome for retirees; and(4) poor administration and policy reversals resulting in the delay of some 15 months in introducing this legislation".I will now expand on the points I raised earlier outlining why the opposition will not be supporting the bill. This bill represents an extension of the government's sustained attack on superannuation in Australia. Since March 1996, the Howard government has embarked on a sustained attack on superannuation which has seen it rip over $5 million from workers' retirement incomes. Consider the evidence: the government has introduced an inefficient, inequitable and costly superannuation surcharge tax, which has ripped over $500 million per annum from superannuation and cost all superannuation fund members over $200 million in administration alone. This is world's worst practice tax administration.Second, it has ripped around $4 billion out of Australia's national savings through its decision not to proceed with Labor's superannuation co-contribution. This has had a disastrous effect on national savings, which have stalled at the moment, with a corresponding disaster in Australia's current account deficit. We saw the cartoons this week of the Treasurer as the world champion current account deficit swimmer, and his comment—I think it was in a cartoon in the Australian—that he was swimming in a fast pool. One of the reasons why the current account deficit is at the level it is, and one of the reasons why household savings have declined in the ways that they have, is that this government failed to proceed with Labor's superannuation co-contributions.Furthermore, the government has denied workers on average weekly incomes around $100,000 in retirement income as a result of that decision. In addition, it has forced unemployed older workers with modest superannuation balances to effectively fund their own unemployment benefits by including superannuation assets in the social security means test for over-55s. So now, as a result, if you are over 55 and cannot get work, you will not be eligible for unemployment benefits. Instead, you have to run down your superannuation. That has changed saving for retirement into saving for unemployment.In addition, the government has attempted to force so-called choice of superannuation on workers and employers, neither of whom have expressed the remotest interest in the government's flawed proposal. It has introduced a GST on financial services and reduced the tax concessionality of superannuation compared to income tax rates, which will potentially devastate that most important third pillar of retirement income policy: the voluntary contributions pillar.Finally, it has attempted to close the public sector superannuation scheme to new members, despite a rock-solid guarantee from the Prime Minister back in 1996 that he would not do so.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Non-core.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Apparently so—a non-core promise. We have just outlined a number of the attacks that the government has made on superannuation to date. Today, with this bill, it is the turn of the do-it-yourself superannuation funds to get it in the neck from the government. It comes on top of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 , which also provides for major policy changes which are to be debated in the Senate quite soon.The pattern is clear: this is a government which does not support superannuation, has no commitment to superannuation and is hell-bent on attacking it. It is a government with what might be described as a tall poppy syndrome gone haywire, particularly when the tall poppy it is trying to poison is Australia's world-leading retirement income system. Just today I was hearing from a group who have some interest in superannuation around the globe. They were saying, `You ought to understand that Australia's superannuation system is regarded as something of a world model, and it is commented on very favourably by European commentators and others.'The government's continued backflips on this bill have created enormous uncertainty and confusion amongst small businesses which run excluded superannuation funds and also amongst the excluded fund members, trustees and administrators.The history of the introduction of this bill is pretty comical. Around budget time every year since the Howard government came to office, the superannuation industry and the fund members have held their collective breath in anticipation of further kicks in the guts from the Treasurer. In 1998, they had got to the stage of thinking, `What more could he possibly do to us?' In 1998, it was the turn of the do-it-yourself funds, and the May budget outlined a range of proposed changes, most notably to the investment rules for superannuation funds. Those changes were met with a howl of protest from small businesses which operate superannuation funds, the fund members, the trustees and the fund administrators.For example, I will read to you a few of the items of correspondence that we have received on this topic. Correspondence from the Australian Business Chamber reads:Australian Business believes that . . . corresponding legislation will stifle investment and serve to further concentrate Australia's pool of savings in big funds run by major banks, insurance companies and investment houses.Here is a copy of a letter that Philip Holt, the Managing Director of Australian Business , sent to the Treasurer, in which he writes:Our members have commented that the inability to access superannuation funds for legitimate investment activities may force them to retrench staff and reduce outlays on innovative products and processes.There was correspondence from the Blue Dandenongs Bulb Farm which I think went to quite a number of members of parliament. It states:We wish to express our grave concerns about the actions of the Liberal Government during the past 18 months in relation to their treatment of small business and obvious lack of understanding of extra pressures and costs that are being forced upon them.The budget announcement (later varied by press release) directed at outlawing traditional investments of small Superannuation funds was the ultimate example of irrational and retrospective legislation.Later on the letter from the Blue Dandenongs Bulb Farm says:It is difficult to believe that the Liberal Government is targeting people who use self-managed funds in a legitimate way to save for their retirement . . . Do the Government advisers and politicians have any idea whatsoever of the extra paperwork, bookkeeping and accounting costs that this will create?It refers on the way through, on page 2, to the superannuation surcharge. It says:Let's not forget the Superannuation contributions surcharge legislation! This is nearly as diabolical as the new Superannuation fund investment rules legislation. . . . . . . . . .It has discouraged small business owners from saving for their retirement. "We may as well spend it and receive a Government pension" is often the phrase now used by many fellow business owners.That is precisely the opposite sentiment to that which anyone involved in public policy formulation in this country ought to be trying to encourage. I have also got correspondence from Love and Partners, who are chartered accountants. It is addressed to the Treasurer and it concerns the new superannuation investment rules. It states:I have supported the Liberal/National Party all of my voting life. Your proposals are draconian and near enough to retrospective for me to be entirely incensed. The proposals are unworkable and unless immediate changes are announced, I believe you will seriously erode your voting base. For one, you won't get my vote and I will make serious attempts to influence my client base that has been, and will be, affected seriously by this legislation.So that is some indication of the sort of response which this budget night special received out in the community. That response did have some impact on the government, which, only 16 days after it had made the budget announcement on the new investment rules, backflipped and announced it would be grandfathering arrangements for the new investment rules. That was a good thing too, as the rules were clearly retrospective and would have slaughtered the small funds affected by that announcement. But even then the government had not adequately addressed the issues raised through its budget announcement. Of course the minister for small business would have been copping a pasting from his constituents and may have had some choice things to say about the Treasurer and his policy change, which raises no new revenue and has absolutely no impact on budget outlays.The backflips did not stop there. After almost a year of lobbying and hand wringing by the government, we saw on 22 April this year a revised agreed position established by the government. I guess you might wonder about, or reflect on, the cabinet meetings which decided the outcome of this legislation. There must have been a great deal of pressure on the Treasurer from ministers to drop this proposal. We certainly hope that a convincing argument was made for proceeding with it in the first place. We indeed hope that the argument was based on fact rather than on the simple argument, `We have announced this proposal and it would be embarrassing not to proceed with it now.' I note that this government is developing some of the early warning signs of arrogance and it is not beyond it to proceed with a stupid or flawed policy on the grounds that it would be embarrassing not to proceed with it. I guess the surcharge is a great example of that.We know of course that the government has not proceeded with some of its policies of the past. The idea to allow superannuation for housing was one of the Prime Minister's election promises made back in 1996 that was dumped in 1998. The proposal to allow opting out of superannuation also appears to have gone mercifully missing, falling through the cracks of the Wallis reforms, one would suspect. But do-it-yourself superannuation funds have not experienced the same sort of success.The announcement of 22 April was made first by the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp, the same Senator Kemp who told the Senate a couple of days ago that people were not saving any money in this country anymore because they had such confidence in our economy. In doing so, he did manage to completely contradict the House of Representatives standing committee on finance, which looks at these areas and which only in the last few days expressed concern about declining household savings ratios in this country.Senator Kemp released an exposure draft of the proposed new investment rules legislation. I do not know whether we regard this as a mark of confidence in the Assistant Treasurer, but the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business decided that he better put out a press release on exactly the same day on the same issue. His release was pitched at the small business constituency. We do not know what Senator Kemp thought about being upstaged by the minister for workplace relations and small business, but it is just one indication of how much difficulty the government has had with this issue. If the minister for workplace relations thought it important enough to put out a press release on a superannuation matter which attempted to sell the government's superannuation reforms, you can see just how little confidence he has in the way the government is managing it and how little confidence he has in the way the government is handling superannuation generally.One would have thought that, with such a complex and fundamental change to the laws of superannuation, the government would allow a reasonable time for consultation to take place on the draft bill. However, all we saw was six weeks. It took the government 11 months to release a draft bill and the public were given a mere six weeks to comment on it. I think that is woeful. The bill was finally introduced into the parliament on 11 August and now we have got the government telling us that it wants to move the bill through quickly. The point here is: where is the public scrutiny of this bill? When have the fund members, the trustees and the administrators, not to mention the wider public, had an opportunity to comment on this bill?Another unsatisfactory feature of the legislation is that it has sent the do-it-yourself funds into a state of paralysis. Many of my colleagues and I have received phone calls and letters from constituents who are angry and concerned about the impact of this bill. They have had to sit in limbo with their assets, not knowing whether they should sell them, hang on to them or invest in other areas altogether. Most have simply not been able to make any more investments or have been extremely reluctant to continue with their current investment strategy for fear that the government might retrospectively force them to unwind their investments.It is an indictment of this government that many small businesses having invested in other small businesses—one of the economy's key sectors of jobs growth, as my colleague at the table, the shadow minister for small business, is aware—are fearful that they will have to pull their money out of these investments. That sort of confusion and possible threat of cost does not give small businesses the confidence to invest. In addition, that kind of confusion and cost could have a real impact on fund members' retirement incomes.The government has not provided any evidence of the need for the major policy changes proposed in this bill; it has simply asserted that the change is necessary. That invites the response: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The government simply has not been able to come forward with evidence as to why this type of legislation, this type of budget announcement, was necessary.One of the opposition's key reasons for not supporting this bill is that it is simply not based on any publicly available facts. We are not convinced of the need for such major policy change—which clearly has sent the do-it-yourself superannuation funds into apoplexy—when the 1998 budget papers state that the government's reforms will not bring in any new revenue—repeat: no new revenue—nor save the government in outlays. It is there in black and white on page 2-13 of Budget Paper No. 2 of 1998. Also, the government has not provided any credible evidence of savings or revenue changes in the explanatory memorandum to this bill. Looking at page 2 of the explanatory memorandum, it states:The measures are not expected to impact on Budget revenues or outlays in the forward years.The government has made a claim that there will be some long-term benefits in the form of savings to age pension outlays. This is an extraordinarily tenuous argument. The fact is that the government has no evidence that this major policy change will have any impact on the budget's bottom line at all. It ought to be noted that the government does have the resources to determine the long-term impact of policies of this kind. The retirement income modelling unit would be able to model the impact of this policy change if it were given accurate information on which to base some assumptions. But accurate information underpinning this policy decision simply does not seem to exist. If the government is claiming that trustees of do-it-yourself superannuation funds are not investing prudently or that fund members are able to access superannuation tax concessions prior to retirement, then it ought to be proving this case with appropriate supporting evidence.Anecdotes may be heard about funds which are investing in luxury cars, yachts, powerboats or assets which are for current consumption and have little to do with providing a retirement income for fund members. If that is occurring, then there may be a case for changing the investment rules which govern excluded superannuation funds. But anecdotes do not make a sound basis for a significant public policy change. This government, regrettably, seems to make a habit of using anecdotes as a basis for policy changes. This is the government which, on the one hand, said the tax system was broken; on the other hand, it has boasted of the amount of revenue it has been able to collect from that same existing tax system.It has been suggested by some in the superannuation industry that the decision to change the administration and investment rules of superannuation funds arose from a survey conducted by the Insurance and Superannuation Commission. This survey was not made public. I understand that it was obtained under a freedom of information application by the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, or ASFA. In an article in the Financial Review of 9 July, Barry Dunstan reports that, according to the ISC survey, if there is a problem with the investment strategies and techniques of small funds, it is only with a small number of funds. According to the report, 93 per cent of funds in the two surveys did not accept salary sacrifice, 97 per cent did not receive any non-cash transfers or contributions from discretionary or family trusts and 94 per cent had a written investment strategy. Apparently, only 11 per cent invested in geared unit trusts, although around 20 per cent appeared to invest in associated unit trusts of which perhaps half might have been geared.However, whatever the merits or otherwise of these figures, there is no distinction between the work of the survey and the follow-up fieldwork conducted by the ISC. ASFA appears to be of the belief that there is a possible non-random element in the survey which refers to possibly two different surveys. The final report obtained by ASFA apparently included information obtained from the follow-up fieldwork which focused on the 11 worst possible cases selected for further examination. There should be a distinction between the results of the survey of 1,800 funds and the fieldwork done on the worst case funds. To not do so would be to base conclusions on what could be statistically inaccurate information or information which reflects assertion and anecdote rather than the facts. It is disappointing in that it seems the only evidence available concerning this policy change has had to come via an FOI request.The opposition would welcome the opportunity to examine, through a public Senate inquiry, any material which the government can supply to convince us of the need for this policy change. Until that information is publicly available and fully examined through the committee process, there is little to convince the opposition to support this bill. If through the committee hearing process problems in the investment strategies of smaller funds are identified, then the parliament may wish to move amendments or otherwise to address this issue.The Small Independent Superannuation Funds Association, or SISFA, has also made the point that the detailed fieldwork of 100 funds, as stated in the explanatory memorandum of the bill, represents 0.07 per cent of all excluded funds. Also, we do not know how the 100 funds were selected in the first place. That is hardly a convincing sample number on which to base a major policy change. This bill will adversely affect thousands of small businesses which may have to sell assets or restructure their current excluded fund arrangements. That will cost potentially thousands of dollars.The final reason why Labor will not be supporting this bill relates specifically to the impact that the bill will have on small businesses, do-it-yourself funds and the retirement incomes of super fund members. I have already indicated some of the responses from small business owners who wrote to the opposition, and indeed to the government, concerning this matter. The government has announced some backflips to its original proposal in connection with the 1998 budget which, with any luck, will alleviate some of the concerns of some of these interested parties. However, there are still many issues which have not been addressed by the government that will dramatically impact on small businesses.A view has been put, for example, that this measure could well reduce the financing options that small businesses have available to them. The supply of finance to small business could well be affected by this bill. If this is the case, then the government must address it. It could be argued that superannuation funds are not intended to supply finance to small businesses; that that is the role of the banks. Certainly, directly supplying small businesses with finance is not something which would meet the sole purpose test. However, many pooled superannuation funds invest in venture capital projects which are about supplying capital to small firms just starting up. So already this issue becomes a bit more complex. The decision to allow funds to invest 100 per cent of their assets in real business assets would, indeed, seem contrary to the stated aims of this bill.Superannuation funds are required to operate an investment plan which spreads the risk of investments across a range of investment types. To allow some small businesses to invest all of their assets in one particular investment would, to us, seem fraught with danger. What if the real business asset falls over? What if a fire destroys the property and the asset is not insured? What then happens to the retirement nest egg of the members of that fund? This proposal to allow 100 per cent investment in real business assets appears to be a sop to small businesses and farmers who pressured the minister for small business on these changes. But we do not think it is very useful from the point of view of retirement incomes generally.I conclude by noting that the Small Industry Superannuation Funds Association has said that the grandfathering provisions of this bill are really only at the margin, that they are unconvincing and that the overall impact of SLAB 4 remains substantially unaltered. The grandfathering and transitional provisions are complex and unnecessary. SISFA has identified one of this government's favourite pastimes when it comes to superannuation reform: make it as complex as possible. We have seen this with the surcharge. We have seen this with choice of funds. Now it is the turn of the do-it-yourself funds to get their medicine. The opposition will not be supporting this legislation, unless and until we receive evidence to the contrary. It goes against the principles of good public policy. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—Is the amendment seconded?8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—I second the amendment.13:47:009797Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—It is not very often that I can stand in this House and follow a speaker from the other side who has not mentioned the word `fear'. It seems to me that the Labor Party, whenever it wants to muddy the water, talks about fear being created—in this case, in the mind of small business.Let me tell you what creates the most fear in the mind of small business: the prospect of Labor getting re-elected. Small business remembers, and will remember for decades, the devastation that a Labor government brought on small business with interest rates, with the killing of consumer demand, with an uncertain economic situation and, of course, with the `recession we had to have'. So I will just brush to one side these comments from the member for Wills with regard to small business.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—You should read this week's Yellow Pages survey.WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANE—Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall ignore those comments. As we know, members opposite only ever quote inaccurately and to their suiting. What will help small business is a careful and structured economic policy, backed up by amendments to legislation that are positive to the nature of business. The member for Wills has just criticised us for taking from 12 May last year to bring this legislation into the House. Obviously he is not aware—and probably he did not want to make himself aware—that the government has used this time with great effect to ensure that adequate consultation has been had and, as we have seen from a series of well-defined changes, the legislation is right before being presented here.Those consultations have included a wide range of people in the financial community; in fact, they have included some of the accountancy firms in my own electorate of Groom. Those consultations have brought about changes which will ensure that the aim of these amendments is reached. That aim is to introduce a bill to reduce the risks to superannuation fund savings and to ensure that superannuation is used in its intended form—that is, for retirement. It is about safeguarding and preserving that retirement asset.So what we see here is not, as the member for Wills asserts, legislation that causes confusion. It is, in fact, legislation that further allows businesses to operate and invest money in superannuation for their members, with the certainty that that money will be there when they retire. That is what superannuation is about. If businesses want to invest money in `at risk' capital, then the opportunity is there for them to do so—but not to invest superannuation capital, which is there for the member's retirement.The member for Wills asserts that no need has been established for changing the legislation. Yet the way the legislation existed prior to these amendments allowed for superannuation funds to use related trusts which are not regulated by the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 and, therefore, are not subject to the investment rules which we have put in place to try to ensure that these funds are safeguarded. This original 1993 legislation, which was introduced by our colleagues opposite—some of whom are no longer with us—prohibited superannuation funds from borrowing. Again, the aim of this was to limit the risk to savings. Yet this objective is not achieved if these superannuation funds are simply transferred into a related trust that borrows. So I completely refute any suggestion that this bill does not need amending.The aim of all superannuation is to ensure that the benefit is there in the retirement period. At the same time, we wanted to ensure that, during the transition period that will ensue as a result of this bill, small business is not disadvantaged. Again, I note that the member for Wills quite happily overlooked the many transitional arrangements that have been put in place. They include: the grandfathering of all investments and loans made before 7.30 p.m. on 12 May 1998; the grandfathering of assets that were subject to a lease before 7.30 p.m. on 12 May 1998; the grandfathering of all investments and loans made after 7.30 p.m. on 12 May 1998; et cetera.Whilst we were criticised for the delay in bringing this bill before the House, it gave us time to further add to those grandfathering and transitional arrangements. As was announced earlier this year, small superannuation funds will now be able to make additional investments into related trusts and companies until the end of 30 June 2009. This gives small business ample time to make the adjustments that they need to make, and again refutes the assertion by the member for Wills that businesses will be forced to unwind investments and that they will be dragged into a situation where they are not sure what sort of structure they can use for these investments. The transitional arrangements are quite clear; in fact, they give a great deal of certainty and comfort to business. Certainly, the ones that I have spoken to feel that we have been more than generous with regard to transitional arrangements.I heard an assertion that the changes that were being planned, along with other areas which the government has moved on in the area of superannuation, have caused uncertainty in business with regard to self-managed funds. That simply does not stand up to scrutiny. If we look at the statistics, we will see that in Australia at the moment we have $387 billion invested in superannuation. But, more to the point, excluded funds have continued to grow. In March 1999, there were 182,000 excluded funds, compared to 170,000 in June 1998. Let us examine that point: we originally announced these changes prior to that date, yet the number of these funds has grown by 12,000. More importantly, invest ment in these funds has increased from $42 billion to $50 billion over that same period.That does not tell me—and, I am sure, the many people who are trying to make a value judgment on this debate—that the businesses and individuals are not supporting do-it-yourself funds. It tells me that they are continuing to invest heavily in these funds. It tells me that self-managed superannuation funds are continuing to enjoy the support of small business and small business people.These small business men and women also tell me that the government's decision to allow funds with fewer than five members to invest 100 per cent of their superannuation in real estate assets related to the business is a great step and will allow them to ensure that they put away money and preserve it for their retirement, while at the same time their business—a business which, in many cases, employs a great number of people—is able to gain access to that money.Most importantly, for someone who comes from a regional area, the money that is being invested in superannuation funds remains in the town or city from which that money originally came. That is a great concern in regional Australia in terms of superannuation funds: whilst we do applaud the principles of superannuation, and this government continues to work very hard to ensure that we do everything we can to encourage people to invest in superannuation, it does in a lot of cases take money away from regional areas. We want to see that money reinvested in the towns and cities in which the people live and work.The simple fact is that, out there in the business world, there is a growing awareness of superannuation. I have cited figures regarding the growth in the number of self-managed funds, but of course there is overall growth in superannuation funds. We as a government have a responsibility to ensure that those funds are managed properly. We will continue, within the responsible confines of government, to make amendments and to fine tune superannuation legislation wherever we see the opportunity to do so, whilst at the same time preserving the integrity of the funds. These amendments have been intro duced in order to do just that, as well as allow small business to make the most of the opportunities that are available.I am disappointed to hear some of the arguments that have been put forward by members opposite. Changes to superannuation fund arrangements, particularly in this area of self-managed superannuation funds, have been greeted only with applause from people in my electorate of Groom. We will not be deterred by the sorts of oblique and made-up criticisms that emanate from the benches opposite. We will continue to be guided by the people in business who actually know about business, not by the people who have spent most of their lives never having to put at risk their own capital. Small business men tell us that these changes are beneficial. They tell us that they are the sorts of things that come through consultation and will enable those businesses to make sound investments both now and for their retirement.I reject fully the criticism that has been levelled against these changes. In doing so, I do not deny that there may be, in the future, further changes for the better—further positive changes that will ensure that superannuation funds continue to operate in the best possible manner. I commend the bill to the House.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is adjourned 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.Miscellaneous979914:00:009799Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I do not have any ministerial arrangements, except to report that they are all well and in order. Could I have your indulgence to refer to the very welcome release of Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Indulgence is extended.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—The House, and indeed the nation, will be aware that early today Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace were released from gaol in Belgrade. I know I speak for the parliament and the country in saying how delighted we are at this very welcome news. Neither man was ever remotely guilty of the charges which were laid against him. The men should never have been arrested and imprisoned in the first place, but that does not in any way diminish the sense of gratitude we feel for their release. We are naturally sharing the continuing concern of CARE about the continued detention of Branko Jelen, their CARE colleague, who on our information was equally blameless of the charges laid against him.Many people are deserving of thanks. Most importantly, though, we think of the families of the two men who have gone through a great deal. The families of the two men are known to a number of us. I know in particular that the member for Dawson has been in close contact with Mr and Mrs Wallace, the parents of Peter Wallace, and all of us are delighted at this outcome.In acknowledging those who have played a role in securing the release, I first and foremost want to extend my gratitude and that of the House to my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I think it can be said that the release of the two men is what happens when you apply in a professional way the aggregate pressure of quiet diplomacy. On a number of occasions, the Minister for Foreign Affairs passed up the occasion for comment in the longer term interests of securing their release. I thank him. I congratulate the members of his department. I particularly record my gratitude to Chris Lamb, the Australian ambassador in Belgrade, who did a first-class job. I also record our thanks to Malcolm Fraser and Charles Tapp of CARE, who played a major role. Malcolm Fraser, accompanied by members of the Serbian-Australian community, was present when the two men were released from captivity.I also record my thanks to President Ahtisaari of Finland; Mr Nelson Mandela, the former President of South Africa; the foreign minister of Greece, Mr Papandreou; the United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan; Mrs Ogata, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees; Mrs Mary Robinson, the UN Human Rights Commissioner; and many others, including Viktor Chernomyrdin, the former Russian Prime Minister, Jesse Jackson of the United States, and Jimmy Carter, the former President of the United States. All of those people in different ways played a role. We are greatly in their debt, but most of all we rejoice with the families of the two men that they have been released. We look forward to the release of Branko Jelen. It is a source of considerable concern that he remains in captivity. Our efforts to secure his release will not relax in any way because Steve and Peter have been released. Those efforts will be redoubled.I also thank the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for foreign affairs for their cooperation with the government in working in concert to secure an outcome for two very fine Australians who were doing a humanitarian task for the suffering people of Yugoslavia of all ethnic origins. It is symbolic that they were released into the care, so to speak, of Australians of Serbian descent. I take the opportunity of recording on behalf of the government our admiration for the contribution that Australians of Serbian descent have made to this country since they settled here in very large numbers after World War II. Our argument with Yugoslavia was not with the people of Serbia or people of Serbian descent but with the Milosevic regime.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will of course extend similar indulgence to the Leader of the Opposition.14:05:009800Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I associate myself completely with the remarks of the Prime Minister on this joyous occasion of the release of Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace and also share his continuing concern for the fate of Branko Jelen, who is still incarcerated for no reason at all. We look forward to ultimately receiving news of his release. The list of people that the Prime Minister rightly read out to thank is an indication of how much the plight of these two men touched the hearts of people around the globe.When people join an organisation like CARE International, in a way they do become world citizens. That is an organisation devoted to humanitarian work and follows, as far as Australians are concerned, the great traditions of voluntarism in this country and also professional delivery of urgently needed humanitarian services. The gaoling of Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace was very much a challenge to the continued capacity of that group and others like them which pursue only humanitarian work and to be able to do that in circumstances fraught with difficulty.I also congratulate members of the government who have worked on this, both the Minister for Foreign Affairs and our ambassador. They received a deal of what might be said to be informal help from other Australians. The Prime Minister rightly paid tribute to the Serbian-Australian community, who have been exercised about this from the time it first occurred. The foreign minister will recollect that he and I attended a church service organised by the Governor-General to invoke the deity in defence of our two incarcerated. The Serbian community was prominent there in their attendance in solidarity with their fellow Australians in suffering such an unjustified imposition.The Prime Minister also promptly paid tribute to the President of Finland, the role of the United Nations Secretary-General, Nelson Mandela, Jesse Jackson and Foreign Minister Papandreou of Greece—we probably ought to single out Greece for particular mention here—who has devoted himself with great energy to the cause of the release of our two. But, of course, today is a day of celebration for their families. They will be deeply relieved. Having had the opportunity to meet them and see their concern and fears for the situation, I know the sense of relief that they will be feeling, and it is a good thing that, in a way, we are able to formally share national rejoicing in this parliament.Questions Without Notice980198019801Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Attorney-General. Has the Attorney-General seen an article in today's Australian headed `UN police demand danger money'? Why have the Australian Federal Police serving with the UN in East Timor been refused a level of allowance promised to them by the AFP when initially deployed? Further, will he investigate the suggestion that is contained in this article that:. . . the Government pocketed a UN mission subsistence allowance while they were based in Darwin prior to deployment. During this period, police stayed in what they called "Tin City"—converted shipping containers.Is the government aware that these officers have worked under great adversity, all facing threats and several facing armed attacks from members of the pro-integrationist militia which have included being fired on and stoned? Will he now investigate the grievances of the officers and ensure that they are ameliorated?9801Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I am grateful for the opportunity that the question by the Leader of the Opposition presents to set the record straight in this regard. When the concerns of the AFP personnel deployed to East Timor, which are reflected in the article in the Australian referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, were brought to the attention of the Minister for Justice and Customs, she immediately asked the Federal Police Commissioner to review them as a matter of urgency. I am advised that the AFP is seeking a further review of the threat assessment, which determines the level of mission allowance paid to not only police but also defence personnel deployed to UNAMET. Travelling allowance will be paid in accordance with the determination of conditions of service made by the commissioner, on which members were fully briefed prior to their deployment. It should be understood that some components of the UN allowance cross-relate with the Australian government allowances. These need to be separated. The short answer is that the members will in fact receive further payment.I am also advised by the commissioner that the AFP did not receive any UN mission subsistence allowance during the member deployment to Darwin. The UN paid the appropriate allowance direct to individual members, in accordance with their normal practice. From the information I have received, AFP personnel have displayed considerable professionalism and courage in the work they are doing for UNAMET. I have been assured that the members will receive their full entitlements and recognition for the important role that they play.98029802Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister inform the House of recent developments in East Timor? What is the Australian government doing to try to help bring about a peaceful resolution to the problems of East Timor? Is it now time to send in a United Nations peacekeeping force?9802Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—First, can I thank the honourable member for Parramatta for his question. Let me begin answering his question by saying that the ballot that took place on Monday was an outstanding success, and we are all aware of that, but let us remember one other thing: that ballot cannot be undone. That success is there forever, and we look forward to the results of the ballot being announced, probably over the weekend. To get to the point of the ballot taking place took enormously delicate diplomacy on the part of many countries, obviously from Australia but also from the Secretary-General of the United Nations down. Of course, over and above that, we in this country, as elsewhere, are very concerned about the violence that has taken place over the last couple of days. It is the view of the Australian government that the TNI, the Indonesian military, can and must do more to stop the rampant behaviour of the militias. This morning, our ambassador Mr McCarthy, who is still in East Timor, met with Major General Damiri, who is the commander of the military region which is responsible, inter alia, for East Timor. He is also meeting in the course of today with the military district commander for East Timor, Colonel Muis. In both of these meetings—certainly in the first, which has taken place—he has made and will make very strong representations to the TNI about the events of the last two days.The honourable member asked about peacekeeping. Of course, there has been some discussion and consideration of that issue in this country and in many quarters around the world. Let me make two points about that. The first is that it was always our view and the view of the United Nations and others that, if we as an international community had made the ballot conditional upon a peacekeeping force over the last six months, the ballot would never have happened. We cannot prove the past, but that was the assessment we made, and I think it is fair to say that that assessment would be shared by the United Nations.It has not been easy to get to the point of the ballot—for a quarter of a century there was not one; finally there has been one and it was, in our view and in the view of the very distinguished observer group from the Australian parliament and from other parts of the community, a pretty good ballot. They will be producing their report, which we hope to publish next week. I do not think we would have ever got there if we had made that ballot conditional upon the insertion of a peacekeeping force. It is important to understand—and it was a point emphasised to the Prime Minister so graphically in Bali at the end of April—that the Indonesians were fiercely opposed to a peacekeeping force being inserted.The ballot, though, has now happened and we are in a particularly sensitive period over the next few days in the lead-up to the announcement of the results. As I said, it is possible that those results could be announced over the weekend. We do need to be very careful what we say during this delicate period, but I do want to say something a little further about this process. If the vote is for independence, there is planning taking place for a United Nations security presence to be brought in place in East Timor. That is a point I have made on a number of occasions. We obviously have been deeply involved in those discussions, and we obviously are prepared to participate in that security operation at whatever level is felt appropriate. The timing of such a presence is obviously a very delicate matter and depends on discussions with and agreement by the key players. The key players are, first and foremost, the parties to the tripartite agreement of 5 May—that is, Indonesia, Portugal and the United Nations Secretary-General. This is also a matter that will have to be considered by the United Nations Security Council, but let us never forget that it will of course have to be subject to the agreement of the Indonesian government. I note in a radio program today that that was a point the Leader of the Opposition—frankly, quite rightly—made.Though I am not accusing the opposition of this, there are some who say a peace enforcement operation should be sent into East Timor. A peace enforcement operation sent into East Timor against the wishes of Indonesia would be tantamount to a military attack on Indonesia, and that is not something this country is going to even contemplate. I do not think any member of this House would want to see us get into that kind of confrontation with Indonesia, and of course it is not sensible. We are concerned about the security environment. This so far admittedly very difficult process in bringing to fruition the problem of East Timor has been pretty successful, but we are absolutely determined that it can be brought to a satisfactory conclusion because that is in our interests, that is in Indonesia's interests and that is in the interests of the security of our part of the world.98039803Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTONYK6IsaacsALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, are you aware that Mrs Elaine Johannsen of Devon Meadows—one of your constituents—contacted your electorate office last week disgusted that after 20 years of service with footwear manufacturer Guerdon Industries, the company has folded, abrogating its responsibility to pay her and 35 colleagues up to half a million dollars in legally accrued entitlements? Minister, what have you done about the plight of your constituent? Given the Oakdale miners recovered 100 per cent of all entitlements owed to them, will you today give Mrs Johannsen and her fellow workers a commitment to assist them to recover 100 per cent of all entitlements they are owed?9803Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The government is of course aware that there are difficulties for people who as employees find themselves in the situation where a company goes insolvent and their entitlements are not met. I do not have all the particulars of that case and I have not myself spoken to the lady but I am very happy to do so.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Do you know where your electorate office is?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Banks!WI4Mr REITH—Where the government is able to assist immediately in these situations, then we are very keen to do so.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Is your penthouse in your electorate?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Brisbane.WI4Mr REITH—For example, in the case of Cobar, the government took the action available to it and something like 85 per cent of entitlements in that case were able to be recovered. It is a fact that in most industries in most situations, unlike Oakdale where there is an industry fund which can be made available—and I am pleased to say to the House that the Oakdale legislation has now passed the Senate so those workers will receive their entitlements—there is not an industry fund available, nor is there a national scheme available. The reason there is no national scheme available is that, when the Labor Party was in office for 13 years, you did nothing about it. In fact, on our calculations, for the 13 years that Labor was in, there was something like $1,800 million of employee entitlements and not one cent was paid. Not one cent—and you people call yourselves the supporters of the ordinary worker. You never lifted a finger. Not one of Labor's industrial relations ministers was ever actually prepared to stand up and do something for workers. On this side, we have a proud record of looking after the interests of workers. Not only have workers had higher pay in the time we have been in; we have reduced the unemployment rate now to the lowest level it has been in nearly 10 years.Let us not have the hypocrisy of Labor backbenchers talking to us about workers' rights. This government at least acknowledges them. Let me say it would be abroad in the Australian community for people to say, `It doesn't seem quite right that you could be a highly paid executive, leave a company in a parlous state and walk away with millions of dollars; yet if you are a worker who has done the right thing, worked hard in your business and made profits for your shareholders, in the end you get dudded.' We say that is not right. We say it is time something was done about it, and we intend to do something.98049804St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Is the minister aware of current controversies initiated by the New England Area Health Service with respect to aged care and hospital funding? Can the minister inform the House of the requirements of the Australian health care agreements in this situation?9804Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I am most certainly aware of the controversy in New England because of the very strong representations by the member for New England and also by the Deputy Prime Minister to me personally about what is a most outrageous situation. It started four weeks ago when the chief executive officer of the New England Area Health Service issued a memorandum. Miss Christine Kibble made the following claims:The Area Health Service receives no Commonwealth funding under the Australian health care agreements for aged care accommodation provided in public hospitals. In particular, hospitals are ineligible for funding under the Australian health care agreements for care provided to nursing home type patients—that is, people who have been in hospital for more than 35 days and who are not having acute care.She went on to say:Aged persons who require non-acute care only or aged care accommodation should no longer be admitted to public hospitals.So concerned was I about this that I asked for legal advice as to the status of the health care agreements. I would like to read to the House some excerpts from the legal advice I have obtained. It states:. public hospitals administered by Area Health Services must admit patients requiring non acute care. While these patients may be charged a fee after 35 days, public hospitals are still required to provide these services.It goes on to say:. the funding provided under the agreement does cover the provisions of care for such patients.One would have to ask themselves why on earth are a chief executive officer and a chairman of an area health service saying things aggressively, openly and publicly that are blatantly wrong and that they know to be blatantly wrong. I have had passed to me a copy of the New England Area Health Service aged care report dated December 1998. This is their own report. It is only nine months old. In this report, one of the items is headed `Nursing home type beds'. Let me read from the report. It says:The issue of nursing home type beds was raised at all site visits. If responsibility for these beds was transferred to the Commonwealth, the facilities would no longer be viable for the state.Two points come out of this. First, the New England Area Health Service's own report of less than nine months ago shows that quite clearly nursing home type beds are their own responsibility. So what the chief executive officer and the chairman are publicly saying is wrong by the report of their own area health service. Second, what Mr Jim Maher and Miss Kibble wish to do, again according to their own report, would make these hospitals no longer viable.The only consequence of doing what Miss Kibble and Mr Maher want to do is the closure of small country hospital beds in the New England Area Health Service area. They know this by their own report and they are dishonestly and unethically trying to shift the blame to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will not cop this. The very strong representations from the Deputy Prime Minister and the member for New England know this not to be true. Mr Jim Maher has been described to me as a Labor stooge. He should go and talk to the Labor government in New South Wales and get them to fund their responsibilities.98049804Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, are you aware that Braybrook Manufacturing, which manufactures Pelaco shirts in my electorate in Melbourne, is closing today with 70 retrench ed workers owed approximately $1.8 million in legally accrued entitlements? Are you also aware that more than half of these workers have up to 38 years of service at this factory and that under the options paper put forward by your government these workers would receive nowhere near their legally accrued entitlements? Prime Minister, given that Oakdale miners received 100 per cent of all the entitlements owed to them, will you today give these workers a commitment to assist them to recover 100 per cent of all entitlements that they are owed?9805Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The fact is that if this business had gone broke when you were in they would have got absolutely nothing. In fact, they would not have even got a recognition that there was a problem if the Labor Party had been in. I did meet with these workers yesterday. We had a long discussion, for an hour or so. To inform the House, for those on this side who are interested in these circumstances, we have been in discussion with the administrator. He is obviously an independent officer. There is some uncertainty about the extent of the assets available. There will apparently be a sale next week. The administrator has said to us that the assets—I presume on a book value—are worth $1.06 million. Obviously, there would be some expectation it will be less than that when the sale is finalised.In terms of the entitlements, his advice to us is that the entitlements were $75,000 or thereabouts for annual leave, $252,000 or thereabouts for long service leave and $347,000 for redundancy, but there is some dispute about the redundancy amount outstanding. The union says it is much more, but the administrator—and I emphasise he is an independent officer—believes it is less, and he has also told us that he is seeking legal advice on the extent of the entitlements. At this point in time on the information we have, there are some assets in the business but we do not know what is likely to be realised. The extent of the outstanding entitlements is yet to be clarified. We would hope that all of the entitlements are paid, but we will not be in a position to know whether that is the case until the administrator has been able to seek further advice.Of course we share the concerns of these workers. It is a very difficult situation for them. In the agreement, which I have seen part of, there was an agreement struck with the union that there be a fund established. This agreement is six months or eight months old.83KROXONMs Roxon—But this is under your act!WI4Mr REITH—They used the agreement making provisions of the act to establish a fund. The employer put $50,000 in and the company had a commitment to put in $5,000 a month. So they did have concerns. Their concerns unfortunately have been realised with what has happened in the last week or so. We will certainly do all within our power to assist them and where the Office of Workplace Services can take the matter further they certainly will. I said to the workers yesterday that we would continue to keep in contact with the administrator to see what assistance we can provide.In respect of the national scheme, we have released a discussion paper. We do take a safety net approach. We think that that is the right way to go. There will be others responding to the discussion paper who will want to put a different point of view to us, but our inclination is obviously a safety net approach. It is also our thinking that that scheme would be prospective in operation. We are hoping to have the matter settled sooner rather than later. Certainly, I would hope to be back to cabinet in due course with a further set of recommendations to deal with the matter.98059805McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Is the minister aware of concern in Victoria about access to public hospital services? Minister, what is the government's response to these concerns, in the context of the Australian health care agreements, and the attitudes towards hospital closures?9805Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I thank the member for Corangamite for his question and interest in this area. In a debate in the House last Tuesday some most extraordinary and quite inaccurate comments were made by the shadow minister for health. The basic thesis that was made was that the Prime Minister has stood feebly by while Jeff Kennett has dismantled his hospitals. It is interesting to compare this with the facts about what has happened in terms of hospital funding and hospital outcomes over the last three years. We are interested in outcomes, not merely processes.According to the Commonwealth Grants Commission's figures, since the beginning of the 1996 financial year Victorian government hospital funding has gone up by about 20 per cent in real terms. It is true that hospital funding in Victoria did decline—in the period 1991-92 to 1995-96, when it in fact declined by one-third. The only people who sat feebly on their hands when hospital funding declined was the then Hawke-Keating government and the finance minister, the now opposition leader. He admitted as much in 1996 during the election campaign when he said, `As fast as we put money in, the states pulled money out.' We have been able to overcome this problem. The 20 per cent increase in Victoria's own funding to hospitals in that period bears that out.Rather than total amounts of money, we are far more interested in outcomes. I would like to inform the House of the outcomes in Victorian public hospitals over the last three years. The latest figures only exist to December 1998.Ms Macklin interjecting—9806Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—We are coming to you. Between March 1996 and December 1998, the number of patients treated in Victorian hospitals increased by over 14 per cent from 202,000 to 230,000. The proportion of emergency cases getting treated in 10 minutes that required that urgency of treatment went up from 79 per cent to 84 per cent. The number of people on bypass in hospitals dropped by two-thirds. The number of people receiving elective surgery went up by 50 per cent. The number of people on waiting lists longer than ideal for semi-elective surgery went down by three per cent. That is an extraordinary record of achievement in a three-year period where the Commonwealth has been working with the state government in Victoria. It is not always easy, I might add, but we have achieved the outcomes for the Australian public.I also note that the honourable member for Jagajaga, both in her speeches to this House and in her interjections only a moment ago, has been complaining about hospital closures.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Sell offs.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—Sell offs. I find this extraordinarily unusual because I have in my hand a curriculum vitae from 1993 for one Jennifer Louise Macklin. In her curriculum vitae, Ms Macklin lists her proudest achievements. These include the smooth closure of Prince Henry Hospital.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The minister has the call.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—Here we have the shadow minister prepared to get up in this House and talk about hospital closures and yet in her own curriculum vitae, which I am delighted to table for the benefit of honourable members, she has the smooth closure of Prince Henry Hospital as one of her major achievements.Ms Macklin interjecting—8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—She is interjecting now in her normal, opportunistic, negative way about hospital sell offs. The thing that not many people know is that the other achievement that she lists on that is the new Monash Medical Centre. Do you know who owns the new Monash Medical Centre? It is owned not by the public of Victoria; it is owned by bond holders. It is entirely financed by private sector debt and the hospital is owned by bond holders. The Victorian government is actually trying to buy back a portion of it now. What we have here is an opposition that will say anything and do anything to try to get a political outcome. Next time they should do their homework to find out what they said in the past.Ms Macklin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga is well aware of the forms of the House. She cannot expect the Speaker's attention when she is interjecting.Ms Macklin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga will please exercise some restraint.98079807O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Is it a fact that the leader of the Victorian National Party told a recent ministerial meeting that Victoria will deregulate its dairy industry on 1 July 2000 whether you put an adjustment package in place or not? Are you also aware of comments by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, the member for Murray, reported in the Herald Sun recently, calling for a 12-month moratorium on dairy deregulation? Who is right on this issue—your party colleague the leader of the Victorian National Party or your parliamentary colleague the Liberal member for Murray?9807Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The initial question asked by the member for Corio included a statement that is approximately correct. Certainly the Minister for Agriculture in Victoria indicated that it was the intention of that state to deregulate their dairy industry from 30 June next year. There are many members of the government who have concerns about the future of the dairy industry. It is inevitable that, when there is substantial change proposed in an industry, that causes not only some concerns for individual growers but creates anxiety in dairy industry communities. Members of the government are noted for faithfully representing and putting forward the concerns of their farmers and making sure that they are adequately considered when the government addresses issues.The government is working with the dairy industry to develop a response to the decision of the Victorian government to deregulate the industry and the likely subsequent deregulation of other state industries at about the same time. We are working actively on that package. The industry is proposing some innovative ways of addressing those issues. I would expect that once that package is finalised we will have discussions with the various states about how it can effectively be implemented in the interests of the Australian dairy industry and the rural communities that are so dependent on that vital Australian industry.98079807Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact the government has committed some $7 million to the yes and no campaigns for the republic referendum but not a cent to educate the public about the proposed preamble? Given there are significant concerns about the preamble, should not resources be available to argue both the yes and no cases, otherwise isn't there a huge risk the preamble question will be regarded as insignificant and little more than a deliberate diversion from the republic question?9807Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the first part of the question is yes, we have. The answer to the second part of the question is that the government has to date not decided to allocate resources to publicise the case. One of the factors taken into account—one of them—was that the proposition in the ultimate received overwhelming support in the parliament. In the interests of always ensuring that the electorate is fully informed on these matters, I will give thought to the suggestion that is inherent in the honourable gentleman's question. But I would enter a caveat to that response by saying that if the level of disagreement within the parliament is a measure of community view on this issue and also on the issue of a republic, then there is a difference. And, with no disrespect to the honourable gentleman—who, of course, voted against the preamble resolution—my recollection is that it ended up being passed with a very heavy majority in this place.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—That is not right at all. It was in the caucus.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The caucus is not this place, I am relieved to note. Let me put it another way in terms that even the member for Banks can understand. It is my understanding that the federal parliamentary Labor Party is not going to oppose the preamble. Is that right?4T4MELHAMMr Melham—That is right.ZD4Mr HOWARD—That is right. So, if the federal parliamentary Labor Party is not going to oppose it and the government is going to support it, I think that is different from the stance taken in relation to the issue of the republic. I will give consideration to what the honourable gentleman said, but I do have to make the point to him that, for the reasons I have outlined, there are some differences. I want the preamble carried because I think it will very effectively express the views of the Australian people on a wide number of issues. I am very keen that it be carried, but I am equally conscious that public money is public money and that none of us should capriciously commit resources to these matters without being satisfied that the expenditure is entirely justified.98089808Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—My question is to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Can the minister advise the House of the government's initiatives regarding professional development for teachers, and what is the government's response to recent comments which have been made in relation to these initiatives?Ms Bailey interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for McMillan is warned!9808Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for La Trobe for his question, and I acknowledge his continuing interest in quality education for his constituents. The government is very proud to have initiated a major program for quality teaching which will provide professional development for Australia's teachers in a rapidly changing environment. Yesterday, the member for Dobell tried to deliver a killer blow against the government, claiming the government was not going to fund this program.Government members interjecting—BT4Dr KEMP—We were terrified to answer these probing questions from the member for Dobell. In fact, he presented me with two very sharp questions. Why, he asked, was there no money for the program in the schools legislation that came before the parliament yesterday and, secondly, how would the government meet its—MG4LEEMr Lee—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I will admit I was wrong on that if he admits he does not know what 32 minus four is.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell does not have a point of order.BT4Dr KEMP—He is trying to guess what I am going to say. The answer to the first question—why there was no money in the schools legislation before the parliament yesterday—is that the money was appropriated in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) following the budget. Let me just make it clear, in case anyone thinks that we are trying to treat the opposition unfairly in this matter, that following the budget I had my officers brief the member for Dobell on this very point. In June, not satisfied with that, my office sent further briefing material to the member for Dobell clarifying the fact that this appropriation was in Appropriation Bill (No. 1).We realise that the member for Dobell has got a very difficult task. He is carrying solely and alone the Pezzullo-Angley education policy for the Labor Party, the one that the member for Werriwa would not have a bar of. The member for Dobell has got the burden of carrying this. There is a lot of homework to do in the portfolio. Indeed, I see that a small article in the Australian this week said that Michael Lee has found the education portfolio `requires plenty of homework'. Following yesterday's performance, I prescribe two hours of homework a night for the member for Dobell. For the next week, I would start him off on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) and, if he does not get up to scratch, the member for Fremantle may find the opening she has been looking for on the front bench.98089808Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer and it relates to Australia's fine wine industry. Can the Treasurer advise the House if the states will be able to continue their existing rebate schemes for cellar door wine sales and mail order sales? Has the Commonwealth government guaranteed full funding to the states for such schemes?9809Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Indi for his question and his interest in the wine industry. As the honourable member would know, when the High Court struck down state business franchise fees, the Commonwealth, at the request of the states, put a surcharge on wine of 15 per cent—which included for the first time cellar door sales. The money which was recovered from that was paid to the states, and the states, in order to maintain the privileged position of cellar door sales, operated a rebate scheme. As a consequence of the new taxation arrangements, the Commonwealth has guaranteed to the states all revenues that they would have got under the old tax system, including the equivalent of the revenues from the wholesale sales tax, including that tax on wine.As a result of that guarantee, the states are therefore funded to continue to operate their 15 per cent rebate schemes. Every state is funded to continue its 15 per cent rebate scheme on a cellar door sale. Yesterday I wrote to all state Treasurers, indicating to them that the Commonwealth expected them to continue those schemes and to continue them in full. In addition to that, the government agreed, in an exchange of letters with the Australian Democrats back in June of 1999, on a tax exemption for cellar door sales up to $300,000. The Commonwealth makes it clear that it expects the states to run its 15 per cent rebate in full. In addition to that, where there are cellar door sales which are up to $300,000 and the rebate scheme does not entirely cash the wine equalisation tax out, the Commonwealth will top up the remaining 14 per cent on $300,000 of sales so that, on cellar door sales, all wineries will get the equivalent of an exemption of the 29 per cent up to $300,000 of sales—paid, firstly, from the 15 per cent rebate and, secondly, from the Commonwealth top-up. Where the 15 per cent rebate scheme amounts to the equivalent of the 29 per cent wine equalisation tax on $300,000 of sales, the Commonwealth will not be required to top up.The consequence of this is that cellar door sales will be protected. There will be additional Commonwealth advantage for small wineries who have wholesale sales up to the exemption limit of $300,000; and it will be good for the tourism industry. I want to pay tribute to those people that were active in securing such a fine outcome for the tourist wineries: the member for Indi, who made representations to me; the member for Grey, who made representations; the member for McEwen, who has made many representations; the member for Farrer; and Liberal and coalition members from Western Australia, both in the House and in the Senate.I notice that the member for Kingston, a wine grower, was active on the radio. I found his arguments totally unpersuasive in relation to all of these matters. He failed to disclose, at any stage whatsoever, his own financial interest in the wine industry when he was making those comments and failed to disclose that he was a wine grower. But he informs me that he grows a good red. As befitting the Labor Party, we would expect good reds to come out of the Labor Party—Opposition members interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—Now that they are liberated from having any influence. The Leader of the Opposition is like Me and Bobby McGee : `Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose'—with appropriate acknowledgment to Mr Tony Wright of the Age newspaper, who coined that: Bomber Beazley, Me and Bobby McGee. I want to pay tribute to all of those coalition members who were so influential in securing such a good outcome for the wine industry.98099809Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Aged Care. Minister, in light of your overriding on Tuesday of the department's policy on spot checks of aged care facilities—`I am the minister; that is the department'—have you instructed the department to commence spot checks immediately? When will you ensure that the department's response to the Senate estimates of 11 February 1999 is corrected? Or is the department's answer still the opera tive policy being followed by your department today?9810Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—I thank the member for Lilley for his question and, to put it into context, I will recap where we are. The member for Canning asked me on 26 August:Isn't it a fact that the Commonwealth can no longer carry out surprise inspections of nursing homes and hostels . . . How can you claim to be cracking down on poor quality homes when you have effectively nobbled the powers of the Commonwealth to properly investigate complaints made by residents?The second question was from the member for Lilley on 31 August when he asked:Do you recall telling the House that Commonwealth officers do not have to give notice when carrying out surprise inspections of aged care facilities to look into complaints for poor quality care?My department said in an estimates answer that `conducting "surprise" visits is not within the spirit of the new collaborative arrangements.' The Leader of the Opposition then took up the theme.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The thing that was asked her was whether or not she had altered the instructions of the department; it was quite simple. Perhaps she might like to address the `thing' in her answer.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister was responding to a question that has been asked of her on other occasions this week and it is not inappropriate for her to refer to the answers she gave on those occasions.SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—About those things, I have three points I wish to make. The first is that the department was speaking about only one of a range of monitoring powers that is done in cases other than serious cases, as was predicated in the question from the member for Canning when she spoke about poor quality homes—that is, where residents' health or wellbeing is at risk. I did not deal with the range of investigative and access powers available to the Commonwealth but I will in a moment. The second point I want to make is that, where the provider was a good provider, notice is given, and this reflects the cooperative spirit as mentioned in the response from the department. But where there is a case of real risk, where the health or the wellbeing of the resident is under threat, then unannounced visits are available under the Aged Care Act and under subordinate legislation. The third point I want to make is precisely what those powers are. The first one is the one I mentioned in the House yesterday: principle 1.7 under subordinate legislation under the Aged Care Act allows an assessor to make an unannounced call carrying a letter with him or her and proceed with the visit. The provider is obliged to give access. The second power relates to Commonwealth authorised officers being given access to aged care premises at any time of the day or night under section 91 of the act. The third power, if we require it, is the ability to obtain a monitoring warrant, from a magistrate, which will allow an officer access at any time or at a specified time with assistance, and force supplied as necessary.I have outlined those powers and they are important for people to know. Where a provider is a good provider, we exercise the policy reasonably and sensibly. But where there is a home where people are at a risk the unannounced visits are part of our policy. I repeat what I said a few days ago, that we will use all and any tools at our disposal to ensure that we do not allow individuals to be at risk.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I ask that the minister table the notes from which she so copiously quoted.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Was the minister reading from a confidential document?SE4BISHOPMrs Bronwyn Bishop—They are my confidential notes.98109810Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Can the minister advise the House how the Cairns Group meeting in South America has decided to deal with the forthcoming World Trade Organisation negotiations on agriculture? Why are these negotiations important for regional Australia and the nation?9811Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I would like to recognise two things at the outset. The first is that all of us in this House acknowledge that trade is very important. The second thing is that Mark Vaile, the Minister for Trade, following in a very proud tradition of good trade ministers in this place, has just chaired the 19th Cairns Group ministerial meeting in Buenos Aires—for which, I must say, the foundation was laid at the meeting in Sydney a little while ago at which the previous trade minister played such a critical role. I think it is worth noting that the communique that arose establishes some very clear and important principles regarding the forthcoming WTO negotiations on agriculture.Cairns Group members have reaffirmed their commitment to end discrimination against agriculture by bringing agriculture under the same WTO rules and conditions that apply to trade in other goods. It is very important that we continue to do everything we can to end the elimination of export subsidies and trade distorting domestic support devices. It is also very important that we do everything we can to seek major gains in market access. This is very important to Australia, Mr Speaker, as you will well know, coming from the electorate that you represent.The fact is that agriculture remains subjected to profound and costly distortions. OECD farmer support in 1998, for example, totalled $US362 billion. Despite that, it has to be said that the result has been lower prices for our farmers—and for everyone else's farmers—and the same sort of net loss figures in terms of farm communities and farmers moving on. So it has not worked. The group has sent a clear message that developed countries must practice for agriculture what they preach for other sectors.For a country like ours, this is extremely important as exports equal jobs. In fact, it is estimated that nearly 1.7 million Australian jobs depend upon exports that are either induced by or tied up with our exports of goods and services. In agriculture and fisheries it is 260,000 jobs or 60 per cent of the total. In mining and services to mining, it is 89,000 jobs or 90 per cent of all jobs. In food and beverages it is 70,000. In manufacturing—food manufacturing and fibre manufacturing, value adding, are the biggest sectors of the Australian manufacturing industry—it represents something like 430,000 jobs. In the case of transport and storage it is another 150,000. In tourism it is 170,000 jobs and indirectly a further 70,000 or 80,000 jobs.Mr Speaker, exports are vitally important for jobs in this nation. The more we can, through mechanisms such as the Cairns Group—so ably led in the past by ministers like the member for Farrer, parliament's best known middle bencher, and now by the Minister for Trade, the member for Lyne—the better for this nation. We want to get the so-called playing field tilted more fairly towards Australia. We will leave no stone unturned in our quest for that objective.98119811Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Aged Care. Can the minister confirm that groups representing older Australians have contacted her office to complain about the ridiculously short timetable provided to present the Commonwealth Recognition Awards for Senior Australians? Can the minister explain why she left every member of the House just four weeks to administer the program? Given that it took the minister seven months to decide to go ahead with the awards, how can she expect members to promote the awards, seek nominations, convene a selection panel and make a selection all within four weeks? Minister, won't the impossibly tight timetable inevitably deny older Australians an opportunity to participate in this worthwhile program?9811Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—The way in which the celebration of the international year has been planned is that the first half of the year was very much for grassroots functions. We had an organisation called Coalition 99 whereby over 1,000 groups across Australia have been involved in grassroots activities to bring about what I want to see as a cultural change in the way that older Australians are portrayed, and they see that we value them for their ongoing contribution.Opposition members interjecting—SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—The second part of the year has a much greater government focus and involvement. For instance, the first of the community service television advertisements went to air last Sunday evening on Channel 7. The older Australian awards involve members finding 20 people within their electorate nominated by others and chosen by a committee they established to seek one person who will come to Canberra on 30 September. In fact, the kits were delivered to all members at the end of July and you received a further—UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—No!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume her seat. The minister will be heard as the standing orders indicate she ought to be heard, or I will take action.SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—Thank you, Mr Speaker. Indeed, I had a call from one member of the opposition around the date when they were delivered asking, `Did we get them on the same date as all government members?' I was able to say yes, because they were all delivered at the end of July. I had another note from another member of the opposition only in the last few days, and I can only say that perhaps you had better look at the way you run your office, because this particular member—7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Why didn't you put a date on the letter?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect!SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—The long and the short of it was that many members have used their federation committees to select those people.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek guidance from you, Mr Speaker. The whole point of this question is the fact that members on this side of the House only received these kits less than two weeks ago. The minister is now conveying information to the parliament that is just not true. I seek your advice.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister is responding to the question. I call the minister.83LGILLARDMs Gillard—Why didn't you date the letter?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lalor is warned. I have already called members on both sides of the House to show the minister the sort of courtesy that ought to be extended to all ministers.SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—This is a very important program and it is very important to older Australians. I am very disappointed to see the way the opposition is treating the year.Mrs Irwin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Fowler is warned!SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—Indeed, Senator Evans, the man who has responsibility for the opposition, rose in the Senate only the day before yesterday complaining about the fact that he did not think there was enough happening. Yet I am very disappointed to have to report that yesterday there was a forum for 25 senior Australian women scientists.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was specific to the timetable associated with the development and awarding of these honours to our senior citizens. It was a serious question, seriously asked. Obviously, members of parliament cannot operate it in the course of one month. The minister is doing anything but answer the question. She is now discussing totally extraneous matter.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—She wouldn't answer why she sent an undated letter.83ZIRWINMrs Irwin—Treating older Australians as a joke.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect is warned! The minister is systematically answering the question she was asked and will continue to do so. I call the minister.SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am very disappointed in the attitude—83ZIRWINMrs Irwin—You are treating older Australians as a joke; that's what you are doing.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Fowler will excuse herself from the House under the provisions of standing order 304A.The honourable member for Fowler thereupon withdrew from the chamber.SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—As I said, I am very disappointed in the way the opposition is treating this. As I said yesterday, there was an important forum of older women who are scientists and who ranged in age from 73 to 90. I must say Senator Evans was invited to attend to honour these older Australians—Opposition members interjecting—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I take a point of order on relevance. There was absolutely no way that relevance could be established for that.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am quite happy to rule on that point of order. I do not think members of the House appreciate the degree to which it has been difficult, frankly, to hear the minister in the last 30 seconds. For that reason, I would ask the House to come to order so that I can hear what is being said by the minister.Mr Beazley interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has asked about the point of order. I thought I had made it self-evident that I am genuinely unable to rule on his point of order because I could not hear what the minister was saying. It is a problem that I notice is being shared by other members.SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—The point I wanted to make about these distinguished Australian women scientists is that Senator Evans was invited to the forum and he was invited to the cocktail reception. He neither replied nor attended. In other words, he was not bothering to honour older Australians.Opposition members interjecting—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before I call the Leader of the Opposition, I must indicate to him and to all members of the House that I have no idea what the minister said in response to the question. Minister, I cannot hear your answer. You are invited to conclude the answer but you must do so rapidly.SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—I will conclude the answer by saying this is a very good and important program. I would ask the opposition to get behind it as the government members have.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—It is an absolute insult to the ageing population.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am exercising more discretion than I should in the case of the member for Prospect because she is an occupier of this chair.98139813Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Can the minister inform the House of agreements made this week between Australia and Brazil to work jointly to reform the international sugar trade?9813Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the member for Herbert, who is one of the members that represents the great Australian sugar industry, for his question. Townsville is a very important sugar exporting centre and is the service centre for many of the sugar growing areas of Far North Queensland. In a previous answer the Deputy Prime Minister referred briefly to the Cairns Group meeting attended by the Minister for Trade during this past week.I was very delighted to hear from Minister Vaile and to report to the House that Australia has reached agreement with Brazil, the biggest sugar producing country in the world, to work cooperatively in the lead-up to the world trade talks in Seattle in an endeavour to establish a much fairer trading regime for sugar. Countries like those in the European Union and the United States have put on tariffs and quotas which place barriers on the export of Australian sugar and indeed on exports from Brazil into their markets. They are major users of sugar, yet their trading policies have denied access to the biggest sugar producers of the world.Yesterday the Australian minister briefed his Brazilian counterparts on the work undertaken by the federal government and the Queensland Sugar Corporation on the positive impact on the world sugar industry if trade barriers could be broken down. Brazil is anticipating a much smaller crop next year in response to the declining world prices, and I suppose that is something of good news to the Australian industry. There was some further good news for Australian farmers in that Brazil have indicated that they will be increasing the ethanol from sugar content in their transport fuel—from 24 per cent to 26 per cent in petrol and up to three per cent in diesel. This will divert more sugar cane from the world market into their fuel production industry and should have a positive effect on the Australian sugar price.It is important that Cairns Group nations like Brazil and Australia work together to break down the trade barriers that are distorting agricultural trade and significantly disadvantaging Australia's efficient industry. I welcome the support of the members of the government who represent these sugar seats in putting forward very strongly Australia's case to break down trade barriers that hurt only efficient producers like the Australians.98149814Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is the Minister for Aged Care. Isn't it a fact that the details of the award program arrived at the earliest in members' offices on 10 August and some as late as 20 August? Since it is your bungle, will you extend the deadline?9814Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—I can only repeat what I said in my last answer and refer you to the letter that I subsequently wrote in which I said: `By the 6th'—that is next Monday—`I need the name of the one person that you are each sending to Canberra and that you have until 1 October during which you can make the remainder of the 19 awards.' That letter went out to you some time ago. If you have not seen it—I might add for the Labor Party that your copy of the letter was taken and delivered to your whip for him to fax it to you—perhaps you might ask your whip.98149814Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Can the minister inform the House how the government has responded to the report of the Independent Review Panel for the End of War List Vietnam?9814Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. Members of the House may remember that I announced to the chamber on 30 March this year that an independent review panel would review the recommendations for the six Vietnam veterans on the End of War List Vietnam. I am pleased to place on the record today that the Governor-General has accepted the government's recommendations and that these six veterans will receive Medals for Gallantry, which is in line with the recommendations of the Independent Review Panel. This decision means that these soldiers will receive the same medals as officers on the list who were recommended for the Military Cross at the time of the conflict.The Military Medal is an imperial award and was no longer available under the Australian honours system when the Vietnam End of War List was finalised in February last year. The review panel found that the Medal for Gallantry rather than the Commendation for Gallantry—which was initially offered to these soldiers on the End of War List—was an award equivalent to and more appropriate than the Military Medal. What was at stake, I believe, was an intrinsic Anzac virtue, and that was fairness—and I think most Australians agree with that. The panel's recommendations have maintained the integrity of the Australian honours system and I think ensured that the system has remained, and will continue to remain, truly egalitarian. The offering of awards under the Vietnam End of War List to 81 veterans is the finalisation of an election commitment made by the coalition in 1996 and I am pleased that we have accepted the Independent Review Panel's recommendation on this issue.I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the members of the Independent Review Panel: Peter Phillips, the National President of the RSL; Clive Mitchell-Taylor from the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia; and Noel Tanzer, the former secretary to my department. I thank them for their report, but I would also like to take the opportunity to thank members of the parliament on both sides of this House who have raised this issue with me and, importantly, were also active in their own communities as the panel went around Australia taking evidence on this very important matter. I have sent a number of reports to members of the opposition with an interest in this matter. The report will be available on the Department of Defence's Internet site and I would recommend that to members who have an interest in this issue.98159815Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Aged Care. Are you aware that the letter to which you drew our attention—that which you passed on to the whip's office—was forwarded to the whip under the date 23 August 1999 and then transmitted by the whip to his colleagues on 24 August, the day after he received it from you? As you have botched this program, as I said before, will you now extend the deadline so that proper honour can be given to the senior citizens of this country? Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the letter.Leave granted.9815Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—As I said in my last answer, what I need, by next week, is the name of the individual, along with that of the person coming to Canberra with that individual. The reason I need that name is so we can make all the arrangements for plane travel and hotels so that they can be here on 30 September—CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order, again on relevance. Earlier, the minister stated that she had sent this information to people at the end of July. I have made it perfectly clear, along with every other member on this side, that what she is now saying is totally untrue. What are you going to do about it?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke will resume his seat. There is no point of order and I call the minister.SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—I am saying that we need the name of the individual by next week in order to make arrangements for the dinner on 30 September, at which there will be a celebration and the announcement. If individual members have difficulty in getting names to me and they contact me accordingly—as a number of folk have done—then we can mark down the places for them to be and you can let me know the times. The date of the function, of course, cannot be altered. The date of the function is the eve of the International Day for the International Year of Older Persons. So I would be pleased to have your nominations next week and for the opposition to get behind the program, as have the members of the government.98159815Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, can you inform the House whether the coalition government will achieve the implementation of its election promise to ensure the preservation of young people's jobs?9815Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—We understand that today the government will secure through the Senate the passage of our workplace relations reforms in respect of young people. That will see for young people the fulfilment of a promise which we gave in the last election, and that is that this government would work hard, would work tirelessly and would not rest until we had achieved a better system for young people to protect their jobs and to provide new job opportunities in the future. This is therefore a great day for young people in not only protecting up to 200,000 jobs in the retail sector but also opening the door for new jobs in new industries where the Labor Party and the unions had closed down junior wage rates in the awards. This is an important part of this legislative initiative. Not only have we now protected existing jobs but also we have hopefully opened the door for new jobs as the commission in the next 12 months and beyond takes applications and is able to consider the matter.It is an important day because, six years ago, the Labor Party inserted this anti age discrimination. They did not then appreciate what they were doing. It was an agreement made in the Senate without a proper understanding of its consequences. It was immedi ately seen by employers as being a disaster for young people, and it has taken six years of hard work on this side, and particularly the last three years in which this government has been in office, to finally achieve a fantastic outcome for young people. I want to pay tribute to those who have worked very hard for this outcome—the backbench committee, led by the member for Longman, and members right across the coalition who have been genuinely concerned that we finally get a decent outcome for young people.Lastly, we have a strong economy, we have unemployment down to the lowest level it has been for 10 years at seven per cent and the figures in respect of young people are some of the best figures we have had not just in the last decade but in the last two decades. This is a tribute to leadership, tenacity and a sense of direction which we on this side have exhibited all through this. Credit should be given where credit is due: the Prime Minister has taken the lead on this issue and, as a result, young people will now find their jobs secure, and they will have the opportunity of jobs in the future. It is worth reading out a quote from today's Australian which would be of interest to members:On Sunday Mr Bevis contacted the Democrats' industrial relations spokesman, Andrew Murray, and asked to see the Democrat amendments . . . Of course he asked for them, because he knew they had been worked up with the ACTU. In reference to the amendments, it goes on to say:. . . which the Democrats took as a sign of possible change from the ALP.The fact is they threw a wobbly at the end of last week and over the weekend. They were looking to see whether they could plant a poison pill in our amendments. They were flushed out yesterday, as they should have been. As a result, they did not see the light; they felt the heat of public opinion on this issue. This is a great day for young people and a testament to our Prime Minister's leadership.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper . Questions Without Notice9816981615:26:009816Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I seek leave to clear up a matter which was raised in question time yesterday pertaining to my department.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is leave granted?EZ5Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTT—I am seeking indulgence, essentially, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am sorry; you in fact sought leave.EZ5Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTT—If leave is inappropriate, I would seek indulgence.Mr Lee interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If the member for Dobell would give the chair five seconds, I may be able to get out more than two words. It is my understanding that the Minister for Employment Services is seeking leave to add to an answer that was given by the Minister for Community Services yesterday. Is the chair's understanding correct?EZ5Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTT—That is what I wish to do. I wish to provide some information which was sought by the shadow minister for family and community services yesterday. I wish to put it on the record, if members opposite wish to hear the answer.Leave granted.EZ5Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTT—It is important to point out that the Minister for Community Services was somewhat unfairly targeted yesterday over this regrettable incident involving old government files. They were not Centrelink files at all. I am advised that they were old files from the Commonwealth Employment Service.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order!Mr Swan interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Lilley, the minister has the call.Mr Swan interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lilley is warned. EZ5Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTT—I am advised that the normal procedure for inactive files is that they are archived according to standard procedures or they are destroyed. I am advised that, contrary to those procedures, two boxes of old CES files were sent not to the archives but to a furniture store. That was the first mistake that was made. The second mistake was that the store was not properly inspected before it was vacated. The point I want to make is that they were old CES files. They had nothing to do with the Job Network, and they had nothing to do with Centrelink. I am advised that this error is entirely the responsibility of my own portfolio. I have asked the department to investigate and to report to me as a matter of urgency as to how this happened and measures to be undertaken to ensure that there is no recurrence.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I call the Manager of Opposition Business.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business knows that I am doing my best to accommodate him. Unfortunately, it is only he and I that are making an effort to accommodate him at this point in time.15:30:009817McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to address you briefly on a procedural point arising from that answer. While we appreciate the information from the Minister for Employment Services, it is clearly incorrect with regard to the matters that were raised and does not accurately respond to the matters raised by the member for Lilley. I was hoping that you would provide an equal opportunity for the member for Lilley to clarify matters as the minister has had the opportunity to do.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I did not grant indulgence.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—Mr Speaker, I understand that you did not grant indulgence there because the standing orders allowed him to add to the question. The same provisions do not allow that for the shadow minister, but I am seeking your indulgence to give him equal opportunity to respond on that matter.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I understand.15:31:009817Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The Minister for Employment Services has done entirely the right thing. The question was yesterday asked of another minister. Normally, if a question is asked of the wrong minister, the subject matter is clear and the responsible minister has the opportunity to answer the question. On this particular occasion, the circumstances were not clear. The minister has done the right thing. He has come into the House and made the circumstance clear. As a minister, he is to account to the parliament. That, however, does not provide an opportunity for the opposition to simply continue a de facto debate on the issue. The minister is in effect answering a question. Leave was given for that purpose. If the opposition want to raise the matter, they should use the other forms of the House.15:32:009817McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—Mr Speaker, I seek indulgence to address you again on that matter. We are not criticising the Minister for Employment Services. We believe he genuinely came in seeking to be of assistance, but he is wrong in this matter. The House is misinformed, though not deliberately by the minister. I am sure that the facts which he gave are accurate, but they do not relate to the question which was asked. If indulgence is given to the member for Lilley to respond for an equally brief period of time on this occasion—and I accept that what the minister says is a correct statement under normal circumstances—it might be clarified and the House will be better informed, which is in the public interest.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The chair properly sought leave in order to allow the minister to respond to that, as the Manager of Opposition Business has conceded. The difficulty with granting indulgence to the member for Lilley is that similar indulgence then needs to be granted to the minister, should he believe he had been in some way misrepresented. It is not the intention of the chair to get into a series of debates on this issue. It is the intention of the chair to allow the minister to add to an answer.15:33:009818Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—Mr Speaker, let me assure you that it is not my intention to engage in a debate. I am seeking your indulgence to make one point in response to the minister. It is a very serious matter. It involves over 101 cases.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lilley cannot advance an argument.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—The minister sits on the files. The files have been locked away. I want you to provide an audit of what was in those files to this parliament immediately.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Indulgence is not extended. The member for Lilley just ensured that that would not happen.Personal Explanations981815:33:009818Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—I was yet again misrepresented by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business a little while ago in this place. The minister misrepresented both the facts and indeed the article from which he was reading. The article from which he was reading also included the following statement: `Last night, Arch Bevis, Labor's spokesman on industrial relations, said that there would be no change to the government's legislation which Labor supported.' He said, `I did not negotiate with the Democrats.' Anticipating that the minister might adopt the position he adopted in question time, I also took the precaution of issuing a press statement, widely distributed this morning—which would be known to the minister and his staff—which made this plain. I quote:At no time were there any negotiations with the Democrats, and at no time was it suggested by us that there should be.As a professional courtesy, I spoke with Senator Murray last Saturday after rumours were floated on Friday that the Australian Democrats were negotiating with Mr Reith. At no time did I give Senator Murray any grounds to believe Labor was considering supporting changes to our agreed position.The simple fact of the matter is that this minister invented a rumour yesterday, was embarrassed by it yesterday and is now trying to pick up ground.15:35:009818Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—I was misrepresented by the Minister for Health and Aged Care in question time. As the minister knows full well, I most certainly do not support the sell-off of public hospitals, unlike the Howard government which is doing nothing to stop the sale of the largest public teaching hospital in Melbourne.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga will lose her opportunity for any further personal explanation if she defies the chair as she is doing now.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—As the Minister for Health and Aged Care knows, Prince Henry's Hospital was moved, not sold.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga has made the point on which she was misrepresented.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—I have a second point.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You had indicated that to me, hence my cautionary word.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—Secondly, I was misrepresented by the Treasurer in his sneering interjection. Unlike 17 members of the government frontbench, I have no interest in a family trust.15:36:009818Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs made a number of incorrect claims during question time. In particular, he claims that there should have been sufficient information in the budget papers for me to have realised that the funding for professional development was in Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999 and Appropriation (Supplementary Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999 . I simply refer the minister to page 83 of Budget Paper No. 4, which does not clarify that the funding for professional development will be there. That is the first point. The second point is that the minister has misled the House in claiming that my staff and I—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell must come to the point on which he has been personally misrepresented.10000Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The minister misled the House when he said that my staff and I were advised by his office that the professional development funding would be provided in the appropriation bills. That is not the case and, given the fact that that was a private, off-the-record briefing, I find it hard to understand how the minister breaks undertakings he seeks from us.15:37:009819Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?5K6Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS—Yes, I do.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.5K6Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS—The Minister for Aged Care, in answer to a question earlier today, implied that I, as a member of this opposition, was inefficient in relation to the program of awards for older Australians and my operation of the program.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Canberra cannot continue. If I were to allow that as a personal explanation, I would have to allow approximately 50 others.5K6Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS—Mr Speaker, with the greatest respect, as a member of this opposition, I have been defamed in this House in my operation as a local member, and I have done everything in my power to operate that program.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Canberra will resume her seat!15:38:009819Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I do, by the Minister for Aged Care, who is at the table.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—The Minister for Aged Care said in answer to a question today that, along with other members, we had been written to at the end of July advising the details of the program. The letter I received was dated 16 August, and I wrote back asking her to extend the time.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition must indicate where he has been personally misrepresented.15:40:009819Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOP—Indeed, by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOP—In fact, those kits were dispatched by a mailing house on 27 July.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Aged Care is not indicating where she has been personally misrepresented.SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOP—I have been personally misrepresented by his saying that they were sent on 16 August. That was the second letter, which told them about being given extra time. The first letter went on 27 July. Where I have been misrepresented is that I received the first inquiry from Mr Cox, the member for Kingston, and Mr Adams, the member for Lyons, in response to my first letter on 28 July. The fact of the matter is the first letter went on 27 July from a mailing house and the second letter went on 16 August.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister has made her point.15:40:009820Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I seek leave to table the letter sent from the Minister for Aged Care to me dated 16 August setting out the details of the procedures by which we were to nominate the person. How can you do it in such a short time? It is absolute stupidity.Leave granted.Miscellaneous982015:41:009820Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I would like to briefly acknowledge that it is Ms Suzanne de Smet's last day as the Tabling Officer in the PLO. She would be familiar to many members in the House. She has been in the PLO since April 1996, and she has been the Tabling Officer since July 1997. She has a record that other members may envy: she has been returned after three elections. We thank her very much for the work that she has done. She leaves to take up a position with the Office of the Status of Women in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. I am sure I speak on behalf of all members when I wish her well.Documents982015:42:009820Reith, 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 .Leave of Absence9820Motion (by Mr Reith)—by leave—agreed to:That leave of absence for the remainder of the current period of sittings be given to the honourable member for Forrest on the grounds of public business overseas.Motion (by Mr Beazley)—by leave—agreed to:That leave of absence for the period 3 September 1999 to 22 November 1999 be given to the honourable member for Chisholm for maternity purposes. Matters of Public Importance9820982010000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The need for integrity in the Government's approach to the living standards and workplace security of the Australian people.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—15:44:009820Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I thought for a moment in question time we would induce good behaviour in this government, but he could not help himself. He sat there chafing under the discipline of his colleagues, who finally corralled him and said, `No more,' and then, like Frankenstein's monster, he leapt out at the end of it with another piece of routine misleading of the House, another piece of blackguarding of his opponents, another piece of deception in relation to the way in which he has conducted himself in his portfolio, to the very great detriment of parliamentary standards, ministerial standards—WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to make charges of that sort, the standing orders require a substantive motion. Furthermore, it is very unreasonable to make such charges against Dennis Shanahan when he is in the gallery today, seeing it was his article upon which I based my comments.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I thank the Leader of the House and I call the Leader of the Opposition.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Basically, what we have had introduced by this minister leading the government—it is not only him—is positively Orwellian language. You need that Orwellian language when you wish to do things to people and you hope that they take it only in their subconscious and not up-front. That involves deft use of language from time to time. It involves deliberate and blatant misleading from time to time. It involves precisely the sort of behaviour we have seen from this minister.WI4REITHMr Reith—I have a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I heard exactly what the Leader of the Opposition said. He did use the words `deliberately misleading', but he was not applying them to anybody in particular. The Leader of the Opposition will continue.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Let me apply it, however, on this occasion to a person who is not a member of this House—but closely resembles one who is—that is, a character named Squealer that appears in the novel Animal Farm ; a novel with which we are all very familiar. The novel states:The best known among them—these are the animals on the farm—was a pig named Squealer, with very round cheeks, twinkling eyes, nimble movement, and a shrill voice. He was a brilliant talker and, when he was arguing some difficult point, he had a way of skipping from side to side and whisking his tail which was somehow very persuasive. The others said of Squealer that he could turn black into white.Squealer was the nemesis of another character named Snowball. Snowball was a user of the English language in the normal way, but Snowball was an opponent of Napoleon who sought to establish a dictatorship in the farmyard. Snowball was purged by Squealer using his technique of Orwellian language. The story continues:On the third Sunday after Snowball's expulsion the animals were somewhat surprised to hear Napoleon announce that the windmill was to be built after all.You will recollect that the windmill was advocated by Snowball. It goes on:That evening, Squealer explained privately to the other animals that Napoleon had never in reality been opposed to the windmill . . . He had seemed to oppose the windmill simply as a manoeuvre to get rid of Snowball, who was a dangerous character and a bad influence. This, said Squealer, was something called tactics. He repeated a number of times, `Tactics, comrades, tactics,' skipping around. The animals were not certain what the word meant but Squealer spoke so persuasively— and here the similarity continues even more dramatically—and the three dogs who happened to be with him growled so threateningly, that they accepted his explanation without further questions.It is always nice to find in elevated literature a correct analogy for the truly prosaic—in this case, in politics; in this case, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business.What we have in the minister for workplace relations—in his routine misleading about the detail of negotiations he might have had and in attempting to demonise the opposition—is a person who is concealing in his activities a genuine threat to the ordinary living standards of ordinary Australians. In politics, there are consequences. In the woof and warp of politics in this place, there is a tendency in the media and the general public to simply say that what is going on in this place is a game, that what is going on in this place has no reality other than for the people who play it, for those who are here in this chamber.In fact, what happens in this chamber works its way out to ordinary Australians, their lives, their hopes and their aspirations. This minister's activities have worked themselves out to ordinary Australians, their lives, their hopes and their aspirations, but he conceals it behind titles. That bill which is to destroy awards, destroy the Australian Industrial Relations Commission's capacity to conciliate and arbitrate, destroy security for workers and destroy their capacity to collectively bargain goes under the title `More Jobs Better Pay'.When the minister gets up in this place and attempts to demonise the opposition and recover ground that he lost monumentally over the course of the last week, when he gets up in this place and attempts to mislead about the activities and actions of members of the opposition, he does so for political advantage but he does so for a greater purpose. The greater purpose is to clothe himself in a position of authority that he hopes will allow him to put this greater con job over on the Australian people—to try to con them on the subject of the status and attitudes of the opposition—but what he is really conning them on is what he intends to do to them.The other day there was an interesting poll—and it is of a piece with a couple of other polls I have seen in the course of the last few weeks—about how people see themselves, their opportunity and their life in this nation. You would think, after three years when the government finally managed to get back to the levels of growth we enjoyed for four or five years before this government came into office, there would be around in the community a sense of pleasant ease, a sense of fulfilment and a sense that what stretched before them was endless opportunity.In fact, what that poll reflected, despite something like now eight or nine years of growth, was a great amount of angst and concern and a belief that they were not getting out of life what they hoped to get out of life. In particular, this applies to people in family situations, where any sense of insecurity is augmented and manifested through concern not just for yourself but for your spouse and the rest of your family. Those in families, in particular, reported higher levels of stress towards family life in this poll than in previous polls recorded.One of the reasons—not the only reason—is a direct outcome of the last piece of Orwellian speak that this minister put in place: his last effort at industrial relations. I can remember him standing in this place when he said, `What we're doing here is introducing more flexibility in the workplace. Isn't that going to be great for family life?' Minister, the flexibility was only one way—flexibility for employers in relation to their employees' working schedules, overtime and all that gives an employee comfort in what they are able to do with their working hours and matches it with their ordinary responsibilities in family life. It was flexibility for the employer to impact on those things and none going the other way. Just in case you decide to negotiate a bit of flexibility the other way, the only way you are capable of doing it is to do it collectively, but there are impediments thrown in the way of collectively doing it, and there will be more on top of that in this next wave of legislation.There are real consequences from these people who come into politics unacquainted with the normal requirements of truthful expression when it comes to detailing what you are doing to the Australian people. We are familiar with this minister because we have not only the experience of his legislation but also the experience of his actions. We saw that writ large in relation to the waterfront. He stood up again in question time and fulminated about employers who place themselves in situations where they benefit themselves but leave their companies in a situation where they cannot pay out their workers. Oh, was he so anxious: `I'm doing something about this. You didn't in 13 years.' He forgets he has been there for 3½ years. He has had exemplar legislation here for two years. He said he would do something about it 18 months ago, and we finally see a discussion paper whereby they can keep 20 per cent. That is where the milk of human kindness takes him.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Of their own money.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—They can keep 20 per cent of their own money. But we reflect on the fact that this behaviour he so unctuously rails against is the behaviour that he not only approved but also organised in relation to the last waterfront dispute. In that instance he himself abrogated the terms and conditions of his own act which allows people to choose to be members of unions and not to be disbenefited if they so choose. He organised to have anyone who was a member of the MUA moved off the work force. He concealed that he was organising alternative work forces in Dubai. He misled the House in relation to that, misled the House in relation to his relationships with Corrigan and misled the House in relation to his knowledge of the things that he was doing with regard to that. All for what? He said to improve the situation on the waterfront. We have seen the statistics come in on that, haven't we? He has achieved the magnificent outcome of halving the productivity rates of P&O. What an achievement! What a magnificent outcome!He is also getting a few reports in on what is happening on the other front as well. There has been a lessening of performance in that regard and an across-the-board increase in rates. All of these things he said to the people who were entitled to believe what his motives were. He said, `I'm here to create a more efficient waterfront. I am here to create a cheaper waterfront.' That is what he said he was doing. He has created the opposite in both cases and he has had the taxpayer pay for it, at least in the first instance. Actually, in the final instance as well, because it is recovered from them. He has had the taxpayer pay it and what he has produced is a less efficient waterfront, a less productive waterfront and a more expensive waterfront. But he concealed his true aim behind those arguments of his. His true aim was to destroy the union. His only aim was to destroy the union. His only aim was to destroy the rights of people in this country to collectively bargain. His only aim was to destroy the sense of security that comes with people who have the opportunity to collectively bargain.What was said of him at the time does not bear thinking about, but what he did was to see introduced onto the waterfront a level of violence, a level of secretiveness and a totally un-Australian approach to the organisation of industrial relations. In that way, he assisted—though he was successfully confronted by the rest of the Australian community—in fostering that sense of insecurity that I referred to earlier. Then we come round now to his performance of the last week.WI4REITHMr Reith—What about the MPI?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I am talking about your effect on their living standards and your effect on their sense of confidence about their living standards.Opposition members interjecting—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—And now we come round to this Orwellian character's performance of this last week, the Orwellian character of this fellow's performances in the course of this last week when he deliberately went out there and floated false rumours to give himself an opportunity—WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Deputy Speaker, the word `deliberate' is unparliamentary and he should be asked to withdraw.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I must say, Leader of the House, that there was so much noise coming from the opposition with the `oink oinks' and the `squealers', which are totally out of order, that I could not actually hear what he said. Forgive me, but I will try to listen harder. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—He unconsciously went out and did it because he could do it in his sleep now, if you do not like the word `deliberate'. But, Minister, you are the least trusted man in Australian politics now. That is your achievement—the least trusted man in Australian politics. We would love the fact that you are the least trusted man in Australian politics and we would enjoy your presence were it not for the fact that you did such damage to ordinary Australians, ordinary Australian families. And for that you should be condemned. (Time expired)15:59:009823Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Over the years I have seen opposition leaders in difficulty. In the last fortnight we have seen, albeit slowly, the death throes of a Leader of the Opposition. The fact is that he has no policy, he has no direction, he has no gumption and no capacity to address the basic issues which concern most Australians. He talks about the waterfront. I tell you, most Australians remember the wharfies in this country holding Australia to economic ransom. Most Australians remember the `nick off' which was supported by the Labor Party where you could be paid for sitting at home at double time and a half and basically rip-off the employers and the balance of the Australian community as a result of the restrictive work practices on the Australian waterfront.I am delighted to be able to say to the House that in Melbourne, for example, the Patrick organisation is lifting containers at the rate established by the government of 25 crane lifts an hour. This is an international benchmark. That would never have happened except for the fact that the government said, `Enough is enough. We will support sensible reform.' Do not talk to me about employee entitlements in respect of the waterfront. We did exactly what the opposition did when it was in government in terms of ensuring that people got their proper entitlements by way of redundancy.It is an interesting reflection on the Leader of the Opposition that he raises a matter of public importance which refers to the living standards and workplace security of Australian people but barely gives those two subjects any mention whatsoever in his remarks.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—He doesn't understand it.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—It is more than the fact that he does not understand it. He does not want to acknowledge that since the coalition came into office in March 1996 the job security and living standards of Australians have been significantly improved. For all the rhetoric, for all the hyperbole, for all the misleading statements which he made, the fact is that the Australian economy is in the best shape it has been in for many years. This is a result of the sensible economic management and sensible legislative reform which we have introduced. In both regards, the Labor Party has opposed most of the sensible reforms that we have introduced.It was ironic that on the day the Leader of the Opposition was marching with a handful of trade unionists in Melbourne to protest against the reforms we have introduced, Australia recorded the lowest level of unemployment that we have had for a decade—that is, seven per cent. Employment is up. Nearly 500,000 jobs have been created since March 1996. We do not say that that is enough, but that is a far better record than Labor achieved when it was in office. As I have mentioned, unemployment has been significantly reduced in the time that we have been running the Australian economy.In respect of wages, the first question is: have you got a job? Clearly, the circumstances facing Australian business, and therefore the job prospects of Australians, are much better than they were. The second question workers want answered is: if I get a job, do I get a decent rate of pay? It is interesting to compare what has happened in the time that we have been in office with the time that Labor was in office.The data I have been given by my department, from official sources, reveals that real average weekly ordinary time earnings have risen by 10 per cent since February 1996. This is an average annual growth rate of three per cent. Let us compare that average annual growth rate with what happened when Labor was in office. I am advised that in contrast real average weekly ordinary time earnings only grew by 4.7 per cent in the 13 years Labor was in power. That is an average annualised growth rate of 0.35 per cent. Over the time we have been in office, the growth rate has been three per cent a year. Under Labor's 13 years in office they were only able to achieve a total of 4.7 per cent. On average that is one-tenth of the real wage increases that people have enjoyed during the time we have been in office.Real GDP per capita rose at an average annualised rate of 2.4 per cent when Labor was in power compared with 2.8 per cent under the coalition. That is a big improvement. We do not say that it is as good as it could be. Clearly, more reform is necessary to improve these results. But any fair-minded person would say that as we have been able to increase wages by 10 per cent in three years that is a lot better than the 4.7 per cent over the 13 years Labor was in office.The other good thing about this increase in real wages is that it has been accompanied by improvements in productivity. To generalise, in the Australian economy people are doing things better, they are doing things smarter, they are doing things more efficiently. That means that our productivity performance is better. For the average person, that means that because productivity is up things are in better balance in the Australian economy and we do not have the same high inflation that we once had. When you get an increase in your wages, that is a real increase, that is money you can keep in your pocket. We have preserved the purchasing power of those hard-earned dollars.Furthermore, because of our successes with inflation, as well as with the way in which we have managed the nation's finances, interest rates are down. That is a terribly important thing for an ordinary family struggling to make ends meet. What it means for them is that on average, in a normal situation, they are about $320 or $350 better off. Workers have had wage increases, which are significantly better than Labor achieved when they were in office, and more jobs. There is better productivity which gives other benefits in the way in which the system operates.Opposition member interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Thank you for the interjection about part-timers. I will say something about that in a moment. Not only is employment up and unemployment down and not only are wages up but also we are making sensible changes which are helping people in a genuine way. This week we have finally shamed the Labor Party into supporting junior wage rates. They were going to do a wobbly on the weekend. Pressure was coming from the ACTU. You can see the shadow minister picking up the phone, desperate to find out what deal he might be able to do with the Democrats: `Is that you, Andrew Murray? It is Arch Bevis here. Have you got the amendments that the ACTU have organised with the Democrats? What do you think about those amendments?'ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The matter of the minister repeating errors of fact that have been corrected in explanations before this House has been considered previously.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—There is no point of order. I call the Leader of the House.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—The statement the minister is making now—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—He protests too much.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Mr Deputy Speaker—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Resume your seat.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—The statement the minister is making now is precisely the matter about which I made a personal explanation.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The member for Brisbane has been told to resume his seat. There is no point of order. The Leader of the House has the call.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—He will just continue to lie about matters that have already been—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I warn the member for Brisbane. The Leader of the House has the call.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—The opposition went absolutely feral. They threw away question time. Their basic claim was that there had been no communication with the Democrats. That was their basic claim. As I had properly suspected, we now find that the opposition shadow minister was ringing the Democrats on the weekend to see what could be done.Mr Bevis interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Brisbane will withdraw that.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—He is withdrawing today, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I say that he will not be on the frontbench much longer because, quite frankly, he is not up to it. He put the Leader of the Opposition in the ridiculous position yesterday of attacking us on the basis that there had been no communications with the Democrats. The fact is you did not tell Mr Beazley. It is in the paper.Mr Bevis interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—You have admitted it yourself. He told the radio yesterday. In his press release of today's date he said: `I spoke with Senator Murray last Saturday.' Why are you ringing him on a Saturday? To talk about the weather? To see what the yachting is like in Perth? To find out the scuttlebutt in Western Australia? What did he tell 4QR yesterday, as they reported? He said: `Labor has spoken recently to the Democrats about junior wages.' The only reason you are talking to the Democrats is that you are looking for a way out. And why are you looking for a way out? Because you have had a lot of heat on you from the ACTU. The shoppies, the ACTU, were breathing down your neck. The fact is that, when push comes to shove, you blokes usually give way. Your problem yesterday was that you had the ACTU pushing you on one side and you had us pushing you on the other. No wonder you felt uncomfortable.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Leader of the House, the chair is very comfortable. Please address your remarks through the chair.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Mr Deputy Speaker, you will appreciate that saving young people's jobs is a good thing for young people. We have lowered the number of industrial disputes in Australia. If you want to talk about job security for people, the level of industrial disputes is the lowest it has been since 1913. That helps productivity and helps the security that people have got in their jobs. We have been doing something about unfair dismissals. One of the reasons that we have seen a growth in casual employment is that a lot of employers have said, I'm not going to give somebody a permanent job because of the unfairness of the unfair dismissal laws, so I'll put them on as a casual.' We have done something about that. We would like to do more. And who is trying to stop us? The Labor Party, as usual, doing what the ACTU tells them.We have introduced better agreement making, making it easier for people to make arrangements at work that suit both the company and the employee. Lots of people have gone into agreements, and that means you can have a better system from the point of view of both the company and the employee—something which the Labor Party is, of course, opposed to. The Labor Party's policy is that if you work in a business, you want to have an agreement with your employer and you are happy with the deal, that deal cannot be sanctioned unless you go to the local trade union office and get the local union secretary to agree—even though you are not in a union and you do not want to have anything to do with them.The myths that are perpetuated on some of these issues need to be exposed, for example in respect of casual employment. It is interesting to note that the government's policies have been effective in this area as well. It is often said by the Labor Party that our policies have led to an acceleration in the rate of growth of casual employment. That is just plain incorrect. Let me put it on the record. While casual employment has now reached around a quarter of the work force, it should be noted that the slight rise in the proportion of employees who are employed on a casual basis since the Workplace Relations Act came into force is part of a longer term trend. In fact, the expansion in casual employment has slowed since our legislation came into force. Since 1996, the rate of growth of casual employees has been more than halved—half a per cent annually compared with over one per cent annually from 1990 to 1996. Furthermore, workers now have greater access to permanent part-time work.In the past, whilst many women in particular wanted to work part-time, award restrictions that limited the number of people able to work permanent part-time meant that they were forced to become casual in order to work reduced hours. Through our legislation, the government has taken action to remove arbitrary restrictions on part-time employment by requiring the commission, where appropriate, to introduce regular part-time work provisions in awards and by prohibiting arbitrary quotas on the number of employees able to undertake regular part-time work. Consequently, the proportion of all part-time employees who are employed on a casual basis has fallen under the Workplace Relations Act from 67.5 per cent in August 1996 to 65.4 per cent in August 1998. All of these are official statistics, and basically they describe a very good outcome for workers. There is more money, there are more jobs, productivity is up, your job is more secure, there are fewer strikes, and we are putting in place a better system in respect of small business. We support small business. That is good for employees because, if our small businesses go well, then so do our businesses employ more people.The fact is that we have a weak, divided, directionless opposition. It was said very well in the Daily Telegraph today:Labor Leader Kim Beazley's declaration of liberation is the type of dramatic flourish of words for which he is well known.However, rather than being a gesture of defiance, it is a statement of surrender.. . . . . . . . .Mr Beazley's liberation is possibly freedom from responsibility, a strategic severing of allegiances and obligations. . . . . . . . . .Nothing could be more damaging for the party and its prospects for election victory in a few years' time.Voters don't want a party of wreckers.That is a fair comment about the Leader of the Opposition, as his speech today demonstrates. He has got no ideas, no leadership—he is in his death throes. (Time expired)16:14:009827Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—This minister is without doubt the Arthur Daley of this parliament, except he is the Arthur Daley without the personality and without the good nature. All that is left is the con merchant. All that is left of this minister in the way he handles his portfolio, in the way he presents in this parliament, and in the way he handles the workers of Australia and their interests is the con man side of the Arthur Daley image. That is what we have seen from this minister time and time again.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. My point of order is that personal abuse of this sort is unparliamentary. You might be good at giving it out, mate, but you cannot take it—let's face it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the Leader of the House and I uphold his point of order. Standing order 76 does provide that all personal reflections on members shall be considered highly disorderly.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—It is passing strange for this member of parliament to rise on a point of order of that kind, because a cursory look through the Hansard at the remarks of that member will identify more than a few occasions on which rhetoric far more colourful than I have used has come from his mouth. But it seems, Mr Deputy Speaker, that on this occasion I am going to be prevented from pursuing that.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—No. You are not being prevented from doing anything.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—The question of integrity that has been raised in this MPI is something that this minister has no understanding of. In American politics, when they refer to politicians of his kind, they say, `Read my lips.' When it comes to this minister, it is not a question of reading his lips but of watching his hands, because while he is talking about doing one thing he can be guaranteed to have his hands somewhere else taking money out of your pocket and to be doing exactly the opposite.UNKNOWNOpposition memberOpposition member—He has just skulked off.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! Minister Reith, the chair would be grateful if you would remain in the chamber to provide the presence we need from a minister. I am sorry; Minister Bishop has just come into the chamber. I thank the minister.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—It should nonetheless be noted that the minister skulked out of the chamber. The perception of that minister and of the way he deals with his portfolio responsibilities is not just one held by this side; it is universally held and understood in the community. A couple of weeks ago, the Weekend Australian did a feature piece on Mr Reith. Do you know how they headed that up? They had a photograph of the minister, captioned with: `Would I lie to you?' How does the Australian identify this minister in five words or less? With `Would I lie to you?'There is not a person in this country who takes his word for anything. And the last two days have seen that yet again exemplified, where he conjured up a rumour from thin air yesterday. Having invented the rumour, he then spent the whole day responding to the rumour he had created—and then looked like a turkey on TV last night when it was all exposed. So he comes into the chamber today, licking his wounds and trying to pick up the pieces in a pretty feeble attempt to resurrect something of what he sees as his credibility.The simple fact is that all of Australia looks at that photo and the caption is what comes to their mind: `Would I lie to you?' And why wouldn't they hold that view? As the Leader of the Opposition said, this is the same minister who, on the day after the savage dogs and the balaclavas went onto the wharves at Patrick's, came into this parliament and said, `I had no knowledge of it. I had no knowledge before today that this was going to happen.' He just managed to have in the parliament that very day a piece of legis lation to look after Patrick's. He did not know that at midnight the dogs and the balaclavas were going in and that decent Australians doing an ordinary day's work were going to be turfed out for the sin of being in a union. He said he didn't know that, but he just happened to have in his back pocket a law to look after Mr Corrigan, and it was here in the parliament within 12 hours of those savage dogs being on the wharves.There is not a person in Australia who believed what the minister said then. All of us in this place know it was nonsense. But that was the way he sought to present himself—so caught up in self-importance is he that he thought he could actually get away with a blatantly untrue statement of that kind. If you want to get away with a lie, it makes sense to at least make it plausible. But here is a fellow so caught up in his self-importance that he thinks he can say those things that are demonstrably untrue.It is bad enough that we have a minister who does that, but the real folly of it is that the people who pay the price for that arrogance and insincerity at the end of the day are ordinary Australian workers who have to suffer as a result of his real agenda—not what he says, but what has happened. Remember, this is the government that went to the Australian population and said in an election campaign, `No worker will be worse off under our industrial relations laws.' `No worker will be worse off'—one of the great political lies of our time.`No worker will be worse off' was the election mantra. A lot of Australian workers actually believed it when they were told that no worker would be worse off. They all know now that that is not true. They all know they were conned. They were conned by an Arthur Daley, but without the personality and without the good humour. They were conned by a fellow who thinks it is good sport to do in ordinary Australian workers like those people at Patrick's.We should be under no misunderstanding about this man's view of those events. In the past year he has been on the speech circuit congratulating Chris Corrigan. He describes Chris Corrigan as a great Australian. What did Chris Corrigan do? Chris Corrigan deliberately stripped money from a company that employed his workers, so that he could sack those workers unlawfully and ensure that the workers had no rights whatsoever to recover their pay. They could sue the company until the cows came home, but it did not matter because there was no money left in that company. Chris Corrigan had taken it all out of that one and had put it in another one that he ran.That is exactly what Chris Corrigan did, and he did it on the advice and with the support of this government and this minister. Yet they have come into this parliament over the course of the last couple of weeks, crying crocodile tears about the plight of the Oakdale workers and the textile workers from Melbourne who were here yesterday—totally disingenuous.But let me return to the problem this creates for ordinary Australian workers. It is bad enough that we have a government with ministers who behave that way, but it is a tragedy that sees the battlers attacked in that way. Let us look at the government's own employees in the CES office, which this government has destroyed and dismantled. What happened to the workers there?These people are employed by this government, and so they have to deal both with its hypocrisy and its laws and with it as an employer. The people who worked in the CES voted in excess of 83 per cent to have a union agreement. They said to this government, `We want the union to negotiate for us a union certified agreement.' This government said, `We don't care what you want. We don't care how many of you voted for it. We refuse to negotiate with the union.'Twelve months later, when the government stood by that and refused to negotiate with the union, the workers were forced to sign a non-union agreement. The government then turned around and said, `Right, you've got a non-union agreement; we are now going to close the whole CES down. Some of you will be lucky enough to get a job in a new organisation we are setting up called Employment National. But if you want to work for Employment National, you have to give up the agreement you just signed and you have to sign an individual contract.'That is exactly what has happened to workers, over the last three years under this government, who used to be employed in the CES. They went from having a decent, respectable union agreement to being forced against their will to a non-union agreement, to being forced against their will to an individual contract. Some of the people refused to sign the individual contract so the job offer to them was withdrawn. It was a clear statement: `You sign the individual contract. Give up all of your rights or you do not have a job at all.' That is the way this government treated those people. Yet they have the hide to come in here and talk about their new wave, their second wave industrial relations legislation with the title `More jobs, better pay.'It will be of some amusement to members in the House to know that over in the minister's department they refer to this second wave legislation as `the mojo bill'. It is the mojo from the Austin Powers movie that they are referring to. This is Peter Reith's mojo, his second wave legislation. Even people who work in his department, who work in the system, regard it with disdain. That is because they have no respect for this person and this government and the way they have conducted themselves in industrial relations. But, more than anything, they have no respect for the way this minister conducts the truth. In the last 48 hours, we have seen another example of his totally careless and arrogant approach to handling facts and to handling the truth. Even when corrected, he is still willing to get up and knowingly repeat things that are untrue. That is not the behaviour of a respectable member of parliament. It is not even the behaviour of a respectable citizen of Australia. He should not be in his position.16:24:009829Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—From this side of the chamber, it is very sad to watch the Australian Labor Party in such a serious state of decline. The death throes of the Beazley leadership are before us almost every day now. Of course, what occurred in this place yesterday with the nonsense shutting down of question time was testimony to the fact that those opposite are desperate. But, again, those opposite are easily able to fit within the mantra that was first chronicled by Janis Joplin 30-odd years ago, and Tony Wright reminded us all of it in the Age yesterday, that `freedom is just another word for nothing left to do'. It is, as the Daily Telegraph said in its editorial today, a `dramatic retreat to irrelevance'.It must be of great concern to those who are interjecting on the other side today—some from their seats and some not—that, when it comes to the bulk of critical issues, the Australian Labor Party opposition in this place are a complete afterthought. They have dealt themselves out of the major games that are being undertaken in this country on an everyday basis. That Mr Beazley should suggest, with his dramatic flourish, that they have in fact reached a point of great liberation, a great freedom from responsibility, is evidenced by the motion that is before us today.84CTHOMPSONMr Cameron Thompson—An out of body experience.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—It is perhaps an out of body experience, as the member for Blair says. It is a mind-boggling concept—UU5HORNEMr Horne—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order that goes to relevance. I know that the honourable member is known for varying wide and far and being irrelevant but he still needs to address the MPI that is on the paper.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—I am sure the honourable member for Moreton is fully aware of what the matter of public importance is. He will stick to that debate.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—I always maintain relevance to the matters before us in this place, unlike those opposite who are, as the Daily Telegraph said today, fast becoming the `wrecking crew', not an alternative government, in this country. Let us have look at the matter in the MPI today. It talks about the need for integrity. Integrity is an interesting word. I decided I would check the Macquarie Dictionary —which is an Australian publication, so no-one can accuse me of doing anything that was not downright Australian— for the meaning of the word `integrity'. The first meaning is `honesty; uprightness'. The mover of this motion today, the Leader of the Opposition, has a great integrity crisis and those opposite know it. This integrity crisis can only be addressed by the Leader of the Opposition by his new-found freedom, his new-found retreat to irrelevance.The fact that the Leader of the Opposition, as finance minister, told the people of Australia that there was a surplus when in fact he knew there was a deficit and left a huge mess for this government to clean up when we came to power in March 1996 is a matter of history. It cannot be contested by anybody opposite, so take more points of order and give it a try. The second definition of the word `integrity' is `the condition of being whole'. I guess colleagues in this place could try to stretch their minds as to what that means, but the Macquarie suggests it is `to preserve the integrity of the country'. Let us see what the Australian Labor Party did as far as preserving the integrity of this country when they were in government.They did not create a whole nation; they split it. Their legislative regime, their conduct in government, the way they ran their rhetoric, the way they split worker against boss, and the way they split one side of an argument against another on a daily basis was the legacy left for this government, which we undertook to repair when we came to office. In fact, bringing people together has been one of the great hallmarks of the Howard government and will continue to be so. So with regard to the second part of the Macquarie Dictionary definition of `integrity', the Labor Party, and the Leader of the Opposition especially, have a lot to answer for.The third definition is `perfect condition'—in other words, the integrity of the text. That is what the Macquarie Dictionary says. Of course, we only have to look at the text in the books that were left; the books of the government and the history of the preceding Labor government in power leaves a lot to be desired, and now we see them embarking on this new course of freedom. As Piers Akerman said today, `Labor comes out of hiding at last'. He then went on:After years of thinking that federal Labor actually stood for something we now learn that it stood for nothing. Its policies were foisted upon it by thugs and brutes, bullies and naysayers from the Left before whom it capitulated and obsequiously fell into line.HM5GEORGIOUMr Georgiou—He is a master of understatement.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—I thank the member for Kooyong. Here is a master of understatement—Piers Akerman in the Daily Telegraph today. You cannot help but wonder which particular vested interest, which particular thug or bully that the Labor Party falls obsequiously into line for, actually wrote the matter of public importance that is before us in the parliament today. At the heart of the matter is the big cover-up—the 13-year history of the Australian Labor Party which it wants to try to cover up.Without doubt, this present government is a pro-worker government. This government has delivered more for workers in its short time in office than was delivered in 13 years of the preceding government. You have only to look at the Oakdale colliery crisis to understand that this government actually delivered something for workers. That was something which those opposite never even considered doing in their 13 years in government. You also have to look at the words used by the Leader of the Opposition in moving this matter of public importance before us today when he said that what happens in here works its way out. In other words, you cannot get away with having no policy and not standing for anything, you cannot get away with being the big negative rather than offering some sort of alternative, before people start to understand that that is all you are about.It makes sense that we are hearing this great `liberation', this great confession from the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, this week. As the Daily Telegraph said in its editorial today:Voters don't want a party of wreckers.Mr Beazley's apparent endorsement of irrelevance is not a liberation but a sad retreat which will not be appreciated by his colleagues working hard on policy. The sad part about that statement from the Daily Telegraph is that we would like a confession about who opposite actually is working on policy because, to date, apart from the member for Werriwa, that is not very obvious to those on this side.Let us look back at Labor's record. When the Leader of the Opposition was the minister in charge of employment in this country, there was 11.2 per cent unemployment. One million people—let us not talk percentages, let us talk people—did not have a job as a result of Labor's deliberate triggering of a recession. Interest rates were at 17 per cent—and, in fact, were far higher for small business operators in this country. It is a record of great shame. Is it any wonder that people turn their back on Labor when they see Labor Party members fighting amongst themselves at best, and offering a desperate retreat at absolute worst. The Labor Party deserves to be ashamed of that record.Let us look at the engine room of the economy—small business. Small business people do not sack workers that they value. They do not sack good workers. The Labor Party has fought constantly to maintain the practices that it brought into this place. Labor's unfair dismissal law created a circumstance where employers in this country do not hire people because they fear that they will hire a mistake. In itself, that is one of the great causes of unemployment in my electorate. I speak to a lot of people in small business, in chambers of commerce and in my small business advisory group and I know that people still fear hiring a mistake. That still impacts upon their decisions to hire.People in small business in this country want to expand their businesses. They are doing so, despite the efforts of those opposite. Integrity, worker security and a lot of other matters were contained in the matter of public importance proposed by the Leader of the Opposition today. Those opposite should get out of the way of the government's ongoing attempt to bring about worker security by providing certainty to employers—certainty not only to hire but also to be able to negotiate with workers on the conditions under which they work. Workers must then agree with that, and they must meet the minimum standards or else. The opposition should also accept the economic progress this government is trying to bring about.I ask those opposite to move away from their stance of opposition for opposition's sake on everything and to try to have a bit of relevance. I ask them to try to prove the Daily Telegraph and other informed observers in this country wrong—show that they are not simply retreating to irrelevance. They should look at some of the policies this government has put in place, support them and thus encourage more growth in the employment prospects for all Australians.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion is concluded.Bills9831r8929831Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment, appropriation message having been reported; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.9831Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper)—by leave—read a third time.Committees98319831983116:35:009831Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—I present the seventh report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being circulated to honourable members in the chamber.Report—by leave—agreed to.Bills9831r9089831Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.983216:37:009832Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.A New Tax System (Tax Administration) Bill 1999 will implement remaining tax administration measures of the new taxation system.Firstly, when the new tax system commences on 1 July next, taxpayers with simple affairs will have more certainty that their annual tax return is finalised, because this bill reduces the time in which a review can be made from four years to two years.Secondly, taxpayers with simple affairs will also be able to get oral advice from the Commissioner of Taxation that is binding on the commissioner.Thirdly, our reforms do away with reporting systems, such as the reportable payments system, that are a significant compliance burden on business. The modern integrated design of the new tax system reduces the need for add-on reporting systems.However, the government recognises that there is a need to be able to respond quickly if systematic tax evasion is detected in an industry. One of the measures in this bill provides for an Australian business number, ABN, based reporting system. The system would only be activated after consultation with the affected industry, would only apply to certain transactions within the industry and would only operate for a specified period.Fourthly, the government's tax reform package also included a more transparent endorsement process for tax exempt and gift deductible bodies. In coming months, the Australian Business Registrar will commence the Australian business number registration process. Charities and deductible gift recipients will be required to obtain an Australian business number and be endorsed by the Commissioner of Taxation in order to obtain either income tax exemption or deductible gift recipient status.Finally, the bill will also make some minor amendments to support the introduction of pay as you go, PAYG, and the single activity statement for business.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable members.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum and regulation impact statement to this bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Bevis) adjourned.Committees98329832983216:40:009832Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—by leave—I 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.The Defence Housing Authority proposes to develop a 90-apartment complex at 101 Carey Street in Darwin. These apartments will be housed in three adjacent tower blocks and will include parking and a recreational area. The Defence Housing Authority has successfully completed over 600 new freestanding and townhouses in Darwin and Palmerston. It now finds that a percentage of service personnel and their families would prefer a secure inner city apartment with amenities more conducive to a family lifestyle. The provision of apartment style accommodation is desirable because of the demand from service families, and because serviced land availability for detached dwellings in Darwin and surrounding areas is limited.The Defence Housing Authority has embarked on a successful program of `sale and lease back' which will self-fund new properties and potential development sites. During construction and after completion of the project, the Defence Housing Authority will market all 90 apartments. Sixty of these apartments will be marketed on this `sale and lease back' program, with the balance of the apartments being offered for sale to the public.In more detail, the project will include: 90 apartments within three adjacent tower blocks; a recreational building with associated kitchen, servery, storage and changing-toilet areas for tennis, squash and swimming activities; ancillary buildings such as services buildings, groundsmen's store, refuse and apartment storage; car parking for occupants and visitors; and assorted site works, servicing and landscaping.The estimated cost of the proposal is $31 million at July 1999 prices. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to commence in early March 2000 with completion of the works required by the end of that year to meet the Australian Defence Force's December 2000 posting cycle. I commend the motion to the House.9833983316:44:009833Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—by leave—I 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: CSIRO/ University of Queensland joint building project, St Lucia, Qld.CSIRO has entered into a joint venture agreement with the University of Queensland to provide a major new research facility on the site of the existing CSIRO Cunningham laboratory at St Lucia in Queensland. The complex will accommodate the University of Queensland's new Institute of Molecular Bioscience and the CSIRO's divisions of Tropical Agriculture, Health Sciences and Nutrition, and Plant Industry.The new complex will provide research accommodation for approximately 285 CSIRO staff and visitors, together with accommodation for Institute of Molecular Bioscience researchers, students and visitors. It will comprise a new laboratory complex with a total gross floor area of approximately 36,000 square metres with the following components: CSIRO biology laboratories; University of Queensland biology laboratories; shared chemistry laboratories; CSIRO computer laboratories; University of Queensland computer laboratories; CSIRO specialist laborato ries, including for analytical chemistry, a greenhouse and a herbarium; University of Queensland specialist laboratories including for structural biology, synthetic chemistry and a vivarium; and shared facility support areas including a library, conferencing facilities, information technology support, administrative support, central wash-up, workshops, and delivery, waste and stores areas.Associated site works include a two- to three-level car park with capacity for 295 cars, independent of the building, and site works, together with service infrastructure upgrades, roadworks and landscaping. Construction of the complex will enable CSIRO and the Institute of Molecular Bioscience to bring together, in one structure, a large and critical mass of molecular biology skills, equipment and facilities, as well as a range of supportive and complementary activities, such as synthetic, inorganic and organic chemistry, biometrics and bioinformatics and microscopy. Co-location on the St Lucia site will provide opportunities for highly valuable interaction with the wider University of Queensland facilities. The Institute of Molecular Bioscience will add a further positive dimension to the capability of each of the CSIRO groups housed within the complex to fulfil their charter to deliver economic, social and environmental benefits to Australia. The proposal has a budget of $106 million, of which the CSIRO component is $50 million. Subject to parliamentary approval, site establishment works are anticipated to commence in December 1999, with completion of the works scheduled for 2002. I commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills9833The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request: Coal Mining Legislation Amendment (Oakdale Collieries and others) Bill 1999 Social Security (Family Allowance and Related Matters) Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1999 Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1999 Statute Stocktake Bill 1999 Bills9834r7819834Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendment—(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (after line 33), at the end of section 18, add:(2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not: (a) the works or services are provided or funded exclusively in respect of Indigenous persons; or (b) the financial assistance is applied exclusively in respect of Indigenous persons.16:49:009834Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That the amendment be agreed to.In the Senate, Senator Brown argued that the Commonwealth Grants Commission Amendment Bill 1999 could have been interpreted to provide the minister with the power to ask the commission to inquire into the Commonwealth's indigenous specific programs only. His amendment, which was carried by the Senate, makes it clear that the commission can be asked to inquire into any Commonwealth programs insofar as they affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, regardless of whether they are indigenous specific programs or programs aimed at the general population. Senator Brown's amendment was not inconsistent with the intentions of the government. It is difficult to see how conclusions on a distribution of resources that best meets the needs of the groups of indigenous peoples could be reached without taking into account all programs that could meet those needs. I commend the amendment to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills9834r8949834Debate resumed from 30 June, on motion by Mr Reith:That the bill be now read a second time.16:50:009834Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I table a document titled `Supplementary regulation impact statement'. I had previously foreshadowed that there may be a further such document, and there is. It is now tabled and I have just given a copy to the opposition.16:51:009834Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—The Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 is without doubt one of the most important pieces of legislation that this parliament will deal with. It is the government's second wave of changes to the rights of Australian workers to organise and it sets out a range of alternations to their entitlements. Before I deal with the bill and the matters surrounding it, I want to make some comment about the process. The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has just now tabled and, about one minute prior to that, given to me a second explanatory memorandum. That secondary explanatory memorandum runs to 93 pages, and I have just received it in the last two or three minutes. It goes with a 205-page explanatory memorandum that was circulated originally with the bill. I regard receipt of a 93-page explanatory memorandum seconds before the matter is dealt with in the parliament as a very arrogant way to deal with the parliament and the process.This bill has not been rushed here in the sense that it has been on the Notice Paper for some weeks. It was on the Notice Paper to be discussed by the House of Representatives last week. In fact, if memory serves me correctly, it was on the Notice Paper for the sitting fortnight prior to that. One wonders what might have happened if we had got to it. One wonders whether I would have then got this 93-page document two weeks ago or whether there would be no 93-page document. It is not uncharacteristic of this government and this minister to treat the parliament in that way. To be provided with a 93-page supplementary explanatory memorandum seconds before the issue comes before this House is a totally arrogant approach to what is a fundamentally important piece of legislation. It is some indication of the way this government seems to want to handle the issue not just in the parliament but in the community. I will say something about the arrogant, heavy-handed way in which this government is conducting itself in industrial relations shortly.In the light of that, I also want to make some comments about the passage of the legislation in this parliament. This is, particularly on our side of the parliament, a fundamental area of debate. We expect to have it fully explored and debated in this parliament. I do not expect the government to try to gag the debate on this bill. Many members of parliament have made clear their desire to speak on the bill, and we have already had one sad experience with that in industrial relations. When the government introduced its unfair dismissal laws, it gagged all speakers from the Labor Party bar one. I as the shadow minister for industrial relations was the only person who got to speak to that bill; 22 of my colleagues were gagged. We will not tolerate a gag in respect of this piece of legislation. The parliament has a right to debate it fully, and I put the government on notice now that any desire or attempt by it to restrict the parliamentary discussion and scrutiny of this bill will be resisted with all of the opportunities available to an opposition. I make that clear at the outset.As well as being one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before the parliament during this parliament, this bill is also the most biased and the most divisive industrial relations law ever to be presented to an Australian parliament. It is difficult to imagine that any changes could be made to this bill that would then see it earn the support of the Labor Party. I will be moving a second reading amendment, which has now been circulated, and when we get to consideration in detail of the bill I will be moving a number of specific amendments.I want to say something about that. The second reading amendment sets out a long list of concerns we have with this bill that I think are irreconcilable with the government's intentions. The amendments that I will be moving to the bill in the consideration in detail stage do not constitute the list of concerns we have. They will be on a much narrower range of issues but on issues which we think are important to highlight and are areas of fundamental importance to Australian workers. Those amendments will go not just to the bill before the parliament and the changes to the act it proposes; we will be moving amendments to alter the 1996 act, the first wave industrial legislation, as well. The Senate will be conducting its own inquiry into this matter, and I believe a Senate committee has been given a reference to conduct a wide-ranging inquiry into this bill and into the 1996 act. We will be working with that committee to go through in great detail the various aspects of both the 1996 industrial laws and the 1999 bill that is before us.Let me turn now to the bill more directly. The government seeks to pursue three or four clear aims in this bill. Firstly, the bill seeks to sideline the Australian Industrial Relations Commission so that it has no meaningful role in industrial relations. This government has demonstrated time and again its contempt for the role of an independent umpire. It has done that recently in respect of the junior rates claim. It did that in respect of even the most fundamental task that it performs—the basic wage, the minimum wage. After the last election, it was the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Mr Reith, who wrote to the Prime Minister saying that the Industrial Relations Commission had been too generous in its increases to the minimum wage.We have to remember that these are the lowest paid people in our community. These are the people who have no enterprise agreement and nothing but the basic safety net to protect them. In a formal advice in writing to the Prime Minister, this minister said that the increases the Industrial Relations Commission had given to those lowest paid in our community were `too generous'. What solution did he put to the Prime Minister in that letter? He said that the Industrial Relations Commission should not be allowed to do that work and he proposed that a new tribunal be set up made up of someone from the Treasury, someone from the Reserve Bank and someone from the Productivity Commission. And wouldn't they whip up a wonderful little answer on workers' rights and on how much the minimum pay for the lowest paid people in our community should be! That is just another example of the government's contempt for the independence of the commission. I will come later to a number of provisions in the bill that deal with that.This bill seeks to undermine the commission, to get rid of the independent umpire. The second thing it seeks to do is to remove unions from industrial relations as far as it possibly can and to prevent them from undertaking even the most basic of operations. We know this is not an even-handed approach to industrial relations. We know the government's past record shows it does not have an even-handed approach to industrial relations. This bill tries to tip the scales even further. The third thing it seeks to do is to cut the minimum standards and conditions of workers, particularly the lowest paid, who rely on the awards. It is partly the sentiment that was in the minister's letter to the Prime Minister about the—in his view—`too generous' increases that workers were getting, but it is worse, because this bill proposes to strip away a whole range of conditions from awards so that workers will be denied them. Finally, the aim of this bill is to force workers and employers to adopt individual contracts, or AWAs, whether they like it or not.Past Liberal governments have respected our industrial relations institutions and our international obligations. You can go through the list of Fraser, Holt or Menzies—all of the former Liberal governments in this place have respected the role of an independent umpire and supported it, and they have respected the role of the various industrial relations institutions. This is the first government in Australia since 1904 that wants to dismantle that and undermine those institutions which have enjoyed bipartisan support virtually since Federation. This is the first time we have seen a government actively seek to undermine the independent umpire and those fundamental institutions which Australian workers have relied upon to provide themselves with some security and decency.In typical Minister Reith style, this bill's title is the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 . There is not a person in Australia who believes that the intention of this government's second wave of industrial relations policy is to provide more jobs and better pay, but that is exactly what the legal title of this bill will be. It reminds me of a wonderful skit out of Yes, Minister . Most of us in this place enjoy watching Yes, Minister . We even enjoy watching the reruns of Yes, Minister . There is a wonderful episode of Yes, Minister —in fact, it was the first episode—where Sir Humphrey is sitting down with Sir Arnold, who was of course head of PM&C, and they are educating Bernard about the issue of open government. Bernard comments in some amazement, `But the title of the publication is "open government".' Sir Humphrey says, `Always dispose of the difficult bit in the title. It does less harm than in the text.' Sir Arnold reinforces this and says, `It's the law of inverse relevance. The less you intend to do about something, the more you have to keep talking about it.' This minister subscribes to Sir Humphrey's and Sir Arnold's law of inverse relevance. He says, `We are going to put up in headlines the title "More Jobs, Better Pay" because it is easier to put it in the title than deal with the problems.' There is nothing in this legislation that deals with the problem of more jobs and better pay. It is about those four things I mentioned: sidelining the commission, sidelining the unions, cutting minimum standards and forcing people onto individual contracts.The government has adopted an approach to industrial relations which is not even one of deregulation, as it claims. It has shifted the power within the industrial relations system to other places like the Office of the Employment Advocate, which this minister has appointed his former personal political staffer to run. The person who was plotting these industrial reforms in his office in 1996 has been given the job of running the Office of the Employment Advocate.The government's attitude to industrial relations is that of the political policeman. It is not just people on the traditional Labor side of the debate who take the view that this government is not about deregulating the labour market but rather about pushing its biased political agenda. It is not just us on this side of the parliament who say that. On 21 May, there was an interesting article about this minister in the Business Review Weekly, which is not known for its comments in support of the labour movement. It said he was:. . . possibly the most interventionist industrial relations minister in Australia's history.And he is. He intervenes to get the political outcomes that he wants. A stream of employer associations—not one, not two, but a stream—come to see me to complain about the bullying, cajoling and strongarm tactics that this minister has employed in trying to encourage them into disputes with unions. Some of them are now starting to talk publicly because they are fed up with it. They want to get on and create jobs, run their businesses and turn a profit for the company. They do not want to be wrapped up in the government's mad, obsessive industrial relations ideology, but they are being cajoled and threatened into it by the government. That is a great pity, not just for the workers in those companies but also for Australia.The real position we have got to is now so desperate that even the government's closest allies understand the way in which it operates when it comes to industrial relations. Alan Jones, whose well-known political views are certainly not on my side of politics, did an interview on 11 August. He did a comment piece in which he talked about the Oakdale workers problem. He said:The delay in resolving the Oakdale mine fiasco can only result in the conclusion that when it comes to taking the big stick to the union movement, the federal government seems to act with urgency and high priority. But when it comes to repairing for workers the damage done to them by appalling employer behaviour, the government merely shifts and jabs and prevaricates and as we saw yesterday does nothing.Even Alan Jones knows where the government is at when it comes to industrial relations—that is, it takes the big stick to the union movement very quickly, but when it comes to looking after workers and doing something decent it has to be dragged screaming and kicking to it after months. That is the widely understood position of the government.There are some specific matters in this bill that cause us great concern. Let me go to the attacks on Australian workers which this bill directs at our least well-off. As part of the award stripping process contained in this, the commission will be required to take out of all awards the following things: superannuation, long service leave, skill based classifications and public holidays that have not been declared by the states. Let me say that workers in Victoria would regularly lose a day and, on some occasions, two days per year if it were taken out of their award. In this bill, the government is even legislating to take out paid jury service. Why would a government legislate to stop people having paid jury service? That is precisely what this does by stripping it out of the award. Why would a government stop people being able to access termination notice? That is what this bill does. Why would it try to stop people having a right through their award or safety net to things like long service leave and superannuation? It beggars belief, but it goes hand in hand with what it did in the first wave of industrial changes. This is the second cut of awards.On the last occasion in 1996, the government cut back on what could be included in awards. One of the startling things there—as with jury service, you scratch your head and wonder—was that they decided to cut out Defence Force leave. Our own soldiers, aircrew and sailors who are reservists have been stopped by the action of this government from having any leave to participate as reserves. That is how blindly they have followed the ideological ravings of the minister as they work their way through industrial relations.This time, though, the government have added an extra couple of hooks. They have said that the people on those lowest paid awards will not be able to get the safety net wage increase, no wage increase at all, until the commission has taken all those things out of their awards. So, until they have given up their long service leave, their superannuation, their paid jury leave, their skill based classifications and their termination notice, they will not be allowed to get the national wage safety net pay increase. How cold and callous is that as a means of treating the least protected and lowest paid people in our community!Interestingly, on the other side of the coin, employers will be given extra rights. For example, employers will be able to discriminate against groups of workers doing the same thing. So, if they have 10 people doing the same job, they can put five of them on one agreement with one set of conditions and the other five on a totally different agreement with totally different conditions, even though they are doing the same job. I do not think there are too many people in the Australian work force who would regard that as fair or balanced, but employers will be given those extra powers.The individual contracts that this government has tried so hard to foster but which industry has spurned will be given greater authority. Outside of the Commonwealth and Victorian governments where they were forced on people, a fact of life is this government's AWAs are not very popular. As a result of this bill, those AWAs are going to override certified agreements. So you can actually have negotiated with your employer a decent and respectable certified agreement and that employer can still go around and pick off the staff one by one and put them on an individual agreement, and that individual agreement will then override the certified agreement.Who is going to check to see whether that individual agreement is any good? Who is going to see whether it measures up? At the moment, if there is any doubt, it goes to the Industrial Relations Commission. Not under this bill. The government will not send it to the independent umpire; it will send it to the Office of the Employment Advocate. Who runs the Office of the Employment Advocate? That is right, Mr Hamberger, former senior political appointee in the office of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. That is who is going to decide whether or not your AWA measures up. This really is a kangaroo court arrangement.In terms of the independent umpire, as I said earlier, this government has shown a disdain and arrogance towards the Industrial Relations Commission, and the minister has made that plain. Whenever an industrial commissioner has made decisions the minister did not like, he has gone out there and publicly attacked them. One example of that is the statements made following a decision on 22 October last year by Justice Munro. Justice Munro upheld an agreement that encouraged all prospective and current employees to join and maintain union membership. The minister's response to that was to berate him publicly and to say that the president of the commission had to train his commissioners better.So in this legislation there is a legal requirement that the commissioners have to undergo annual training as a matter of law. That is an interesting concept that we are imposing on industrial commissioners. We do not actually impose it as a matter of law on ourselves, on senior public servants or on judges, but this bill will require, as a matter of law, that all of the industrial commissioners have to go through an annual training program just to make sure they know what the government wants. That is a really interesting process. On the issue in hand, it is worth noting what Justice Munro had to say. He said that the law did not prohibit an employer:. . . disseminating a belief that there is no useful place for union membership in his or her workplace . . . It appears to me no more, and no less, objectionable for an employer to have a sympathy for union organisation . . . We now have a system that says it is quite acceptable for an employer to discourage union membership, to say to people, `We do not want you to join a union.' According to this government, that is fair and reasonable. But, if an agreement actually says, `We want to encourage you to join a union,' that is to be banned. Justice Munro belled the cat last October and the response of this government and this minister is simply now to turn around and legislate over the top of it so that the independence of the commission and the decency and respect that it has had for this century is undermined.There are other comments about what the government is proposing to do with the commission which I think are important to put on the record. No less a person than the senior deputy president, Colin Polites, has been so aggrieved by the actions of this government that he spoke out publicly this week on 28 August. An article in the Daily Telegraph said:A SENIOR member of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission has launched an attack on Government plans to limit terms of office.Senior deputy president Colin Polites, a member for 10 years, said limiting tenure to seven years would make it impossible for members to maintain independence.Of course it would. It is worth noting that Mr Polites' background is as a well-respected and very effective employer advocate. He has, as the article notes, `impeccable employer qualifications'. He knows, though, that the independence of the system is important. He knows this government's bill undermines that independence.How does it do that? I will touch on a couple of measures only. The government introduces, by way of this bill, seven-year terms for commissioners. How do you maintain an independent, quasi-judicial system without giving the people independence of appointment? You cannot, but this government says you can and is going to undermine that independence by imposing a seven-year term.Worse than that, this bill imposes 12-month appointments. We can just imagine the scenario: someone gets offered a 12-month contract by Mr Reith to be a commissioner, they are then given a number of cases about which the minister makes public statements—as is his want and as he has done on many occasions—and they then make a decision that does not fit with the public pronouncements of the minister. What chance do you think they have of getting that 12-month contract renewed? What chance do you think there is for independence and decency in a system that does that?A system that does not have those fundamental characteristics will lose the respect of all players. The day you lose the respect of all the participants in the system is the day you go back to the law of the jungle. If that is what this government wants, then it has got rocks in its head because that is precisely the outcome you will get as you strip away the independence and credibility of the commission.In addition to that, through the course of this bill, the government is restricting the commission's compulsory conciliation. Why, again, beggars belief. Compulsory conciliation is actually one of the success stories of our system of industrial relations dispute settlement. Anyone who has been involved in them knows that good industrial relations conciliation processes involve mediation and conciliation, and very often the matter is sorted out. So why would the parliament with this bill want to pass a law, as this government has proposed, that actually stops the Industrial Relations Commission having its existing powers over conciliation matters? There is no good policy reason to do that.That is matched by a desire to privatise the process. So the bill sets up a mediation system that is privatised and then says to the Industrial Relations Commission, `If anyone comes to you for that service, you have to charge them $500.' That is a travesty of the fundamentals of our system of industrial relations and, again, it goes to undermining the very heart of a structure which, until this time, has enjoyed bipartisan support.Very briefly, in the time available, I want to touch on some important matters concerning the right of workers to organise. This government is proposing to restrict the right of entry of union officials even further than presently exists. Earlier this week in the adjournment debate, I cited an example of disgraceful behaviour that I do not think any member in this parliament would condone— disgraceful behaviour of an employer towards his employees. I referred to the fact that the union officials gave notice of their desire to go to that premises and they were denied entry even though they had given the required notice. The Office of the Employment Advocate, contrary to the law, actually encouraged the employer to do that. To stand in the parliament, as government members do, and talk about restricting that right even further condemns most workers to exposure to precisely that thing.The other interesting thing is that the government is going to require that there be a new invitation issued every 28 days. So if a union official wants to go on a premises, the government says you have to have an invitation from a member, you have to identify the member and you have to actually say what that member wants you to investigate. You couple that with this government's desire on unfair dismissal and put that in the real world, and there is not a soul in this parliament who does not know what will happen.In its absurdity, the government have decided they want to crack down on unionism—that is one of the aims of this government's legislation, even though they do not want to admit it—so they have defined what a closed shop is. A closed shop legally is going to be where 60 per cent of people who work there are in a union. There are a couple of other criteria there but, frankly, they will be easily slid past. The only objective criterion is that 60 per cent of the people are in a union.I am looking forward to the government trying to enforce that law. The first place they are going to have to send that pretend cop, Jonathon Hamberger, is to the real cops, the Federal Police, because most of them are in a union. Let him run down to the Federal Police or the state police and actually tell those people that they are breaking the law because more than 60 per cent of them are in a union.My background is as a teacher. I am quite proud of the fact that I was a teachers' union official. I am proud of the fact that my former union maintains a union membership well in excess of 90 per cent financial, paid up, of all eligible people. Every school in Queensland will break that law. So you go into every teachers' staffroom and start prosecuting them because they happen to be in a union or go into every public hospital in Australia and tell the nurses, `We want you to explain why you're in a union because according to Mr Reith's laws more than 60 per cent of you are members of this union.' What a nonsense that is.One of the interesting things is when you get into this area and into strike ballots—and I will not dwell on that because I do not have the time; I will deal with that in committee—and you look at what happens in other countries. An article caught my eye earlier this month in the New York Times. A strike ballot had been conducted in the auto industry amongst all Ford company employees on August 17. The article said:The UAW—the relevant union—holds such ballots every three years at all the auto factories it represents just in case union leaders need to call a national strike.If you go down the path you are proposing, that is what you will get as a result. It is a lunatic approach to industrial relations that you are fostering.This legislation, though, as I have indicated elsewhere, does not provide balance or fairness. It makes it easier for employers to take industrial action. At the same time as it is restricting unions, it is actually making it easier for employers. We have a situation where employers are actually being relieved of responsibilities and are able to take industrial action more freely, while workers are having theirs restricted.This is a nasty, evil piece of work. It is a bad piece of legislation. As I said at the outset, I cannot imagine any amendments that would make it palatable to my side of politics but we intend to work through it meticulously in this place and in the Senate and we intend to hold the government accountable. We intend to expose its implications for all Australian workers to see. This is bad legislation and it has been put there for bad reasons. It deserves to fall on its face. It has already been the subject of widespread public opposition and it will continue to be.I wish to move the amendment that has been circulated in my name. No doubt we will have the opportunity to say something about that when we get into committee. I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:(1) "the House condemns the Government for introducing a bill which:(a) further entrenches unfairness and bias in the existing industrial relations system;(b) ensures that the role of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission is further restricted and the independence of the Commission is compromised;(c) reduces the minimum conditions available to all Australian workers by further undermining the award system as the dynamic framework for the protection and advancement of wages and conditions, through further award stripping;(d) denies Australia's lowest paid workers any further wage increase unless their award is stripped of basic entitlements such as long service leave, superannuation and paid jury service leave;(e) further removes workplace and enterprise bargaining from the protection of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, placing it solely in the hands of the Office of the Employment Advocate, which is run by one the Minsters former senior personal political staffers;(f) further weakens opportunities for employees to organise and bargain collectively;(g) aggravates problems of inequality for women and the most vulnerable in the labour market;(h) further restricts workers who are denied proper industrial protection in their state from accessing federal protection;(i) prevents the Australian Industrial Relations Commission from conducting much of its traditional conciliation role;(j) further dismantles the framework for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes;(k) amends the termination of employment provisions to limit an employee's right to pursue an application and extends the cost provisions; (l) emphasises the punishment and prevention of industrial action rather than its resolution;(m) unduly hinders the entry and inspection of premises by relevant organisations;(n) demonstrates a lack of balance in freedom of association provisions;(o) fails to ensure that Australia's labour standards meet our international obligations; and(p) has a short title which is deliberately misleading and fails to represent the actual intention and impact of the bill; and(2) the House also condemns the Government for its eagerness in tabling a bill that will specifically strip workers of their basic rights while failing to protect workers' legally accrued entitlements in cases of corporate insolvency; and(3) recommends that a new bill be introduced which:(a) delivers fair and equitable outcomes for Australian workers;(b) preserves basic conditions for all Australian workers;(c) provides for an independent commission with the appropriate power to conciliate fairly and settle disputes; and(d) provides jobs and income security.(Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the amendment seconded?LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.17:21:009841Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—I rise to address the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 . I say at the outset that I will certainly not be supporting the pious amendment of the member for Brisbane. This is the end of a century. We began this century as a new Federation, having given to the federal government, versus powers of the state government, the right to intervene and regulate industrial relations matters where a dispute arose which traversed the boundaries of one state to another.Over the last century our industrial relations and workplace relations practices have evolved, as have our laws, but it was only really in the late 1990s that we saw very major amendment to the way we operate and practise in this country. When I first came to Australia in the late 1960s and early 1970s we had a situation where the employment market was dominated by a multiplicity of craft based trade unions and management was dominated by autocratic British management practices. Sitting in the middle between employer organisation bodies and organisations of employees called trade unions was the Industrial Relations Commission.We had what has been known euphemistically as the industrial relations club between employer bodies, unions and the AIRC, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, which attempted to regulate all manner and all matter of relationships between employees and employers. As we tore down the wall around Australia with respect to our trade practices in the 1980s and early 1990s and as Australia retreated from isolationism and opened itself up to the world, we have also finally started to modernise our antiquated and highly regulated industrial relations system and practices.The bill before us today, entitled `More Jobs, Better Pay', meets the commitments of the coalition's responsible offerings to the public in the 1998 election campaign. In lieu of the four items that the member for Brisbane talked about, there are some eight items I want to positively talk about very briefly on this legislation. Workplace agreements are the primary focus. The legislation will retain the right of limited protected action but requires secret ballots. I want to talk about the award system and the AIRC being retained but renamed and modernised, voluntary mediation services, the compliance framework being tightened, unfair dismissals, small business and its place in the workplace relations environment, and voluntary membership and increased accountability.Workplace agreements in the form of both Australian workplace agreements and certified agreements are absolutely the primary focus of this comprehensive legislation. Award simplification means minimum regulation. In contrast to the statements by the member for Brisbane, the desire of the legislation is to reduce from awards those ridiculous conditions which have been there for so long and to simply leave the awards as stripped-out basic provisions underlying employees' entitlements and where the bulk of their wages and the bulk of their agreement with their employer on working conditions is made up by agreement which the two arrive at together—not as opposites, but together.Over the life of this government since the 1996 March election we have reduced industrial confrontation very substantially in this country. As Bill Kelty said, instead of World War III, because the coalition won and it wanted to start deregulating the labour market, what we have seen is a reduction in industrial confrontation, a reduction in strikes and lock-outs and greater industrial peace and harmony and therefore increased productivity and increased real wages for Australian workers—increased real wages, not reduced wages. And we want to continue that process. We want to absolutely continue that process.Whilst talking about not simplifying awards, I well remember the time I visited Robe River. One of the requirements of that basic award at Robe Iron was five flavours of ice-cream in the staff canteen every day. If there were not five flavours of ice cream, then everybody went home. That was a great award provision, wasn't it? Let us retain that for the next 20 or 30 years. That will sure help us. That is a great one. We should have picnic day ensconced in awards. What we need in awards are things like a basic rate of pay, holiday pay, long service leave—and that is about it.The second point is that we should retain the right of limited protected industrial action, but it is the intention of this legislation to guarantee workers their independent right versus their union bosses—that is, the right of a secret ballot before they strike. I am one who has believed in secret ballots for a very long time. I have seen the destruction that occurs to workplace relations. I have seen the destruction that occurs in attitudes between employers and employees when the union bosses come to town and say, `Look, regardless of the fact you're getting on with the boss, we're going to make you go on strike because you should have better pay or you should agree to this set of conditions that we at union hall say you should. If we say you should, you have to do it.' That is wrong. This bill will provide for secret ballots, an issue for which I have long lobbied.The award system in the AIRC will be retained, but the AIRC will be renamed as the Workplace Relations Commission. It is about time we changed the name. As we are changing the culture and the attitudes, let us change the name as well. It is not a matter of stripping the commission of its powers. In fact, what it is really about is providing voluntary mediation services instead of all this compulsion. Why do we need the compulsion that went with the club? We do not have the club anymore. We are trying to break down the club. I wish we could in the building industry in Victoria, but that is another matter I will get to. Voluntary mediation services are a very desirable mechanism and are far more preferable to the compulsory service of having to front up to the commission and having to pay the lawyers, the barristers, the solicitors—the lot. Let us pay for all that.Debate interrupted.Adjournment984310000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 5.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.984317:30:009843Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—Tonight I want to raise some concerns I have about some of the candidates running in the Wollongong City Council local government elections on Saturday week. I find it quite disturbing to think that we have such an array of individuals pretending to be what they are not.We have Daniella Reverberi standing for the Liberals as the mayoral candidate. I thought the Liberals were a bit more choosy. This is the same Daniella Reverberi who stood against me for the Greens, stood against me for the Democrats and, of all things, stood as an Arkell Independent for a local government election once in the past. Her husband, Chris Illert, has stood against me for the Greens when his wife was standing for the Democrats, stood against me for the Democrats when his wife was standing against me for the Greens and is now standing for the Liberals again. No wonder they are in strife in New South Wales when they have to go to these sorts of lengths to find candidates.We then have Mr Nick Brash standing for the Active Community Team. He represented the Marijuana Party in the Senate election. We have Philip Williams, who stood against me for the Liberals in 1996, who is standing as an Independent for the council elections but who is on the same ticket with Daniella Reverberi, who is standing for the Liberal Party, who used to be a Democrat, who used to be a Green, who used to be an Arkell Independent. Then we have Alan Ackhurst standing as an Independent in another ward, but he ran against me for the Liberal Party in 1998, ran against David Campbell for the Liberal Party in Keira in 1999, but somehow he has now become an Independent.It does not end there. We also have another mayoral candidate Mr Alex Darling who is running on a ticket in ward 3 with Pat Franks. They are both sitting councillors. But Alex Darling is running as the businessman's candidate for mayor. I understand that Pat Franks and Alex Darling have had a huge falling out because Alex Darling has decided to swap preferences with the Active Community Team's candidate David Martin—no relation, thank goodness.Why do I say that there are some concerns about that? Because the Active Community Team are the group of individuals who have two members on the Wollongong City Council who have voted down every bit of economic development opportunity that has ever come to the city of Wollongong. These are the people who represent the other end of town—not only the community activists that they hide behind but they certainly are a front organisation for Paul Matters and the South Coast Labour Council. It is Paul Matters, the puppet master, who will control David Martin, Kerry Christian and all these other so-called Active Community Team personnel who are running for Wollongong City Council. He is the man behind the mask.What have we seen from these people? They have voted down economic development opportunities such as a new five-star hotel for the Illawarra. Standing behind this facade of being green to the core, they voted down an inquiry into the Illawarra escarpment to protect it. When the Labor members of the Wollongong City Council voted in favour of it and it was carried out and then the decision was brought down, David Martin went out and claimed it as his own and said it was all his own work and he was in favour of it all the time.I have real concerns about Wollongong City Council falling into the hands of David Martin and the Active Community Team. The council of Wollongong, which has been led by David Campbell and the Labor Party for the last four years, and by David Campbell and the Labor Party for the four years before that, have actually returned Wollongong City Council to being debt free. Under Labor they have reversed the circumstances of the Frank Arkell led Independents of the years before.We have David Martin and the Active Community Team putting out scurrilous rubbish in a newspaper called The Link. They do not put their name on it. They run scurrilous stories containing absolute garbage about the Labor lord mayoral candidate, saying that he is going to be disbarred as a lawyer. All through this newspaper there are articles from the Greens and the candidates running for the Active Community Team. They are running outrageous stories about others trying to stop economic development opportunities at Port Kembla, such as a new copper smelter and so on.They are hiding behind the facade of being green, of being in favour of jobs, of being in favour of everything that is bold and beautiful. When it comes to thorough analysis you have to say, `Labor in the past; Labor in the future.' Under George Harrison's team, Labor will deliver jobs to the Illawarra, jobs to Wollongong and jobs through the Wollongong City Council. He will build on the fine work that has been done by David Campbell and the Labor team over the last four years. I say to the people of Wollongong, `On Saturday week do not be fooled by David Martin. Have a look behind the facade that is there and you will see Paul Matters the puppet master.'984417:35:009844Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I would like to congratulate the Queensland Country Credit Union for opening a branch at the Rode Road Shopping Centre in Stafford Heights. It has been a very sad time for the shopping centre. Three major banks have pulled out of that shopping centre in the last five years. I have spoken to the residents and the businesses on a number of occasions. The banks pulling out had an absolutely devastating effect on the district. Initially, discussions were held with the Bendigo Bank. They went on for a considerable time. It was wonderful to see the Queensland Country Credit Union taking up the challenge and setting up last week. The community now has a bank that is a focal point.The member for Werriwa and the member for Grayndler were on the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration with me. I must thank them for the work that they put into the report entitled Regional banking services: money too far away. When I first sat in on this committee, I thought this issue just affected banks in regional areas and that credit unions and the Bendigo Bank were going into regional areas. I realised the devastating effect banks pulling out also has on local communities, particularly city communities. It has just as devastating an effect in those areas as it does in the regions.The manager of the Queensland Country Credit Union, Joanne Wilkinson, said that many shopping centre tenants have already supported the credit union and they have established new accounts. `I think the banks are making a terrible mistake,' said Mr Radowski, who has been a butcher in the area for a number of years. Older people are having to get on buses and do their banking elsewhere. That takes away business from the shopping district and also the community spirit that banks and other facilities provide.The response to the opening of this particular community bank has been absolutely overwhelming. Up to half the tenants of the shops in the area recently signed up to new accounts. In fact, I understand that the other day there was a huge queue of people waiting to sign up. The shopping centre manager has welcomed the opening and she has reported a renewed interest in the shopping centre. Many of the residents and the business people have switched accounts from other banks. Having a credit union again will certainly revitalise this part of my electorate. It is also a problem that is faced by another part of my electorate—the Redcliffe Peninsula. In Margate the same thing has happened. In the last four to five years the three major banks have pulled out of Margate, and I have seen a steady decline in the business activity of the area. Margate also has a largely older population, and they are having to travel further. A lot of these people cannot drive and have no means of transport.I attended a seminar today on older banking clients. It was presented by the Commonwealth Bank to our committee, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration. I must commend them on some of the steps they are taking, but nothing beats personalised banking. There is a genuine fear of using flexitellers, particularly amongst older members of the banking fraternity who have been loyal to banks like the Commonwealth Bank for 50 or 60 years. Sometimes they feel that their loyalty has been betrayed by the increasing bank charges and closures of bank branches. We must never underestimate the devastating effect that that has on older members of our community. When I was elected one of the first functions I had to attend was the closing down of the local branch of the Commonwealth Bank. It was a very quick lesson in how devastating the closure was, because a number of the people at the function had banked with the Commonwealth Bank for a number years. It was a very emotional thing.I commend the credit unions and the community banks for their effort in taking up the slack where the major banks have, at the moment, left off. I also commend them on their low fee structures and the great work that they are putting in to ensure that all Australians have access to low-cost and easy-to-operate accounts.984517:40:009845Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—The relationship between the government and the Democrats gets curiouser and curiouser day by day. Today Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 9) 1999 was introduced into the parliament. The second reading speech says, in part:An inadvertent consequence of the passage of the overall package of amendments to the modified ANTS Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme is that the forestry and timber processing industries would have been required to pay approximately 8c per litre more for off-road use of fuel than other agricultural industries. The intention of the government was always that these industries would receive the same rebate amount. The amendment contained in this bill ensures that this commitment is kept.That is not true. The Prime Minister, in the statement he released with much fanfare outlining the grubby deal that he had done with the Democrats in relation to off-road diesel and light fuels, said:The extension to the off-road concession for diesel and light fuels will be limited to providing full credits for marine use, bush nursing homes, hospitals, nursing homes, aged persons' homes and private residences, but not for construction, power generation, manufacturing or forestry.Not forestry, and yet they said here today that it was always the intention of the government. The Democrats were quite clear on this. The West Australian on 13 July stated:Democrat Senator Lyn Allison said the move meant Mr Howard was reneging on an integral part of the deal made to secure Democrat support for the GST in the Senate.We have the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry saying, as did the Prime Minister:This was not the intention and we always wanted to extend this concession to forestry.It is quite clear that that was not the case in relation to the deal done with the Democrats.What we and all Australians need to know is: are the Democrats complicit in yet another deal? We are seeing deals within deals. The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business is saying we are doing some secret deal with the Democrats on youth wages when we are not, and yet they may well be doing deals with the Democrats—or they are trying to `blind side' them, to use a phrase that the Prime Minister used, as reported by Laurie Oakes today, in relation to the issue of an apology to Aboriginal people. The Prime Minister is saying, `Wow, we're very noble. We've come up with a great arrangement with the Democrats,' yet he goes into the party room and says, `This is all about blind siding the Labor Party.' So much for the Prime Minister's nobility and his lofty ideals. They are exposed as a political manoeuvre by the Prime Minister. We now have to ask: is he blind siding the Democrats in this case or have they done yet another grubby deal behind the scenes and sacrificed the last remaining principle that they could possibly have? If so, they have sacrificed everything in the process.Is this a question of a dirty diesel deal done dirt-cheap? Is that we are seeing today? Is what we are confronting a dirty diesel deal done dirt-cheap? I heard a song used in this place today. Are they `Slippin' and slidin' and playin' dominoes', as Neil Young sang in `Harvest' in the early 1970s? There is a lot of slipping and sliding going on around here, and we need to know. Why doesn't the government come to us, the opposition, if they want to talk about this issue? Let's sit down and have a talk about it instead of blind siding the Democrats or doing dirty diesel deals and doing them dirt-cheap. Let us have some principle, some integrity, in this parliament instead of these grubby deals and the parading of lofty ideals when they are nothing but cynical politics—as when the Prime Minister refused to apologise to the Aboriginal people of Australia. Let us get some integrity into this parliament. Let us get some integrity into the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and the Prime Minister. Let us expose these dirty diesel deals done dirt-cheap. (Time expired)984617:44:009846Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—On two occasions now I have raised concerns in this House about the way in which the New South Wales government is handling the serious issue of ovine Johne's disease and, more specifically, the impact that heartless decisions made by the New South Wales Department of Agriculture are having on struggling fine-wool growers and sheep producers. I would like to quote to you from a copy of correspondence dated 4 August 1999 which I have received from two constituents, Mr and Mrs Gorham of Frogmore. The letter is addressed to John Evers, Veterinary Officer of the Rural Lands Protection Board, and supports all of the arguments that I have been making in the past about the handling—or mishandling—of the OJD affair.The correspondence centres on the Tout family of Gundagai, who members of this House would be aware have suffered the personal loss of their son Warrick in the tragic canyoning accident in Interlaken, Switzerland, that claimed 14 young Australian lives. It seems that the government and its departments do not think the Touts have suffered enough. I begin with the second paragraph of that letter:Bruce Tout's property at Gundagai, which was managed and operated by his son Warrick, has had restrictions placed on it due to 5 month old merino wether lambs being sold to the Tout property from our subsequently declared OJD property.It has been brought to our notice that Mr Tout has had 2 separate lots of tests, 450 sheep tested in August 1998 and 450 sheep in February 1999, with all of these tests negative to OJD. After representations to Dick Jane (chief veterinary officer NSW Agriculture), Mrs Marilyn Evers (senior field veterinary officer) Don Saville, (Chief of division of Animal Industries), Ian Roth (program leader animal health) and NSW Farmers the trading restrictions still apply to his property.I understand from a Tout family member there may be a need to sell the above-mentioned property that has been managed by Mr Warrick Tout.I feel there is a sense of despair and frustration, a black cloud has been hanging over the Tout family for 18 months. Mr Tout is at present in Switzerland identifying his son. I believe his property produces an income but injustice has swept it away.This property is being continually tested for a positive diagnosis. We would suggest that this property with 900 sheep tested possesses less of a risk factor than all the other untested properties trading freely or indeed the nearby residents who have tested 50 sheep and have been given license to say `I'm free'. Why should this property be compromised when enough clean sheep have been tested to allow Bruce Tout to be accredited MN1 status under the Market Assurance program?We suggest you use your considerable influence to prevent this family from being defrauded of their true property value. They have suffered enough.That is precisely the point that I have being continually bringing out in this place about the amateurish way in which the handling of the OJD problem has been inflicted on innocent people. There are other matters associated with the OJD problem in that letter. It referred to the `shooting and pitting of 2,500 sheep on a Harden property' supervised by the veterinary officer that the letter targets. It says in another place:Men and Women who have placed their trust in Agricultural bodies set up to inform and support them are seriously talking of suicide as a solution to the problems these agencies have caused them. As one affected producer you diagnosed said to me—to the writer of the letter—`I sat on the doorstep and cried for two days. I could have shot myself and everyone around me.'Another very discouraging comment made in the letter was:At a time in history when the price for a medium wool clip is $3.00 per kilo the farmers ally, their advocate, their employed vet is putting such restraints on them that their already ailing cashflows are devastated.Mr Deputy Speaker and members of this House, that is the reality of what is happening with this nonsense that has been perpetrated on the ovine Johne's disease control program. I want to reinforce to the House that I am going to continually raise this until such time as commonsense prevails to stop the heartache and stress that are being created as the result of overzealous members of the New South Wales Department of Agriculture and their veterinary officers creating these massive problems for people who are struggling to maintain a livelihood.984717:49:009847Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—The Attorney-General's intervention at question time on 12 August, the last day of the last sittings, marked an official end of the most determined and unprecedented campaign by government to damage a political predecessor. The government and the Liberal Party are absolutely obsessed with Paul Keating and his political legacy. Mr Keating not only opened up the Australian economy, broke the back of inflation and doubled the country's capacity to grow but also championed the cause of a multicultural country, a republic integrated with Asia, at peace with its indigenous people—in short, a record this government despises.The Liberal Party, knowing they cannot pulp Mr Keating's record, tried to pulp Mr Keating himself. After eight years of attack in the parliament on Mr Keating's financial interest in a piggery, the government then turned their attack on Mr Keating through the media. A major assault was mounted, using and abusing Kerry Packer's 60 Minutes program. 60 Minutes spent several months, on its own admission, preparing its assault on Mr Keating, employing his discredited former business partner, Mr Constantinidis. To dress up its smear and make it look respectable, 60 Minutes then called on the government to establish a judicial inquiry into the allegations.The next day at question time, the Attorney-General said that the government, meaning Mr Howard, had asked him to tender advice on whether there was any basis for the allegations. We found out three weeks ago from the Attorney-General himself that there was none—no truth whatsoever. Not even Mr Keating's worst enemies, the Liberal Party of Australia, could establish the grounds for any sort of inquiry.So what did these eight years of political attack and persecution amount to? As I have only a few minutes, I will deal with the most serious—the `cover-up' as 60 Minutes called it, the claim that Mr Keating used his high office as Treasurer and Prime Minister to cajole the Commonwealth Bank into absolving Mr Constantinidis of certain private debts in return for Mr Constantinidis signing a deed releasing Mr Keating of any obligation to him. The whole charge was without foundation. The Commonwealth Bank denied it the day following the program in March.The Commonwealth Bank did settle certain private debts with Mr Constantinidis without any benefit to Mr Keating. But the key point was that this was done in July 1998, over two years after Mr Keating had left the prime ministership. By then, Mr Keating was a private citizen and the Commonwealth Bank was completely privately owned. No question of conflict could ever have arisen, even if Mr Keating had secured a deed of release from Mr Constantinidis, which he did not. The charge, quite simply, was an outrage.Paul Lyneham—the Benny Hill of the parliamentary press gallery—fronted the 60 Minutes programs. He slaked in one performance whatever credibility he had acquired over a lifetime in journalism, and he was made up like Mae West for the occasion of the destruction of his own reputation. Earlier this week his 60 Minutes colleague Richard Carleton put hundreds of Australian lives at risk in East Timor. Mr Lyneham put the truth at risk plus his own reputation. If a politician had been caught out so badly there would have been calls for him to resign. At the very least, Mr Lyneham should now stick to his song and dance routine and leave serious journalism to serious journalists. 60 Minutes has left to it only the John Laws alibi: they are in fact entertainers, not journalists.The final slur in this matter came from the Attorney-General on 12 August, clearing Mr Keating of any wrongdoing while trying to smear him in the process. As Michelle Grattan said in the Sydney Morning Herald two days later:As for the idea Keating should act to clear his reputation—that is outrageous coming from an Attorney General. Guilt, not innocence, has to be proven.Let this be the last word on this sorry saga of political vindictiveness by this small-minded and narrow government, led by such a small-minded and narrow Prime Minister.984817:53:009848Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—I rise this evening to address a matter that has been much in the news in my electorate of late, namely, the question of nuclear waste storage. But before I address that issue, I put the question to the House: why does the member for Lilley continue to insist that the files that were found are Centrelink files when they are clearly not so? The answer to that is beyond me.For some days now, the media in the Kalgoorlie electorate have been on a feeding frenzy regarding the question of nuclear waste storage. As the member for Kalgoorlie, and federal member for the largest and most sparsely populated electorate in the world, the media felt I would have a point of view on having nuclear waste stored in this electorate. Numerous interviews were carried out and a process of selection took place whereby the public opinion that resulted was that the member for Kalgoorlie supported a push by a company called Pangea for the storage of waste deep underground in the electorate of Kalgoorlie. This is clearly not the case. When considered in their fullness, my statements would clearly indicate that that was not the case.The process of storing nuclear waste deep underground in a geographical mass referred to as Pangea is, with today's technology, the most satisfactory and long-term safe process for the storage of nuclear waste. I believe their proposition is to store such materials in corrosive-proof containers that would be able to be inspected on a regular basis. In exchange for this privilege, they would provide great wealth which could be converted to public infrastructure.However, when asked whether I supported the question of storage of waste in Western Australia, I answered, `One may never say never.' In a changed world, in different circumstances, the people of Australia and specifically Western Australia, and even more specifically the electorate of Kalgoorlie, may be keen to take a decision to agree to the storage of nuclear waste deep underground. The circumstances I outlined were briefly these: in a political state where nuclear waste was destroying the world environment as we know it, and Western Australia was under the threat of a drifting radioactive cloud, and world leaders from an environmentalist point of view were collectively begging Australians, specifically Western Australians, to agree to storage of nuclear waste in the most geologi cally stable and, hopefully, the most politically stable continent on earth, the people of Western Australia just may have a different point of view.Because of that, I suggest that we must not at any stage adopt a head in the sand point of view. We must accept that we live in a dynamic world—from a physical sense as well as a political sense—and that our point of view today may not be the point of view we hold tomorrow. It is perfectly clear in my mind that a political group of any persuasion would not condone today, in today's environment, the storage of nuclear waste in Australia on behalf of the globe. But if the global population is threatened we may have a point of view which is distinctly different.In closing, I repeat my question to the House: why on earth would the member for Lilley continue to claim that those found files came from Centrelink? Why on earth would he have the public of Australia believe that was the case when it is demonstrably not so?984917:58:009849Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—In the short time available, I rise to respond to the extraordinary statements of the member for Kalgoorlie who in response to a request from the Minister for Community Services comes in and attacks my colleague the member for Lilley, who has put on record in this House the fact that over 100 files were found in a dump bin in Brisbane. The fact is: we put questions to the Minister for Community Services over a number of days and we did not have any answers. And he has the hide to come in here and ask questions of the member for Lilley. It is up to the Minister for Community Services and the government to respond to this issue.After question time today, the Minister for Employment Services made a statement that they were CES files—as though that made it better and that that was the issue. The issue is privacy. The issue is the failure of this government to protect the privacy of clients. The issue is the failure of these ministers to even talk to each other. It is up to the member for Kalgoorlie. He came in here and, in the middle of a speech on nuclear waste dumps, said, `It's okay because they were only CES files.' I do not think the clients think it is okay.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 6 p.m., the debate is interrupted.XJ6ANTHONYMr Anthony—Mr Speaker, I require that the debate be extended.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The debate may continue until 6.10 p.m.984918:00:009849Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—I thank the member for Grayndler for raising this important issue because there is an important issue at the moment regarding what the member for Lilley has done in misleading this parliament. I would like to raise some key points. The first point is that the member for Lilley came in here on Wednesday after he and the member for Dickson had obtained those files. They knew about this on Monday morning. He came into this parliament and talked about privacy and yet it was his office that went through those files. Indeed, even in his press release he said that he went through them meticulously and `audited' them. Talk about tampering with people's files and the matter of privacy. The member for Lilley, aided and abetted by his female accomplice the member for Dickson, did that. He then came in here and claimed that I misled the parliament. That is definitely not the case.2V5SWANMr Swan—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I take offence at that and I ask him to withdraw it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am listening closely. I am not conscious of an unparliamentary remark having been made; otherwise, as you know, I would require him to withdraw it.2V5SWANMr Swan—The minister said that I tampered with files. I did no such thing. I take offence and I ask him to withdraw it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lilley has not raised a remark that is deemed to be unparliamentary.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—The member for Lilley specifically said, even in his press release, that the files were `fully audited'.R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek your guidance. As you are aware, I am the person on House duty tonight and my point of order goes to the normal courtesies and procedures of this House. Would it normally be the case that, if a minister were going to make a statement which raised questions about his shadow minister, he would have the courtesy to notify the shadow minister or to notify the person who is on duty in the House? I was here with the member for Adelaide. Nothing was mentioned whatsoever about this. We were not consulted. You got the member for Kalgoorlie—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. I indicate to the member for Grayndler that the issue he has raised is not in any way covered by the standing orders and, therefore, it does not warrant any intervention by the Speaker.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—I noticed in the press release attachment that was put out by the member for Lilley that on Tuesday, 31 August the documents were audited by his personnel. When the question was asked on Wednesday about whether I was aware of this, I was aware that some SSAT files seemed to have gone missing, because I was contacted by the media on Monday. After going back to that media organisation, our investigations were hampered because we were not given any further information. Unbeknownst to me, the member for Lilley and the member for Dickson actually had that information. They misled the House because they should have provided that information to my office—or, indeed, to the government—on Monday.2V5SWANMr Swan—They were found in a car park.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—No-one wants to see privacy documents in incorrect places, whether they are in wheelie bins or anywhere else, and that is a very serious matter and we certainly take that on board, no matter what government agency it is.The clear facts here are that, in a press release issued this day, the member for Lilley claims that I misled the House. That is clearly not the case because he actually had the information. He went through it, audited all those 101 documents—and, if there is any dispute about privacy, it should be about the privacy breach of the member for Lilley. He is more interested in publicity than he is in privacy. This is an absolute disgrace because he actually had those documents.FI4MORRISMr Allan Morris—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I understand that the member for Richmond has accused someone of misleading the House. As you know, that requires a substantive motion. It cannot be made in any other speech. I suggest that you pull the minister into line and have him put an appropriate motion.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If I had heard the member for Richmond accuse someone of misleading the House I certainly would.FI4MORRISMr Allan Morris—He said that the member for Lilley had misled the House. That, as you know, is out of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It is a fine line. I remind the member for Newcastle that the practice of the House has been to require people who deliberately mislead to withdraw. That was not used in this instance.FI4MORRISMr Allan Morris—The point I was making was that that was one of a number of points that the member was making which are, in fact, substantial matters which require a substantive motion to be moved and which cannot be used indirectly in other forms of the House. I suggest that you advise the member either to bring it back as a substantive motion or to desist in what he is doing.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Community Services is well aware of his obligations not to move material that belongs in a substantive motion. If he were to do so, I would correct him.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—Also, what the member for Lilley did intentionally was to mislead the House and, through his further press releases—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister has in fact—R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—Point of order—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I wonder if the Speaker might be allowed to rule before he hears the point of order.R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—If I can have a win without making the point of order I will be very pleased.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister has just, in that instance, done the very thing I cautioned him against doing. I call the minister.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—In his press releases and in his questions to the House, the member for Lilley claimed that there were breaches of Centrelink privacy when, clearly, these documents did not belong to Centrelink.FI4MORRISMr Allan Morris—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the minister said that the member for Lilley intentionally misled the House. You called him to order and he kept on with the same comment.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am reluctant to interrupt the member for Newcastle but, clearly, having called the minister to order on that matter—FI4MORRISMr Allan Morris—He then kept on talking about how he had misled the House.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Newcastle is making a frivolous point of order. I will not allow the minister to intervene. I require the member for Newcastle to resume his seat and I call the minister.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—What concerns me is that the member for Lilley set out deliberately to scare the 6.1 million Centrelink customers—many of whom are the most frail and vulnerable people within the community—when he fully knew, because his office did an audit on the files, that the files did not belong to Centrelink. But he did not let the truth ruin a good story. He deliberately set out on a tack to besmirch Centrelink.2V5SWANMr Swan—Are you going to tell us what was in the documents?XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—No, you tell us because you had them and you audited them and you gave them—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister knows that he has an obligation to address his remarks though the chair.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—The point is that the member for Lilley and the member for Dickson had these documents and they sat on them for 2½ days before they brought them to the attention of this House. The facts are that the member for Lilley knew that they did not belong to Centrelink. I did not know because they were in his possession. We were tipped off by the media that there were some files. I instructed my department to investigate the matter. As it turned out, they were not Centrelink files.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the minister is abusing the standing order which makes provision for ministers to extend debate. We appreciate that there are standing orders that provide that, but they are clear. Standing order 48A(f) says:(f) a Minister may require that the debate be extended—in this circumstance until 6.10 p.m.—. . . to enable Ministers to speak in reply to matters raised in the preceding adjournment debate . . . That is, if someone comes in and attacks the minister he has a right to reply.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will hear the Manager of Opposition Business but I expect him not to abuse the—5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I am just trying to explain why I think this is not properly within the circumstances of 48A(f). It specifically says to `reply'. I know that the member for Kalgoorlie raised this issue, but he did not raise it in the circumstances of—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—With great respect to the Manager of Opposition Business, he may not be aware of the fact that the matter was also extensively raised, understandably, by the member for Grayndler, and it was in response to that that I allowed the minister the call.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—So all this is in response to that contribution by the member for Grayndler. I am just clarifying what I understand you are ruling on.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business has heard the ruling and will resume his seat.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do appreciate that.R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—Mr Speaker, on a different point of order: I draw your attention to the state of the House.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have no intention of recognising that point of order and, in the interests of every parliamentarian, I simply declare the House adjourned until 12.30 p.m. on Monday, 20 September. I hope that will be borne in mind next time.House adjourned at 6.10 p.m.1999-09-02Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members985398539853Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE83ACapricorniaALP00—We have seen a good victory this week for coalminers in Australia and particularly for the Oakdale coalminers who have been through a fairly long and difficult struggle over the past couple of months. They have achieved a concession from this government to get access to their entitlements that were lost when their company went into liquidation earlier this year. The miners in my electorate will see this for what it is, however. They are very pleased that their colleagues are going to be getting the entitlements that are rightfully theirs but they know very well that it is not the source of any great joy for this government that they are actually doing the right thing. They have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to this.The fight is not over for many workers in Australia. The bill that came into the parliament the other day is a very narrow piece of legislation that addresses the problems of the Oakdale miners. However, there are still many workers in Australia who now see this as a major issue and are wondering what will happen when their company goes bust or they become the victims of some kind of corporate restructure and they find themselves without their entitlements.When I think of this, I think in particular of workers in my own electorate who have suffered this fate—the workers from St Andrews Hospital in Rockhampton and Yeppoon. On 20 December 1997 the bank foreclosed on that hospital and 157 workers were locked out of the hospital—their own workplace—by the bank as part of that liquidation. Five days before Christmas we had 157 workers in my town out of a job and wondering about their future. Not only were they out of a job; they missed out on close to $1 million of their own employee entitlements. At the time that that happened and up to today they have had no protection for those entitlements. The only option that they have had to date is to pursue the matter within the common law court system, which takes a long time and is very costly. Luckily these workers have the support of their various unions and that is the course they are pursuing. The trial date is not set down until November this year—almost two years from the time that they lost their jobs as a result of this company's insolvency.The government has done the right thing somewhat reluctantly this week by addressing the problems of the Oakdale miners. However, the job is not done. We need to have a proper scheme in this country to protect employee entitlements to the full extent of those entitlements, not some kind of safety net. This money belongs to those workers and they are entitled to have it to cushion the blow should they lose their job due to company insolvency. (Time expired)98539853Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—I want to take this opportunity to report back to the House on the tremendous response in my electorate of Forde to the historic motion this government passed last week in the interest of national harmony and true reconciliation. As I spoke to local residents in many parts of my electorate over Friday and the weekend, I was moved by the genuine and heartfelt support in the community for the Prime Minister's motion. Many people, some of whom I know have felt indifference or even reservation towards the process of recon ciliation in the past, are now receptive and much more open minded about the need to achieve agreement and consensus between all Australians.Last week's motion did much to reduce the `them' and `us' feeling which grew under the previous Labor government, creating a divide that worked against the cause of true reconciliation. While I do not pretend that last week's motion provides an all encompassing solution, I believe it is a vital step forward. As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs inquiry into indigenous health, I have travelled to many Aboriginal communities in remote areas and witnessed first hand the living standards of many indigenous Australians.I know it is a crucial priority for the Howard government that we achieve real improvements when it comes to basic things like health, housing and education. I am pleased that the motion we passed last week acknowledged the need for practical assistance to improve the lives of indigenous Australians as well as symbolic gestures to heal the wounds of the past. I am just profoundly disappointed that the Labor Party did not put party politics aside and join with us in the spirit of unity and national interest that the motion was put.Labor chose to play the politics of division once again. The people in my electorate certainly did not thank them for it. In stark contrast, the local residents to whom I spoke over the weekend expressed a very high regard for Senator Ridgeway's sensible and uniting approach. I see, in the community's respect and admiration for him, a genuine way forward for all indigenous Australians. He has done the cause of reconciliation and national unity a great service, and every Australian can be thankful for his achievements so far. I am sure Senator Ridgeway will continue to play a constructive role in the continued negotiations that are ahead of us.The positive reaction I received from the people of Forde over the weekend mirrors widespread community support for the motion. This has been evident in various opinion surveys, in particular a phone survey in Queensland which showed that 90 per cent of those who responded agreed with the Prime Minister's statement. Once again, it is clear that the Prime Minister has acted in the national interest of Australians and, in doing so, he has provided a real sense of hope and optimism for a strong and united future for Australia.98549854Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—I rise today to speak on an issue raised by the member for Moreton in the House on 23 August 1999 concerning a visit by a delegation to the People's Republic of China. I was also a delegate, as was the member for Makin, who is in the chamber today. I am very concerned about the matters raised by Mr Hardgrave on 23 August. Whilst he certainly spoke highly of our growing friendship and trade relationship with China, when one actually goes to the text of what he said and reads what has been reported in the press, it seems to be suggested that our time spent in Tibet was actually as part of a human rights delegation. Mr Hardgrave made some fairly sweeping comments in the House, and I think anybody reading those comments might be entitled to assume that he was speaking on behalf of all of us, but he certainly was not.The delegation was actually part of a parliamentary friendship group. We were not an official delegation of the parliament; we were certainly not a human rights delegation. Whilst our time in Tibet was extremely interesting, and I think all of the delegates learnt a great deal, we were there as guests of the Chinese government. It is very important to put on the record that, whilst we did not witness any direct examples of human rights abuses, we could not, under the circumstances in which we were there, expect to have witnessed such events.It was quite misleading for Mr Hardgrave to suggest that we could in some way attest to the improving human rights situation in Tibet. I feel very strongly that the issues we raised on a number of occasions with Chinese officials and with officials of the Tibetan Autonomous Region were indicative of the fact that a very large problem still exists with respect to human rights. In particular, when questions were asked about political prisoners and what actually constituted offences which would allow the Chinese government to arrest and imprison Tibetan citizens, the officials were very hesitant to answer any questions, and they did not provide any satisfactory answers to the concerns we raised about the Panchen Lama and the return of the Dalai Lama.I would like to record on my behalf—not on behalf of any of the other delegates—that it was a very interesting and educative trip. I am delighted to see that the Chinese government is certainly interested in providing some support. One of the very good examples of what the Chinese and Australian governments are doing together is providing some humanitarian and health support in the Tibetan region. However, I have great concerns that there is a lot that we did not find out on this trip, and we could not have expected to. I think that the record must show that Mr Hardgrave did not speak on behalf of all of the delegates of that friendship group.98559855Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—Today, I would like to take the opportunity in the short time available to me to read into Hansard an anonymous statement by a woman who is in hospital at this moment recovering from another of her many attempts at suicide. I thank my colleague Senator Brian Harradine for giving me this statement to read and for supporting this victim who is one of his constituents. She starts by saying:It seems everyone else has had their say on the film Lolita , from film producers, actors, politicians, journalists and `free speech' advocates. But the view of the incest survivor has not been sought or voiced.I have been following the debate over the film, not like the majority who hypothesise from a purely intellectual stance, but from my own personal experience of having had Vladimir Nabokov's novel used as a tool in the sexual abuse I experienced in my childhood.Lolita has run like a subtext through my life. As a child I read the book and lived a life not unlike hers. My stepfather had me play the role of Lolita to his Humbert—he even asked me to wear the pigtails and the ponytails. This man internalised the language and the philosophies of the writer, referring to me as his `nymphette' and inferring that I was his lover. In my puberty he handed me Nabokov's book with the advice that it would help me to understand the nature of our covert relationship and that I might identify with Lolita. The truth was he identified with the abuser and wanted to transfer his notions to me.My stepfather's abuse of me involved brainwashing which convinced me that I was somehow to blame and which allowed intercourse to proceed unhindered for six years. Reading the book horrified and depressed me. I now consider it a form of intellectual child pornography.Now things have come full circle, with Lolita back in the cinemas. For years I had blocked out her memory and gone about my life in a mechanistic fashion. But there is only so long a memory will remain sealed and silent. Soon it will contaminate everything. The novel/film will never cease to affect me because of the way in which it interplayed in my life. Lolita never got to say how it was for her and no-one wanted to know. As a child, she did not have the capacity to assign a meaning and language to what she could not understand.The book has been described quaintly as a "tender tragic love story." Surely this can't be the same book I read: the book that involves an older man lusting over eight and ten year old little girls, gleeful at the death of Lolita's mother because this gives him unrestricted access to molest her daughter, drugging Lolita in order to have intercourse against her will when she is twelve and then pursuing a sexual relationship with her for the remainder of her childhood.In the book, Humbert claims that by the age of fourteen, Lolita was letting him have sex with her. One wonders what happened in the intervening years. The coercion and force that would have been employed is conveniently omitted.Likewise, my stepfather censored my view of the world and his own. I did not even know there was such a thing as what we now refer to as child sexual assault. The only paradigm I could place my experience into was that of the married couples I had seen in the 40's, 50's and 60's movies I was permitted to watch.(Time expired)98569856Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I wish to use the short time available to me this morning to thank a number of people who assisted me on a recent visit to Broome. I travelled to Broome originally at the invitation of Peter Tannock, the Vice-Chancellor of Notre Dame University, which has a campus in Broome. I had the pleasure of meeting Sister Pat Rhatigan, the Director of the Broome campus; the Chancellor of Notre Dame University, Terry O'Connor; and a number of the other governors who were visiting at that time. I had the pleasure of meeting Father Bill Miscamble from Notre Dame in Indiana, who is also on the board of governors; and I met Sister Clare Aherne, who is not only a very good teacher at Notre Dame University but a very speedy walker on the beach at Broome.I also thank the students who provided us—the governors and visitors such as me—with an introduction to the good work that Notre Dame University does at the Broome campus, especially in teacher education and in Aboriginal and business studies. Many of the students made the point that they probably would not have had an opportunity to study without Notre Dame University being present there.We are also grateful for the hospitality of Steve Dean, the second-in-charge of the state Department of Education Services. Through the courtesy of Tom and Anne Stephens—Tom is the Labor leader in the Western Australian upper house—we were able to visit the Lombadina/Djarinjin Catholic School and met Sister Margaret Scott, the principal, and also Bishop Chris Saunders, although only briefly.We also visited the One Arm Point Public School and met the Principal, Ron Pearson. Two of the young students, Nellie Bin Maarus and Nikita Balacky, showed us around. We had a chance to see one of the Croc Eisteddfod events—not the Rock Eisteddfod but the Croc Eisteddfod—and it was a credit to all the young students involved. We also visited the Sacred Heart School at Beagle Bay. Mary Jacquier, the Principal, showed us around the school and we also met Sister Shelagh and two of her students who are studying through Notre Dame University.I would also like to thank Peter Yu and Pat Dodson and others who very kindly showed us around. In particular, Elaine Rabbit at Edith Cowan University gave us a very good explanation of the excellent work carried out by Edith Cowan in Broome. John Weichert, the Manager of the new Kimberley College of TAFE, is also doing an excellent job in providing training in areas such as aquaculture, horticulture, landscaping and IT training. To all these people and to others such as Paul Browning, I say: thank you very much for assisting me in learning about a number of indigenous and tertiary education issues.98579857Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—The education, training and youth affairs backbench committee had a very interesting briefing on Wednesday morning from the Western Australian Minister for Youth, Mike Board MLA. An issue that is constantly raised with me in my electorate is the need for young people to be able to develop a sense of leadership and a sense of discipline. It is often said that national service should be imposed again, if not on everybody, at least on the young unemployed—this and/or compulsory service in the cadets. In Western Australia, they have taken the cadet idea to a new level. I believe that what they are doing has tremendous merit and I would like to share it with the House with a view to recommending a national scheme using the West Australian model as a pilot.Cadets Western Australia, as the program is known, still has the basic Army, Navy and Air Force cadets—which, as we know, has been in place for many years, and many successful graduates have set themselves up with this training. In addition to these conventional groups, new dimensions of training have been added in Western Australia for those with different areas of interest—for example, the Bushrangers for environmental care; the Red Cross, where the focus is on the elderly; the SES, where the focus is on the skills needed for firefighting, rescue and such; the police; and St John Ambulance, obviously concentrating on emergency health care.In addition, organisers are also looking at setting up a unit involved in surf lifesaving and still water rescue. This is a community based program, not a school based one, although many schools participate in the running of the program. But, because it is a community based program and not a school based one, kids who are not at school are still able to access the program as well. In fact, these young people probably have more need of these skills than those who are still at school.The idea of this program is to develop leadership and discipline in the youth of Australia while allowing them to have fun at the same time. Through this, young people receive a boost in self-image which some, though not all, need. In Western Australia, there has been plenty of media attention on this program, which has also boosted the image of youth throughout the general community. There are some common training components to all these different areas of cadets, but each area of interest has its own special training. Obviously, not all schools or communities could offer all the different types of cadetships. The idea is that young people be exposed to the training and discipline while doing something they enjoy. This will be much more readily accepted than forcing them into an activity which they do not have an affinity with.Something that has been recognised more and more in the workplace is that people have an affinity for different types of jobs. The boss's likes, dislikes, strengths and weaknesses are often totally different from those of his staff. The same is true for students and it should not be a case of sport or nothing for extracurricular activities for them. The aim of this group is to get kids to do the best they can, even if it is not world beating. Much of the media attention these days is centred around the four per cent of youth who offend, while the 96 per cent who contribute valuably to society are often ignored. These programs, well administered as they appear to be in Western Australia, connect the youth with the general community and the elderly, especially through the Red Cross program.Three hours a week is all that is involved in this program. The kids get the opportunity to experience a whole range of things. Private and business community groups have shown that they will get involved in such a momentous project. I am sure that we can all learn from what is going on in Western Australia, and I believe that the minister would welcome any approaches.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Bills9858r8929858Debate resumed from 30 June, on motion by Mr Bruce Scott:That the bill be now read a second time.09:58:009858Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—The Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 seeks essentially to do four things: firstly, to allow determinations to be made which will align the test for permanent incapacity for work for the invalid service pension with that for the special rate for totally and permanently incapacitated disability pension; secondly, to allow determinations to be made which will align the test for permanent incapacity for the income support supplement with that for the social security disability support pension; thirdly, to extend eligibility for the HomeFront scheme and introduce a home loan support program to provide loans for home maintenance and alteration; and, fourthly, to extend the Veterans' Children's Education Scheme to recipients of the extreme disability adjustment.I can indicate, from the opposition's perspective, that we will not oppose the passage of this bill through the House of Representatives. But I want to flag, for those who are interested, that Labor does have concerns about the bill. As a consequence of that, whilst we will not impede its passage through the House of Representatives, my colleague the shadow minister for veterans' affairs, Senator Schacht, will be pursuing these matters through the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee. We believe that it is important that the veterans community has time to properly assess this bill before parliament decides whether to pass it or not. The committee hearings in the other place will facilitate that.There is some concern about the question of the nexus currently between social security and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Those on both sides of politics have argued for as long as I can remember that there should always be a separate Department of Veterans' Affairs and a separate department of social security in its various guises, even though some people could argue that, from an efficiency point of view, it is necessary to ensure that there is no disadvantage occasioned in the delivery of government services by the perpetuation of that particular state of affairs. Nevertheless, what we have seen in the main is agreement that the amendments being proposed are sensible—and I am delighted to see that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs has entered the chamber—but there are some issues which we believe should be addressed through a Senate committee, and Senator Schacht will be pursuing those.I therefore indicate that we will provisionally support the passage of this bill through the House of Representatives, but final support for the bill will be dependent on whether the veterans community supports the measures that are outlined here. The next opposition speaker in this debate will be the member for Cowan, Graham Edwards. He, of course, brings with him an incredible depth of knowledge of issues associated with the veterans community, and he will pick up on a number of these specific matters.I take this opportunity to flag with the government, and with the minister directly, some other concerns, particularly those that the shadow minister for veterans' affairs has asked me to raise this morning. They are concerns that we are seeking some response to. The first is in respect of whether the government is addressing the request for extending the gold card provisions. I know this is an issue that has been around for some time, and I request the minister to enlighten us—including my colleague in the other place—on any progress in the matter.My second question is: what has the government been doing to ensure that services will be maintained for veterans at repat hospitals now that the Commonwealth has handed over control of them to the state governments. I well remember that this was an issue when I had the honour of being the shadow minister for veterans' affairs in 1996, and it seems to continue to be an issue. It is certainly an issue in Victoria and has been raised in the House of Representatives, quite ably, in questions that have been directed to the responsible minister, particularly in respect of the Kennett government's manic decision to continue the process of privatisation in public hospitals.My understanding—and the minister might like to address this—is that, when the decision was taken to hand over the Austin Repatriation Hospital in Victoria to the state government, there were some strings attached. At the end of one of those strings there was a fairly healthy wad of notes that went to ensure that veterans were not to be disadvantaged. The former Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Con Sciacca, has suggested that on the end of that string was an amount which approximated $0.5 billion to ensure that the veterans continued to have a hospital facility in Melbourne that would meet their needs. Since the minister is here, he may like to address this particular concern, which many of us on this side of the parliament have, as I am sure others do. I am not talking about the philosophical underpinnings of privatisations of hospitals—or anything else—but about ensuring that veterans continue to have access to those much needed facilities.My third question to the government is: what is actually happening to ensure that veterans are receiving from Centrelink the assistance they deserve, now that it has taken over the administration of many of the veterans' benefits. Underlying that concern is whether or not this government is going to continue with what has been pretty much a bipartisan policy in the past of maintaining two different departments. I know that the veterans community has always maintained that it feels far more secure knowing that there is a Department of Veterans' Affairs. But if more and more of the benefit paying mechanisms are going to other departments, under the umbrella of social security, community services or whatever it might be, it is a question of allaying the concerns which veterans might have.It is important to give some thought also to the impact that the present cuts to the legal aid budget are having on veterans. Senator Schacht informs me that he has received a number of complaints on this matter. It is apparent that resources are no longer available through legal aid for veterans to access assistance when appealing unfair decisions by the department with regard to entitlements. If that is the case, it is regrettable. I raise that too with the minister as a genuine issue of concern.I know the minister would appreciate that there is very much a view that most if not all issues in veterans' affairs are above politics. Certainly we tend to try to ensure that that is so. But when there are genuine concerns, we always reserve the right to bring them to the attention of the minister. The honourable member for Cowan, who will speak later in the debate this morning, is far better equipped, because of his very much hands-on approach to dealing with the veterans community, to raise more specific elements of these sorts of questions.Finally, we are delighted that—as reported today in the media—medals of valour have at last been awarded to six very deserving Australians. It must be placed again on the public record that Labor had been pushing the former minister, Mrs Bishop, to act on this. Labor had been saying to her that there was a need for people to be recognised appropriately. It is not just an officer class type of thing. If serving men and women, defending this nation, are deserving of appropriate recognition, then they should be given that recognition. I am delighted that the matter has been addressed by this minister. I say to the minister that that is a welcome thing. I think it is fair to say that a lot of heartache could have been avoided, though, had his colleague who was previously in this position taken a little more notice of the concerns that had been raised on behalf of those very deserving Australians.Let me conclude my contribution this morning by again indicating that Labor will not oppose passage of this legislation through the House of Representatives. The shadow minister for veterans' affairs has some concerns and would like to see the veterans community given some opportunity to make some comment on them before Labor finally determines its attitude in the other place. I have raised one or two questions on behalf of the shadow minister for veterans' affairs because of the concerns that many members on both sides of the House have probably been feeling in terms of representations being made to them by veterans. We look forward to the minister's response in his summing up in answering, hopefully, some of those questions. I wish this bill speedy passage through the House.10:08:009860Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—First of all, I offer my congratulations to all concerned in the release of Steve Pratt and Peter Wallace, in particular to our Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer.The Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 has been requested and approved by the bulk of the people to whom it applies. Usually it happens that people request legislative changes that they believe should apply to other people, but that is why it is so good working with veterans. The veterans I know are unassuming men and women who, whilst they are learning of their rights, only want that to which they are entitled. To illustrate my point: just last week I spoke to another veteran who was unhappy about the entitlement that someone else was getting, in his eyes, undeservedly. When I challenged him to give details, rather than talk in generalities he provided them within two days.The story went like this: there was a serviceman who was married who later left his wife and entered a de facto relationship with another woman. After he died, his wife applied for and received the war widows pension. Unfortunately, she also died. Soon after, the woman from the de facto relationship changed her surname by deed poll to that of the serviceman. Six weeks later, she applied for and received the war widows pension and a gold card.This is the kind of story that really outrages veterans. Benefits have been earned with blood and are not to be given or treated lightly. In fact, most of the work on behalf of veterans that comes into my electorate office consists of chasing up entitlements that have previously been unknown to them or for which they have never applied. Nine times out of 10, when asked why they had not applied earlier or why they had let their situation become so grim before asking if there was some possibility that they might have a little bit of help, the answer is, `Oh, there are so many people worse off than me and I don't want to take something away from anyone else,' or, `Other people probably needed it more than I did.' And isn't that interesting? The very people who gave the most for their country are unwilling to take away from it. Yet there are others who have no difficulty in working the system to take whatever they can get, whether they deserve it or not.There are also people who have been allocated particular labels in the past which have stuck and which are, in a way, being used against them. This bill seeks to find a balance, because those on invalid service pensions really ought to, and should, be treated in that way, and those who are able to access other opportunities should be assisted to do so. Some may more appropriately be transferred to other avenues of financial support which allow and encourage the development of skills and perhaps a return to the work force.This bill provides amendments in five major areas: the invalid service pension review; the extension of HomeFront; Home Support advances; the veterans' children education scheme; and the peacekeeping forces. There are several other minor amendments which decrease the inconsistencies and ambiguities in current legislation. This demonstrates the federal government's commitment to review legislation to ensure that it accurately reflects government policy.Let me turn to the matter of determining eligibility for the invalid service pension. Service and veterans' groups have regularly expressed their disquiet to MPs, to the Department of Veterans' Affairs and to ministers about the ease with which some people seem to be getting the invalid service pension. On closer inspection, it became apparent that some people may have accessed this pension because of the lack of standardisation and objectivity in the criteria for applying the pension. This meant that, for some, this pension became a non-reviewable alternative to an unemployment benefit. As a result, the criteria used to access eligibility for the invalid service pension will now be standardised. They will also be aligned with Centrelink's criteria for accessing the permanent incapacity income support supplement to the disability support pension.These criteria will then enable objective judgment of whether a veteran is permanently incapacitated and therefore eligible for the invalid service pension. This amendment will require a veteran to accrue 40 impairment points as set out in the Guide to the Assessment of Rates of Veterans' Pensions, better known as GARP. Who would have thought that we would ever have legislation suggesting `the world according to GARP'! The veteran's permanent incapacity must be of such a nature that it prevents him or her from working more than eight hours a week permanently.At this point, I hasten to add that totally and permanently incapacitated, or TPI, pensioners will not be reviewed. Veterans aged over 57 on 1 January 2000 will also not be reviewed. Veterans who already have 40 GARP points and who are unable to work more than eight hours a week will also not be reviewed. This is a matter of credibility, and most veterans contacted are pleased that these amendments will take place.As was alluded to earlier, some veterans have been labelled wrongly, in that they can work, and it is appropriate that they do so. In these instances, it is more equitable that they be moved to income support programs which allow them access to training and vocational placement and opportunities. The review applies to 1,780 veterans, which is less than 15 per cent of invalid service pensioners, and it is totally supported by them.HomeFront is the falls and accident prevention program that currently is offered only to war widows and veterans with a gold card. Through this bill, the federal government is extending the scheme to all veterans who are eligible for treatment from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This scheme is excellent, and any fall or accident prevented saves major costs—costs in terms of reduced mobility, families having to increase their physical support of the injured, loss of confidence and independence, not to mention any medical and hospital costs.Under the HomeFront Program, people's homes are inspected for any potential gaps in their safety. You know the kind of hidden and familiar traps that I mean—that second bottom step that has been loose for years, that little ripple in the carpet near the piano, the verandah rail that is a bit wobbly, or that patch of lino that cracked after the house settled in the big drought. Those are the things that we walk under, past or over on a daily basis and we even regularly think to ourselves, `Yes, we must fix that one day.' These are the very things that can lead to simple accidents in the home that can have such horrific consequences.Most of us know of someone who in their later years had a fall, broke a leg or a hip, spent a long time in hospital, came out and probably had another fall while trying to cope with their now weaker limbs and lack of trust in their body. Generally, the story goes that another even longer stay in hospital sees them emerge in a much debilitated state, not through the lack of care in the hospital but because of the enforced lack of movement and the associated consequences for independence. The old adage is: they were just never the same, they never came good again, or they died soon after coming home. If the extension of the HomeFront Program saves just one of the those accidents, it will all have been worth it.This program does not end with the free home assessment. Financial assistance is also available to solve those minor potential safety problems. Up to $150 in any one calendar year is available towards the cost of recommended safety appliances and items such as grab rails or non-slip treatment of floor services. This financial assistance will go directly to the qualified contractor who is performing the work, so there is a further shell of protection for veterans built into this program. It ensures that the work is necessary and recommended by the assessor; it is performed by a qualified tradesman; the cost of the improvements is capped in many instances by the level of assistance, making it unattractive for the get-rich-quick con merchants; as things become worn or pose a risk they can be fixed each year; and veterans do not have to go to their bank or their cash box to pay the tradesman, thereby opening themselves to possible further risks. As I said earlier, the government will provide the assistance direct to the person or company providing this service.The HomeFront Program in no way limits the services and assistance available through the Rehabilitation Appliances Program. This program ensures veterans have the choice to remain at home with dignity whilst ever they choose to do so. The Home Support advance fits hand in glove with the HomeFront Program. If a veteran lives in and owns his or her home and that home requires some major maintenance, safety or security improvements, they will be able to apply for assistance to have that work carried out by a qualified tradesperson. This assistance takes the form of interest subsidies on a loan of up to $10,000 in partnership with Westpac, which will provide the loan using all the normal commercial contracts and mortgage documents. Along with the interest subsidies, eligible veterans will also be able to access defence service home insurance. These initiatives are particularly suitable in this the International Year of the Older Person.The next item for amendment by this bill is the Veterans' Children Education Scheme. Again, this amendment highlights the government's determination to identify and remove anomalies in veterans' entitlements. This bill will extend eligibility for the benefits available under the Veterans' Children Education Scheme to those children of veterans receiving extreme disability adjustment. This measure will no doubt be fully supported by the opposition which sought to introduce it in 1993. However, when other matters prevented the bill from passing both houses, the opposition never completed the legislation they had proposed to fix the problem. This is sad because it was the current opposition that created the anomaly in the first place by extending eligibility for the Veterans' Children Education Scheme only to children of deceased veterans. Consequently, for years and years, children of some of the most severely incapacitated veterans could not receive the benefits of this assistance until their parent was dead.The last major amendment in this bill allows the minister to declare a force engaged in keeping the peace as a peacekeeping force for the purposes of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. This simply means that the government can respond more quickly through streamlined processes. This amendment will create certainty, especially for those personnel who may not form part of the Australian defence forces, yet are involved in a peacekeeping force which may or may not involve the ADF. One of the really good things about this bill is that it shows just how serious this government is when it comes to responding to veterans' concerns.Another area in which we have taken decisive action is in the provision of Viagra under certain war related circumstances. Previously, even in compensation claims, several governments, through the Department of Veterans' Affairs and its various tribunals, had basically treated veterans' sexual difficulties in the same context as those suffering the onset of old age. We all know that such difficulties can be caused by a multitude of events, from psychological to physical. Previously veterans had been treated as a group. Here was an issue that could only be described as individual, requiring determination on an individual case basis.This government moved quickly to ensure that this issue could be dealt with in the way that veterans had asked. The funny thing is that veterans, contrary to popular belief and humour, are not rushing to queue for Viagra, but they are coming into the electorate office to say how much they appreciate being given the choice. These and other veterans are also telling me how happy they are with this government for listening to their concerns and for treating them as humans rather than some massed amoebic blob of mucous on the outer edge of life. This has been the concern for our veterans, that they have not been treated with the respect that they have surely earned.The Far East Strategic Reserve is another avenue through which this government is demonstrating its responsiveness to the veterans' requests. Again, veterans have carefully prepared, documented, submitted and argued a case for suitable recognition of services provided at the time in good faith. Again, this government is responding with a fair and balanced process which is, of course, this review. This is just another string to the bow of mutual obligation for in government, too, with rights come responsibilities, and it is our responsibility to ensure that the rights of veterans are accorded. It is their responsibility to communicate with us so that we might use our right to introduce such appropriate and jointly sponsored legislation. Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.10:21:009863Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—I want to start by offering my congratulations to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs for his decision in ensuring that those six diggers, about whom he knows so much, will now receive the medals to which they were justly entitled. Having said that, I am sorry on behalf of those veterans that this issue took so long to resolve. I have just one other little criticism, which I am sure the minister will not take too much to heart: I thought it would have been delightful if that decision could have been made on Vietnam Veterans Day rather than at the RSL Congress yesterday. But, having said that, I do not want to appear petty. The right thing has been done; it has taken a long time, and, regardless of how anyone looks at this in the future, the important fact is that now it has been established that for the level of bravery about which we were talking, there is no discrimination, no difference between an officer and a person from other ranks. For the same level of bravery they are entitled to the same level of award, and that important principle has been established. I support a number of initiatives in this bill. Some initiatives that I have concerns about I will mention, but I will not go into lengthy debate because, as the member for Cunningham has said, this bill will go to a Senate standing committee and the veteran community will have the opportunity to comment on the bill and on the impact that the bill will have on veterans.I think the veteran community will support those aspects of the bill dealing with the education scheme for veterans' children, the peacekeeping forces, and those amendments relating to home support advances and the treatment of veterans. I do however want to ask the minister what provisions within the department will be taken to ensure that under the HomeFront program sufficient numbers of trained assessors will be available to visit homes and identify hazards in and around homes? As well as identifying their needs, what provisions will be made to help veterans to identify community support services that they may need to link into in order to gain assistance to remain living independently in their own homes? I asked the question because it is obvious that if this service is to be extended to an additional 63,000 veterans, then the existing assessors, who, I understand, are already under the pump, will be hard-pressed to absorb that additional workload and to do it within a reasonable time.I also want to know whether the $150 that is to be made available will be adjusted for GST. We all know that home improvements can be a fairly expensive avenue of expenditure and any additional money can make that bit of difference. It is a good initiative if used advantageously for veterans. If, however, it is going to be used simply as aged care on the cheap instead of as an alternative to institutionalised care, then it will not help veterans. I guess time will tell how effective this is going to be. But, as I said, I think it is a good initiative.The other matter about which I have some concerns relates to changes to the invalidity service pension assessment. Why are we putting veterans through the process of transferring responsibility from the Department of Veterans' Affairs to Centrelink? I want to know whether this is the start of the Department of Veterans' Affairs being dismantled and responsibility for veterans going to Centrelink. I know this is a concern that many veterans and many veterans organisations have. It is a concern that is even more highlighted when we have a government which seems determined to bow down to the economic rationalists and to pursue this process of privatisation.This bill is about saving the department money at the expense of veterans. The minister says that approximately 13 per cent of veterans will be retested, and retested under these more stringent GARP arrangements. He also says that savings of some $6 million will eventually result. What concerns many veterans is that, if they are forced off the service pension and if they are pushed over into Centrelink, any pension that they receive from Centrelink will be means and asset tested. Of course, any disability pension that they receive through the Department of Veterans' Affairs will become part of that assessment.It needs to be said that a number of these veterans are really battlers. They are family people. They do not have a lot of excess money. In some circumstances, the things that we are talking about here today will be the straw that breaks the camel's back. This ultimate saving of some $6 million that the minister talks about is going to be made at the expense of many of these battling veterans.I know that there is a right of appeal. I would be appreciative if the minister could advise the committee what that appeal process will be. I want to talk about appeals a bit further down the track, but I would appreciate it if he could put on the record what the appeal process will be. It seems to me that we will be putting many veterans through an unnecessary process, given that no doubt many of them will have the decision overturned when they do appeal if they are forced off the ISP.Take the case of a veteran aged 56. If, for instance, a veteran of this age is forced off the service pension, then in four years time that veteran will be back on a service pension with eligibility established through age. Why, if that is going to be the outcome, has the government not simply introduced a grandfather clause?The minister knows that if his department have suspicions that a veteran who has a service pension is not dinkum or that circumstances have changed, then they can take remedial action under current legislation, so why this whole process here? Why not have a grandfather clause and simply start a new policy for new applicants as from, say, 1 January 2000 and leave current service pensioners alone in the knowledge, as I have said, that your department has existing powers to deal with that small percentage of veterans who may have snuck through the system. I ask the minister again: are we starting on the journey of beginning to dismantle the Department of Veterans' Affairs and transfer responsibility for veterans over to Centrelink? I do not want to comment any more on the details of the bill. The veteran community will have the opportunity to make comment when we go through the public process in the Senate and I know that there are many veterans and organisations that are going to take the opportunity to do that.I spoke earlier about the appeals system. One of the things that need to be said about the veteran community is that veterans receive great support through the various organisations that work on a volunteer basis to assist them to lodge claims and appeals. I think they do a great job. I had the opportunity to be closely involved with the services assistance program which operates out of the Returned Services League premises in Perth. People like Doug Rasmussen, Ross O'Connor and Graham Bertollini put an immense amount of good work on a volunteer basis into assisting their fellow veterans and this is of great assistance to them and to the department. I also want to compliment the Vietnam Veterans' Federation of which I am a member, and particularly compliment Tim McCombe and his team for the great work that they do on behalf of veterans. I know in some sections of government that the Vietnam Veterans' Federation are not all that popular. They are not all that popular because they have one thing in mind: above all else, to look after the welfare and the interests of veterans. They do not pay any particular political favour to either side of politics; they just simply get on with the job of trying to look after veterans. They do a great job and it is a bit sad that sometimes they do not receive the support or the avenues of access through the department or to the minister that perhaps they should receive.I just want to comment on this issue of legal aid because it is an important one. A letter that I received from the Vietnam Veterans' Federation earlier this year states:In 1997, arrangements for veterans' Legal Aid funding changed. No longer is there is a separate Commonwealth fund for veterans' Legal Aid from which State Legal Aid Offices seek reimbursement.Nowthis veterans' fund is pooled with funds for other matters in the Commonwealth jurisdiction such as family law, immigration and customs and given to State Legal Aid Offices to administer.Before the change, in the Federation's experience, all or almost all reasonable applications for Legal Aid were granted. The matter was not an issue. Since the change, the Federation is experiencing and hearing about applications with obvious merit being denied. In addition, since the 1997 changes, issues of inadequate funding for medical reports and for various stages of the preparation and presentation of appeals have arisen.Take for instance the Ray Kelly case. He was in dispute with the Repatriation Commission over a question of eligible service. His case was obviously a good one. He was refused Legal Aid. He was so confident his case was a good one he paid for its running himself. He won easily, as a reading of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision will attest. He won, but Ray Kelly is out of pocket some $9,000. It is our experience that such a case would never have been refused legal aid prior to the 1997 changes.Then take the case of the veteran whose disability was the subject of a Statement of Principle change during the appeals process. He was refused funds for another medical report to address the Statement of Principle changes.Take also the practice of allowing medical reports for only the particular disability in question, even though the Administrative Appeals Tribunal must do its assessment on the effect of all the veterans' accepting disabilities.Take, too, the new prohibition on veterans being represented by a solicitor and barrister.And so on.The letter goes on:. . . there is considerable disquiet about the quality of decisions being made by Repatriation Commission delegates. Big numbers of appeals and high rates of success in those appeals suggest that the disquiet is justified. And no end is in sight to this disquiet with the Minister's reorganisation of his Department installing quite junior staff as determining officers who, to make matters worse, have, in some offices, a high turnover rate.The Repatriation Commission is embarrassed about this. It would obviously like to see fewer appeals against its decision succeed . . . And then there is the matter of the interpretation of the law.Since 1943, and certainly since 1977, veterans' organisations have differed markedly from the Repatriation Commission in their interpretation of Repatriation law. And the veterans' organisations have been proven to be right in every significant court case dealing with the law's interpretation. And the Repatriation Commission's imposition of unduly harsh interpretations of Repatriation law continue to the present time. In the recent Deledio case, the Repatriation Commission argued that it should impose a `balance of probabilities' standard of proof on its decision making process. This was an astounding view to argue as both the politicians making the law and the text of the law itself clearly stated that test to be `reasonable hypothesis'. More recently, the Repatriation Commission's supported the Specialist Medical Review Council in applying the scientific standard of proof to its decision making. Happily, the New South Wales Supreme Court agreed with veterans that this was far from what was intended by the Parliament and that the correct test was again, `reasonable hypothesis.The issue of legal aid is an important one, as we see in the case of Ray Kelly. Here is a bloke who was so confident that he was going to win, but was forced into a situation where he had to front up and hit his own kick to the tune of nine grand. That is simply unacceptable. If this veteran had not been able to have access to that money, then a great injustice might well have been done.I wonder how many veterans there are out there in the community who do not have the cash and who have to withdraw from the appeal process simply because they cannot fund it. That is why I made mention of the services assistance program, the Vietnam Veterans Federation and, of course, the RSL and the many volunteers in the various branches of the RSL around Australia who do a great job in supporting and assisting other veterans to get justice and to have their day in court.I will conclude by asking the minister if he can advise the committee of the current status of the review into the health and wellbeing of Gulf War veterans. This was an issue some time ago. I know the minister was interviewed by Channel 9, I think on A Current Affair, and at the end of that program the channel indicated that the minister had advised it that a review was indeed being put into place. I would be grateful if the minister could advise the committee of the current status of that review. How far down the track is it; how many veterans have been called in; how many veterans have been tested and how long will the process of that investigation take; and how long will it be before some of these veterans and their families, who have very serious concerns about their health and wellbeing, know the outcome of that inquiry?Having made those few comments, I compliment the minister again on the decision about the medals and I want to say there are some good points in this legislation. Members of the veteran community themselves will have the opportunity to put before the committee any concerns that they have, and ultimately, I guess, we will have the opportunity to make our decision as to how strongly we support or oppose this legislation, dependent upon the outcome of that review.10:40:009867May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—In the International Year of the Older Person, this government has made and honoured numerous commitments to providing assistance for members of the veteran community. Many of these initiatives are incorporated into the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 . One of these measures is HomeFront, an initiative designed to reduce the number of falls and accidents in and around veterans' homes.The total cost to the health system of accidental falls is $806 million, more than double the cost to the Australian health system of road traffic accidents, which cost the Australian government around $370 million per annum. HomeFront aims to reduce this burden on the Australian health system by implementing preventive measures. Furthermore, HomeFront aims to maintain the health and independence of the veteran community and assist members of the community to continue living in their homes should they wish to do so. HomeFront will achieve these aims by providing eligible veterans and war widows with a free home assessment and up to $150 per year in financial assistance towards recommended aids and minor home modifications. HomeFront also provides a range of information, and helps link veterans and war widows to other support programs and services for which they may be eligible.The introduction of HomeFront by the coalition government in January this year provided to eligible veterans and war widows up to $150 towards the cost of minor home alterations and home safety appliances and items. At the present time, HomeFront is available to all gold card holders. This bill before the House will extend that provision, allowing approximately 63,000 white health care card holders to be eligible for the measure. This will raise to 340,000 the number of members of the veteran community eligible for the initiative.A complementary measure to HomeFront is also incorporated into this bill—a measure which allows the government to introduce the Home Support Loan Scheme, which was foreshadowed in the budget brought down in May. The home support advance will provide low interest loans of up to $10,000 for home modifications and essential maintenance. Loans under this scheme will be available to those people eligible under the Defence Service Homes Act who have an outstanding loan of less than $10,000. Eligibility for the loan scheme will be extended beyond those eligible for a defence service home advance. This new loan will be available to Australian veterans, members of the Defence Force and members of a peacekeeping force covered by the Veterans' Entitlements Act, and to their widows or widowers.The student children of veterans will also benefit from this bill. At the moment, only children of deceased extreme disablement adjustment veterans are able to receive assistance under the Veterans' Children Education Scheme. As at 30 June 1998, there were 4,313 children being assisted by the Veterans' Children Education Scheme. As it stands, children of living extreme disability allowance recipients are not eligible for the scheme. This bill will correct this anomaly and ensure that the children of living extreme disablement adjustment veterans become eligible for such assistance as well, providing these student children with full access to all of the benefits available under the scheme, including financial assistance, educational guidance and counselling. This move corrects an anomaly which the opposition put in place when it was in government. It extended the scheme eligibility only to the children of deceased veterans. Estimates are that today there are approximately 36 children of living extreme disablement adjustment veterans who are in full-time education and would be eligible for assistance.A further provision of this bill will allow the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to declare by gazettal the deployment of non-Australian Defence Force personnel as a peacekeeping force for the purposes of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. This will effectively allow the government to act quickly and definitively where a situation may arise. The opposition may say that the government is replacing a provision that was taken out in 1997 and making a mistake in doing so. This is quite the contrary. As part of a major review of eligible service effective from May 1997, similar provisions to those now proposed were removed from the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. The Veterans' Entitlements Act still provides for coverage of any member of a peacekeeping force, but there is still uncertainty about fast-tracking cover for non-Australian Defence Force members where there is no associated Australian Defence Force involvement. This is a proactive, responsible move designed to ensure any uncertainty about the legislation is remedied before it needs to be applied.One of the major provisions in this bill is a mechanism for setting out the specific circumstances and criteria for determining whether a person is permanently incapacitated for work for the purposes of an invalidity service pension and income support supplement on the grounds of invalidity. Currently, the criterion for permanent incapacity for work purposes does not set out the assessment methodology to be used in determining the degree of incapacity. The current test is subjective and it is impossible to make a consistent assessment.A key element of the changes, as set out in this bill, is that veterans will be required to have at least 40 impairment points determined by reference to the Guide to the Assessment of Rates of Veterans' Pensions that is used to assess rates of a disability pension. From 1 January next year there will be three measures of permanent incapacity for service pension purposes. The first is blindness. The second is the receipt of the special rate disability pension for total and permanent incapacity. The third measure is an objective assessment of the person's impairment, combined with the person's capacity to work. This proposal brings consistency to the process of assessing veterans by adopting a common standard. It will also result in a huge saving of $9.6 million over four years, which is due to the small number of veterans who are expected to re-enter the work force.As the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Hon. Bruce Scott, stressed during his second reading speech, veterans found not to be permanently incapacitated, as measured by these new criteria, will continue to have access to Australia's extensive income support safety net, including disability support pension, sickness allowance and Newstart allowance. There is a need for existing invalidity service pensioners to have their permanent invalidity assessed against the new criteria. This is primarily because there are invalidity service pensioners who, the government is led to believe, do not have the requisite level of incapacity. The result is that it is being seen as a non-reviewable surrogate unemployment program. Changes under this legislation will restore credibility.Under the legislative changes, about 600 veterans will be transferred from the Department of Veterans' Affairs to Centrelink. I draw attention to the fact that despite veterans having to change their current arrangements, a benefit of transferring to Centrelink is that they will have access to vocational training and more relevant programs such as Newstart. If the veteran is not permanently incapacitated, the real needs of the veteran are better addressed by one of Centrelink's income support payments, with associated vocational assistance.While the government realises that some pensioners will be more appropriately placed on other income support programs, we are setting in place arrangements to ensure continuity of their income support. There will be other veterans who, for various reasons, do not meet the criteria for any income support payment—for example, they may be employed. These pensions will be cancelled. It is appropriate and fair that this occurs. A total of 1,780 veterans, equal to 15 per cent of invalidity service pensioners, will be reviewed. The government had decided not to review totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners, veterans over the age of 57 years from 1 January 2000, or veterans who already have 40 Guide to the Assessment of Rates of Veterans' Pensions points and who are unable to work for more than eight hours a week.Veterans who genuinely are unable to work have nothing to fear from these legislative changes. As I mentioned earlier, the changes will restore credibility to the review process. The initiatives outlined in the veterans' affairs legislation build on the government's commitment to providing assistance and compensation for members of the veteran community. I commend this bill to the House.10:49:009869Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—The Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 has been referred to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee because it contains a number of proposals which relate to election promises. The extension to HomeFront and the Veterans' Children Education Scheme were announced in the budget, as was the Home Support Loan Scheme.The tightening up of the permanent incapacity test has not been given the same exposure but there is no doubt that it is a savings measure. It did not appear as an election promise and it did not rate a salute for service in the election policy document. I thought that served to lower the tone of the campaign material. It is a savings measure and a transfer to Centrelink for those who do not meet the test. The test will be applied to existing invalidity service pensioners. That is my reading of the legislation before us. Centrelink has been down this path with its disability tables. It attempted a cull and added an anxiety to large numbers of people with disabilities.With so many employment programs having had the heave-ho, many chronic unemployed have found themselves being accepted as having sufficient disability to qualify for a disability support pension. It helps make Newstart figures look good. Labor's shadow minister, Wayne Swan, calculates that the cost of disability support pensions at the present rate of increase will draw level with unemployment benefits by next June. The government is now looking at putting the mutual obligation clamp on people with disabilities rather than screwing down the eligibility criteria for disability support pensions. Given the alignment of veterans' affairs and social security payments, you have to speculate whether veterans are going to be treated in the same humiliating way.With this legislation, the Department of Veterans' Affairs is looking at embarking on a major project, although they estimate only 13 per cent of existing pensioners will have to be re-examined. This includes those people on the income support supplement who were brought over from the social security disability support pension in the first place. It is my understanding that they will be reassessed under the current tables used by Centrelink and sent back there if they do not qualify. They will go back across the great divide and onto a Centrelink payment which could only be Newstart. Presumably, if they do not qualify for the veterans' disability test, they will not qualify for Centrelink's test, and they will not get a sickness allowance unless they have a full-time job and have run out of sick leave. The only option is Newstart.There comes a time in administering programs when the numbers have to be there to make the service delivery cost effective. One gets the feeling that this is all being done on a ship's deck in a good swell with the passengers being rolled from port to starboard and back again. But the disparity certainly has to be addressed. The old 85 per cent permanently incapacitated test does not have a clear reference elsewhere. Many will argue that war widows or widowers deserve a different measure and that, if you have been assessed as being 85 per cent permanently incapacitated, the matter should rest there because that is a serious level of incapacity.This is going to cause distress to widows and widowers—the only people who qualify for the permanent incapacity income support supplement—especially when they consider the Centrelink 20 per cent criterion. It is not going to make sense to them. If they are going to have to slide to the other side of the deck over to Centrelink they will use the appeal mechanism. They will be angry and hurt and they will more than likely face hiccups in the transition back. Seamless government services are not a reality; we all know that.It is also going to distress veterans because the implication is that they have been receiving something they should not have received and that they have to go through the test again. The alternative is to grandfather the legislation so that only new claimants will come under the new assessment. They would, of course, be the veterans of later conflicts and fairness has to prevail in whatever assessment method is used.I can see where this legislation is coming from. I am just not sure if the journey is going to take into account the status of the people we are dealing with. These are honoured citizens. They are veterans. They are wives and husbands of veterans now deceased who sustained injury in defending our great nation. We have to be sensitive to these people, just as we have to be sensitive to all veterans, and I know the view of the Department of Veterans' Affairs is the same. Governments can get insensitive. This government was insensitive to start with. But we really should be careful because what looks good on paper may not necessarily be so in real life. We will not get to see that paperwork. We in the opposition are not provided with the winners and losers calculation in the cabinet submission bringing this forward, but it is not looking good. I am sure the department is bracing itself against the disquiet this measure will bring about among the very people they are exclusively set up to serve.The Senate committee's findings will be interesting to many of us with active veterans' organisations in our electorates and those of us with some understanding of the veteran community. I know it will be interesting to my colleague the member for Cowan. I always try to stick up for the Department of Veterans' Affairs among the diggers because they are always saying—and I think unfairly—that they only got what they are getting because they took `them' on or fought `them' every inch of the way. It has always struck me as an odd choice of words—fighting a veterans' department—but the member for Cowan is actually having to do that. His fight for the six Vietnam veterans and their downgraded bravery awards is a tribute to him. Victory rightly belongs to the member for Cowan, the Hon. Graham Edwards, and the Vietnam vets. Veterans who do not meet the new impairment tables, the minister has told this House, will also be able to avail themselves of Centrelink services. The devil is in the detail again.When the new tables for the child disability allowance came into play, it was found that cystic fibrosis—a cruel, incurable condition, especially for children—was not considered a manifest condition. It got left off the list. This legislation provides for veterans with manifest conditions to be excluded from the reassessment. But where is the manifest of the manifest conditions? Where is the list? The other elements in the legislation have the same sorts of implications.As the daughter of Alan Welsh, a TPI veteran, I welcome any recognition of my parents' needs as they get older. The practical prevention of falls and accidents at home is desirable and its extension is welcome, particularly in this year of recognition for older people. The same can be said of the loans scheme to help with home modifications and essential maintenance.The veterans in Fowler and their organisations are very much part of the community, and so they should be, not only because of what they put into the community through their organisations but also because they are honoured citizens. A lot of them are not getting any younger. If we fail in our obligations to them under the veterans' affairs legislation, then we fail our community.10:59:009871Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—This century, some 1.8 million Australians will have enlisted for overseas service in the defence of this country or in the cause of what they knew to be right. Of those 1.8 million who enlisted—of whom there were one million from World War II onwards—most of whom did see overseas service, sadly some 102,000 never returned to these shores alive. Another 34,730 were taken prisoner of war and 225,737 were wounded in the cause of fighting for freedom and in the service of this country.Sadly, many of the veterans who did see service have long since departed and the number of veterans with us is declining. Year after year, when we attend commemoration services—Remembrance Day services and Anzac Day ceremonies—we see the ranks of diggers being thinned as, inevitably, they age. It is incumbent on any government and on us as a country not only to recognise the incredibly valuable role that these people played in ensuring the protection of this country and the things that we hold dear, but also to ensure that they are looked after—that their health, social and housing needs are well provided for.I think it is fair to say that both this government and the former government have seen as a high priority the need to duly recognise and care for our veteran community. I would like to mention briefly some of the initiatives that this government has undertaken in the last three years to provide security, better health, better services and better recognition for our valued veteran community.For instance, we have provided the gold card to an extra 50,000 veterans with World War II qualifying service, thus entitling them to comprehensive health care benefits. We have committed $600 million over four years for the Department of Veterans' Affairs to directly purchase hospital and palliative care for entitled veterans.We have provided eligible veterans with a new Home Support Loan Scheme, providing loans of up to $10,000 towards the cost of home maintenance and modification. We have provided $5.3 million over four years to continue the Community Care Seeding Grants Program. These grants improve the independence and the qualify of life of veterans, war widows and widowers. We have increased by about an extra 20 per cent the travelling allowances paid to veterans travelling for treatment.We have reviewed 15 areas of service, resulting in an extra 10,500 veterans becoming eligible for compensation payments, health care and concessional home loans. We have allocated an additional $7 million over the next four years to veterans organisations to help them employ additional advocates and thereby speed up applications through the Veterans Review Board.We have enabled an extra 20,000 veterans, including self-funded retirees, to qualify for the Commonwealth seniors health card, thus enabling them to obtain pharmaceuticals at a concessional rate. We have increased the service pensions, war widows and widowers pensions by $6.80 for single people and by $5.70 each for married couples per fortnight, and we have linked these to at least 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings.We have reduced interest rates on defence service home loans to a rate which is now guaranteed to be 1.5 percentage points below the average market interest rate, and we guaranteed that the rate on defence service homes will never exceed 6.85 per cent. This is a measure aimed at providing security and savings for our veteran community.We have established a voluntary vocational rehabilitation scheme to help younger veterans obtain and retain employment. We have introduced annual health care plans through most GPs and the Royal Flying Doctor Service to offer chronically ill veterans a more coordinated approach to health care.We have published the nominal roll of all Vietnam veterans. In addition, a Vietnam veterans mortality study and a Vietnam veterans health study have been published, and more than $750,000 has been committed to Vietnam veterans research. We have released the long overdue nominal roll of Korean veterans and contributed $700,000 towards the construction of the National Korean War Memorial. We have allocated $600,000 for the building of the Australian Service Nurses Memorial.There are many other initiatives this government has undertaken that I could also refer to, but time does not allow. The point is that the coalition government—like the government before it, I have to say—is committed to the wellbeing, welfare and health of our veteran community. This particular legislation before the chamber today has a number of changes which continue the process of taking care of the needs of our veteran community. In total, the legislation includes an increase of about $7 million in extra spending initiatives.I will briefly run through each of the provisions in this package of legislation. The first one relates to the invalidity service pension. It introduces more objective criteria to determine eligibility for applications for disability service pensions. This measure aims at giving greater predictability and greater security, and will bring a greater degree of reliability and accountability to the application of invalidity service pensions. Its aim is to match individual veterans more appropriately with the type of support they need.It is true that a small number of people will be transferred via Centrelink for more appropriate income support payments with access to vocational assistance programs, rather than the disability pension. In contrast to the comments of the former speaker, it is important to note that this government is committed to ensuring support through Centrelink. It is committed to ensuring that the transition for the very small number of people who will be transferred to other support programs will be seamless. Contrary to some of the concerns expressed earlier, recipients of the TPI pension will already qualify and therefore will not be reviewed—that is, any who are unable to work more than eight hours a week. Under this arrangement TPI recipients already satisfy the criteria for eligibility.The second aspect of this legislation is the extension of the HomeFront program. The HomeFront program is aimed at assisting those aged veterans who wish to stay in their homes to avoid residential aged care accommodation. It helps them to remain independent and to live in their own homes. This excellent HomeFront program assists them by providing free home assessment and information on services. It provides, for instance, up to $150 a year towards the cost of recommended safety appliances. In my community in the Blue Mountains, and in the Hawkesbury, I know that there is a large number of elderly veterans who do want to remain living independently in their own homes, and this legislation extends that provision. It extends what previously applied only to recipients of the gold card to other veterans who have service related incapacities.It is estimated that each year one in three residents over the age of 65 fall in and around their own homes and that five per cent of those falls result in significant injuries. Obviously, not all of those are preventable, but a large number of them can, by fairly simple maintenance and safety security procedures, at least be reduced. Therefore the pain, injury and suffering to our veterans and the costs incurred can also be reduced. The extension to the HomeFront program helps to maintain the health and independence of the veteran community. This provision is extended to a large number of veterans who previously were on the white card and gives them the same qualification that those on the gold card have access to.The third feature of this legislation is a veterans' children's education scheme. This extends the eligibility for benefits to children of veterans who are receiving an extreme disablement adjustment. Previously, this benefit was provided only for children of deceased veterans. This worthy program, which helps to look after the veterans' children's education, has now been extended to children of veterans with an extreme disablement. Surely the most severely incapacitated of our veterans and their children deserve the extra assistance that this provides.The fourth feature of this legislation—peacekeeping forces—enables the minister to be able to gazette, to declare, peacekeeping forces that qualify under the Veterans Entitlements Act 1986 and to more quickly receive access to entitlement. It speeds up the process and removes some of the worry and stress from our veterans who have been involved in peacekeeping forces.The fifth feature of this legislation is the home support advance program, which complements the HomeFront program. It extends the eligibility of the defence service homes advances to a broader range of recipients. It will assist those who want to stay in their own homes and live independently. You will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this government introduced a Staying at Home package worth $270 million for our aged community in general to encourage and assist those who want to remain independent in their own homes. In addition to giving our veteran community access to the benefits of the other Staying at Home package, this group of measures gives extra recognition to our veteran community as compensation for the distress and suffering caused to them as part of their war service. The home support advance system provides an interest subsidy for the first $10,000 of a loan for home maintenance and improvement to help them make their homes more secure, more safe and more appropriate to their needs as they age.This government has done much for our veteran community. We could certainly argue that more needs to be done, and we are continually looking at ways in which we can assist our veterans. I will mention two areas where we need to start to consider ways of helping. First of all, consideration could be given—dependent on the government's financial position, its capacity to pay and its policy directions—to extending the gold card provision to veterans who enlisted in Australia during the war, did not then see active service overseas during the war but were sent off to Japan as part of the British Commonwealth Occupying Forces. I would like to see consideration given to extending the gold card to that group of people who enlisted during the war but were sent overseas after hostilities ceased and represented Australia in Japan as part of the BCOF.Another very small group that we could give consideration to—and I believe it is just an anomaly in the legislation—is the war widows who lost their entitlement to the war widows pension because they remarried prior to 1984. There are a small number who qualified for the war widows pension and, because they remarried before 1984, lost that pension. For those who subsequently became divorced or whose partner has died since that time and are again single, there is now a case to qualify again for the war widows pension.This legislation takes a further step along the path towards greater recognition of our veteran community and our greater understanding of their needs in terms of housing, health and, for their children, education. It is another step along the way to appropriate care for our veteran community.11:13:009874Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—On the anniversary of the start, some 60 years ago, of World War II, and in the International Year of the Older Person, I am very pleased to be able to speak on this Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 . Being, largely, a positive person, I would like to start on a positive note. There are a lot of good things in this bill, with one notable exception, which I will deal with secondly. To the extent that this bill looks after the independence and quality of life of the veterans community, particularly in the areas of the housing program and the Veterans' Children Education Scheme, I am happy to support the government's initiatives.I was very interested to hear the member for Macquarie talk a moment ago about the initiatives taken by this government for the veteran community. We are very proud in Australia that, whichever side of politics you are on, there has been absolute support for veterans and their dependants for the service they have given to this country. I spent 20 of the happiest years of my life in the Department of Veterans' Affairs and I got to know ex-servicemen in a whole range of positions very well. I even had the status of working on the determining authorities to grant entitlements and pensions to widows and their dependants. I cannot speak highly enough of the debt that the ex-service community have paid for us, and they deserve everything they can get.I want to say that in respect of the housing program and the VCES, the government has got it right. The VCES, as we know, provides financial assistance to support children of permanently incapacitated, deceased or blinded veterans, Defence Force members or members of peacekeeping forces. The VCES supports children of living veterans, and this bill proposes to extend those entitlements to children of veterans who suffer from extreme disability adjustment. We know how the legislation has changed over the years in terms of the TPI and the automatic entitlement that veterans' children were entitled to under that scheme, but there are many veterans who are significantly disabled and get the EDA. It is good that the government has decided to give these benefits because, notwithstanding that it might not be exclusively related to war service or to the extent of the disability that would attract the TPI and the test that is applied to that pension, this benefit for kids is a very, very good thing.The housing program with HomeFront, which was introduced in January 1999 and aims to reduce household accidents, and particularly falls, in the homes of veterans, war widows and widowers, is a very good initiative. I will give the government a tick for that because any attempt to keep veterans at home is good for the quality of life of the veterans and their families. And, of course, there is invariably a dividend for the taxpayer. So, by keeping veterans at home, that is a wonderful initiative.I do question the amount of the $150 that the government is offering for minor household alterations because we all know that $150 is not a lot of money in today's terms. I think the government could be a little more generous in helping the veteran community and their dependants by increasing that particular benefit. But, when this bill is passed, eligibility will have been extended to white card holders, increasing the number of eligible veterans by 63,000 and enabling 340,000 veterans to access the service Australia wide.I am advised that the assessor may also identify what home and community support services may be necessary to allow veterans to stay in their own homes, and also provide the Repatriation Commission with some flexibility in response to the needs of veterans, thereby ensuring that this will occur in a timely and detailed manner. That is a very, very good thing. But I remind this House that the government could do a little bit more in respect of that $150 to help with the living expenses and the cost of hiring tradesmen and all that, which we all know is expensive.Concerning the Home Support Loan Scheme, the 1999-2000 budget provides a maximum of $10,000 with an interest rate of 6.85 per cent for eligible veterans, war widows and widowers who wish to complete home maintenance and modifications, including improving safety and security or purchase of household appliances such as hot water systems and associated plumbing. That is great if you can afford to repay the loan. If veterans are eligible, those veterans are eligible also to insure their homes under the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme.I would make the point though that there would be many who are in receipt of invalid pensions who would be unable to meet loan repayments for such a debt over a period of five years. Repayments would possibly be around $250 a month, and this would be an impossible amount for most pensioners to repay. Also, if the veteran has other outstanding advances then he or she would not be able to borrow the maximum amount to meet those commitments.In terms of the VCES and in terms of the housing program, HomeFront, that is a good thing that the government is achieving. I was reading the minister's second reading speech last night in preparation for saying a few words here this morning. Minister Scott said:The initiatives foreshadowed for the Veterans' Affairs portfolio in this year's budget build on our commitment to provide generous compensation and assistance recognising the special standing of the veteran community.The minister went on to beat his breast about government priorities to help veterans and to highlight the government's focus on the National Healthy Ageing Strategy in the International Year of the Older Person. That was a good thing.Unfortunately, the minister did not talk about the savings that the department hopes to achieve in the area of invalidity service pensions. I want to give Minister Scott a good kick in the tail for not saying anything about this in his second reading speech and for failing to include his hidden agenda—or the Howard government's hidden agenda—to achieve savings to the tune of some $10 million over the next four years. These provisions will also affect existing recipients.It is estimated that 13 per cent of existing pensioners will be forced to undergo a medical re-examination. You have to ask, `Why does the department, why does the government, why does the minister want to do this to those who have fought for their country? Why do they want to put them through it?' Worse, there are no grandfather clauses to protect those veterans and families when they fail the new test. When they are in that situation, what happens, Madam Deputy Speaker? I will tell you. The veterans will be forced to approach Centrelink and the test for Centrelink will be much harder. If the veterans succeed in gaining an entitlement from that agency, it will be significantly less in dollar terms. Why? Because when Centrelink do their assessments for their pensions, they take the full quantum of disability pension from the Department of Veterans' Affairs into account, unlike the Department of Veterans' Affairs. When it is assessing its entitlement to the invalid service pension, the disability pension is discounted.So you can see where the savings are going to come from. You can also see that, with the loss of the pension from the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the associated fringe benefits, particularly the full entitlement to medical coverage, that is not a very good thing. If any group of people should be entitled to full medical coverage, it is those who have served their country—those who have had the qualifying war service. They have done something for this country. The least we can do to repay them is to provide full medical coverage.Almost daily, we read in the papers and hear on the news about the problems with our public health system. People are complaining that they are not fully covered and have additional expenses. I would think that the veteran population should be looked after so that they are fully covered for their medical entitlements and are not put in the situation where they are taken off the benefit from the Department of Veterans' Affairs and referred to Centrelink—where they may or may not get a further benefit and, if they do, it will be a reduced benefit. But, as I said earlier, that is obviously what the government wants because there is an opportunity to achieve savings.I do not want to harp on that because, as I said at the start of my speech, this country has a proud tradition of supporting the veteran community. Truly, we have the most generous repatriation system in terms of compensation of any system in the world. That should be maintained. It is not very often that we, on either side of the House, get terribly political about veterans. But the veteran community is ageing. The Second World War diggers are pushing 80 years of age. I think it would not hurt if, ultimately, we provided them with full coverage for their medical entitlements, because that would help them and their families, and obviously improve their quality of life.I am aware that, in relation to this bill, a Senate committee inquiry has been established to take submissions from veteran organisations and individuals in the community. I will certainly be encouraging people like Ian Finlay and Bruce Wilson from the Burwood RSL sub-branch, which is just down the road from my electorate office, and people like Russ Kenny and Bob Williams from the Enfield sub-branch, and Bluey Rowe, from the Concord sub-branch, to make submissions to the inquiry. Bluey worked for many years in the Department of Veterans' Affairs and had distinguished war service himself. I know he would be very concerned that some veterans might lose benefits and not be protected when this legislation is passed. I will also encourage Phil Drougas, from the Drummoyne sub-branch of the RSL in my electorate. I am a member of that club.Clearly, the ex-servicemen in all the sub-branches in my electorate of Lowe will be encouraged by their local federal member to make submissions to the Senate committee in relation to this bill. I hope that, when the bill is considered by the Senate, the Senate will look at the full implications of the bill and do something to restore the proposed changes to the invalidity service pension.In conclusion, I support the government in those two areas of housing and the VCES program. I cannot support the government or Minister Scott in terms of the invalidity service pension. I am proud to say that those on both sides of the House support the need to continue to do everything we can for the veteran community, and no doubt that will continue to be the case when my party returns to the government benches. I am certainly keen to see the ex-service community looked after in every possible way, and to see that there is no penny pinching associated with this bill which discriminates in one area against the very people in the community whom we should put on a pedestal.11:28:009877Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—The Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 which is before the House today will amend veterans' affairs legislation in five key areas. These changes should be welcomed, as they are both logical and practical. The only complaints that we seem to hear about these amendments are along three lines: firstly, not spending enough; secondly, making savings—or penny pinching, which is a term that has been used; and a supposed lack of grandfather clauses.Let us deal with the first complaint. We always have complaints about not spending enough. Madam Deputy Speaker, as you would know, and as any other member of parliament would know, you can throw as much money as you like in a lot of areas and people would still say that you are not spending enough. I think that is a quite unfair accusation to make. We as a government have a responsibility to ensure that the money is spent wisely. It is not our money; it is taxpayers' money.The second complaint is that we are supposedly making savings or being penny-pinching. I totally reject this because, for a fact, if it were not for our ability as a government to make savings we would still be in the mess that the Keating government left us in with its $10 billion deficit. We have made the changes and the savings, so now we have a healthy economy, with low interest rates and low inflation—but only because we have been a responsible government, ensuring that we spend the money wisely and make the savings where necessary. As an example, we are saving probably $2 billion a year by stopping the rorts that were happening through the welfare system, things that the previous government was not prepared to tackle. The other complaint is that there are no grandfather clauses. In actual fact, there are, because those over 56 and already receiving a disability pension will not have their cases reviewed and so they will continue to receive their pension.There are many veterans in my electorate of Barker and I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this important issue today. I often spend time at the Mount Gambier RSL and have certainly visited many of the other RSL buildings in my electorate, including the one in Murray Bridge. The Mount Gambier RSL probably has one of the best collections of military rifles and the like as part of its historical collection. That certainly is a very good building, which serves the veterans very well. I always feel welcome when I go to the Mount Gambier RSL.The five areas of the amendments are the extension of the HomeFront program, the extension of the Veterans' Children Education Scheme, changes to the invalidity service pension and changes in eligibility for the Veterans' Entitlements Act, and the introduction of the Home Support advance. The HomeFront program is a falls and accident prevention program, designed to provide practical assistance to veterans in the home. It began on 1 January of this year for all gold card holders and this legislation will further extend the eligibility so that an additional 63,000 veterans, recipients of the white health card, will be able to use the service. This change will mean that 354,000 people will be eligible for assistance from our government. Approximately 3,000 gold card holders have already accessed the HomeFront program since it commenced this year and we expect that there will be another 6,500 people using the program by the end of the financial year—2,000 of those would be white card holders.One in three Australians over the age of 65 has a fall at least once a year. This often results in serious injury and many people require hospitalisation, a very traumatic experience for the older Australian and a costly exercise. The total cost to the health system from accident falls is $806 million annually. To put this into context, this is over double the cost of road traffic accidents, which is $370 million annually. It certainly is a problem out there. We are implementing a preventative program to help reduce the amount spent, and if that is penny-pinching, I just think it is very sensible government.HomeFront provides eligible veterans and war widows with a free home assessment that will recommend safety changes to the home to ensure a safer environment. This could include safety rails and non-slip treatments for the floors. A subsidy of $150 per calendar year will be available to implement these safety changes.HomeFront is a practical prevention program that will reduce the incidence of falls. It will also be a substantial saving to the taxpayer, and I do not think we should be ashamed of that. Hospitalisation after a fall can cost up to $45,000 per admission. Even a small fall can cost $2,000 for an outpatient treatment. Of course, we must also remember the trauma that the older person experiences after such a fall, and the trauma that the family has to go through.The ISP is available to all Australian and allied veterans with qualifying service under 60 who are permanently incapacitated and unable to work. It is proposed in the bill to change the criteria to the work test used for total and permanent incapacity. The changes will be minor and they will bring the test into line with other standard tests that are well known and recognised as fair. This amendment brings consistency and credibility to the assessment criteria. Those who are currently receiving the payment and are genuine have nothing to fear. The present system has been open to abuse with doctor shopping, particularly in the state of New South Wales, and it has become very difficult to make a consistent assessment of the veteran. This is the reason for the change, and the solution is fair and equitable.A third amendment before the parliament today will provide a separate power to the one already existing in the Veterans' Entitlements Act to provide benefits to members of peacekeeping forces. It is a technical amendment to avoid using section 5R of the Veterans' Entitlements Act which requires association with the Australian defence forces. To have this association is not always acceptable, diplomatically or politically, for some peacekeepers—for example, in East Timor.The home support advance will complement the HomeFront program but will not be reliant on the HomeFront assessment. The home support advance will relieve the stress and financial burden of home maintenance, modifications and repairs. This program is in keeping with our government's priorities for the elderly in this International Year of the Older Person. It will subsidise the interest payments of loans up to $10,000 on the same terms as the defence service home loans already provided to our country's veterans. This is a good program that is focused on accident prevention in the home for our older Australians.The last amendment involves the extension of eligibility to the Veterans' Children Education Scheme. The legislation remedies an anomaly whereby student children of living EDA veterans do not become eligible until the death of the veteran. These benefits include financial assistance, educational guidance and counselling. I support all the changes put to the House today and I certainly welcome the minister's actions that were so sorely needed in these five areas.11:38:009879Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I am delighted to rise to support the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 . It is an ongoing measure of compensation and commitment from this government, as with all governments since 1914, to looking after those who have been prepared to serve this country in time of war, in time of peace, those who have distinguished themselves from so many of us by being prepared to put on the uniform of their nation to stand their ground for all the things—freedom, liberty and justice—that we believe in as a nation.Veterans are, to my mind—particularly as somebody of a generation that has directly benefited from the sense of service and sacrifice that previous generations have provided—really very special people. I am very proud to have a very high proportion of members of the veteran community as constituents in my electorate of Moreton, to have a ready and ongoing relationship with them and to deal with them on pleasant occasions such as certificates of appreciation for `Their Service—Our Heritage', which Minister Scott introduced as an extension of the good feeling that existed in this nation in 1995 as a result of the Australia Remembers year.Over those periods of time I have had the privilege of coming to know a number of different people in the veterans community, those who served as a matter of wartime service during the Second World War, Korea, in the Far Eastern Strategic Reserve, the Malayan Emergency, the Indonesian Confrontation and, of course, Vietnam. I have a great deal of appreciation for some of the struggles and some of the efforts that they have to undertake on an everyday basis as they attempt to maintain a dignity that we would all hope that they would have in ready supply, particularly given that they are veterans who have served this country.It is not an easy lot for all veterans. In fact, I found a personal link back through my great-grandfather who came out of the First World War having suffered shell shock and trauma after only 11 months on the Western Front. Basically, his life was destroyed as a result of the First World War. We have been trying to find his medals of service but found that, in a moment of great tirade brought on by the sorts of psychological injuries that he carried for his far too short life, he destroyed them in the early 1950s.In those sorts of ways I can, in a contemporary sense, relate to the plight and desperation of those who are veterans in my electorate. I believe very strongly that all recipients of pensions and benefits and, in particular, those who are veterans pension recipients, should be able to hold their heads high with a great sense of dignity as they are very much entitled to what they get. There should never be any doubt that they are worthy recipients. No-one in our community should dare challenge their right to access the pension or benefit that is afforded to them as we continue our commitment to veterans from all wars and all forms of service.They are a number of background comments to what this bill is about. The bill has five different areas—the invalidity service pension and income support supplement, the treatment of veterans and HomeFront, the Veterans' Children Education Scheme, the peacekeeping forces and the home support advance—that are all reasonable and fair measures that will not hurt veterans, but rather help them.Veterans' Affairs is an area where generally no partisan politics is played. I acknowledge the presence of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the member for Maranoa, Mr Bruce Scott. Because this is an area where generally there is no partisan politics played, it was disappointing to note that in this morning's contributions a number of opposition members have chosen to try to begin scare campaigns against invalidity service pension recipients.It is important to state for the record that those who are genuinely unable to work have nothing to fear from anything that is contained in this legislation. There are a number who we in the government believe are not sufficiently disabled due, perhaps, to vague criteria. Also, in New South Wales, in particular, there has occurred doctor shopping and a number of dubious practices which have left the current criteria open to abuse. These matters all combine to ensure that the credibility of those who receive an ISP needs to be restored. The other thing that counters the quite disappointing attack on this legislation by those opposite as they attempt yet another great scare campaign is that TPIs, those over 56, and those who already have 40 GARP points, will not be reviewed. I cannot think of a fairer set of measures.Those who try to create scare campaigns, those who try to suggest that genuine recipients of invalidity service pensions are now going to be put under some sort of pressure by this legislation, are doing a great disservice to decent debate, as well as to the veterans themselves. All veterans should be able to say, `If I get that pension, it is because I am entitled to it.' There are no questions that can be asked. This legislation is in part all about restoring credibility to the current criteria.This legislation also extends the HomeFront program. I can draw on personal experience. My late grandfather, Percy Hardgrave, was directly a recipient of the HomeFront style of program in his latter years of life. I pay tribute to the dedication of those from the Department of Veterans' Affairs and their very personal approach to looking at the needs, wants and aspirations of individual veterans when they start to style the kinds of facilities that are made available in people's homes. Non-slip treads are put on walls and floors, rails are put down stairs, and ramps are built. I think these are all terrific things. I know that my late grandfather benefited greatly from the additional mobility and sense of certainty and security he had from knowing that he had that extra bit of assistance installed as a result of the Department of Veterans' Affairs.As the member for Barker said in his contribution, the health system faces a cost each year of $806 million as a result of accidental falls, which is more than double the cost of road traffic accidents at $370 million. I can but give, on behalf of my family, my thanks to successive governments and the Department of Veterans' Affairs personnel for their very personal approach in what they have done in regard to this HomeFront scheme. The extension of this scheme, which is outlined in this legislation, is greatly welcomed. This legislation will extend it to 63,000 veterans who hold the white health care card, bringing the total of those eligible for the scheme to around 354,000 people, which is tremendous.I am sure the Veterans' Children Education Scheme, for children of veterans who receive an extreme disability adjustment, will also be welcomed by the veteran community. The moves in this legislation will remove a number of anomalies in veterans' entitlements. The legislation remedies one anomaly whereby children of living EDA veterans do not become eligible for the Veterans' Children Education Scheme benefits until the death of that veteran. This is an inequitable circumstance compared to the situation of children of TPI veterans who are eligible for benefits while the veteran is still alive. I am pleased to see that the government has fulfilled an obligation that was first outlined in a predecessor bill of 1993. That bill did not pass the parliament and the previous government did not revisit it. I am pleased to see that the Howard government is revisiting it in this legislation.For members of peacekeeping forces, who are the contemporary heroes of the military, I am pleased to see from a notice published in the Gazette that the minister is able to secure veterans' entitlement cover for peacekeeping forces. The mechanism will allow the government to act quickly and definitely so that, whenever a situation requires that peacekeeping force members be involved in representing this country overseas and providing the peace and the stability for which Australian service personnel have a great international reputation, the minister can act and ensure that those people are also under the umbrella of the obligation that we all share to the veterans of our nation.The home support advance will mean that the risk of falls for elderly incapacitated members of the veteran community will be dealt with in a far more constructive and capable manner. The poor maintenance circumstances of a lot of veterans homes will be addressed by this. Under the burden of modifications and repairs, a lot of veterans—and particularly elderly veterans from the Second World War who feel justly proud of their ability to do such work themselves—are finding they cannot do these as well as they perhaps could have done in the past. The fact that the government can provide this service is tremendous.I am sure those five groups of measures are welcomed by all members of the House. Upon consideration, I am sure those opposite will amend their rhetoric which is trying to create some scare over the invalidity service pension component of the legislation. The commitment to veterans is a commitment without any caveat.I would also like to place on the record my thanks to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs for being the first minister—and I am very pleased that he is the minister for this portfolio—who has looked closely at those involved in the Far Eastern Strategic Reserve. He is attempting to give them some of the justice that they deserve and that has been long overlooked.I also acknowledge his ongoing commitment to redefining the acknowledgment of the services of those who served in the Vietnam war. I particularly note the importance in my mind of those who were called up as national service personnel. The nashos in my electorate are very proud of being nashos. I submit that there is a need to set them apart as a group of ex-service personnel to give them that additional recognition. I am certain that the minister is looking very closely at ways, through medals or whatever, to recognise that the nashos who were called up to serve our country—and so many of them went off to the Vietnam war—were perhaps reluctant heroes at first; nevertheless, they were great Australians who served their country with a great deal of pride. They should feel justly proud that they stood their ground for this nation, for all we believe in. I commend these measures to the House.11:50:009882Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—in reply—Firstly, in summing up the debate on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 , I thank all the members for their contributions. There were certainly some questions raised that I will address during my summing up and I hope some of the answers that I give members in relation to their questions will alleviate any of the concerns that they have. I also thank the member for Cowan for his comments in relation to the Vietnam End of War List as he gave his presentation in this committee. As he says, the decision that six Vietnam veterans will now receive the medal for gallantry means that officers and other ranks will receive the same level of award under the Australian system and it will not be a system that is based on rank. Perhaps what was more at stake—and I think the member for Cowan touched on this too—was the intrinsic Anzac value of fairness.This bill provides for several changes to our 1999-2000 budget measures, makes a number of minor and also technical changes, and provides for a legislative enhancement in relation to peacekeeping forces. The measures directly benefit veterans and eligible dependants and set out clear and objective standards for eligibility for certain income support payments. The extension of the HomeFront program can benefit a further 63,000 veterans and dependants by assisting them to remain in their own homes. At the same time I believe that this HomeFront program will be preventing falls and other accidents around the home. That is a key factor in reducing what is otherwise very much an avoidable admission to institutional care. The home support advance will complement the HomeFront program and assist persons to undertake home modifications to make their homes safer. There will be the capacity for loans of up to $10,000 to be made available to a broad group of eligible persons.The extension of the Veterans' Children Education Scheme, the VCES, continues the government's commitment to removing anomalies in veterans' entitlements. What this bill will provide is eligibility to the Veterans' Children Education Scheme for the student children of living veterans in receipt of a disability pension at the extreme disability adjustment rate.With respect to remarks made on the provision to align the criteria for the invalidity service pension, I certainly understand the points that have been made but I want to emphasise that the measure is intended to do one key thing—to restore credibility to the administration of what has, for many years, been a very necessary and valued benefit for ex-service men and women. I really do hear that there is no dispute about the policy change—indeed, it does make a lot of sense.For those who are concerned at the intention to review a proportion of existing payees against the new criteria, assurances have been given that those who clearly satisfy the criteria will not be affected. Many members have touched on the exemptions that we will be making and I repeat them at this time. They include the blind, those already over 57, TPIs, those already with 40 impairment points under the GARP measurement, those who manifestly cannot work and those for whom information already exists where there is sufficient to render any review unnecessary.This is a fair measure. Fairness is one of the issues that have always underpinned the Veterans' Entitlement Act, as has been so often stated by members of the ex-service community. All they have ever really asked for is fairness.Further, for those who should more appropriately be receiving income support payments from Centrelink and thereby benefiting from the associated vocational assistance programs, their transition will be managed to avoid any disruption. It ought to be understood that the only people who will completely lose benefits under this process will be those who find employment. That ought to be considered, and I believe is, a highly desirable end in itself.This bill builds on our government's commitment to provide generous compensation and also assistance, recognising the very special standing of the veteran community in our community. I commend the bill to the House. Also, I want to answer some of the questions that were raised by the member for Cunningham and the member for Cowan. Unfortunately, I could not remain in the Main Committee for all of the presentations, but the member for Cunningham raised questions on behalf of the shadow minister, whom I was with yesterday in Hobart, at the national congress of the RSL.I refer firstly to the concern about the links with Centrelink. The future administration of veterans' matters will remain with the Department of Veterans' Affairs; I have said so on a number of occasions as I have travelled around Australia. I think it would be acknowledged that under the previous government there were concerns raised by the veteran community from time to time that in the future a government might subsume the roles of the Department of Veterans' Affairs in those of other government agencies. Let me assure you that is not on the government's agenda. It has been repeated by me since I became minister, and the administration of the veterans' matters will remain with the department.What we will recognise is those links with Centrelink: in some areas where it is not economically feasible to put an agent of the Department of Veterans' Affairs in a stand-alone office, we are using Centrelink, which has contracted to provide that service. But we are also making sure that the personnel who deal with veterans in Centrelink are trained by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Veterans have their own separate entrance to Centrelink offices, they do not join a queue of those seeking other social security benefits; in fact, they have their own area within those offices. I can also assure members that veterans are enjoying being able to have face-to-face service where they would not otherwise have it, albeit that in some cases, in smaller communities, only a few—fewer than half-a-dozen each week—are accessing it. Importantly, in those many rural and regional communities we are giving veterans that access and face-to-face service over the counter.For the Department of Veterans' Affairs and veterans there will be a much closer link with the defence department, given that so many of the defence personnel have a veterans' entitlement. That is why it is important to get closer links with the defence department, and there will certainly not be closer links other than through an agency arrangement with Centrelink.I will touch now on the repatriation hospitals. I think those on the other side would acknowledge that in their term of government they commenced and completed the process, with the exception of the Lady Davidson Rehabilitation Hospital, of the divestment of the repatriation hospitals, either to the state health departments or to the private sector.We supported that. At the time we wanted to make sure we got the best possible access to health services for our veteran community. But we do continually monitor the service and the access that veterans have to health services, either through the former repatriation hospitals or through private hospitals or state hospitals throughout our states and territories. The important thing is that veterans, war widows and widowers can now have a greater choice of where they go for that entitlement when they need hospitalisation. I noted the other day when I was in South Australia looking at the question of access to Daw Park hospital that the majority of war widows of South Australia said they wanted the choice of where they went for hospitalisation. In so many cases they would rather be in a hospital where they have some extended family available to them when they are hospitalised rather than having to go to a former repatriation hospital. So it really is about choice.I will touch on the issue of legal aid. I want to repeat for members of the chamber and the parliament that there are no restrictions on legal aid to the veteran community. I also repeat that it is free of a means test and it is only subject to a merits test. There are no restrictions on legal aid. The last available figures show that 95 per cent of claims for legal aid to the veteran community are approved. If you compare that with family law, where only 70 per cent are approved, you can see that the figures really do speak for themselves. But it is recognised, and I acknowledge, that there have been some problems with the administration of legal aid. We will continue with the Attorney-General to monitor the situation. I think legal aid commissioners need to do more to understand the very complex area of the veterans' jurisdiction. We certainly will be monitoring that. I do not want a message to be out there in a scare campaign in the veteran community that may see them not come forward to take their case beyond the two stages of review that they have already to the AAT, where they would have access to legal aid.I will just touch on the income support payment. If I remember correctly, the member for Cowan was concerned that, with the transfer to Centrelink, we may be moving more and more of these responsibilities to social security. That is certainly not in relation to the income support payment. The transfer to Centrelink will only occur where it is considered there is a capacity to work. I think the member for Cowan and other members of the opposition also said that there should be a grandfather clause. If we inserted a grandfather clause, that would actually prevent the department from doing reviews. It is indeed unfortunate that the ISP has become difficult to administer. What we are proposing is something that has to be done. I must also say that it is true that the Department of Veterans' Affairs already has the power to do this. But it is only fair that, where a problem arises, notice is given of an intention to review the ISP.The member for Cowan also raised the issue of the Gulf War and the veterans of the Gulf War. I might take this opportunity to say that this Sunday HMAS Melbourne returns to Australia from deployment as part of the UN Maritime Interception Force in the gulf. I will be meeting them on their arrival in Sydney. They will have the same veteran entitlements as those who participated during the time of the Gulf War.We have established an advisory panel made up of people from the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs to advise on deployment health issues relating to the Gulf War. I have also already announced that a nominal roll of those who served in the Gulf War is to be established. In fact, it is part of the Department of Veterans' Affairs links program that we have put in place. It is nearly complete. In fact, on the advice that I have been given, it is only weeks away. Once we have that nominal roll we can then move to get a health study of those veterans of the Gulf War under way. I anticipate being able to make the announcement in the near future. The advice I have been given is that the nominal roll is almost complete and that will allow us to move forward with the health study of those veterans of the Gulf War.There were a couple of other issues raised and they related to HomeFront. I think the concerns were raised in relation to whether there were sufficient assessors. One of the things that we discovered with the announcement of that very popular and very worthwhile program was that we have actually had double the demand that we estimated. The contractor now is in the process of recruiting more assessors and we hope that we are able to meet that demand.I also take the opportunity to remind the opposition that the extension of the HomeFront program to white card holders will not commence until we get passage of this legislation. Therefore, I hope the opposition will see fit to speed the legislation through the Senate and through the committee stage of the upper house because this is a popular program. That was acknowledged by the other side of the House.The member for Cowan and others raised the issue of the amount of money, the $150, and the impact of the GST on that HomeFront program. In relation to that, I am already advised that the $150 covers the overwhelming majority of small improvements that are made around the house. The amount of $150 is funding that was researched well in the beginning and that is why that amount was so chosen.The GST will impact on the cost of those home improvements and so we will review any impact on the program after the implementation of the tax reform package. If it is found that it is not meeting the need based on that $150 amount then we can review that situation. I also want to make the point in relation to that $150 allowance that it is an annual allowance, it is not a one-off or once-only allowance. So that $150 will be an ongoing amount and it can be paid on a yearly basis.In conclusion, let me say that I appreciate the bipartisan nature that the opposition always tries to keep in relation to this portfolio. I know, and am reminded by the shadow minister and others on the other side of the House, that from time to time if they think we are getting it wrong they will certainly tell us. However, they will always avoid, wherever possible, a political dogfight because at the end of the day they know, and I know, and I think the parliament has always recognised, that to embroil veterans in the political process does nothing for the standing of members of the parliament.I have always appreciated the fact that this portfolio should have bipartisan support, wherever possible. Governments of whatever colour, from time to time, perhaps do get it a bit wrong and we need always to be kept honest, as some political parties might say, but bipartisan support is what I have appreciated from members of the opposition and other members of the parliament.My door is always open and if members have concerns they should feel free to come to my office and make sure that we are aware of the issue. I think that is the right of all members in this parliament. I thank the Main Committee and all those who have made a contribution.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Bills9886s223Consideration resumed from 23 August.988612:11:009886Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, ATSIC, was established by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989. ATSIC began operations on 5 March 1990. ATSIC gives indigenous people a voice in the processes of government.Its representative arm consists of 35 regional councils on the mainland and Tasmania, and the Torres Strait Regional Authority. Every three years, indigenous people vote in regional council elections. Their elected representatives consult with local indigenous communities about programs and policies affecting them, and represent their interests to the ATSIC Board.ATSIC regions are incorporated into zones. There are 16 zones, and the regional councillors in each zone elect one of their number to be on the ATSIC Board—their zone commissioner. There is also a zone commissioner from the Torres Strait, elected by members of the Torres Strait Regional Authority. To date, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs has also appointed the chairperson, and one other commissioner. This provision in the ATSIC Act was amended in 1996, to provide that the commission consisted of only elected representatives, and that the ATSIC chairperson be elected by the commissioners from amongst their number. This amendment to the act will apply after the forthcoming ATSIC zone elections which will follow the ATSIC regional council elections scheduled for 9 October 1999. It is expected that the elections of zone commissioners will take place in early December 1999.I pay tribute here to the achievements of the founding chairperson, Dr Lowitja O'Donoghue, and the current chair, Mr Gatjil Djerrkura. Both are widely respected and admired for their significant contributions to indigenous affairs in Australia.The bill before the Main Committee today does not include any major changes to the ATSIC Act, but it is important in that it clarifies the process pertaining to the new arrangements for the chairperson. The bill provides that the person elected by his or her fellow commissioners to be the ATSIC chair ceases to hold his or her original offices of regional councillor and zone commissioner. The positions left vacant by the election of the chairperson will be filled through the processes set down in the election rules made under the ATSIC Act. The indigenous people in the affected region do not have to vote again—a recount is done to elect the new councillor. In the case of the vacant position of zone commissioner the regional councillors will elect a new commissioner in a by-election. This process results in a commission of 18 members, rather than the 19 currently.To ensure that the number of commissioners should equal the number of zones, plus one—the chairperson—the bill also provides that a chairperson who resigns is also taken to have resigned as a commissioner. The bill removes the current reference to 17 members in section 27 of the act and clarifies that the minister must appoint as members of the commission those persons elected to represent the several zones. The bill will commence when commissioners take office after the zone elections in approximately December 1999.There are no financial implications arising from this bill except that the person who fills the vacant offices of commissioner and regional councillor will be entitled to salary and allowances. I commend the bill to the committee and present the explanatory memorandum.12:15:009887Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 before the parliament seeks to amend the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989 in relation to the election of commissioners and ATSIC's chairperson.Following the regional council elections to be held in October this year, the ATSIC board will consist of 17 commissioners, plus the chairperson. These commissioners are elected from the 16 zones and one from the Torres Strait Regional Authority, which comprises its own zone. The bill clarifies that the minister must appoint as commissioners those persons successfully elected by the regional councils within each zone. The bill also facilitates the election of the chairperson from within the number of the 17 zone commissioners and provides for the forfeiture by the chairperson upon election of his or her role as a regional councillor and zone commissioner. The bill also ensures that, if a chairperson resigns, he or she is taken to have resigned from the commission.This bill does not provide for the election of the chairperson from within the body of commissioners; it rather tidies up some loose ends associated with previous legislation dealing with that matter. The then Labor government first proposed the election of ATSIC's chairperson by the commissioners in early 1993. On 18 May 1993 Senator the Hon. John Faulkner stated of the proposed changes:. . . [t]he changes are based on the Government's commitment to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander self-determination and our confidence in indigenous people managing their own affairs. They are fundamentally about shifting greater decision-making power to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people themselves. They are also in line with the thrust of the report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody.Labor's proposal in early 1993 to have the chair of ATSIC elected, rather than appointed by the minister, was in line with its commitment to indigenous self-determination. But the proposals met with opposition at the time from both the coalition and the Democrats and had to be abandoned. Following structural changes to ATSIC, the amendments providing for the election of the chair were reintroduced by Labor and supported by the Democrats, passing through the parliament in late 1993.The amendments which passed through the parliament in 1993 providing for the election of the ATSIC chair were not due to commence until the 1996 round of regional council elections. Prior to these elections, the amendments were postponed until the 1999 elections, with the minister retaining the power to appoint the chairperson until that time. The postponement of the election of the chairperson was made in a cooperative manner between the coalition government and the Labor opposition.Labor is committed to cooperating with the government on any initiatives that are supported by the indigenous community and are for their benefit. We have illustrated this commitment through our support for the indigenous employment policy, launched earlier this year by the employment minister, and through welcomed health initiatives. We have illustrated that commitment here again by our willingness to facilitate the passage of this amendment bill.ATSIC has had a vibrant and often controversial history. Since the introduction of the concept in 1987 by the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Hon. Gerry Hand, in his working paper Foundations for the Future, ATSIC has attracted criticism and support alike. ATSIC began operations on 5 March 1990. It was an initiative put forward by a committed minister with the unqualified support of the Prime Minister of the time, the Hon. Bob Hawke—by a government which chose to take a fresh approach to indigenous issues.ATSIC's history is common to any new organisation that takes a fresh approach to a controversial and sometimes difficult area of public policy. Nevertheless, ATSIC deserves our support and our understanding. The most frequent attack on ATSIC has been over accountability. One of the first acts of the Howard government in 1996 was to appoint a special auditor to look at ATSIC and indigenous organisations. The Federal Court, in a unanimous three to nil decision, subsequently found that appointment of a special auditor to be unlawful and illegal. That witch-hunt went nowhere.It should be stressed that ATSIC and other indigenous organisations are subject to continuous scrutiny from the Australian National Audit Office, ATSIC's own Office of Evaluation and Audit, ATSIC's Fraud Awareness Unit, annual reports, Senate estimates procedures and applicable corporate law due to the incorporated status of ATSIC funded indigenous organisations. It is, undoubtedly, one of the most scrutinised and accountable of public bodies. This fact needs to be constantly reinforced for those people who refuse to accept the fact.ATSIC has developed over the years, despite attacks on its integrity and efficiency. This bill is the finishing touches to a further development in the history of ATSIC by the election by indigenous representatives of an indigenous chairperson. As Labor's amendments of 1993 foresaw, this development is a further enhancement of indigenous self-determination and of indigenous people's control over their own futures.Government needs to take a cooperative approach with indigenous representatives to address the obvious disadvantage indigenous people face in our society. Cooperation is possible. We have seen it several times here between the coalition government and the Labor opposition despite our philosophical differences concerning various issues within indigenous affairs.I have travelled to many indigenous communities throughout Australia and seen many different approaches to projects addressing the problems faced by indigenous Australians. From my observations, it is the projects which have involved indigenous people from the start through to their completion which are the most successful in assisting indigenous Australians to help themselves. These are the projects which have the support of indigenous elders and the community and which go about their purpose in a culturally and regionally sensitive way.Cooperation, negotiation and facilitation are the roles of government in indigenous affairs, not blind criticism or the undermining of indigenous bodies such as ATSIC. ATSIC also deserves the understanding of government. As I have said, this bill puts the finishing touches on the procedure surrounding the 1999 regional council elections. ATSIC has been criticised for poor turnouts in elections, despite the fact that more people voted at the first ATSIC elections than in the New South Wales local government elections. ATSIC elections often attract a higher voter turnout than other non-compulsory ballots, both in Australia and overseas.Yet there persists this incredible view out there that, even though European society developed a democratic political culture over at least 2,000 years, Australia's indigenous people should be fully participating in it after little more than 40 years of access and after a long period of dispossession, discrimination and exclusion from our society. This view is both ridiculous and preposterous. It is about time that public commentators learned that more can be achieved from negotiation, cooperation and encouragement than from mindless and often unfounded attacks, criticisms and detractions.As this bill deals with the upcoming election, I take this opportunity to encourage all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders to participate to their fullest potential, whether they are a voter or a candidate. On 9 July this year, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs announced that the date of the election would be 9 October. This is the fourth set of elections held since ATSIC's commencement of operation in 1990. I encourage all indigenous Australians who are not on the electoral roll to enrol before 24 September when the rolls close. It is important that any person eligible to vote does so. This is a unique election. For the first time indigenous Australians will be participating in the process that will directly elect the chairperson of ATSIC.I would like to reiterate Labor's commitment to indigenous self-determination and the translation of that principle through these upcoming elections. To borrow a term from ATSIC's web site, `Your vote can make a difference. Your future is in your hands.' I wish all candidates and participants in this unique election well and encourage everyone who can to get involved in the political process.ATSIC has already followed along a difficult road and no doubt has a long, sometimes difficult, but also exciting journey ahead. I also want to pay tribute to the outgoing commissioners who have faced a difficult time. I have had the opportunity of working with them and attending board meetings over the last three years. I have a tremendous respect for the ATSIC board that served over the last three years. They were difficult times. There are some colourful characters on that board. Some of them are not backward in going out and defending their constituents and what they believe is right. We should not hold that against them.Surely we are not in a situation where the only people we listen to are those that come to us with a beggar bowl approach or a beads and blankets approach. Indigenous communities are vibrant communities. They are entitled to participate fully and have their views heard on their merits. It is a diverse community. They do not all speak with one voice. That is why it is important to allow them to go out and consult. We in the non-indigenous community disagree on issues but that is not new; we accept that. But we all expect ATSIC or migrant groups to speak with one voice. When there is a difference of view, we say, `They don't speak with one voice.' I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, that the non-indigenous community does not speak with one voice, and we accept that. We should accept that for the indigenous community and the migrant community as well.The coalition's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs policy that they took to the election in 1996 had in its executive summary the following commitment:In Government the Coalition will: . retain ATSIC and seek the views of Aboriginal people on how they would like to see it evolve;I support that policy. I think that is the way forward. That is the way we can work together, both government and opposition. I note that this week the Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs tabled a report on the Northern Territory land rights act. We were commissioned by the minister to go out and seek Aboriginal people's views and the views of the community—and we did. It was an interesting development. At the end of the day, we produced a unanimous report on a subject that is more difficult than other indigenous issues in the marketplace at the moment. But we went out and we actually listened. There were differences of view and I pay tribute to the chair, who is in the chamber today, and to government members of that committee. I know that the minister who presented this bill is a former chair of the House of Representatives committee. He produced a wonderful report—I think it was in 1982—to do with legal services. His report led the way. It said that, if you want indigenous participation, they should have their own legal services. That has worked well. That report has stood the test of time. The history of the House of Representatives committee is one of always producing unanimous reports because there are men and women of goodwill on both sides of the political spectrum. The committees provide an opportunity for us to go out and see these things at the coalface.I do not stand here and say, `Look, all wisdom resides with opposition members.' It does not. The minister who presented this bill has a long history. We have got to make sure that he does not just become a captive of the executive or the cabinet. But we are all in trouble in relation to that. The concept is the same. The mistakes of the past were that we thought we knew what was best for indigenous people. We were not listening to them. They are not the same as we are. They have not got the same hopes and aspirations. I am a fan of ATSIC. I am not saying ATSIC cannot be improved; it can. It has to evolve. But in the United Nations and in other forums in the world community, ATSIC is looked at with envy by other indigenous groups in other countries.This is an opportunity for indigenous people to elect their representatives who engage with government. That should not just be in regard to policy advice to government; there should be involvement in programs, because it is a partnership thing.Debate adjourned.Adjournment98909890Mr DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Order! It being 12.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.989012:30:009890McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—Today I rise to my feet to sound a warning to the people of Australia that their postal service is under threat from the deregulation push of this uncaring government. I warn the government that the people of Australia will not stand for the break-up of this essential service and that the Labor Party will support the community in their opposition.As always, the big losers from any further deregulation of Australia Post services will be those Australians who are already disadvantaged by their residence in rural and regional areas. I cannot believe that members of the National Party can reconcile themselves to the part they have played in the government's consistent reduction of services to the bush. I am appalled that they continue to support this government's uncaring and relentless ideological agenda of privatisation and deregulation at any cost. I call on the National Party to oppose the Liberals' mad plan to deregulate Australia Post and its essential community services.Before the end of the year the government will introduce bills to the House relating to the future of Australia's postal services. These bills will have two key elements: firstly, to deregulate the incoming international mail and, secondly, to reduce reserved services from 250 grams to 50 grams. This latter measure alone will reduce the guaranteed part of Australia Post's services by 80 per cent. Australia Post will no longer be required to carry letters above 50 grams as it is currently required to do. It does not take an economics degree to work out that such a move will have a severe impact on Australia Post's financial situation and its services. These measures will mean that 88 per cent of Australia Post's revenue—nearly $3 billion—will be open to the cream skimming operations of private operators. It could well be a case of death by a thousand cuts.Due to the government's actions, Australia Post will be forced to drastically rationalise its services as it loses revenue in the highly profitable business mail sector. Despite the government's desire to sell Australia Post, that will not be necessary—once deregulation has taken its toll, you would not be able to give it away. Why is Australia Post a target? It is internationally recognised as an efficient and profitable service. In 1998 alone, Australia Post handed over a healthy dividend of $509 million to the people of Australia. Why jeopardise the future of postal services to residential and rural and remote customers for the benefit of a small number of large corporate customers and mostly foreign owned private mail operators? Why leave the organisation to survive on the reduced revenues from the massively reduced standard letter service? We have so many questions, but no real answers.It is inevitable in this carve-up that jobs will be lost. The lives and livelihoods of up to 17,000 workers and their families will be severely affected by this government action alone. Services will also be critically affected. The community will see its convenient local post office, just down the street, close down. The full-service postal offices which the community expects will become a rare sight, with more and more communities having to make do with so-called community postal agencies like that in Wanneroo, in my state of Western Australia. This sad example consists of a large red 44-gallon drum. Government members may think that this is an adequate service but we and the community do not.My electorate of Stirling, along with the rest of Western Australia, will be severely affected by these changes, with the future of up to 200 post offices and over 1,500 jobs threatened. Ours being the most geographically disparate population, with huge distances to be covered, Western Australian postal services are expected to be the first to face rationalisation. Individuals and communities will not be asked: it will just happen overnight and, as with the banks, by the time you know about it it will be too late.The government's arguments will always be financial. It is always so. We are continually told that services close because they are not viable. Some of us believe that the community deserves security in the services that they rely on, and government should ensure that this security is not solely dependent on profit. If only the government would listen to the community on this issue.As if this is not bad enough, it is also expected that the GST will reduce profits by up to 44 per cent, with an impost on postal services by the goods and services tax of $374 million in the first year. I can only hope that the government has the honesty not to use this situation as its excuse to force the dismantling of Australia Post in the future. Australia Post's employees deserve some security for the efficient, effective and profitable service they continue to provide. Millions of ordinary Australian customers of Australia Post demand and deserve security for their vital postal services. I send out this warning: hands off Australia Post.989212:35:009892May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—Today I want to pay tribute to some very special people—the recipients of the inaugural McPherson Community Contribution Awards. Volunteers are the backbone of our community. Yet many who give up countless hours of their time to perform duties without payment are not often recognised publicly. It was for this reason that I initiated the McPherson Community Contribution Awards to say thank you to those who undertake voluntary, unpaid work to the benefit of our local community.The inaugural McPherson Community Contribution Awards were presented at Trinity Anglican Mission in Robina, where 33 people from the electorate were honoured. These are the people who give our community its heart and soul, the modest individuals who believe so passionately in helping others and making our community a better place in which to live. It was indeed an honour to speak with every single person who was nominated by somebody else in the electorate for his or her selfless dedication, and to personally say thank you.Volunteering has always played an important role in many aspects of Australian life. Australia is one of the great volunteer nations of the world, and the tradition goes back a long way. Volunteering is an important element in giving this country a quality of life which others envy. Volunteering is one of the valuable legacies of the pioneering era, when cooperation with local communities was often the only way to achieve results. Australians are rightfully proud of their record of volunteering, both at home and abroad, during times of war. Many Australians are well loved by the community because of their contribution as volunteers, often over many years. The late Weary Dunlop is a great example.Volunteers build parks and community centres, care for the elderly and sick, and help our teachers teach children how to read and write. Volunteers care for our great outdoors and wildlife, run scouting and guiding units, and organise sporting events every weekend. They assist in crime prevention and they uplift the spirits of the downhearted.Time does not permit me to list all of the organisations these people have assisted. However, I would like to take the opportunity to name the recipients. They are: Frank Anderson, Pauline Anning, Patricia Bartlett, Phyllis Beavan, Anita Brennan, Norma Edwards, Gordon Gibson, Joan Gilbert, Dawn Gilmore, Marjorie Gimblett, Joan Helton, Elsa Holt, Gloria Hunt, Vic Knowles, Gordon Learmonth, Patricia Lesina, Jan Moore, Ronald Morris, Betty Mounser, Lew Munson, Ruth Neville, Jennifer Nicholson, Mary Oliver, Jean Oliver, Joan Powell, Elisabeth Schlie, Mollie Spragge, Ivy Thrower, Frank Tudball, Phylis Whillans, and Jill and Bryan Wych.I am sure these people would not mind me singling out one recipient—Ronald Morris. Mr Morris is a tireless worker organising concerts to entertain the sick and the elderly in various nursing homes on the Gold Coast. In fact, the 80-year-old retiree was unable to attend the ceremony because he was entertaining and bringing joy to nursing home residents on that day. Mr Morris's award was accepted on his behalf by Lloyd Paine, who nominated the sprightly gentleman.The success of the awards was so outstanding that I plan to make them an annual event to pay tribute to those who give to the community voluntarily. The people we honoured with a McPherson Community Contribution Award have built and strengthened community partnerships. I salute them for their selfless actions. They are all important people who make outstanding contributions to our society.Following on from the success of our awards, I am pleased to have promoted in my electorate the federal government's Commonwealth Recognition Awards for Senior Australians. In the International Year of the Older Person, this award is an important recognition of the ongoing contribution of senior Australians to our community. I look forward to naming those in my electorate who will receive such awards on 7 September and to announcing the one recipient who will represent the electorate of McPherson in Canberra on 1 October for the International Day of the Older Person. As the Minister for Aged Care, the Hon. Bronwyn Bishop, said at the announcement of these awards, volunteers are like the mortar between the bricks that holds our society together.989312:39:009893Gerick, Jane, MPMs GERICK83WCanningALP00—Today I want to raise in the House the problems that are being faced by our rural community. I am sure that all of us who come from country backgrounds are very familiar with the stripping away of services and the downgrading of facilities that are being experienced by our country people. Coming from a small country town myself, Wiluna, in the outback of Western Australia, I am very aware—IJ4SNOWDONMr Snowdon—Are you from Wiluna?83WGerick, Jane, MPMs GERICK—I am from Wiluna. One of the problems we had was that each person played such a vital role in the community that taking away just one person made a huge impact on our small community.Today I want to focus on the problems we are having in Canning, which is my electorate, with access to health facilities and doctors. There are two particular areas that are suffering. The first is the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale. I want to congratulate today June Haig, a local resident, who has collected over 500 signatures on a petition, and which I would like to read briefly. It states:We the undersigned wish to express to the House our utmost concern at the lack of a medical practitioner for our growing rural community. The absence of a resident medical practitioner and a medical facility for our Serpentine-Jarrahdale region continues to add to the disadvantage and harm for this region's citizens. We call upon the government to take heed of this community's medical needs and concerns and to urgently address this matter. Your petitioners therefore humbly request that you will give the matter of encouraging and facilitating medical practitioners for country areas earnest consideration, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.It is not only access to a doctor that causes a problem. In Serpentine-Jarrahdale there is only one doctor. It is a very large area and so people have problems with the lack of public transport. You also have the fact that people do not have a choice of doctor. Some women residents would much prefer to go to a woman doctor for some problems that they may be experiencing. You also have the fact that there is no access to bulk-billing. For some members of my electorate this is a huge problem and places them under a financial burden. The distance to Serpentine-Jarrahdale from Perth is not a great one. It is a 20-minute drive from the last major city in my electorate, Armadale, so it is hard to understand why we cannot encourage a doctor to go to the area. It is a beautiful area but they are just not having any luck in attracting a doctor.Pinjarra is about a 1½ hour drive from Perth and they too have exactly the same problem. At the moment they have two doctors. Pinjarra is surrounded by a number of small towns, all of which rely on that town for their medical needs. One of the doctors in Pinjarra, actually advertised for assistance over 12 months ago. In that time he has had one expression of interest, and in the end that person did not take up that job.There is no access to public transport in Pinjarra. If you live in Pinjarra you need a car. The nearest hospital is in Mandurah, which is a 20-minute drive away. One of the problems we are having there is that people taken to Mandurah as an emergency have no way of getting home again. They can be trapped 20 minutes from home, and it is a bit hard getting taxis in a country area, as I am sure you are aware.Last year Pinjarra had a public meeting that over 1,000 people attended which, for a small community, is a huge effort. They were pleading with the state and federal governments to take their hands off them. Their hospital was being downgraded, Australia Post was under threat and their courthouse was being closed. All of those things were having a huge impact on their town.We are still pleading with the state government to leave our hospital alone. There is no access to emergency services after hours now because of the lack of doctors. Bedingfeld Park, a nursing home in the area, is also having problems: if their residents need emergency care they need to take those residents to Mandurah because the local hospital is not open. Again, transport is a problem because the state government has cut down the funding to the group that used to provide the transport to and from hospital.One of the saddest experiences I have had since winning my seat was going down to Bedingfeld where I met an older gentleman who had just turned 90. He told me that he had hoped that moving to Bedingfeld was going to be his last move. He had moved out of his home and into Bedingfeld Park and now he was facing the prospect of having to move again because there were no nursing home beds in Pinjarra and he could not get the medical care he needed. Residents of rural communities deserve the same access to medical services which city people have. They need to have a choice of doctor and access to bulk-billing. (Time expired)989412:44:009894Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—I would like to continue reading the statement, which I was reading earlier this morning, from a woman who is recovering from one of her many attempts at suicide. I would like to again thank my colleague Senator Brian Harradine for passing on this statement from one of his constituents. I appreciate that the continuation loses something.In referring to Lolita, the woman goes on to say:What is essentially a hideous crime with everlasting consequences for the victim is being dished up as a feeble romance. In reality, Lolita was a vulnerable orphan who was manipulated and used for the sexual gratification of an adult upon whom she was dependent for her childhood needs of affection, guidance, food, clothing and shelter. In such a situation, a child can easily be coerced into sexual behaviour through the positive reinforcement of rewards or affection, but this is not true consent. Studies consistently note incest to be one of the most damaging forms of child abuse. In such cases children are also less likely to report the crime to authorities or to be believed when they do. Of people with dissociative identity disorders—better known as multiple personality disorder—83% had experienced childhood sex abuse and of these, 68% had been incest victims. Incest survivors also had a higher likelihood of becoming alcoholics and prostitutes. Other problems can include lack of education, drug dependency, eating disorders, problems regarding sexuality and trust and self-destructive habits.Perhaps to pacify those who might be disturbed by the film, the ending has been changed with Humbert carted off to jail. However, the real story is that the vast majority of Humberts walk off scot free. A report by the NSW Child Sexual Assault Task Force states that only about 10% of all child sexual assaults are reported to the authorities, with the fear of blame or disbelief being the main obstacle to disclosure.According to the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics, jail sentences were given in 153 out of 346 cases of sexual offences against children in 1997. The overwhelming majority of these were for less than a year. The remainder were for periodic detentions, community service orders or both. Where child sexual offenders were fined, almost all were made to fork out less than $1,000. More often it is the child victim who ends up being punished by being removed from their family home or by having to run away. (My sisters and I know what this feels like.)Do those who claim that Lolita is a tender tragic love story realise what it is like to have intercourse at the age of twelve? There is much physical pain . . . Having sexual intercourse at a young age caused me childhood gynaecological problems, stomach pains, headaches, nightmares and the inability to go to the toilet properly. Commencing intercourse at an early age is one of the risk factors that predisposes women to cervical cancer, not to mention the chances of pregnancy.Adrien Lyne states that he took all the necessary legal and moral obligations while making the film. This is all very well for him and his actors. In real life huge numbers of children are being abused and they do not have special cushions to protect them, along with a team of psychologists, lawyers and body doubles.Child sexual abuse is a serious and widespread problem and films like Lolita aggravate the situation by engendering sympathy for offenders and disregarding the problems that victims face. It is an outdated book that was written at a time prior to the proliferation of research that has come to light on the nature and extent of child sexual abuse and its insidious effects. In view of what we now know about child sexual abuse, I find the remake of the film thoroughly irresponsible.According to David Finkelhor, children are never able to consent to sex with adults because they lack the information to make an `informed' decision about it. They are ignorant about the mechanics of sex, reproduction and sexual relationships. They don't understand the social meanings of sexuality and how to judge what is normal or acceptable.Lolita never got to tell her story and we don't know what happened to her. But I will tell you my story. I have struggled with chronic depression, insomnia, guilt and low self esteem all my life, and at various times have had social phobias, eating disorders and sexual problems. I suffer from flashbacks, post-traumatic stress disorder, memory problems and dissociative personality disorder caused from trying to disassociate from my childhood abuse. I have a tendency to allow myself to be sexually exploited and lack assertiveness. I have just seen my eight year relationship disintegrate and have attempted suicide six times (I am currently in hospital after my latest attempt).(Time expired)989512:49:009895Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I rise to speak on the growing incidence of casual employment of recent times and some of the challenges this gives rise to for our policy makers. Unfortunately, casual employees do not receive sick leave or annual leave entitlements and they are typically concentrated in low skilled occupations. Their employment is more precarious than that of permanent employees. As compensation for no access to leave and for less job security they receive a simple casual loading far less than their loss of real entitlements.The problem is that in the past three decades there has been a fourfold increase in the proportion of our work force that are casuals. This growth has been concentrated in the part-time labour market. However, in the past three years we have seen a marked rise in casual employment arrangements for full-time employees also. More than one in four Australian workers are now employed on a casual basis. Australia has one of the highest incidences of casualisation in the developed world. The data suggests that this is a continuing trend.Mrs Draper interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Makin was heard in silence and I suggest she extends the same courtesy to other members.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—In the past decade, 70 per cent of the net growth in employment has been in casual jobs. The trend is particularly evident for males. In the past decade, the number of male casual employees has increased by 115 per cent, while the number of non-casual male employees has actually fallen.Why should we be worried about growing casualisation? I think it is an issue that crosses all political parties. Permanent employees are 2½ times more likely to participate in employer provided in-house training than casuals and they are nearly five times more likely to undertake employer sponsored external training. Casual employees are missing out without a doubt—not just on immediate job security but also on the essential skills development that is critical to their longer term labour market opportunities. The most effective way to improve the security of working Australians is to ensure that they have the opportunity throughout their lives to upgrade their skills. For Australia's growing pool of casuals this is a problem we need to address.We need to be more creative in combining work, family and study. We must take steps to ensure that casual employees do not miss out. Our education and training systems need to be responsive to this need and our social security and taxation systems need to encourage it. But, most of all, our leaders need to promote it. The casualisation of our work force has thus far received relatively little attention.The unfortunate reality is that those who are most likely to be employed as casuals are also those who lack the opportunity to improve their skills and those who lack the family and community support networks that we all rely on in the tough times. They are the real battlers in our work force. They often face a number of disadvantages. And yet, when the Prime Minister talks of his battlers, I have not heard him refer to the position of casual employees. I have not heard him talk of improving their access to education and training. I have not heard him talk of improving family and community support networks for these workers. But the fact that he has not spoken on these matters does not imply that he has not acted on them.He has slashed support for education, training and labour market assistance and he has slashed support for the support networks these people rely on. But, worst of all, he has slashed these things hardest among those workers who need them the most. We need to be talking about casualisation. We need to be talking about the growing insecurity of the work force and we need to be demanding that the government talk about it in the workplace and the employment debates.In that context, I refer to the opportunities now being pursued by the Coles Myer company which has recently introduced a program named Project 38. On the basis of realisation from the Coles Myer company that they can actually deliver a better service whilst at the same time making considerable savings from a corporate point of view, they have now developed Project 38 which is clearly moving away from the casual work force to a more permanent work force of a full-time and a part-time nature. The savings amount to benefits to the company in the form of recruitment, training and, more importantly from the point of view of customers, improved quality of service to the public at large.I commend the Coles Myer company on this initiative and I also ask major employers in other sectors to take up the initiative of Coles Myer. It is a benefit to the community at large, it is a benefit to individual families and it is a benefit to the company. The Coles Myer company have taken the lead on this issue committing to decasualise their work force. They acknowledge that permanency and training are not only good for the employees but good for their business. I hope people follow the lead. I actually hope that the Prime Minister himself starts to face up to the fact that we have got a huge problem with casualisation in the work force. We are only going to compete on the skilling of the Australian work force. We are not going to compete on the basis of Asian wages and conditions as the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business would have. More importantly, we are going to compete on the basis of Australia being a knowledge based country across all industries in which all people should have the same opportunity in life. (Time expired)989712:55:009897Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—I appreciate the opportunity to continue reading a woman's statement referring to incest and the film Lolita . The remainder of the statement reads:Incest also deprives a child of a normal father relationship. I always felt robbed of a normal father figure. I have cried while listening to other women talk on the phone to their fathers. I once asked a psychologist if he would pretend to be my father, but of course he couldn't.Knowing the pain that most child abuse victims suffer, I find the film grossly insulting. To the film's supporters: you have failed children who have no choice but to depend on adults for protection.The film attempts to romanticise child sexual abuse. This is the singular most dangerous aspect of the movie in that it conveys the view that the child victim is in some way responsible for the abuse through her flirtatious behaviour, or is at least making a choice in an equal situation. Anyone who works in the field of child sexual assault knows that this is the biggest obstacle in preventing the continuation of the abuse. Most victims believe it is their fault, which leaves the abuser free to move onto abusing other children.My stepfather admitted to me that a 10 year old girl had let him have sex with her. His use of the words let him convinced me that he believed this was the case. These were the same words Humbert used in the Nabokov novel. My stepfather said that if I ever took him to court he would say that we were consenting lovers. Being a child with no understanding of the legal system, with only his teachings and the books and films he showed me to derive my meanings of the experience from, I believed him.Films that portray child victims as sexually available and willing participants, only reinforce the guilt and silence of the victims and allow more children to be abused.I am writing this for myself and for all incest survivors whose experiences, once again, have been ignored and in the hope that one day the silence will end.Main Committee adjourned at 12.58 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing9898The following answers to questions were circulated:9898(Question No. 604)6049898McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 12 May 1999:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 498 (Hansard , 11 May 1999, page 4196), how many officers responsible for serving members of the public were employed by the Commonwealth Employment Service in the electoral division of Barton on 1 July 1996.(2) How many case managers employed by employment service providers, undertaking work on behalf of the Commonwealth pursuant to the Government's employment service delivery model which was announced on 9 November 1998, are performing duties in, or concerning persons who are unemployed or are seeking employment assistance in, the electoral division of Barton.(3) Is the number of clients who receive service pursuant to the Government's service delivery model a relevant factor in determining the success of the model.(4) Will the Minister establish how many clients in total have been assisted through the new service delivery model in the electoral division of Barton since 1 July 1998; if not, why not.9898Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The electorate of Barton (NSW) was serviced by the Rockdale and St George (formerly Hurstville) CES outlets. On 1 July 1996 St George and Rockdale had 34 and 32 officers respectively responsible for serving members of the public.(2—4) Centrelink's new service delivery model announced by the Hon Warren Truss MP, the then Minister for Community Services, on 9 November 1998, is not about case management. Case management was provided by government and community sector organisations to job seekers prior to the introduction of Job Network in May 1998 whereas the new one-main contact service is now being implemented by Centrelink.Centrelink's service improvement will mean that each customer service officer takes responsibility for a pool of customers which ensures that the customer has continuity of contact within Centrelink with a customer service officer who is known to them. The one-main contact officer takes responsibility for all ongoing business relating to the customers in their pool. Simple customer enquiries continue to be handled by Centrelink Call Service or reception staff in customer service centres.Under the Job Network, the Commonwealth has contracted around 300 private, community and government organisations to find jobs for unemployed people. The Commonwealth does not contract organisations for certain numbers of staff. Staffing levels are a matter for Job Network members and would depend on the services they are providing, the number of clients they are contracted to assist and their individual approach to service delivery.I have arranged through the Office of the Minister for Community Services for a Centrelink officer to contact Mr McClelland's office to offer him a personal briefing about how one-main contact works and the benefits it provides to customers.9898(Question No. 652)6529898Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 1 June 1999:(1) Has the Minister or a department or agency administered by the Minister provided grants to the National Farmers' Federation (NFF) or bodies related to the NFF since 2 March 1996; if so, (a) in each case, (i) what was the nature of the grant and (ii) for what purpose was it provided and (b) what total sum was provided.(2) To what boards, committees or other bodies for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility have (a) Mr Donald McGauchie (b) Dr Wendy Craik or (c) other officers or staff of the NFF been appointed since 2 March 1996.(3) What sums has the Commonwealth paid in (a) sitting fees, (b) board fees, (c) travel costs and (d) related expenses with respect to each appointment referred to in part (2). 9899Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No.(2) (a) None. (b) None. (c) Mr David Wolfenden, President of the Wool Council of Australia, a Commodity Council of the NFF, is a member of the steering group for the joint National Occupational Health and Safety Commission/National Registration Authority project "Simplifying the Safe Use of Chemicals on Farms". Mr Wolfenden was nominated on 6 November 1998 by the NFF because of his expertise in farm Occupational Health and Safety issues, including chemical substances.Mr James Ferguson, formerly the NFF Director of Industrial Relations, was appointed to the National Labour Consultative Council (NLCC) from 18 April 1996 to 17 April 1998 and from 14 June 1998 to 7 January 1999. Mr Richard Calver, his successor as the NFF Director of Industrial Relations, has been appointed to the NLCC from 18 March 1999 to 13 May 2000.As far as can be ascertained from a thorough examination of the relevant records, no other officers or staff of the NFF have been appointed to boards, committees or other bodies for which I have portfolio responsibility.(3) No sitting fees, board fees, travel costs or related expenses have been paid to Mr Wolfenden from the time of his appointment to 1 June 1999, as the steering group had not met.(a) No sitting fees were paid to Mr Ferguson or Mr Calver.(b) No board fees were paid to Mr Ferguson or Mr Calver.(c) Under the National Labour Consultative Council Act 1977, NLCC members are entitled to payment of travelling allowance at a rate equal to the highest rate of travelling allowance payable to officers of the Australian Public Service other than Secretaries (section 9).Since 2 March 1996, there have been eight NLCC meetings. My Department's records indicate that Mr Ferguson attended two meetings for which the cost of airfares was reimbursed. Mr Ferguson also attended one meeting in his then home city of Canberra for which he did not seek any reimbursement of expenses. Mr Calver has attended one meeting following his appointment on 18 March 1999 for which the cost of airfare and related expenses such as taxi fares was reimbursed.The amounts that DEWRSB's records of payments show were made to the NFF relating to Mr Ferguson's and Mr Calver's attendance at the NLCC are listed below: . $444 for Mr Ferguson to attend the NLCC on 5 December 1997—reimbursement of airfares from Canberra to Melbourne return;. $1,961.40 for Mr Ferguson to attend the NLCC on 14 December 1998—reimbursement for the cost of airfare from Perth to Sydney return; and. $527.90 for Mr Calver to attend the NLCC on 14 May 1999—reimbursement for the cost of airfare and related expenses from Canberra to Melbourne.(d) Nil.9899(Question No. 672)6729899Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment Services, upon notice, on 1 June 1999:(1) Has the Minister or a department or agency administered by the Minister provided grants to the National Farmers' Federation (NFF) or bodies related to the NFF since 2 March 1996; if so, (a) in each case, (i) what was the nature of the grant and (ii) for what purpose was it provided and (b) what total sum was provided.(2) To what boards, committees or other bodies for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility have (a) Mr Donald McGauchie (b) Dr Wendy Craik or (c) other officers or staff of the NFF been appointed since 2 March 1996.(3) What sums has the Commonwealth paid in (a) sitting fees, (b) board fees, (c) travel costs and (d) related expenses with respect to each appointment referred to in part (2).9899Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The following answer is provided on behalf of the Minister for Employment Services:(1) No.(2) (a) None. (b) None. (c) Mr David Wolfenden, President of the Wool Council of Australia, a Commodity Council of the NFF, is a member of the steering group for the joint National Occupational Health and Safety Commission/National Registration Authority project "Simplifying the Safe Use of Chemicals on Farms". Mr Wolfenden was nominated on 6 November 1998 by the NFF because of his expertise in farm Occupational Health and Safety issues, including chemical substances.Mr James Ferguson, formerly the NFF Director of Industrial Relations, was appointed to the National Labour Consultative Council (NLCC) from 18 April 1996 to 17 April 1998 and from 14 June 1998 to 7 January 1999. Mr Richard Calver, his successor as the NFF Director of Industrial Relations, has been appointed to the NLCC from 18 March 1999 to 13 May 2000.As far as can be ascertained from a thorough examination of the relevant records, no other officers or staff of the NFF have been appointed to boards, committees or other bodies for which I have portfolio responsibility.(3) No sitting fees, board fees, travel costs or related expenses have been paid to Mr Wolfenden from the time of his appointment to 1 June 1999, as the steering group had not met.(a) No sitting fees were paid to Mr Ferguson or Mr Calver.(b) No board fees were paid to Mr Ferguson or Mr Calver.(c) Under the National Labour Consultative Council Act 1977, NLCC members are entitled to payment of travelling allowance at a rate equal to the highest rate of travelling allowance payable to officers of the Australian Public Service other than Secretaries (section 9).Since 2 March 1996, there have been eight NLCC meetings. My Department's records indicate that Mr Ferguson attended two meetings for which the cost of airfares was reimbursed. Mr Ferguson also attended one meeting in his then home city of Canberra for which he did not seek any reimbursement of expenses. Mr Calver has attended one meeting following his appointment on 18 March 1999 for which the cost of airfare and related expenses such as taxi fares was reimbursed.The amounts that DEWRSB's records of payments show were made to the NFF relating to Mr Ferguson's and Mr Calver's attendance at the NLCC are listed below:. $444 for Mr Ferguson to attend the NLCC on 5 December 1997—reimbursement of airfares from Canberra to Melbourne return;. $1,961.40 for Mr Ferguson to attend the NLCC on 14 December 1998—reimbursement for the cost of airfare from Perth to Sydney return; and. $527.90 for Mr Calver to attend the NLCC on 14 May 1999—reimbursement for the cost of airfare and related expenses from Canberra to Melbourne.(d) Nil.9900(Question No. 719)7199900Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 8 June 1999:(1) Has his attention been drawn to statements made in the House (Hansard , 2 June 1999, page 4696) by the Member for Moreton about whether the Brisbane City Council should receive funding for an application under the Regional Assistance Program (RAP) if it has refused to participate in the work-for-the-dole scheme.(2) Has Brisbane City Council applied for a grant under the RAP for a small business enterprise program; if so, has an organisation or individual, including the Member for Moreton, made official or unofficial representations to him, his Department or his staff suggesting that the application be rejected.(3) Is it the Government's position that a body should not be entitled to RAP funding if it is unwilling to sponsor or support a work-for-the-dole project.9900Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) I am aware of the comments by the Member for Moreton.(2) Brisbane City Council applied for funding under the Regional Assistance Program (RAP) for a home based business project. This application was rejected during the application process as not meeting the funding criteria as set out in the RAP guidelines.(3) No. Proposals for RAP funding are considered on their merits against the RAP guidelines supplied to all applicants.9900(Question No. 721)7219900Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 9 June 1999:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 530 (Hansard , 7 June 1999, page 4980) concerning Mr Mark Textor and Australasian Research Strategies and related companies, what are the remaining two stages of the outstanding work for which Australasian Research Strategies was engaged to perform for his Department by 22 May 1998.(2) What was the nature of the tender process used by his Department to select Australasian Research Strategies to perform the work.(3) What portion of the contract price of $340 000 plus a maximum of $35 000 for travel has been approved for payment.(4) On engagement, who did his Department and/or Australasian Research Strategies consult on the nature of the research on attitudes to workplace reform.(5) What was the nature of the research work performed by Australasian Research Strategies for the first and second stage of the report and how was it conducted.(6) Who was involved in the 3 May 1999 session involving business, academic and media representatives on the research results and why were unions excluded.9901Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The two remaining stages (phases 3 and 4 of the project) which Australasian Research Strategies Pty (ARSP) was engaged to perform under the contract entered into with my department dated 22 May 1998 are as follows:- phase 3 is a survey that will test conclusions reached through phases 1 and 2; and- phase 4 comprises follow up in the form of tracking the success of any communications strategy implemented as a result of earlier phases.(2) The company was selected by participating governments of the WRMC from a panel of 34 researchers established by my department on behalf of WRMC through open advertisement in late 1997:- of the panel members, only ARSP provided a fully detailed proposal for values research.(3) $260,620.03 or 69.5 per cent has been approved for payment.(4) The approach to the research on attitudes to workplace reform was settled between my department and ARSP, having regard to the decision and direction of the WRMC participants in the light of ARSP's original detailed proposal.(5) Details are provided in the published report Employee Attitudes to Workplace Reform which I released on 3 May 1999 (a copy is held in the Tabling Office).(6) The seminar on research results from phases 1 and 2 of the project was held on 3 May 1999 and the material provided to seminar participants is publicly available through my department, including to unions.9901(Question No. 736)7369901Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 21 June 1999:Further to the answer to question No. 26 (Hansard , 8 March 1999, page 3412) in which he referred to positive discrimination measures within the internal management practices of his Depart ment, for those measures which are available to and impact on the general public (a) what measures has the Department implemented which could be categorised as positive discrimination, that is, providing preference to certain citizens on the basis of their gender, sexuality, age, race, place of birth or some other personal characteristic, and (b) what are the details and funding commitments in each case.9901Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:DFAT(a) The internal management practices of Corporate Management Division of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in the areas identified in the question impact on the general public when the department recruits staff.Clause 2.24 of the department's Certified Agreement recognises the need for "employment to be open to competition from other APS employees and from other members of the Australian community". Clause 2.25, concerning recruitment and promotion processes, reaffirms the department's commitment to apply the merit principle. Discrimination on the basis of race, colour, sex, sexual preference, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, family responsibilities, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin is prohibited.There is only one area of recruitment activity where preference is given to certain citizens: the department employs four Indigenous Australians under the program arrangements authorised by section 33 (4) (b) of the Public Service Act 1922 and Public Service Regulation 71B (1). Special programs authorised by these provisions are open only to Indigenous applicants who are not current APS officers. The merit principle is applied when assessing Indigenous applicants against selection criteria for these positions.(b) The salary ranges for these four positions are:APS 3 $33,925—$35,688Executive Level 1 $55,460—$59,891.AUSTRADEAustrade has four programs that may be categorised as positive discrimination programs:Indigenous Cadetship ProgramThe Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA) through its Training for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders Program provides assistance to agencies for indigenous cadets that they employ. The student cadets must be studying an approved full-time undergraduate degree course at an Australian tertiary institution, and must participate in a work placement within the employing agency during the long break at the end of the academic year. On successful completion of the cadetship they advance to a position in the employing agency that requires specific professional qualifications.Austrade currently employs one indigenous cadet under this scheme. This person completed the second year of a Law/Commerce Degree at the University of Melbourne in 1998 and undertook the work experience component of the program in the Invest Australia unit located in Austrade's Melbourne office.DETYA supports Austrade and the cadet by providing academic salary support, books and equipment allowance ($350 per annum), compulsory course fees, fares for travel from the cadet's permanent address and place of study, and recruitment assistance.Austrade is responsible for paying the cadet under the general conditions of service which apply to Austrade employees and for providing a work placement for the indigenous cadet during the long academic break (from November to February—approximately 8 to 12 weeks of employment). Austrade is also responsible for paying the annual HECS fees incurred throughout the course of study.Funding CommitmentAustrade funding commitment is approximately $18,000 per annum for the gross salary component and approximately $4000 per year for annual HECS fees. Total yearly commitment $30,000 on average.Assistance to Indigenous ExportersAustralian Indigenous Exporters ProgramAustrade began the Australian Indigenous Cultures Export Program in 1995, with financial assistance from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC). The program delivers targeted Austrade assistance to indigenous clients to assist them to achieve exports. Under an arrangement with ATSIC, Austrade's export assistance to indigenous clients can be provided with ATSIC subsiding up to half Austrade's standard fees. Similar assistance from ATSIC is available to support indigenous clients' participation in selected International Trade Displays.Australian Indigenous Export Products DirectoryAustrade publishes the Australian Indigenous Export Products Directory. The 1999 edition was launched in January 1999.Ethnic Exporter ProgramAustrade recognises and actively responds to the cultural and language requirements of its clients. Austrade's brochure An Exporter's Guide to Austrade has been produced in English, Chinese, Vietnamese and Indonesian and is distributed through all Austrade offices around Australia and to relevant organisations.A database of foreign language skills within Austrade in Australia has been prepared and has been made available to all Austrade offices throughout Australia.Austrade offices continue to work with a wide range of bilateral and ethnic business chambers and organisations to support them and their members in export-related activities.Women in Export ProgramAustrade is a regular organiser and sponsor of seminars and workshops around Australia that support the specific needs of businesswomen entering the export market.Funding CommitmentAustrade's commitment for the Australian Indigenous Exporters Program, the Australian Indigenous Export Product Directory, the Ethnic Exporters Program and the Women in Export Program for the 1998/99 year is approximately $90,000. This does not include the cost of resources involved in delivering these programs.9902(Question No. 794)7949902Quick, Harry, MPMr QuickAV5FranklinALP00 asked the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, upon notice, on 9 August 1999:(1) What sum has the Commonwealth paid to the Australian Maritime Museum in each year since it opened.(2) What was the purpose of the payments referred to in part (1).9902McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Commonwealth has paid the following amounts to the Australian National Maritime Museum for running costs in each year since it opened:YearAmount ($000s)1990/9114,0051991/9211,8801992/9313,6611993/9412,8661994/9513,5141995/9613,9631996/9714,2201997/9814,2541998/9914,2891999/0019,983In addition to the above amounts, the Museum received a capital allocation of $1,000,000 in 1999/00 as an equity injection.The above amounts do not include grants paid by Commonwealth portfolios to the Museum for specific purposes, eg research grants.(2) The purpose of the payments referred to in part (1) was to enable the Australian National Maritime Museum to exercise its functions as required by Section 6 of the Australian National Maritime Museum Act 1990.9903(Question No. 797)7979903Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 August 1999:Did the Government's modelling of the impact of the Goods and Services Tax and its other tax changes on consumers reveal that prices will only rise by 1.9%; if so, did the modelling include the impact of rises in parking meter fees by local government.9903Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The estimated impact of the tax reform package on consumer prices (excluding tobacco and new house prices) was set out in the `A New Tax System' statement.The impact on parking meter fees charged by local government was included in industry 66.01- Services to transport; storage.9903(Question No. 809)8099903McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 9 August 1999:Is he able to say what views were expressed by (a) government, (b) worker and (c) employer representatives at the 87th session of the International Labour Conference in Geneva, 1 to 17 June 1999, concerning a new convention aimed at an immediate universal ban on the worst forms of child labour.9903Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The delegate representing the Australian Government on the Conference Committee on Child Labour made the following statement to that Committee:The Australian Government strongly supports the adoption of new instruments aimed at the suppression of the most extreme forms of child labour.The Convention should be flexible and capable of universal ratification, but should impose clear obligations on each ratifying State to take actions appropriate to the gravity of the worst forms of child labour as well as appropriate to national conditions.The Convention should therefore be concise, principles based and clearly focused on extreme forms of child labour. These characteristics would help ensure that sufficient onus is placed on Members to make continual progress towards achieving the aim of the Convention.Australia also supports a Recommendation that provides guidance on the way in which the Convention could be implemented. The Recommendation should not however, be regarded as the only way in which the Convention could be implemented, nor should its provisions be regarded as compulsory.Australia believes that the proposed text of both instruments meets these requirements, subject to some modifications which we intend to propose for discussion.As is the custom at International Labour Conferences, the Employers' spokesperson and the Workers' spokesperson each made an intervention on behalf of their constituents, and were supportive of the new Convention and Recommendation. Consequently, the Australian worker and employer representatives did not separately express views on this matter.Both the Convention and Recommendation were unanimously supported by the Conference in plenary session. The four Australian delegates (ie two government, one employer and one worker) voted in favour of the adoption of the new Convention and Recommendation.9904(Question No. 834)8349904Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 10 August 1999:(1) Was the 100th anniversary of the first Hague Peace Conference celebrated at The Hague on 17 May 1999.(2) As part of the celebrations did the Government of the Netherlands stage an opening for signature ceremony for the Second Protocol (The Hague 1999) to the Unesco Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (The Hague, 1954).(3) Who represented Australia at the ceremony.(4) Which countries have become parties to the Convention since his answer to Question No. 586 (Hansard , 7 June 1999, page 4982).(5) Which countries have signed the Second Protocol.(6) Which department is responsible for the Protocol.(7) Which Ministers must approve the Protocol(8) What is the timetable for Australia to sign the Protocol.9904Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) Yes.(3) Australia was represented at the ceremony by Australia's Ambassador to the Netherlands, H.E. Mr Ted Delofski and the Third Secretary in the Australian Embassy in The Hague, Ms Natalie Toohey.(4) None.(5) Thirty States have signed the Protocol as at 25 August 1999. They are: Albania, Austria, Belgium, Cambodia, Cte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Holy See, Hungary, Indonesia, Italy, Luxembourg, Madagascar, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria and Yemen.(6) The Protocol is a more complex instrument than the Convention, in so far as its substance relates to the laws of war, which is relevant to the Department of Defence, to regimes for the protection of heritage which fall within the portfolio responsibilities of the Departments of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts and Environment and Heritage, to international cooperation in criminal matters which is the responsibility of the Attorney-General's Department and to aspects of international humanitarian law which are the responsibilities of the Attorney-General's Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. At present, Australia's response to the Protocol is being managed through an inter-departmental committee involving all these Departments chaired by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.(7) The Ministers for Foreign Affairs, Defence, Environment and Heritage and the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, and the Attorney-General. The Prime Minister would also be informed.(8) Ministers have not yet taken a decision to sign the Protocol. An obvious deadline for a decision whether or not to sign the Protocol would be the Protocol's own closure for signature on 31 December 1999. The inter-departmental committee will report to relevant Ministers on the committee's recommendations as to further action concerning the Protocol by the end of September. If the outcome of Ministers' deliberations is that Australia should sign the Protocol, this would most likely take place between October and December. If Australia does not sign the Protocol by the date of closure for signature, this would not prevent Australia becoming a Party to the Protocol at a later date.