1999-09-233914REPS1033901999-09-23Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous103391033909:31:0010339Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I move:That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Treasurer being required to attend the chamber forthwith to explain, before he goes overseas tomorrow:(a) his leadership challenge in today's Australian Financial Review ;(b) why he has chosen to set the clock ticking on the Prime Minister's leadership; and(c) his own timetable for and claim on leadership of the Coalition.This is the Placido Domingo mark 2 speech! This is the Treasurer moving on the Prime Minister!Motion (by Mr Hockey) put:That the member be not further heard. Question put.09:36:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew)74Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr K. J. AndrewsMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BarresiMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr CadmanMr CameronMr CausleyMr CharlesMr CostelloMr DownerMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Mrs GallusMs GambaroMrs GashMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HawkerMr HockeyMrs HullMr JullMr KatterMrs D. M. KellyJackie KellyDr KempMr LawlerMr LiebermanMr LindsayMr LloydMr McArthur*Mr I. E. MacfarlaneMr McGauranMrs MayMr MooreMrs MoylanMr NairnMr NehlDr NelsonMr NevilleMr NugentMr PyneMr ReithMr RonaldsonMr RuddockMr St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperMr SomlyayDr SouthcottDr StoneMr C. P. ThompsonMr A. P. ThomsonMr TrussMr TuckeyMr M. A. J. VaileMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs Worth59Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr BevisMr BreretonMr CoxMr CreanMrs CrosioMr DanbyMr EdwardsMs EllisDr EmersonMr M. J. EvansMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMs KernotMr KerrDr LawrenceMs LivermoreMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McLeayMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MossfieldMr MurphyMs O'ByrneMr O'ConnorMr O'KeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*Mr SciaccaMr Sercombe*Mr SidebottomMr SmithMr SwanMr TannerMr K. J. ThomsonMr WiltonMr ZahraMr HowardMr BeazleyMr ProsserMs BurkeMr HardgraveMr G EvansMr BroughMr Wilkie* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?09:39:0010340McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—I second the motion, Mr Speaker. There is nothing in this tactic between the—Motion (by Mr Hockey) put:That the member be not further heard.09:40:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew)75Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr K. J. AndrewsMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BarresiMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr CadmanMr CameronMr CausleyMr CharlesMr CostelloMr DownerMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Mrs GallusMs GambaroMrs GashMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HawkerMr HockeyMrs HullMr JullMr KatterMrs D. M. KellyJackie KellyDr KempMr LawlerMr LiebermanMr LindsayMr LloydMr McArthur*Mr I. E. MacfarlaneMr McGauranMrs MayMr MooreMrs MoylanMr NairnMr NehlDr NelsonMr NevilleMr NugentMr PyneMr ReithMr RonaldsonMr RuddockMr St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperMr SomlyayDr SouthcottDr StoneMrs SullivanMr C.P. ThompsonMr A.P. ThomsonMr TrussMr TuckeyMr M.A.J. VaileMrs D.S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs Worth59Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr BevisMr BreretonMr CoxMr CreanMrs CrosioMr DanbyMr EdwardsMs EllisDr EmersonMr M.J. EvansMr L.D.T. FergusonMr M.J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMs KernotMr KerrDr LawrenceMs LivermoreMr McClellandMs J.S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McLeayMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MossfieldMr MurphyMs O'ByrneMr O'ConnorMr O'KeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*Mr SciaccaMr Sercombe*Mr SidebottomMr SmithMr SwanMr TannerMr K. J. ThomsonMr WiltonMr ZahraMr HowardMr BeazleyMr ProsserMs BurkeMr HardgraveMr G. EvansMr BroughMr Wilkie* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.09:43:0010340Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister will be spewing with the Treasurer, with his Placido Domingo speech—Motion (by Mr Hockey) put:That the question be now put.09:44:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew)75Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr K. J. AndrewsMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BarresiMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr CadmanMr CameronMr CausleyMr CharlesMr CostelloMr DownerMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Mrs GallusMs GambaroMrs GashMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HawkerMr HockeyMrs HullMr JullMr KatterMrs D. M. KellyJackie KellyDr KempMr LawlerMr LiebermanMr LindsayMr LloydMr McArthur*Mr I. E. MacfarlaneMr McGauranMrs MayMr MooreMrs MoylanMr NairnMr NehlDr NelsonMr NevilleMr NugentMr PyneMr ReithMr RonaldsonMr RuddockMr St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperMr SomlyayDr SouthcottDr StoneMrs SullivanMr C. P. ThompsonMr A. P. ThomsonMr TrussMr TuckeyMr M. A. J. VaileMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs Worth59Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr BevisMr BreretonMr CoxMr CreanMrs CrosioMr DanbyMr EdwardsMs EllisDr EmersonMr M. J. EvansMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMs KernotMr KerrDr LawrenceMs LivermoreMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McLeayMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MossfieldMr MurphyMs O'ByrneMr O'ConnorMr O'KeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*Mr SciaccaMr Sercombe*Mr SidebottomMr SmithMr SwanMr TannerMr K. J. ThomsonMr WiltonMr ZahraMr HowardMr BeazleyMr ProsserMs BurkeMr HardgraveMr G EvansMr BroughMr Wilkie* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question put:That the motion (Mr Crean's ) be agreed to.21:47:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew)59Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr BevisMr BreretonMr CoxMr CreanMrs CrosioMr DanbyMr EdwardsMs EllisDr EmersonMr M. J. EvansMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMs KernotMr KerrDr LawrenceMs LivermoreMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McLeayMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MossfieldMr MurphyMs O'ByrneMr O'ConnorMr O'KeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*Mr SciaccaMr Sercombe*Mr SidebottomMr SmithMr SwanMr TannerMr K. J. ThomsonMr WiltonMr Zahra74Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr K. J. AndrewsMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BarresiMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr CadmanMr CameronMr CausleyMr CharlesMr CostelloMr DownerMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Mrs GallusMs GambaroMrs GashMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HawkerMr HockeyMrs HullMr JullMr KatterMrs D. M. KellyDr KempMr LawlerMr LiebermanMr LindsayMr LloydMr McArthur*Mr I. E. MacfarlaneMr McGauranMrs MayMr MooreMrs MoylanMr NairnMr NehlDr NelsonMr NevilleMr NugentMr PyneMr ReithMr RonaldsonMr RuddockMr St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperMr SomlyayDr SouthcottDr StoneMrs SullivanMr C. P. ThompsonMr A. P. ThomsonMr TrussMr TuckeyMr M. A. J. VaileMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs WorthMr HowardMr BeazleyMr ProsserMs BurkeMr HardgraveMr G. EvansMr BroughMr Wilkie* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Bills10342r91110342Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.1034209:52:0010342Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time. The government recognises Australia's dependence on transport due to the vast size of our continent. In light of this, prior to the 1998 election, the government promised to substantially reduce the cost of our major transport fuels. Such reform would in turn reduce transport costs and consumer prices, especially in regional, rural and remote areas.The recently enacted Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Act 1999 delivered this commitment. From 1 July 2000, certain on-road transport will be eligible for a grant under the scheme.When the act was introduced by the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, he foreshadowed that a further bill would be introduced to put in place the necessary administrative arrangements, including the compliance mechanisms, needed to support the act. The minister also stated that the government would be seeking passage of this further bill prior to Christmas, to enable industry to develop record-keeping arrangements and plan with confidence for the introduction of the grants scheme on 1 July 2000. The introduction of this bill meets that commitment.The bill provides that most provisions in the act will commence on royal assent. This will ensure that instruments and determinations may be made and registration mechanisms can be established before the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme takes effect on 1 July 2000. This will avoid any undue delay in claimants receiving their entitlements.The amendments which are introduced by this bill also:. provide guidance to claimants as to what records should be kept in order to substantiate their claims;. clarify entitlements to the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme by prescribing formulae so that claimants will understand their entitlements;. note that grants paid under the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme are assessable income under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, consistent with the treatment of rebates under the existing Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme;. enable the Commissioner of Taxation to issue a determination, after consultations with industry, to provide guidance to claimants as to what operation of a vehicle constitutes a journey for the purposes of the scheme; and. ensure that the Commissioner of Taxation has adequate powers to administer the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme.On 28 May 1999 the Prime Minister gave an undertaking to Senator Meg Lees that the government would put in place rigorous enforcement measures to police the scheme. In accordance with that undertaking, the bill provides adequate penalties and safeguards to protect funds and to prevent abuse of this scheme.Where businesses also claim the diesel fuel rebate, the bill contains provisions to enable advances to be made under the grants scheme in the same way as they are made under the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme. This will assist in minimising the compliance costs of such claimants.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.I commend the bill to the House and table the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills10343r90710343Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.1034309:57:0010343Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Choice of Superannuation Funds (Consumer Protection) Bill 1999 is being introduced today. This bill will achieve a number of objectives—objectives which are fundamental to enhancing Australian business and at the same time ensuring consumer protection and promoting my previously stated goal of empowering consumers to develop, recognise and exercise their consumer sovereignty.This bill will strengthen consumer protection in the life insurance industry, enhance the accountability of life companies and brokers, and promote regulatory neutrality by bringing the regulation of life insurance advisers into line with that of securities dealers and their representatives.In addition, the measures proposed in this bill will promote consumers' ability to assess a range of products and exercise choice as to which products best meet their needs.In addition to promoting consumer protection and promoting consumer sovereignty, this bill will specifically support the government's choice of superannuation fund legislation. This shows our commitment to having in place an appropriate compliance regime to complement the choice of fund initiatives.The measures will also complement existing prudential requirements under the Life Insurance Act 1995, thereby bringing to fruition a process of reforms intended to achieve a modern, flexible and strong regulatory framework for life insurance.This bill contains measures which promote the transparency of information and require life companies, brokers and advisers to give consumers information that allows them to assess the features of both the product being offered and the services being provided.These measures will bring the regulation of life insurance advisers into line with the current provisions of the Corporations Law applying to securities advisers, and more generally with proposals contained in the government's Corporate Law Economic Reform Program, CLERP 6 in particular.Accountability of participants in the industry is also addressed in this bill. Life companies will be required to set up an internal compliance committee. This committee will be responsible for dealing with consumer related issues and ensuring that a proper system of management controls are in place to ensure compliance with this bill.This bill provides scope for the current Life Insurance Code of Practice to be given statu tory backing and introduces a range of civil and criminal sanctions.The measures in this bill are broadly consistent with reforms proposed as part of the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program.In conclusion, the reforms contained in the Choice of Superannuation Funds (Consumer Protection) Bill will raise industry standards of service and advice. I might take this opportunity to thank all those organisations that participated in the extensive consultations which led to the formation and redrafting of this bill after it was originally introduced as the old Life Insurance Conduct and Disclosure Bill. The consultations were very informative and very constructive, with the result that the reforms will give consumers greater confidence when choosing life insurance products and help them choose among a range of products.Finally, this bill is designed to support and encourage this very successful and thriving industry.I present the explanatory memorandum to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills10344r92410344Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.1034410:02:0010344Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill will provide legislative authority for the domestic entry into force of three new comprehensive double taxation agreements, with South Africa, Slovakia and Argentina, and an amending protocol to our existing agreement with Malaysia. The bill will insert the text of each of the agreements and the protocol into the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 as schedules to that act.The agreement between Australia and South Africa was signed on 1 July 1999, whilst the Malaysian Protocol, the Slovak Agreement and the Argentine Agreement were all signed during August 1999.Details of these agreements and the protocol were announced and copies were made publicly available following the respective dates of signature.The new agreements generally accord with the other comprehensive taxation agreements concluded by Australia in recent years. The agreements and the protocol incorporate revised Alienation of Property Articles which are designed to overcome the adverse decision of the Full Federal Court in Commissioner of Taxation v. Lamesa Holdings BV.The agreements with South Africa and Argentina are the first double taxation agreements to be concluded by Australia with an African and a South American country respectively, and the agreement with Argentina will, in particular, benefit Australian companies with mining interests in Argentina.The Malaysian Protocol will operate to relieve Australian residents of double taxation on fees received for consultancy and other services supplied that are utilised in Malaysia, with effect from the 1993-94 income year.It and an associated exchange of letters will also extend the operation of the tax sparing measures in the Malaysian Agreement to relevant income derived during the 1984-85 to the 1991-92 income years. Those measures apply in relation to certain income derived by Australian residents that Malaysia exempts or taxes at a reduced rate under special development incentive provisions and had previously operated only up to the 1983-84 income year.The government believes that the conclusion of these new agreements and protocol will go a long way to strengthening of trade, investment and wider relationships between Australia and each of these countries.The agreements and protocol will enter into force respectively when diplomatic notes are exchanged advising that all of the necessary domestic processes to give them the force of law in each country have been completed. The enactment of this bill, and the satisfaction of the other procedures relating to proposed treaty actions, will complete the processes followed in Australia for those purposes.It is not possible to accurately predict the eventual effect of these agreements and the protocol on the revenue, but it is not expected to be significant.Full details of the amendments are contained in the explanatory memorandum, which I now present to the House. I commend the bill to the chamber.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills10345r77810345Consideration resumed from 22 September.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 2, page 1 (line 17), omit "1 July 1999", substitute "the day on which it receives the Royal Assent".(2) Schedule 1, item 22, page 7 (lines 25 and 26), omit paragraph (e), substitute:(e) no member of the fund is an employee of another member of the fund, unless the members concerned are relatives;(3) Schedule 1, item 22, page 8 (lines 1 to 7), omit paragraph (2)(a), substitute:(a) if the trustee of the fund is a body corporate: (i) the member is the sole director of the body corporate; or (ii) the member is one of only 2 directors of the body corporate, and the member and the other director are relatives; or (iii) the member is one of only 2 directors of the body corporate, and the member is not an employee of the other director; and(aa) if the trustees of the fund are individuals: (i) the member is one of only 2 trustees, of whom one is the member and the other is a relative of the member; or (ii) the member is one of only 2 trustees, and the member is not an employee of the other trustee; and(4) Schedule 1, item 22, page 9 (line 15) to page 10 (line 3), omit subsection (6), substitute:Extended meaning of employee in certain circumstances (6) For the purposes of this section, a member of a fund, who is an employee of an employer-sponsor of the fund, is also taken to be an employee of another person (the other person ), if the employer-sponsor is: (a) a relative of the other person; or (b) either of the following: (i) a body corporate of which the other person, or a relative of the other person, is a director; (ii) a body corporate related to that body corporate; or (c) the trustee of a trust of which the other person, or a relative of the other person, is a beneficiary; or (d) a partnership, where: (i) the other person, or a relative of the other person, is a partner in the partnership; or (ii) the other person, or a relative of the other person, is a director of a body corporate that is a partner in the partnership; or (iii) the other person, or a relative of the other person, is a beneficiary of a trust, if the trustee of the trust is a partner in the partnership.Note 1: An effect of this subsection is that a fund will not be a self-managed superannuation fund if a member is employed by an employer-sponsor of the fund, and another member (who is not a relative) has a specified interest in that employer-sponsor: see paragraph (1)(e). An example of this would be where the employer-sponsor is a company of which another member is a director.Note 2: Another effect is that a fund will not be a self-managed superannuation fund if its single member is employed by an employer-sponsor of the fund in which the other trustee of the fund (who is not a relative) has a specified interest: see subsection (2).(6A) Subsection (6) does not limit the meaning of the term employee .Regulations(6B) For the purposes of this section: (a) a member of a fund is taken to be an employee of a person belonging to a class specified in the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph; and (b) despite subsections (6) and (6A) and section 15A, a member of a fund is not taken to be an employee of a person belonging to a class specified in the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.10:06:0010346Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.Amendment No. 1, the government amendment, changes the commencement date of the bill from 1 July 1999 to the date of royal assent. The bill was due to commence on 1 July 1999, but the passage of the bill was delayed due to the backlog of legislation in the Senate. To avoid an unintended retrospective element, the bill will commence from the date of the royal assent.With respect to amendments 2, 3 and 4, these are opposition amendments agreed to by the government and remove the family business linkage requirement that was designed to protect the interests of third-party members of a self-managed superannuation fund. To be honest, the government's preferred position is in the original bill. However, the amended bill will still ensure that all the members of a self-managed superannuation fund are trustees of the fund. It will also prevent one member of a self-managed employer sponsored superannuation fund from being an employee of another member of the fund except where they are relatives.The government considers that, despite these changes, the bill will continue to improve the ability of members of self-managed funds to protect their own interests. On this basis, the government is prepared to accept these amendments, which I now commend to the House.10:08:0010346Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration has indicated, the government has agreed to Senate amendments to the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 . It is not a very frequent occurrence that the government accepts opposition amendments and I suppose that on that basis, if no other, I would like to reflect on this a little.We have ended up with a compromise situation concerning the issue of the structure of the do-it-yourself superannuation funds and those who can be members of these funds. We did not accept the government's endeavour to effectively remove third parties altogether. We now have a compromise arrangement where, if you are going to be a member of a fund, you have to be a trustee. We also have a situation where employees will not be members of such funds. So we think that introduces another element of protection. There has been some concern that this could be used in a coercive way by employers.The amendment that we moved and that the government accepted will ensure that workers are protected and that same sex couples are not discriminated against. The amendment will ensure that costs to excluded superannuation funds are kept to a minimum. It follows the finding of the Senate Economics Committee that the government introduced bill would have caused increased complexity and confusion for members, trustees and administrators of do-it-yourself funds. We believe that removing the requirement that members must be related ensures that many funds that may have had to fold up under the government's original legislation will now in fact survive, and it ensures that same sex couples are not discriminated against. We think that we have created more flexibility for existing do-it-yourself fund members and trustees, while allowing some arms-length members currently in do-it-yourself superannuation funds to continue with the current fund arrangements.I make the point that once again it is Labor which is standing up for superannuation and retirement incomes. We have resisted and rejected other government attacks on superannuation and superannuation funds and we have acted in the Senate to protect do-it-yourself superannuation. I take this opportunity to issue a plea to the government, as it has considered our position in relation to Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) and we have been able to come up with an agreed outcome concerning the structure of the do-it-yourself funds, to think about, at the same time, Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4). We are concerned that its proposals for change here will create real difficulties for the small businesses which operate do-it-yourself superannuation funds.I point out to the House, for example, that Philip Holt, the Managing Director of Australian Business, is on the record as saying that his 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, and that the government has created massive confusion by waiting over 15 months to introduce this legislation and yet, after some three rounds of changes, still not having the support of small business.We also have a situation that, while the government is amending the investment rules to make them tighter in some areas, it is letting some other small funds invest 100 per cent of their funds in one risky investment. So we have some ongoing concerns in this area of do-it-yourself superannuation, and we do hope that the government is prepared to examine these concerns when this legislation comes before the House.The other issue that I think the government needs to be considering while it is looking at this is the question of the terms of reference of the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation and Financial Services and the issues that it is going to examine. We had an extraordinary situation earlier this year when Senator Allison moved a motion to re-establish the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation with terms of reference which would examine the adequacy of the superannuation guarantee and the present complex superannuation taxation arrangements. That motion was waved around the superannuation industry as evidence of the Democrats' commitment to superannuation, and the government and the opposition were challenged to support it. In fact, Labor did support it and we proposed a couple of extra terms of reference for the committee. Those extra terms of reference could reasonably be described as the tail of the dog. What in fact has happened, now that this motion has come back, is that the tail is still there but the dog has disappeared.The government never did like Senator Allison's proposal to examine the taxation treatment of superannuation, for example, which would further expose, amongst other things, just what a disaster their superannuation surcharge has been. What is extraordinary is that Senator Allison has meekly acquiesced to the government by gutting her original terms of reference. Labor moved for the Senate superannuation committee to have terms of reference much like those that Senator Allison had originally proposed. (Extension of time granted) Extraordinarily, she and the other Democrat senators voted against the motion, which was in essence her original motion. Frankly you have to ask yourself just how much further up the government the Democrats can get.The defeat of Labor's amendment in the Senate reveals quite starkly the fact that both the Liberal Party and the Democrats have no genuine interest in promoting superannuation and planning for decent retirement incomes for the millions of Australians presently in the work force. I am most concerned that the Senate superannuation committee does not have the sorts of terms of reference that Senator Allison originally proposed for it. The terms of reference originally proposed in Senator Allison's proposition were:(2) The committee inquire into and report on:(a) the adequacy of the tax system and related policy to address the retirement income and health care needs of Australians into the new millennium;(b) strategies for building more effective national retirement income and long-term savings outcomes;(c) reforms that could be implemented following the completion of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge phase-in to 9 per cent.(d) the taxation of superannuation, particularly the Superannuation High Income Earners Tax Surcharge legislation and alternative payment mechanism . . . All those terms of references (a), (b), (c) and (d) have effectively disappeared, and the Democrats themselves and the government have rejected our attempt to reinsert those sorts of terms of reference. We are most disappointed at this. We feel this does not augur well for the Senate committee's work on superannuation. We hope the government rethinks this issue in the same way it has been prepared to rethink the legislation before the House in relation to the structure of do-it-yourself superannuation.10:15:0010348Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I rise to comment on the acceptance of the amendments moved by the Australian Labor Party which make the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 fairer and better for small business and better for superannuation. These amendments stop discrimination against same sex couples, as one of the objectives was to raise that aspect of the legislation. The amendments will allow do-it-yourself funds to be set up with same sex partners as trustees of the fund, whereas the original legislation that the government brought before the House would have specifically excluded same sex couples. The government went out of its way to entrench discrimination in the original bill. I also participated in that debate.I am pleased the government has chosen to accept all of the Labor Party's amendments to this bill. It is unfortunate that Senator Kemp, the minister in the Senate, put on record his reason for accepting these amendments. He stated:We still prefer the approach the government took but the government recognises we do not have the numbers.So it has nothing to do with principle, equity, fairness or improving superannuation funds. It is that the Australian Labor Party, with the support of the minor parties in the Senate for our amendments, had a majority on the floor of the Senate. When I spoke to the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999 on Monday of this week, I indicated that, if the government failed to take up the opportunity to support my private member's bill on the Superannuation (Entitlements of same sex couples) Bill 1998 —which has been before the House for almost two years—I would be moving an amendment to a future SLA bill to ensure that discrimination was removed.The fact that the government has accepted, however reluctantly, do-it-yourself funds for this legislation shows that, at the end of the day, it accepts that change is inevitable. It accepts, with regard to superannuation, that the current discriminatory provisions are unacceptable to those people who have same sex partners, to the superannuation industry and to bodies such as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission which, under Commissioner Chris Sidoti, handed down a report—tabled in this parliament—that showed it was contradictory to a number of conventions of the United Nations and also of the International Labour Organisation.So the government has been dragged kicking and screaming towards a bit of reform and a bit of recognition for what is appropriate at the end of this century. I am pleased with this breakthrough and I congratulate the shadow minister, the member for Wills, and also Senator Conroy for pursuing fairness and equity on these issues. The shadow Treasurer attended the launch of a petition by the Body Shop about removing this discrimination. The theme of that campaign was `Same sex; same rights'. The shadow Treasurer in lending his support to that campaign also showed the substantial support there is from the private sector for equality on this issue.I am pleased the government has accepted these amendments. I am pleased that reform is occurring and that discrimination is being removed. However, I remain dismayed that the government cannot even show a bit of goodwill by saying, `These are good amendments.' Instead, it resorts to saying, `It is just because we did not have the numbers.' That shows exactly what this unfair, uncaring, discriminating government is all about.10:20:0010348Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—The honourable member for Wills traversed a wide area, well removed from the substance of the amendments currently before the chamber, and no doubt there are more appropriate fora to address the matters he has raised. I place on record that the government is strongly supportive of the principle of superannuation. The fundamental goal of the government, in introducing this bill, is to ensure that the regulation of small superannuation funds reflects the needs of members of such funds as well as the government's retirement income goals. The honourable member for Grayndler constantly speaks in the House in relation to same sex partners. For his approach to be adopted, there would have to be a whole of government approach and, again, what he was saying does not directly apply to many of the provisions of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 before the chamber. I commend the Senate amendments to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills10349r87910349Debate resumed from 22 September, on motion by Dr Kemp:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr Martyn Evans 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:(1) notes that the quality of Australian education institutions is of prime importance to our future, both economically and culturally; and(2) condemns the Government for damaging the quality of Australian education by: (a) punitive cuts to universities; (b) a lack of commitment to equity issues; and (c) mismanagement of the education export industry."10:22:0010349Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—In the time allocated to me to speak on the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill 1999 I will cover two basic points: firstly, the research infrastructure funding and, secondly, the issue of the phasing out of the Higher Education Equity Merit Scholarship Scheme. The issue of research and development funding is causing some concern in Western Sydney. The federal government's research infrastructure program has two major components, and I quote from the Bills Digest No. 39 1999-2000:. the Research Infrastructure Block Grants Scheme which allocates grants to publicly-funded univer sities on the basis of their performance in obtaining competitively awarded research funding; and. the Research Infrastructure Equipment and Facilities Scheme which supports large-scale initiatives, usually involving two or more institutions.The Commonwealth also supports research infrastructure through the research quantum, which is an element of the operating grants received by the institutions. The research quantum is allocated to universities on the basis of their research performance. This is measured by the complex index that encompasses their input, which is the success in attracting research grants from government and industry, and their output, which is the number of publications and research degrees completed.The University of Western Sydney has written to Western Sydney MPs expressing concern about the impact of the Commonwealth green paper on research, new knowledge and new opportunities. UWS is of the view that the implementation of the green paper in its present form would do enormous damage to the university's research effort. According to the University of Western Sydney, the green paper would cripple their research and training program by reducing the number of highly qualified postgraduate students, supported directly by the Commonwealth or via the university, from 1,000 to a bare 280.The UWS correspondence states that the green paper would make it close to impossible for talented researchers from Western Sydney and beyond to study for a research degree between Strathfield and the Blue Mountains. To emphasise the apprehension that the University of Western Sydney has about the green paper, I quote from its correspondence:The green paper's dramatic impact on the university's research effort will also do immense damage to economic growth in greater Western Sydney. In just ten years since its foundation, UWS has built a $10 million per annum research program.The university wins this income by successfully competing against universities with far greater resources built up over generations. It is a great achievement that places UWS in the top rank of young universities around Australia and generates real economic and employment gains for the people of our region.For example, the BHP materials testing laboratories are planning to relocate from Melbourne to UWS, which will make greater Western Sydney a world leader in new building technologies.Despite this and many similar achievements the green paper specifically punishes UWS by cutting our operating grant and research funding. On current information, UWS will suffer an on-going loss of $2.3 million.This is a one per cent cut on existing funding and by 2005 could reduce our government income by $11 million.The UWS correspondence concludes by stating that the green paper transfers resources from young universities to older institutions that have had decades to build up their resources. The correspondence says:It is an attack on the new in defence of the old.I now call on the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs to ensure that the recommendations of the green paper are not introduced to the detriment of education research and employment opportunities in Western Sydney.There are some other education issues that need to be mentioned. For example, a recent study of 120,000 students who had started an undergraduate degree in 1992 indicated that 40 per cent had not completed their degree after five years, and one-third had dropped out completely. The study showed that the group most likely to drop out, in many cases, are older or disadvantaged students and students with lower university entrance marks. These people would have incurred a debt under HECS for their uncompleted studies. This is placing an unfair burden on these disadvantaged students. In the interest of fairness and equity, a case could be made out for the Commonwealth to pick up the tab for disadvantaged students who have originally met all the entrance requirements but are not able to complete their degree.While the number of students from disadvantaged groups have increased in real terms, their relative representation has declined in recent years. The proportion of students from rural, isolated and low socioeconomic status backgrounds declined between 1991 and 1997. These groups, as well as indigenous Australians, remain underrepresented in higher education.In June of this year, when speaking on the budget matters in this House, I referred to the phasing out of the Higher Education Equity Merit Scholarship Scheme. In this speech I said:Another decision contained in this budget that will hit low income people in Western Sydney is the withdrawal of funding for the Merit and Equity Scholarship Scheme. This scheme was set up surprisingly enough by this government in 1996 and it was a good scheme. It provided exemption from HECS fees for financially disadvantaged students who were desirous of continuing their education which may have been interrupted by illness or lack of finance. There were some 146 students studying under this scholarship at the University of Western Sydney, which is the second highest number in Australia. The equity category under which students could apply for this scholarship were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, lower socioeconomic status, language other than English, women in non-trade studies, rural and isolated, and disability. In 1997 there were 63 applicants for this scholarship at the University of Western Sydney, in 1998 there were 120 and this year there were 85.I referred then to the fact that this decision underlines the continuing underrepresentation of various equity groups in higher education. I know that many people were impressed by the table in the Bills Digest on this issue, but I believe many were also depressed by what the table brought to the surface and the groups that would be disadvantaged.I pointed out in June that decisions such as those I have referred to, while saving $39 million over the next four years, would in fact close the door to hundreds of low income earners, stopping them from pursuing a university degree. Over the many years since the early 1970s, Australians have known that rank and circumstance have absolutely no effect on the ability of talented young people to obtain university degrees. Prior to 1973, young people were excluded from university simply because their parents could not afford to meet the costs of higher education thus denying them the opportunity to achieve the advantages that a degree might bring to them.When the Australian government finally recognised that education must be available to all citizens irrespective of financial or social status, we began a great adventure. In the space of just four short but very painful years, the government has turned that expectation on its ear. This government's education policies are designed to ensure that education is, once again, the province only of the children of wealthy and socially successful parents. As a representative of the fastest growing area in Australia, in Western Sydney, I lodge the most strenuous protest about these policies, as they are going to have a very bad effect on the opportunities for many young people in my electorate and in other electorates in Western Sydney.10:31:0010351Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—The Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill 1999 sets out the maximum amount for operating and other grants to higher education institutions. It varies the amounts already legislated under the Higher Education Funding Act 1988 for 1999 and 2000 and it inserts an amount for 2001. It also sets the maximum funding level for expenditure on the international marketing and promotion of Australian education and training services by Australian Education International for the 2001 funding year. The bill amends the Higher Education Funding Act to make provision for the funding of 60 medical places at James Cook University for 2001 and it provides funding for science lectureships of $14.7 million.That is not the part of the act that I want to specifically address in my comments today. First of all, I want to speak a little more generally about funding trends in relation to higher education and, secondly, and most particularly, about the Higher Education Equity Merit Scholarship Scheme, which is being defunded under this legislation. To start with, I think it is important to recognise that the Australian Bureau of Statistics, when it released its Expenditure on education report on 17 September this year, noted that, in this government's first two years, total Commonwealth expenditure on education decreased by more than $500 million—from 1.99 per cent of GDP in 1995-96 to 1.9 per cent of GDP in 1997-98. University funding specifically has fallen by a massive 12.7 per cent—from 0.94 per cent of GDP in 1995-96 to 0.82 per cent of GDP in 1997-98.When we look at those funding cuts, I think dollar figures are perhaps the most striking illustration. In the first Howard budget $840 million was taken out of university operating grants. The HECS burden for university students was increased by $1.1 billion. TAFE funding was cut by $167 million, $128 million was ripped out of public schools and student assistance was cut by half a billion dollars. Universities are finding that they have to shift the costs of education to students via the Higher Education Contribution Scheme and up-front fees because of the government's neglect of the tertiary education sector.In 2001 the real level of Commonwealth contributions to operating grants will be about the same as it was in 1983—yes, in 1983, more than 15 years ago—although student loads will have increased by 57 per cent. Universities are being expected to do a lot more with a lot less. That means much larger class sizes than are manageable, it means run-down libraries and it means academics with workloads they find very difficult to manage. The Commonwealth contribution to operating grants per equivalent full-time student unit will have declined by 37 per cent between 1983 and 2001. Commonwealth grants will drop below 50 per cent of university revenue in the current triennium. This is similar to the proportion that existed before the Commonwealth assumed responsibility for the funding of tertiary education in 1974. There has been a real decline in per student funding, resulting in emerging issues such as declining teaching standards, lower progression rates, postgraduate courses being little more than undergraduate courses with a fee, a reduction in the maintenance of infrastructure and equity and access issues.Turning to equity and access issues, I do not think we can ignore what is happening now to the Higher Education Equity Merit Scholarship Scheme. This scheme was introduced by this government; indeed, I am able to quote from a media release on 9 August 1996 by Senator Vanstone, the minister at the time, in which she announced the establish ment of these HECS-exempt scholarships targeted at disadvantaged students. She said:These measures are aimed at bringing higher education within the reach of ordinary Australians. They are a practical demonstration of the Government's real commitment to fairness and equity in higher education.This practical demonstration of commitment certainly has not lasted very long. In 1997, 1,000 scholarships were offered, and this was to build to a pool of 4,000 by 1999. So it has barely begun to operate before being disbanded. I think, as the former minister said, it certainly is an illustration of this government's level of commitment to equity and access in higher education to be disbanding this scheme just as it is really beginning. The types of students who have been accessing these scholarships include indigenous students, women in non-traditional areas of study, people with disabilities, people from non-English speaking backgrounds, students from rural and isolated areas and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Of course, these are groups that must have better access to public education, particularly higher education, and they are dramatically underrepresented in the figures at the moment.While the absolute number of students from these equity groups may have increased in the last few years because of the growth during the 1990s in the number of people participating in higher education, the proportion of students from these backgrounds has actually fallen, and it is this proportion that is significant for us to have a look at. For example, looking at the 1997 figures we see that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders—who make up 1.7 per cent of our population—account for only 1.3 per cent of our student population. Looking at the number of students from rural backgrounds, isolated backgrounds and low socioeconomic income backgrounds we see that the numbers have fallen since 1991 from 18.5 per cent to 17.4 per cent for students from a rural background, from 1.9 per cent to 1.8 per cent for students from isolated backgrounds and from 15 per cent to 14½ per cent for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Minister Kemp said in his second reading speech that this scheme:. . . had little impact on encouraging people who would not otherwise have enrolled to attend university.I think that is a little unfair, given that 3,000 students received benefits of up to $5,682 per annum from this scheme and that the phasing out of this scheme actually reduces the money allocated to equity access in universities by $7.8 million in the year 2000 and by $10.4 million in the year 2001. Those thousands of people who have attended university who otherwise would not have would certainly disagree with the minister in saying that it has had little real effect.Turning to issues of quality, it is important to note that the government has encouraged universities to offer a lower standard of teaching by encouraging them to overenrol students in order to receive the funding necessary for them to survive. The government pays an extra $2½ thousand for each undergraduate above the number allocated to each institution. Dr Kemp said in his second reading speech:This makes it economic for universities to utilise any extra capacity they have. On early estimates for 1999 there are 36,000 undergraduate places that will be funded on this basis.That actually means that 36,000 students are taking up places that have not been adequately funded, using university lecturers who are already overburdened and libraries that are poorly maintained and cramming into buildings that are stretching at the seams.Funding arrangements have not always been expressed in the most transparent manner. In late August the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee was forced to access freedom of information laws to see a series of academic and consultant papers prepared for the minister relevant to university funding. All of the reports were commissioned by the Research Evaluation Committee, which includes members from DETYA and the Australian Research Council. In the past, the reports from the Research Evaluation Committee were published as a matter of course to help foster debate and ideas.When Dr Kemp became the minister he ordered that they not be released without his approval. The majority—a total of six major reports—have not been released, and this was reported in the Financial Review in August this year. The most important report was by David Phillips about university infrastructure requirements. The Phillips report surveyed universities about the best way to disburse infrastructure funding. Its recommendations were withheld from the freedom of information release, but it is understood—from leaks from the department reported in the Financial Review—that the recommendation strongly opposed abolishing the block grant scheme. Yet for the years 2000 and 2001 the research infrastructure block grant total is zero. It totalled $98.3 million in 1998 and $85.3 million in 1999.It is a sad state of affairs when we see a minister bent on destroying the capacity of universities regardless of the information that is coming to him from the universities and from the people who are commissioned to report on these matters. The reports were commissioned externally because the department's capacity to undertake this research has been depleted due to funding cuts in recent years. While this bill contains a number of measures that Labor is prepared to support, we must remember that it comes after constant attacks on higher education from this government, years of decline in funding and a university system which has been stretched to its very limits.10:43:0010353Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE83ACapricorniaALP00—I am very pleased to be involved in this debate today on the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill 1999 . This bill implements the measures on higher education announced in this year's budget. I must say that, in researching this speech, I really wished that I had been around to enter into the debate on the budget measures of the last two or three years under this government because that is when serious damage was done to our higher education sector in this country. I am seeing the effects of that in my electorate, and I would have loved to have had the chance to have my say at the time when those very serious cuts were being made. It is not quite as drastic this time around, but there is no hiding from the fact that the government certainly has put higher education in this country into a very serious decline.Education is certainly a priority for the Labor Party. We are greatly committed to the proper funding of our universities to ensure quality of research, quality of teaching and quality of outcome for students. Also, a very important part of our philosophy and our policies are those measures that guarantee students equity of access to higher education. After entering parliament last year, one of the things that struck me while listening to the first speeches of the new members was the consistency of that theme—that education had been a major part of each one's development and that we put a lot of emphasis on that in terms of our own lives and careers and, having come through that experience, that we had each committed ourselves as members of parliament to making sure that those opportunities were available to all Australians, now and into the future.Sadly, the government does not share our passion for education. We have seen that demonstrated over the last few years with $840 million being cut from higher education during that time. It has been manifested in cuts to operating grants for universities, amongst other things, and also in changes to the HECS system and to the assistance that is available to students. Today, I would like to talk about what I have seen in my electorate as a result of those cuts being made to funding to universities. I will speak specifically of the university in my electorate, Central Queensland University, but I will start first by talking about how those cuts have affected the students in my electorate.In that context, I turn to the measure set out in this bill which deals with the abolition of the Higher Education Equity Merit Scholarship Scheme. On a number of occasions during this debate we have been told of the background of that scholarship scheme and the fact that the funding cuts introduced by this government in 1996 came in league with increased HECS charges for individual students—up to $5,682 per year for some courses. Also, there has been a lowering of the threshold for repayment to a mere $21,334. This is a huge burden on students both when they enter education and when they try to meet those debts when they leave the institution.These measures are emerging as a serious disincentive for students who are contemplating tertiary study. I would like to take this opportunity to tell the minister about the types of students who go to Central Queensland University, the types of students who are being affected by these measures. He can then judge for himself whether or not he thinks the merit based equity scholarship scheme was of value to these students. Certainly the people I talk to at the university, the students and the staff, are unanimous in saying that it was very valuable as an incentive—both a symbolic incentive and also a very practical incentive.First of all, in DETYA's own higher education report for the triennium, Central Queensland University is listed as having the highest proportion of students from low socioeconomic groups. I suppose I was not terribly surprised by that. But, even so, 40 per cent is a very high proportion. The counselling service at the university in my electorate conducted a survey of 1,000 students at the university just to confirm the impression it was forming when it was being swamped by students seeking assistance. It found in that survey that 65 per cent of students at the university have an income of less than $125 a week. That signals the lack of assistance available for students under this government and also that their parents are struggling and are not in a position to help them. Another interesting figure to emerge from that survey was that 60 per cent of the full-time students at that university are working at least 12 hours per week just to make ends meet and survive during their studies. Effectively, students are being penalised for studying; they are being penalised for seeking better qualifications, even though the work they are doing at university will ultimately enrich our own nation.The second group of students I would like to talk about are rural students. Clearly, Central Queensland University is a very significant regional university and, as such, has a high proportion of rural students. That group, as shown by DETYA's own figures from December 1998, has declined seriously since 1992. A recent study by the Centre for the Study of Higher Education was reported in a paper entitled `Helping prospective students make informed choices—equity and quality in student decision making'. That study examined the attitudes of students of school-leaving age towards higher education. It found that rural students were more likely to be of the impression that their families could not afford the costs of supporting them at university, that the cost of university fees may stop them attending and that there is no point in their going to university. The study found that rurality and socioeconomic status combine to produce the greatest educational disadvantage.Those results are no surprise, but obviously there is no great compulsion on the part of the minister to try to address the findings of those sorts of studies—studies, I might say, that are backed up by the comments of people in my electorate. It is becoming quite common to hear people say, `We're just an ordinary family; we couldn't possibly afford university.' I think that is very sad.The other group at Central Queensland University is first-time students. Seventy per cent of students at Central Queensland University come from families in which they are the first member to attend university. Central Queensland University is very proud that it provides for those students, very proud of being a regional university that is obviously making a big impact on our region in attracting people to it. It has a First Students Club to help support those students. The important thing about students who are the first members of their families to go to university is that extra incentives are very important. Those families often will be of that low socioeconomic status; also, they often do not regard university as a normal course of development but more as a privileged activity. I believe that the merit based equity scholarship scheme went a long way in trying to overcome some of that and in providing opportunities for students from lower socioeconomic families.Central Queensland University has the largest number of indigenous students of any university in Australia. It does excellent work in incorporating their needs into the curriculum. The culture of the university reflects the input of those indigenous students. The Good Universities Guide recognised Central Queensland University as one of the leaders in indigenous education.Central Queensland University is very proud of its achievements in terms of equity and promoting education to those students in our regional community who might not otherwise consider the opportunity. It also takes very significant steps throughout all areas of the university to promote equity and support students who need extra support because of either slight disadvantage or significant disadvantage in their lives and in their ability to study without being affected by those equity factors. I have a great quote from one of the staff of the university, whom I spoke to yesterday, which was that it regards itself as an enabling university; it sees its role in our region as providing opportunities to people who may find themselves prevented from participating in higher education if it meant that they were forced to leave the region.The merit based equity scholarships were seen by all levels at the university—by the counselling services, the student representatives, the equity unit and the vice-chancellor —as an important part of the university's commitment to equity because the university gave them a chance to offer opportunities to students from those targeted groups. In 1999, 66 students received those scholarships. Each of those students had multiple disadvantages in terms of the target sectors. There was huge demand for those scholarships. How the minister can stand there and say that the scholarships were no big deal, people were not interested in them anyway and did not see them as important, is beyond me. At Central Queensland University we had six applicants for every merit based equity scholarship. The demand was huge. Everyone I spoke to at the university saw the scholarships as a significant part of what was offered at the university in terms of equity.I have spoken about the impact on individuals. The impact on our region is also very serious. In Tuesday's Courier-Mail, I was sad to see an article which listed Rockhampton and the surrounding area as a vulnerable part of Queensland in terms of our future economic outlook. The Central Queensland University is a very important part of our future. It allows individuals to see higher education as an opportunity that they can take advantage of. It means that they can improve their qualifications and then use those qualifications to stay in our region and build our future. The university is building fantastic partnerships with our local industries and businesses to play a leadership role in our community. I am very disappointed that the minister has, so far in his handling of this portfolio, failed to make a serious commitment to equity in education and recognise the important role that higher education plays in regional communities.10:57:0010355Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I welcome the opportunity to contribute briefly to this debate on the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill 1999 and set down a few of my concerns about the trends in higher education funding. I represent an electorate with a very strong tertiary education base, with Charles Sturt University and Sydney University, through Orange campus, providing a very wide cross-section of studies ranging from sciences, agriculture, nursing, communications, advanced policing, paramedical and education, to name but a few.Distance education, as one might imagine, also figures strongly in the courses on offer from both these outstanding institutions. But the cracks are appearing under the strain of reduced access to funding. I know the full impact of changes to the HECS system are yet to flow through and enable further expansion of the higher education sector. I supported the changes in the HECS contribution when they were introduced, although I continue to seriously question the classification of some higher HECS courses, such as agricultural science, which has been an important and inhibiting factor on rural education.It is one thing to place more financial burden on the recipients of higher education, it is another to, at the same time, withdraw Commonwealth funding in real terms from the sector. The government is planning to make a statement on broad funding issues later this year and I certainly hope it takes full account of the recommendations of the West report. I would add at least one further one, which would be a scheme enabling those students who just miss out on youth allowance to be able to access low interest loans, backed by the Commonwealth, to enable them to undertake studies.I have seen intelligent and keen young potential students miss out or have to leave university studies because they are simply unable to meet the cost and have parents who are unable or unwilling to meet these expenses. Children from broken homes or family split ups fall into this category when they are honest about family means and income. On the other hand, I have heard of students who arrange their affairs so it appears there are irreconcilable differences between child and parent or step-parent in order to access youth allowance. The system is still open to rort.It is a fact that the Commonwealth funded student load has increased by 82 per cent since 1983. Efficiency gains have seen the operating grant per actual equivalent full-time student unit decrease by 20 per cent. So the institutions have made their efficiency cuts. While the HECS scheme will generate a significant increase in available funds in 2001, the real level of Commonwealth contribution to operating grants will be about the same as in 1983, although planned student load will have increased by 58 per cent.As the Bills Digest so plainly states, `In terms of operating grants per planned equivalent full-time student units, the Commonwealth contribution will have declined by 37 per cent between 1983 and 2001.' The government will obviously say the increased HECS fees for overseas students, postgraduate students and domestic undergraduates have enabled higher education institutions to become much less dependent on Commonwealth grants. But there are some dangerous and worrying trends. I recently received a letter signed by 33 staff members of the School of Teacher Education at Charles Sturt University. It says:We would like to draw your attention to difficulties currently being experienced in the Higher Education sector and specifically within the School of Teacher Education. As you would be aware the current Federal Government has reduced funding to universities by 6% since 1996. During this period there has also been one unfunded 12% salary increase for university staff and we are currently in rounds of enterprise bargaining for additional, and entirely reasonable, salary increases which again will be unfunded.The dramatic decline in funding for tertiary education has meant a decline in the services provided to rural students, a worrying decline in the number of academic staff, increased class sizes and reduced time for research and consultancy.Moreover, if this decline is not speedily halted and reversed, universities will find it increasingly difficult to attract high calibre staff. The school has recently lost two academic positions because of the funding cuts.The current funding crisis has become increasingly problematic for academics, is stress-inducing and is affecting morale. We the undersigned would ask you to be a voice in the parliament for increasing funding to the higher education sector before the system falls into further decline.If Australia is to become the clever country it needs to boost its investment in higher education. This applies especially in the case of teacher training given teachers are agents in the achievement of such worthy national aspirations.Yours sincerely, Staff of the School of Teacher Education.There may be some details in that letter which the minister may want to dispute, but the letter highlights the undeniable fact that the ratio of students to staff has increased an alarming 33 per cent in the past 10 years. Quality will undoubtedly suffer as institutions upgrade courses in the expectation of attracting higher fees. The results will inevitably be an inflation in credentials from both the universities and the TAFE sector as they both struggle for fees, among other things, to maintain staff salaries. If the trend continues, we will have highly credentialled but poorly trained graduates, especially in teaching, not unlike the American free enterprise mainstream university system, with their McDonalds degrees.The other worrying trend, which cannot be explained away by pointing to increased fee revenue and increasing HECS revenue, is the question of equity and access. While the number of students from equity groups has increased in absolute terms, their representation is declining. The proportion of students from rural, isolated and low socioeconomic status backgrounds has declined between 1991 and 1997, while indigenous Australians continue to be greatly under-represented in higher education.The reductions of $18.2 million through the phasing out of the Higher Education Equity Merit Scholarship Scheme is a savage blow to rural and remote students. This is exactly the sort of subsidy, with some modifications perhaps for such students, that we need to avoid that slippage of representation which the figures so starkly show.The government will say it surveyed universities through the department to see how effective the scheme had been. It was an informal survey. I will tell you how informal it was. No notes were taken, no papers were delivered, no statistics were collected; it was just a talk. And while there were concerns expressed about the way the scheme was offered by all sides—the government, the department and the university personnel—as an exemption from HECS, it was made patently clear during that so-called survey that the disadvantaged students needed the money up front.In fact, I understand it was made very clear that the minister would not accept such a scheme. It was stated that higher education is too expensive for the most disadvantaged in our community and—wait for it—that any up-front payments would be an open admission by the government that higher education was and is out of the reach of equity groups. The minister was not prepared to admit that, and so there is no up-front assistance to 17- and 18-year-olds who do not need exemption from HECS but need to feed themselves from week to week, let alone get to university in the first place. That was the reason why the minister was not prepared to accept any sort of up-front process. If that anecdotal information is true, the minister stands condemned for that attitude because this is all about access.I have argued consistently about the need for a low interest loan scheme to enable students from low income groups to access higher education. I have also argued for the reintroduction of a Commonwealth scholarship scheme. There have been some moves in certain areas—medicine and so on—but I am talking about equity scholarships, with bonding if necessary. This is particularly applicable to the teaching profession, which I entered many years ago with the benefit of a teachers college scholarship and a three-year bond.The government is quick to take on board the support of the National Farmers Federation for the business tax review. The Prime Minister has described the NFF support as `praiseworthy and lyrical'. Will the minister use the same words to describe the NFF's assessment of the University of Melbourne's report on higher education opportunities for rural and remote Australians? The NFF says the report `presents an alarming picture of the disadvantages facing country students seeking higher education'. The message is there. What premium do we place on higher education? Do we drive the economic wedge further between the haves and the have nots in education too? Forget the emasculation of social sciences, the arts and classics, and the corporatisation of universities. That is another issue for another day.What I am talking about is equity of opportunity of access to higher education. The decline in opportunity for those of lower means is clearly demonstrated again in this bill and in recent policies of this government. I will be supporting the principle of the opposition's amendment in the second reading stage and look forward to substantial amendments in the area of access to higher education, by way of up-front funds, before this bill becomes law.11:07:0010357Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—I thank members who have taken part in the debate on the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill 1999 . As usual, the debate has been wide ranging—somehow even Badgery's Creek managed to sneak into this debate, but I think I will leave that without taking the matter further. This year alone through this bill the Commonwealth govern ment will provide almost $5.6 billion to Australia's universities to support their teaching, learning and research work. The bill also makes provision for further funding of $5.7 billion in 2000 and $5.8 billion in 2001. This is a huge investment in the future of our young people and of our country.The bill also delivers on the higher education commitments made by the government during the last election and announced in the 1999-2000 budget. The bill provides additional funding to the James Cook University for 60 medical places, which I am sure would be of particular interest to you, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl. This initiative honours an election commitment made in The best of health: a balanced plan for a stronger Australia and supports access to higher education for students from rural and isolated areas. It will have the end result of us having more rural doctors. This is about long-term planning to achieve just that.The first intake of students is expected to start at the beginning of the 2001 academic year. In each year's intake five places will be earmarked for indigenous students and 15 for students from rural and remote areas. Our medical school in Townsville will also have improved health services in the local community as students will undertake their clinical training there.The bill also provides $25 million over the period 2000 to 2002 for science lectureships. The initiative strengthens the important link between university and industry and fulfils a 1998 election promise. Development of graduates with the knowledge and skills to work in the emerging industries and technologies, particularly information technology and biotechnology, is vital for Australia's economic growth. The government anticipates that funding to develop innovative approaches to course design and delivery will enable universities to attract more school leavers into science courses and will help industry meet their education and training needs. The provision of additional funding for research infrastructure honours the government's commitment made at the last election to lift funding for research expenditure.The government will provide an additional $93.3 million over the next three years to support research infrastructure in universities. Australia's higher education research infrastructure base underpins the success of our research performance. The government is investing in building and maintaining stronger links with the national innovation system. The bill supports the continued growth of Australia's education and training export through the provision of $4 million for 2001 for the international marketing and promotion of Australian education and training services by Australian Education International.The government will be moving amendments to this bill. The amendments provide additional funds that will ensure that the holders of Australian postgraduate awards and Australian postgraduate awards (industry) are not disadvantaged by the impact of tax reform on prices. The increases to these awards are part of the government's commitment to ensuring that people on income support and related payments are more than compensated for the effect of the GST on prices. I commend this bill to the House.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.10358Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.11:12:0010358Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—by leave—I move:(1) Schedule 1, before item 1, page 3 (line 4), insert:1A Subsection 4(1) Table A Item dealing with James Cook University of North Queensland, omit "of North Queensland".(2) Schedule 1, before item 1, page 3 (line 4), insert:1B Subsection 4(1) Table A After the item dealing with University Southern Queensland, insert: "University of the Sunshine Coast" These amendments, while on the face of it not matters of great substance, do assist individual universities, namely the James Cook University of North Queensland and the University of the Sunshine Coast, in ensuring that they are able to participate directly in the higher education process—in the case of the University of the Sunshine Coast by receiving funding directly from the Commonwealth. Since this is a university newly established by the Queensland parliament, it unfortunately has not been able to receive its funding directly because of the gap in the legislative process caused by the government's VSU bill being stalled in the Senate. The amendment regarding the James Cook University goes to a small alteration to its name which is necessary for procedural reasons. I seek the support of the House.11:13:0010359Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—The government does not oppose these amendments.Amendments agreed to.11:14:0010359Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—by leave—I move:(1) Clause 2, page 1 (lines 7 to 9), omit the clause, substitute:2 Commencement (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Act commences on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent. (2) Item 8 is taken to have commenced immediately after the commencement of item 31 of Schedule 1 to the Higher Education Legislation Amendment Act 1996 .(2) Clause 3, page 1 (line 11), omit "Each Act", substitute "Subject to section 2, each Act".(3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 21), omit "$462,754,000", substitute "$464,731,000".(4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 22), omit "$468,964,000", substitute "$471,436,000".(5) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 2), at the end of the Schedule, add:8 Subsection 106Q(7) Omit "1981 ", substitute "1986 ". I present the signed explanatory memorandum.11:14:0010359Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—The opposition is prepared to lend its support to these amendments, but I invite the minister to comment in relation to the scholarships, apart from those which come under her amendments. There are, of course, scholarships offered by the universities, the NHMRC, other federal departments and agencies and state governments. These scholarships are also deserving of increases and perhaps the government can indicate how it has proposed that funding should flow to these scholarship holders so that they can enjoy the same benefits, and indeed not suffer from the impact of the GST at a later time.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.10359Bill (on motion by Ms Worth)—by leave—read a third time.Bills10359r87510359Debate resumed from 30 June, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.11:16:0010359Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill (No. 2) 1999 represents the third stage of the Wallis reforms. It is largely supported by the opposition subject to two substantial exceptions. Before I discuss those substantial exceptions, I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, this House condemns the Government for:(1) watering down the provisions which would enable the Treasurer to fully restore workers' superannuation entitlements which are lost through theft or fraud; and(2) its continued failure to protect the accrued employee entitlements of working Australians". I indicated that we have two substantial problems with this bill. The first relates to the government's attempts to water down the provisions which restore employee superannuation entitlements if they are lost in the event of theft or fraud. The second relates to the proposed provisions giving the Reserve Bank the power to exempt a corporation from complying with an information provision standard it makes under the Financial Corporations Act 1974. Indeed, Labor will be moving an amendment to make the exemption a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.The opposition will be moving amendments to this bill to address both of these issues, and our second reading amendment highlights this government's continued failure to adequately protect employee entitlements. Indeed, in this case the government's attack on the protection of employee entitlements is something we have seen time and time again, and this is another example. There is an old adage that you should not judge a book by its cover. In the case of the bill before us, this is an especially apt cliche. The short title itself appears to be innocuous enough—that is to say, the Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill (No. 2) 1999—but what the long title reveals is an attempt by the government to yet again try and sneak provisions through the parliament which undermine the legitimate and hard-fought rights of working Australian men and women.Those on the other side of the House are probably not even aware of what it is that their own government is seeking to do. If they were aware, I suspect they would be rather concerned. I want to spell this out to the House for their benefit and for the benefit of millions of Australian workers and voters. The long title of this bill is:A Bill for an Act to amend laws, and to deal with transitional matters, in connection with the reform of the financial sector, and for other purposes.Again, on its own that sounds fairly innocent but it is the `other purposes' part of this bill which contains a sinister, sneaky, watering down of the rights of eight million Australians to have their accrued retirement nest eggs protected by legislation.Schedule 9 of this bill contains amendments to the superannuation legislation relating to financial assistance to super funds. In particular, it contains reforms to the Superannuation (Financial Assistance Funding) Levy Act 1993. Not many people will be familiar with this act as I understand that it has never been called upon. That is a good thing. It is a good thing because it shows that the prudential system of regulation that Labor put in place to ensure that superannuation savings would be safeguarded—held in trust in a secure environment, with employees and employers having a say in how they are invested—is working, and working well.The Superannuation (Financial Assistance Funding) Levy Act 1993 was established by Labor to ensure that if a super fund containing the retirement nest egg of working Australians ever suffered a loss resulting from theft or fraud of the fund, then the Treasurer would have the power to apply a small levy to other funds to restore the moneys lost to the fund. This power is considered by Labor to be an important part of the protection of employee entitlements. So, if employees lose their superannuation moneys through no fault of their own, they are entitled to know that the government will step in and assist them to recover that money in full if the need arises.The powers given to the Treasurer to levy the other super funds were deliberately broad to allow for the greatest opportunity for government assistance. The laws also place a collective responsibility on all super funds to ensure that the incidence, or even the suspicion of theft and fraud, is kept to a minimum. It is about Australians looking after each other, pulling together to make sure that our superannuation moneys are safe and sound. If the occasion arises, where moneys are lost through theft or fraud, it is about all of us making a tiny contribution to restore those superannuation funds that are lost. That principle has been an important feature of our world-class superannuation and retirement income system and it shows Australians for the compassionate people that we are. However, it does seem that not all Australians think this way—and perhaps this includes the Treasurer.I have mentioned that Labor introduced the Superannuation (Financial Assistance Funding) Levy Act to allow the Treasurer to impose levies on superannuation funds and approved deposit funds for the purpose of funding financial assistance to such funds that have suffered loss as a result of fraudulent conduct or theft. The financial systems inquiry, or Wallis inquiry, apparently examined the provisions relating to the restitution of superannuation funds lost through theft and fraud. It concluded that a problem of what something economists call `moral hazard' existed. The moral hazard argument goes something like this: because members of superannuation funds have this levy arrangement to fall back on if their money is stolen, they will not appropriately keep an eye on their superannuation investments to ensure that they are not lost through theft or fraud. The Wallis committee accepted the moral hazard argument and recommended that the total restitution available to members of a superannuation fund which has suffered loss as a result of theft or fraud should be capped. They recommended that it should be capped at 80 per cent. Let me name the financial sector inquiry members: Stan Wallis, the former managing director of Amcor Ltd, now the deputy chairman—and former president—of the Business Council of Australia; Bill Beerworth, a solicitor and merchant banker and a principal partner of the corporate and financial advisory firm, Beerworth and Partners; Professor Jeffrey Carmichael, formerly a professor of finance at Bond University, now chairman of the Australian Financial Institutions Commission and chief manager of the Market Group of the Reserve Bank; Professor Ian Harper, who is director of the Ian Potter Centre for International Finance at the Melbourne Business School at the University of Melbourne; and Linda Nicholls, company director and adviser to Coopers and Lybrand, who has held senior banking and funds management positions in Australia, New Zealand and the USA. All these eminent, well-educated, well-remunerated people recommended that if a fund falls over as a result of theft and fraud—which is likely to be in no way whatsoever connected with the fund members—the fund members should only be able to get back a maximum $8 out of every $10 that they lose. For those opposite who might like to refer to the Wallis report, that is recommendation No. 55.I think that, on the issue of moral hazard, the Wallis committee failed to understand a number of important aspects. First, superannuation sits uniquely amongst financial products in the market, in that employers are encouraged through financial incentives to pay it on behalf of their employees. The extent of that financial encouragement is so strong as to amount to compulsion. That element of superannuation has essentially created the financial services industry in Australia. Indeed, without superannuation I suspect that the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation would not have a job because there would not be much in the way of financial services to regulate. The fact that superannuation is unique amongst all other savings vehicles means that it needs special arrangements to ensure that it is safe. It is different from the situation of the voluntary contributions. That is what Labor recognised when we established the levy arrangement, but it is something that the Wallis committee apparently did not understand.Secondly, the moral hazard issue is minimised by ensuring that the trustees of superannuation funds, the people most likely to be aware of any suspicion of theft or fraud, are able and obligated to report such incidents to the prudential regulator. Fund trustees and administrators get together all the time at conferences and the like. I have had the opportunity to experience this first-hand. They get together frequently and they are much more likely than fund members to hear anything in the way of reports or rumours concerning shonky or unsavoury practices. They are the people who are likely to hear about these things. It is incumbent on them—and we need to maintain that incumbency on them—to make appropriate people aware of any potential problems. There is an incentive for trustees to do this—that is, to avoid their fund being levied by the Treasurer to replace stolen funds—and trustees should consider that obligation to be a part of their fiduciary obligation to fund members.The third point I want to make about the moral hazard argument is that we ought to be aware of the very cursory nature of the Wallis committee's examination of this issue. The report refers to this issue on page 359, and this is pretty much the extent of their consideration of it:To minimise the moral hazard risk of such a scheme, it would be advisable to limit restitution to that necessary to restore the investors' funds to, say, 80 per cent of their value.The language is unbelievably casual. There is no supporting argument about why 80 per cent is the optimum figure for limiting moral hazard, even if you do accept the moral hazard argument. It is as if the Wallis committee members simply plucked a number out of the air and decided to give it weight by including it in the report. That sort of cursory treatment should have appeared obvious to the government when it responded to the Wallis report. One would think that a compassionate government would have nothing to do with a recommendation which suggested watering down the restitution of something which is owned entirely by employees. But not the Howard-Costello government; not the `reform at all costs' Treasurer. The Wallis recommendation was accepted with relish.We have read something this morning about the leadership credentials of the Treasurer and his view that he has only another budget or two left in him and then he would like to move on to something else—and it is pretty obvious what the something else is. But, if we are going to talk about leadership credentials, they have got to include compassion. Whether the issue is the GST or superannuation co-contributions or nursing homes or employee entitlements—which is the issue here—then the Treasurer needs to show leadership credentials which include compassion.In the additional documentation tabled by the Treasurer in association with his statement to the House of Representatives in September 1997 in response to the Wallis report, the government accepted the recommendation to limit restitution to 80 per cent of the entitlement of beneficiaries. There was no discussion by the government about how the 80 per cent figure was arrived at, no discussion about how employees would receive only $8 out of every $10 lost and, importantly, no discussion of the capacity of existing legislation to meet the Wallis report's main aim.The existing legislation does not restrict the Treasurer from applying some sort of cap on the amount that is returned to beneficiaries who lose their funds through theft and fraud. The only two constraints are that the levy should not exceed 0.05 per cent of the total assets at the end of the preceding financial year and that the Commonwealth cannot recoup more than is owing to the beneficiaries. They are the only two constraints. Despite accepting the recommendation of the Wallis inquiry, the government has not legislated for this change. This may be in part due to pressure created by public statements that we on this side of the House have been making indicating our dislike of this proposal.The bill does, however, attempt to limit the restitution provisions in two ways. The first is by restricting restitution to funds which have only suffered loss at the hands of `persons directly or indirectly responsible for their administration'. The current provisions do not apply that limit. The second is by requiring the Treasurer to seek and consider the advice of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, APRA, before making a decision to levy super funds to pay for restitution. This could be interpreted as giving effect to the 80 per cent cap, because APRA's advice may have to consider the systemic impact of providing full restitution to a super fund which has fallen over as a result of theft or fraud and APRA may advise that a cap on the restitution be applied. So this could be the vehicle for implementing that 80 per cent recommendation. In the current context, protecting employee entitlements, the provisions in this bill seeking to limit restitution to fund members are not only poorly timed by the government but also unfair and unjust. Labor is opposing them.The bill also contains provisions which restrict the restitution powers from being applied to self-managed or DIY funds. It can be argued that, with the passage of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 , which I dealt with in this place this morning, all members of these funds are required to become trustees and they should be best able to protect their interests in the fund from theft and fraud. Labor will support this proposal. Where a fund is a defined benefit fund and their loss is suffered through theft and fraud, it becomes an eligible loss only where the employer sponsor of the fund is required to pay the fund but cannot pay the fund and remain solvent. The bill does make some attempt to limit the systemic risk to the superannuation system arising from the moral hazard problem. However, the restitution provisions have yet to be used and Labor will oppose any attempt to water down employee entitlements restoration.I said at the outset that there was a second issue here, and that is that we have proposed provisions which give the Reserve Bank the power to exempt a corporation from complying with an information provision standard it makes under the Financial Corporations Act 1974. Labor will be moving an amendment to make the exemption a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 in order to increase parliamentary scrutiny of the exercise of the Reserve Bank's powers. This is an important step in improving the openness and information available to the parliament. I have to say that the issue of accountability and transparency is no mere issue at the margin. Saturday's election result in Victoria I think demonstrated that. We have even more concern in the light of the shameless document shredding taking place in the bowels of Spring Street by the perhaps outgoing Kennett government.I have covered the two key components of the bill which from the opposition's perspective are controversial and concerning which we cannot agree with the government. The bill does include a range of other matters with which we do agree with the government, and I will briefly outline them. The bill is the third stage in the government's implementation of the Wallis reforms to the financial sector. Labor has been largely supportive of these reforms, with some significant exceptions such as, for example, the four pillars policy.The other amendments in this bill are intended to further refine the financial system. They are largely of an administrative and technical nature. For example, the bill will extend until 30 June 2000 the deadline for the qualification for tax relief for foreign authorised deposit taking institutions transferring assets and liabilities between branches, their subsidiaries and money market corporations. It will allow the electronic lodgment of information by superannuation funds, in accordance with the government's wider objective of establishing a business entry point. It will permit the Reserve Bank to delegate certain information collection functions to the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and the Australian Bureau of Statistics. It will exempt APRA from paying sales tax on the goods it purchases. It will amend the secrecy provisions of the APRA Act. It will reduce compliance costs on business, increase flexibility and remove unused provisions of the Financial Corporations Act 1974. It will also provide a mechanism, in response to concerns raised by industry, to ensure adequate disclosure to members prior to an ADI effecting a demutualisation.Labor is supportive of those measures, as we have been in the case of many of the other sensible Wallis reforms. We will not, however, be party to legislation which weakens the provisions allowing the government to step in and help people who, through no fault of their own, could lose their retirement nest egg through theft and fraud without the protection of the government.I note in conclusion that this issue of loss of legitimate employee entitlements has been a major issue over the past two or three years, with some substantial companies becoming bankrupt. We have seen the examples of Cobar, Woodlawn and others, with workers missing out on their legitimate accrued entitlements. One of those major issues of distress has been the loss of accrued superannuation entitlements. We want to see this problem resolved and we are actively working on solutions to this problem. We would certainly not want to see the scope for loss of employee entitlements extended through weakening of the protections against loss through theft or fraud. That is why we have taken the position that we have on a couple of the provisions of the legislation before the House. That is why I have moved the second reading amendment that I have and why we will pursue some of these matters in the consideration in detail stage.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Is the amendment seconded?WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.11:37:0010364Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—I have chosen to make some remarks on the Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill (No. 2) 1999 because I think, in looking at the Wallis inquiry, that its purpose is to prepare Australia better to become one of the regional financial centres in the Asia-Pacific area. There are some interesting ramifications of that or perhaps necessary preconditions which, although not covered directly in this bill, are an essential part of achieving that policy outcome.The bill deals with various transitional type measures such as sales tax exemption for purchases made by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and the demutualisation of authorised deposit taking institutions, to bear in mind their members' interests. Another measure deals with foreign authorised deposit taking institutions and their need to obtain a banking authority. But, as I said, the legislation all goes to the government's aim of fostering Sydney in particular as a regional financial centre.I would like to pose a couple of questions along the way. For a start, how realistic is that as a policy aim? I think it is a realistic one, provided that certain steps in addition to what is in the Wallis report are taken. You can then ask what more has to be done to achieve this outcome and you can indeed ask if Australia is ready for this. Do we really want to be competitive enough to attract such large flows of capital into investment and broking institutions in Sydney that we would be genuinely regarded as a regional financial capital?In asking those questions, I think of last weekend's result in the Victorian state election and I think back to what happened federally with the One Nation Party before that. It has to be said that there are some grave portents in rural and regional Australia which, in an indirect but nevertheless important way, bear on the whole question of whether or not we can get these further reforms up to make Australia competitive enough to attract that sort of capital.This country was very broadly settled, perhaps more broadly so than any other part of the earth in human history. We came here as an immigrant people, spread out to an enormous degree and settled many small and medium sized country towns, villages and crossroads—and they are all still out there today. In doing so, many people staked their livelihood on agriculture and also on regional manufacturing enterprises. Sad to say, many of these are dying very quickly as sources of employment for people who remain in those parts of Australia. The electorate boundaries remain, and when it comes time for people to vote, quite naturally, their fears about what they see happening right in front of them translate into votes for Independent candidates in many cases and sometimes, it has to be said, for ludicrous candidates, some of whom were elected in the Queensland state election not so long ago.So in many senses the further reforms that have to take place, especially in taxation, are often held back by the demands for funds, subsidies and so forth that people rightfully feel ought to be delivered to them to maintain their lifestyles in these parts of Australia. This is not a peculiarly Australian phenomenon at all; it happens in many parts of the world.If you take a basic view of the economics of many our regional centres, you should look at the real prices of some of our commodities. Let us take beef. In the period from 1970 till now the real price of beef has followed a downward course. It has fallen nearly 60 per cent in that time. Likewise, sugar has fallen slightly more—61 or 62 per cent in real terms in 1998 dollars. Interestingly enough, grain prices are relatively the same and also, strangely enough, wool prices are not so different in real terms from what they were back in 1970-71. It is really the competition from other fibres that has caused such difficulty there.But to become a properly said `large regional financial centre' we have to go further than the measures that were announced this week as part of the business tax reform package. They were wonderful measures—very big steps made along the way towards this goal—but I believe that we have to find a way of reducing our top rate of income tax to around 30 per cent or perhaps even slightly less. We also need a capital gains tax perhaps set at around 10 per cent, not simply at half of the current marginal tax rate—although that, as I say, is a very big step. Furthermore, we need a special immigration category for information technology skilled people.Radical tax reform, such as I suppose you would describe these measures, can also serve to rejuvenate some of Australia's regional centres by the devolving of certain types of IT work via networks or intranets, whether they be call centres, which are really at the very low end of the food chain in information technology, through to slightly higher more value added tasks such as the clerical processing of financial transactions or even more higher value added work such as the design and making of graphics, database administration or even programming skills. These things can be devolved to people living in regional Australia.Two weekends ago, whilst visiting some properties for sale along the South Coast of New South Wales, I saw a blueberry farm in some disrepair. When I went to the house to greet the man who was selling the blueberry farm, and to inspect the property, I found that he was a computer programmer. There in this little shack were a number of stand-alone workstations, with not just HTML on the screen but other kinds of programming languages. It was quite clear that he was performing that sort of work. He was so busy with his computer programming that he had neglected his blueberry farm and it was in a terrible mess. In fact, he was selling the property simply because he felt it was useless to try to maintain a blueberry farm while he could make a much higher income from his work as a computer programmer.But, to use an agricultural metaphor, you have to till the earth before the plants will grow. There will have to be some, to use a hackneyed phrase, proactive measures taken to assist the devolving of these kinds of IT tasks to people who desire to live in wonderful parts of rural and regional Australia. For example, the government might think of intervening to locate extra computer processing capacity—what you would call the super computer, the sort of thing you can see at the Australian Technology Park in Redfern in Sydney—at a regional university and therefore give people who require that level of processing, to produce very high quality graphics, the opportunity to use that extra processing capacity to produce material very quickly. That is one such measure. To make life slightly easier for such people, to attract them to migrate not simply to Australia but out of our cities and to these places to establish their enterprises, you would have to do a little more about the transport links. There must of course be some reason to do that: you cannot go down the road of subsidising to too great a degree the cost of travel between regional parts of Australia and our cities.In all of this, I talk a lot about both the investment sector and the information technology sector. As time passes, my guess is that that they will largely converge. Whilst the Wallis reforms are essential in building, if you like, a regulatory infrastructure to make it easier and more reliable to conduct such enterprises, you have to make available to these companies sufficient numbers of people who are skilled in things like database administration or construction and programming. The two keys to growth in a financial sector are information—the quality and access to it—and marginal rates of returns on capital invested. The less the regulatory burden, the better the marginal rate of return.By making available large numbers of IT skilled people, you enable Australian financial enterprises—whether they are fund managers, brokers, insurance companies or other types of enterprises—to do more. For example, how would you go about optimising returns in the global sector in banking, transport, computer hardware or some sort of manufacturing? How would you compare the rates of return on individual listed companies in the many different equity markets in the world today? You can do it, but you need an enormous amount of IT resources. But, if you can do it, you can provide an edge for your clients and hence you are slightly more attractive for people choosing where to place their money to be invested.As time passes, we will see a convergence between the taxation burdens, liabilities, that enterprises in our financial sector must bear and the availability of information technology in the form of people. Hence, our immigration policy must look ahead to how we attract larger numbers of people from countries in this region—people with surnames that the average Australian cabinet minister, frankly, could not pronounce. That is the kind of gold we should be mining out there. In trying to bring all of these things together, one must of course deal finally with our parliament. Measures pass through this House with debate, amendments are moved and the government accepts suggestions that are constructive.It is said that all roads lead to Rome but in this town it seems that often all roads lead to the Senate. We have to acknowledge that we do not have a majority there and that, from time to time, we have some difficulty dealing with the parties there—the Democrats, who hold the balance of power, of course, and the ALP. We need to focus them less on the notion of envy and more on the notion of what Australia has to do to compete with its peer nations not simply now but 10 and 20 years down the track. As I said, it is not simply a question of dealing with, one by one, discrete areas of policy, such as taxation or financial regulation, but it is more how we tie together the different elements that these enterprises in Australia will need in order to compete.These different elements include immigration, taxation, financial regulation and even, if you draw the bow a little further, transport and regional development. If reforms to the tax system—which we must persevere with to try to achieve later on—strike shoals or reefs of resentment in the electorate, people feeling neglected and voting against established parties or policies out of sheer frustration, we will not be able to achieve that convergence of policy. Hence, we will not be able to achieve our outcome of fostering Australia, particularly Sydney, as one of the Asia-Pacific's larger financial centres. One could talk in much more detail about these things, but perhaps it is better they are talked about less and actually done. I conclude my remarks there and pass the baton to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation to give the government's view.11:52:0010366Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—It gives me pleasure to sum up this Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill (No. 2) 1999 . I thank the member for Wentworth for his erudite comments. The member for Wentworth has a deep understanding of the financial services industry, having practised in that area previously. He made a very important contribution in the debate, as did a number of other members.This bill puts in place a regime that will help support the recommendations of the Wallis report. It is a further step forward in the process of regulatory reform that was initiated as a response to the financial system inquiry, known as the Wallis inquiry. The Wallis report has had a material impact on the performance of the financial services industry in Australia. It has been used as a blueprint for the reform of the financial services industry in London, which is perhaps the most important financial services jurisdiction in the world.The Wallis report basically states that we should have one or two regulators of financial products and services as opposed to financial entities. Australia decided to go with a twin peaks approach of having, on the one hand, a prudential regulator, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, and, on the other hand, a corporate regulator, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission. The United Kingdom went with a single peak regulator, the Financial Services Authority, headed by Mr Howard Davis. This has made the FSA an extremely powerful body in London. As my colleague the member for Wentworth knows, London is where most of the international transactions in global financial services occur. London is the biggest foreign exchange market in the world. It is in many ways the access point of the capital markets of the United States to Europe.London's new regulator, the FSA, is a private company. I find this intriguing. The Australian regulators, ASIC and APRA, are government owned regulators; they are statutory authorities. London has decided to go with a single regulator—a private sector company, limited by guarantee, that has its own private sector board. This private body, which regulates the entire financial services and corporate system in the United Kingdom, in many ways acts independently of the government.The power of the new FSA was exemplified recently when it fined a financial institution in the city of London in excess of £100 million. The FSA still had not had its empowering legislation passed through the parliament, yet it fined a private sector company for improper activity and the private sector company paid the fine even though it had no legal obligation to do so. That says to me that this authority in London is very powerful, and not only is it a powerful authority in Europe but it is, in global financial terms, an extremely powerful entity.In many ways I am very glad that, under the Wallis recommendations, the Treasurer and the government in their wisdom decided to have a twin peaks policy. We will have a prudential regulator, APRA, which has responsibility for supervising at the moment in excess of 200,000 superannuation funds, including of course the do-it-yourself funds, and for supervising the banks, insurance companies, building societies, credit unions and some friendly societies. These were the second half of the Wallis reforms, which we passed through the parliament quite recently.So what the bill does, and what we are going to consider in the consideration in detail stage, is further tighten the Wallis reform initiatives which were announced and passed by the parliament quite recently. They include the further empowerment of APRA to exempt it from paying sales tax on the goods that it purchases—that is self-evident; you could not do that, of course, if it were a private sector company, following the line of the United Kingdom—and amendments to the Banking Act, the Financial Corporations Act, the transfer of assets and liabilities under the Financial Corporations Act, the financial laws amendment act, the Life Insurance Act, the Reserve Bank Act and, importantly, the superannuation legislation relating to financial assistance to funds, and further amendments to the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act. I appreciate the comments made in this debate by the member for Wentworth and by the shadow Assistant Treasurer. The bill takes us a further step forward in reform of the financial services industry in Australia. I commend the bill to the House. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Kelvin Thomson's amendment) stand part of the question12:05:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Hon. I.R. Causley)71Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr K. J. AndrewsMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BarresiMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr CadmanMr CameronMr CostelloMr DownerMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Mrs GallusMs GambaroMrs GashMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HawkerMr HockeyMrs HullMr JullMr KatterMrs D. M. KellyDr KempMr LawlerMr LiebermanMr LindsayMr LloydMr McArthur*Mr I. E. MacfarlaneMr McGauranMrs MayMr MooreMrs MoylanMr NairnMr NehlDr NelsonMr NevilleMr NugentMr PyneMr ReithMr RonaldsonMr RuddockMr St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperMr SomlyayDr SouthcottDr StoneMrs SullivanMr C. P. ThompsonMr A. P. ThomsonMr TrussMr TuckeyMr M. A. J. VaileMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherDr WooldridgeMs Worth59Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr BevisMr BreretonMr CoxMr CreanMrs CrosioMr DanbyMr EdwardsMs EllisDr EmersonMr M. J. EvansMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMs KernotMr KerrDr LawrenceMs LivermoreMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McLeayMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MossfieldMr MurphyMs O'ByrneMr O'ConnorMr O'KeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*Mr SciaccaMr Sercombe*Mr SidebottomMr SmithMr SwanMr TannerMr K. J. ThomsonMr WiltonMr ZahraMr HowardMr BeazleyMr ProsserMs BurkeMr HardgraveMr G. EvansMr BroughMr Wilkie* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10368Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.12:09:0010368Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—by leave—I move:(1) Schedule 3, item 9, page 10 (after line 6), after subsection 12(3) insert: "(4) An instrument granting an exemption or varying or revoking an exemption is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 .".(2) Schedule 9, item 5, page 20 (lines 20 to 22), omit the item.(3) Schedule 9, item 9, page 21 (lines 33 to 34), omit ", by a person directly or indirectly responsible for the administration of the fund".(4) Schedule 9, item 9, page 22 (lines 3 to 4), omit "by a person directly or indirectly responsible for the administration of the fund,".(5) Schedule 9, Item 12, page 22 after line 26, insert "(3) The Minister's written request to APRA made under 230A(1) for advice in relation to the application for assistance must be tabled in the Parliament after the Minister has made a written determination under 231(1)".These amendments to the Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill (No. 2) 1999 are designed to address two specific issues. The first amendment is to make the Reserve Bank's exemption of a corporation from complying with an information provision standard it makes under the Financial Corporations Act a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretations Act. Under the current law, the Reserve Bank can exempt a corporation from complying with a request to provide it with information. Labor's amendment will make the exemption a disallowable instrument in accordance with the Acts Interpretation Act. That is an important step in improving openness in information available to the parliament. I made reference earlier this morning to the Victorian secret state. These issues of transparency and accountability are important ones and we intend to pursue them here.The remainder of Labor's amendments go to the critical issue of protection of employee entitlements. I outlined in my speech in the second reading debate the matter of this government's attempt to put a cap on the restitution that fund members who lose their retirement nest egg through theft or fraud are entitled to. What we effectively have here is a situation where the government is watering down the provisions which restore employee superannuation entitlements if they are lost in the event of theft or fraud. This is a direct attack on the protection of employee entitlements. The government's own explanatory memorandum states as much on page 18 where it says in relation to item 5:The amendment clarifies and limits the object of the financial assistance provisions in Part 23 of the SI(S) Act.Part 23 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act deals with financial assistance to certain funds. In particular it deals with the circumstances in which the Treasurer can levy other super funds for the purposes of restoring the moneys which are lost to fund members as a result of theft or fraud of their fund. That part of the SI(S) Act gives the Treasurer some quite wide-ranging powers when it comes to restoring the retirement nest eggs of Australian workers if they are lost through theft and fraud which is no fault of their own.But the government wants to water them down and they are caught out by their own explanatory memorandum which states that they are limiting the circumstances under which a person is eligible for financial assistance. Section 227 of part 23 of the SI(S) Act states:The object of this Part is to make provision for the grant of financial assistance for certain superannuation entities that have suffered loss as a result of fraudulent conduct or theft.That is how Labor worded the legislation. We made it clear and ambiguous in its intent. The government want to insert words into the object of the part which will limit the opportunity for Australian workers to get their money back, and I quote:The object of this Part is to make provision for the grant of financial assistance for certain superannuation entities that have suffered loss as a result of fraudulent conduct or theft by persons directly or indirectly responsible for their administration.The insertion of the words `by persons directly or indirectly responsible for their administration' will severely restrict the availability of restitution for funds which suffer a loss through theft and fraud.There are the cases of Nick Leeson, the Barings Bank bandit, and Robert Maxwell, the pension fund pirate in the UK. If they attempted a similar raid on super funds in Australia, the issue would arise as to restitution of the retirement nest eggs lost through theft and fraud in those cases. The reason why this issue arises is that it is unlikely that a Barings Bank bandit or a pension fund pirate will ever be directly or indirectly responsible for the administration of the fund. The bill's explanatory memorandum gives us an indication of the type of person that the government has in mind. They will be the trustee of the fund, an investment manager or custodian, directors, employees or officers of corporate entities who undertake administration functions of funds.But what about a trustee of another fund who is not related to the fund from which they have stolen moneys? What about a non-related custodian or administrator who knows how the system works and thinks that there might be money to be made by defrauding super funds? If these types of persons commit a fraud against or steal from a super fund the beneficiaries of those funds will not be permitted to apply to the government for restitution of their funds. This is an attack on the rights and entitlements of Australian working men and women, and Labor will not support it. Our amendment is designed to maintain the existing laws, which will not limit the opportunity for fund members to apply for restitution.The government also attempts to apply the same limits with its new definition of `eligible loss'. Labor will be seeking the support of the House for our amendments which remove these limits while still maintaining the core of the definition. We support the bill in relation to the application of the act to defined benefit funds operated by an employer sponsor. It is my understanding that the government has restricted the restitution available to employer sponsored funds to situations where the fund cannot replace its lost funds without going bankrupt. Where an employer sponsored fund can replace its lost funds while still being able to operate as a business, it should be required to do so, and this will not result in beneficiaries missing out on the moneys.On the issue of proposed new section 230A of the bill, which requires the minister to seek the advice of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, I have to say that I find it pretty unusual for the Treasurer to be forced to do something, particularly this Treasurer. (Extension of time granted) We have often had arguments with the government about it using the word `may' rather than `must' in legislation, so we are looking closely at the use of the word `must' on this occasion. I suppose the answer lies in the remainder of the amendment which states that, `while the Treasurer must write to the APRA seeking advice on an application for financial restitution, the written application may specify particular matters that the APRA is to provide advice about'. So the government did manage to sneak a `may' in there anyway.The key issue with this proposed new clause is that the Treasurer can write to the APRA and ask it to provide specific advice in relation to an application. This means that the Treasurer can specifically ask the APRA to consider whether the restitution should be limited in some way—for example, by applying an 80 per cent cap on the restitution. I have already mentioned in my speech on the second reading debate that the government accepted the Wallis inquiry's recommendation to limit restitution to 80 per cent, but it has not specifically legislated for it. However, the opposition is concerned that the government may be trying to apply the 80 per cent cap through the backdoor by asking the APRA to advise it on whether there should be a cap. APRA's advice may have to consider the systemic impact of providing full restitution to a super fund which has fallen over as a result of theft or fraud; indeed, APRA may advise that a cap on the restitution be applied.To address this, our amendments require the Treasurer to table in the parliament his written request for advice from the APRA after he has made a determination on the restitution available to the fund. We are not asking him or her to table the APRA advice received but, more importantly, his or her request for advice. This is an issue which requires the utmost transparency possible, openness and accountability: it relates to the retirement nest eggs of thousands of Australians. Given that the Treasurer constantly alleges a belief in honest and open government, we would expect the government's support for this amendment. Labor's amendments are designed to ensure that there is no watering down of the rights of Australian workers when it comes to restoring their retirement nest eggs, if—and we hope this is something that never occurs—they are lost through theft or fraud.12:18:0010370Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—We will not accept these amendments because we only received them five minutes ago. We will consider them and perhaps accept some of them in another place. But, at this stage, we cannot accept amendments that we have not had a chance to look at.Amendments negatived.12:19:0010370Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:(1) Schedule 2, page 7 (after line 8), after item 1, insert:1A After paragraph 63(5)(a)Insert:(aa) ASIC, a member of ASIC or a staff member (as defined in subsection 5(1) of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 1989 ); orThis amendment seeks to clarify the application of this bill to the referred powers to ASIC. It is in many ways self-explanatory. We are particularly focusing only on issues relating to a demutualisation of an ADI being affected. I understand that the opposition will be moving an amendment to this government amendment. In order to clarify the true policy intent, which both the opposition and we agree on, I am prepared to accept its amendment to my amendment.12:20:0010371Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—As the minister has foreshadowed, I move:That the item be amended by inserting after "1989""only in the case of a demutualisation of an ADI".Speaking briefly to that amendment: the government has indicated in its supplementary explanatory memorandum that it wishes the Treasurer to be able to delegate his authority, under section 63 of the Banking Act, to ASIC in relation to demutualisations. However, the amendment allows delegation of all of the Treasurer's power under section 63, including consent to bank mergers. That is clearly broader than the intention expressed in the supplementary explanatory memorandum.Labor's amendment seeks to expressly confine the ability of the Treasurer to delegate his power to ASIC only in relation to demutualisations. From the statements made by the minister, I understand that he and Labor have no policy difference in relation to this issue whatsoever. Let me express in advance, or in the expectation of his agreement with our amendment, our appreciation of the fact that he is prepared to do this.Amendment (Mr Kelvin Thomson's) agreed to.Amendment, as amended, agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.10371Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills10371r868Billsr876Billsr881Billsr882Billsr889BillsBillsBillsBills10371Debate resumed from 30 June on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.12:23:0010371Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—Labor will not be opposing the package of bills under consideration. However, we will be moving a second reading amendment setting out Labor's concerns about the levy process—that is, if the second reading amendment arrives in time; things have been moving fairly quickly here.The reason these bills are before the House today is principally due to government incompetence. On the one hand, we have the Treasurer saying that he is in the middle of one of the biggest tax reform processes Australia has ever seen and, on the other hand, we find the department cannot get right what we would regard as pretty simple matters. I have to say that this is somewhat typical of this government. You get plenty of froth and bubble on the surface but a lot of problems in terms of following through with the detail. What we have seen is a procedural error which casts into doubt the validity of the imposition of levies on industries in the financial sector.I will detail the history of this matter. The measures for the collection of supervisory levies are contained in the Financial Institutions Supervisory Levies Collection Act 1998. Under section 50(2) of the APRA Act, for each financial year, the Treasurer must determine from the levy money received during the year the amount that is necessary to cover the costs to the Commonwealth of providing market integrity and consumer protection functions for prudentially regulated institutions. This amount is retained in the consolidated revenue fund until allocated to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Australian Taxation Office, which perform these functions. The balance of the levy money, after taking out the amount for consumer protection functions for prudentially regulated institutions, is to be paid to APRA under section 50(1) of the APRA Act. The total levy receivable for the financial year 1998-99 was estimated at $40 million, and $70 million is estimated in 1999-2000.On 11 August last year, the Treasurer made determinations that imposed a levy on certain industries in the financial sector with a general public announcement through the Commonwealth Gazette of 13 August. However, the government failed to meet the requirement of subsection 48(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 because the determinations were to take effect from 1 July 1998, which was earlier than the public announcement of 13 August 1998. These determinations were therefore made invalid by the Acts Interpretation Act. To correct its own error, the government has been forced to introduce the bills being debated in the House now to override the retrospectivity provisions of the Acts Interpretation Act and validate the determinations on the imposition of levies.There are a range of levies imposed. For general insurance companies, the levies raised range from $5,000 to $55,000. For authorised non-operating holding companies, the amount of levy payable is $10,000. For life insurance companies, the levy ranges from $5,000 to $148,000. In addition, retirement savings account providers face a levy of between $5,000 and $8,500. Superannuation entities pay between $200 and $39,000.There is general industry acceptance of the need to contribute to the running costs of APRA, ASIC and the tax office. But, displaying its usual flair, the government has even managed to shake this support. We have had industry groups expressing serious concern at the levels at which the levies have been imposed. The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, ASFA, for example, considered the levy amounts to be unfair and inequitable and more than is necessary to cover the costs of efficient regulators. As a consequence of the strong representations from the financial sector, the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation announced on 3 August this year a review of these supervisory levies. A report on the review is expected in early October 1999.Labor will certainly not be opposing the bills before the House. We do, however, condemn the government for the incompetence displayed in its handling of this issue.Mr Hockey interjecting—UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—It is not a difficult issue, Minister. Heaven help us when we need to implement the more difficult GST and the business tax reforms that emerge from the Ralph review. As foreshadowed, I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for:(1) its sloppy administration in relation to the setting of the levy limits;(2) the lack of transparency displayed in the determination of the levy; and(3) its failure to adequately consult with industry participants".Mr Hockey interjecting—UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—I was to close at this point, but the minister scoffed. I do need to bring him back to the point that the government's handling of the issue of regulatory levies has been less than satisfactory. Quite a number of industry funds and other bodies have expressed concerns about the way in which levies have been imposed with a lack of consultation. They have certainly not delivered on the government's suggestions throughout the Wallis reform process that this would lead to lower costs of regulation and, by implication, lower levies.As I pointed out to the House, it is quite clear that, in announcing in August that the minister would have a review of the levies, he is responding to industry pressure and clearly there are signs that the government has not handled this issue as well as it might. We will be very interested in the review of the levies. We also wait to see the Wallis process flowing through in terms of lower regulatory levies. That is something that the industry has been led to expect would come out of this process. It will be very interesting indeed to see whether this occurs in due course.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Order! Is the amendment seconded?WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.12:30:0010373McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—I am delighted to participate in the debate on the supervisory levy determination validation bills which support the historic recommendations of the Wallis committee report. I am delighted that the opposition are supporting these bills, which are of a technical nature and which support the broad thrust of the outcomes of the Wallis committee's inquiries. I particularly note the remarks of the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, at the table, Mr Hockey, about the activities of the regulatory authority in the City of London and draw the comparison between the Wallis committee recommendations and the government's move to provide a similar regulatory authority here in Australia. In many ways, we lead the world for the way in which these recommendations have been implemented into legislation and provide prudential and regulatory structure for financial services here in Australia.There is a well-known saying that, if you owe the bank $100,000 and you cannot pay it back, you have a problem but, if you owe the bank $100 million and cannot pay it back, the bank has a problem. Financial regulation and prudential requirements are vital in some situations. Sometimes we find that too much money is lent to people who are unable to pay it back. We saw these problems arise in the 1980s when banks and financial institutions were unable to handle their very excessive loans. It is a challenge that this government has responded to, obviously in the hope that in future, when excesses of lending might take place, there will be a structure in place that can handle that situation.This legislation is necessary to implement the findings of the Wallis inquiry whose report was brought down in 1997. The chairman of that committee, Mr Stan Wallis, who is a leading company director, in my view presented a very sensible report, along with his fellow committee members. They undertook a very exhaustive look at financial services in Australia and the way in which we should develop sets of regulations and structures. What came to light were the corporate collapses and the problems of the 1980s, and the ad hoc nature of the prudential regulations that existed at that time. I would like to quote the key findings in chapter 8 of the report, headed `Financial safety'. The first one states:The intensity of prudential regulation should be proportional to the degree of market failure which it addresses, but it should not involve a government guarantee of any part of the financial system.While that is a fairly wordy recommendation, it quite clearly says that the government has a role to provide prudential protection but it does not undertake to guarantee banks or other financial institutions in the event of their collapse. The second key finding states:The framework for the provision of prudential regulation should be designed to ensure that its objectives are clear, that it deals efficiently with the development of financial conglomerates and the blurring of product and institutional boundaries and that it promotes competition by minimising unnecessary or artificial regulatory distinctions between different entities.Again, that very strong recommendation is suggesting that in the changing times, where we have different financial products and different areas of responsibilities, that we should have one regulator to move across the boundaries and provide a prudential cover for all those financial services. The third key finding states:Prudential regulation can have adverse effects on efficiency, competition and innovation and there is scope to adjust existing regulation to reduce these effects, particularly through more flexible rules for the ownership and corporate structure of licensed entities.What that is saying is that we should try to remove the red tape as much as we can to ensure that markets in Australia work efficiently and compete with the markets of Tokyo, London and New York.As the minister at the table would recall, the states had a high level of involvement, leading to duplication of functions and incon sistency in approach and unnecessary expense. We have a federal government which is prepared to make the necessary changes on these regulations that were state by state based. That will ensure that Australia does become a competitive nation in this area of financial services. The report states on page 642:Over 800 staff are now involved in financial regulation in Australia, resulting in direct and compliance costs which appear to be high by international standards.Again, the minister at the table would be aware of this and that we are trying to make these areas of control efficient and effective. There were failures of institutions, most notably in my case the Pyramid Building Society in Geelong. The member for Corio would be fully aware of the impact of that failure on the Geelong community, under a Labor government in Victoria, where people lost their life savings. The Pyramid Building Society had lent in overheated market conditions and, under state regulations, there was a failure of the financial system and the political process to protect consumers.The human cost of the Pyramid failure was enormous in western Victoria and in Victoria generally. I spoke to people who, in one week, lost their total life savings. I spoke to people who were in a state of shock for three or four days and unable to speak or comprehend the magnitude of loss. In one particular case I am aware of, over one weekend a retired farmer deposited the whole proceeds of his farm—that may have been a foolish thing to do—and found, when it was clearly understood that Pyramid had collapsed, that he had lost his life savings. That is the human outcome of a lack of prudential regulation. You could have an argument about the role of the building society and the role of the Victorian Labor government but, to be fair, there was a grey area of what was required and the Pyramid directors argued that they had acted within the regulations at the time.So we see in that example how important it is to move forward with the recommendations of the Wallis report, to put them into federal legislation and make sure they work. The key recommendation was that we had a single regulator for this area. One of the reasons was to increase consumer protection—the investors in the Pyramid Group would have been very pleased if this legislation had been in place—for the same financial products and services so consumers and users could feel more confident that their products were being protected, whether insurance, banking or housing societies. Whilst we have a more financially deregulated system, we need to make sure that these prudential and regulatory arrangements are in place. I quote from the Wallis report, page 644:A by-product of deregulation was the increased availability of debt in the second half of the 1980s. In conditions of intense competition and growth in some asset prices, many banks dropped their lending standards which led subsequently to significant write-offs in the early 1990s.Minister Hockey at the table and all of us would be aware of the amazing write-offs by big banks—Westpac and others. They wrote off massive debts because they had overdone it in a heated lending environment. They found that their loan book had been incautiously driven, and billions of dollars were written off. It is the hope of the government that this new set of prudential regulations will caution both the big lenders and the smaller lenders to look after their customers and their shareholders. The Wallis report went on to say, in the same vein:This was an experience common to many countries, and prudential regulators around the word reacted by first standardising and thereafter steadily increasing, capital adequacy and other prudential requirementsSo we have this interesting debate of whether you regulate in a tight manner or whether you open the arrangements up to a more sensible regulatory structure—as is the case here in Australia—run by the Commonwealth, not the states, ensuring that the prudential requirements meet market forces and yet protect the main players.The key argument in these bills is that the regulators should only collect from institutions the amounts that are needed to regulate those institutions. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission is to receive $6.6 million to run their activities, the Australian Taxation Office is to receive $2.35 million, and the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority is to receive $31.5 million. That covers credit unions, friendly societies and building societies. All those generally state controlled groups now come under the control of APRA.So APRA will now collect these moneys from various industries, as was the case in the previous set of arrangements. The regulatory functions of the Reserve Bank will be abolished. The Reserve Bank's former functions were financed by interest forgone on non-callable deposits held by the bank, so there was an unusual method of arranging for the payment of that regulatory function. Non-banks will be judged consistently on their own performance, APRA will have an independent board and charter, and the disclosure requirements of the institution are to be undertaken by the Securities and Investments Commission.We have a set of very sensible arrangements emerging from the Wallis committee of inquiry. Australia, and individual investors, can move forward with confidence within the constraints of prudential requirements. Both sides of this parliament should make it clear that the government and regulatory authorities can never legislate against bad debts. I think the minister at the table would agree with that. All we can do is set in place arrangements that will encourage people to act in a sensible, careful way when handling other people's money and competing in the money market.In the case of these bills, as the opposition have drawn our attention to, there must be a separate bill for each supervisory levy in each sector of the financial services industry. Just for the record, the levies are to be imposed through the following acts: the Authorised Deposit-taking Institutions Supervisory Imposition Act 1998, the Authorised Non-operating Holding Companies Supervisory Levy Imposition Act 1998, the General Insurance Supervisory Levy Imposition Act 1998, the Life Insurance Supervisory Levy Imposition Act, the Retirement Savings Account Providers Supervisory Levy Act 1998 and the Superannuation Supervisory Levy Imposition Act 1998. Under section 52 of the APRA Act, the aspect of the levies that will be spent on protecting market integrity and consumer protection will go into consolidated revenue. This may well be given to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Australian Taxation Office for their supervisory function. The balance of moneys collected by the Commonwealth will go to APRA. So we have a set of arrangements that ensures that these supervisory functions can be paid for. Similar to what the minister at the table was saying, there is an interesting example in the City of London, where a private company provides supervision for that very important financial centre. That is something the government might give some thought to at a later date. But certainly this set of arrangements is visionary and sets Australia up to be in the forefront of prudential and regulatory arrangements.An authorised deposit taking institution is a body corporate authorised to carry on banking business, such as a bank, a building society or a credit union. Again, these definitions are fairly important. The levy will be a flat amount and cannot exceed $500,000 per contributor and, in the future, the inflation indexed figure on the $500,000.If these bills are not enacted, then the 1998-99 levy cannot be collected. So it is fairly important. I appreciate that the opposition are supporting these bills to implement these collection levies. These supervisory levy determinations for 1998 were not gazetted until 13 August 1998 even though they were to take effect on 1 July 1998.The opposition have raised the point that the government may not have got this correct. I just draw to their attention, and to the House's attention, that the Howard government has brought about more financial change—and with the Ralph report which was brought down yesterday there will be more financial change—in the area of taxation and regulation than has taken place in the last 50 years. I think it is rather churlish of the opposition to suggest that we have one minor amendment in a major piece of financial and budgetary legislation that this House has had to deal with. Absolutely mammoth changes have taken place over the term of this government. The Ralph report that was brought down yesterday adds to this determination by the government to bring about reform and a more competitive Australia, especially in the taxation and financial area.The passage of this legislation will ensure that the recommendations of that very big and well thought-through Wallis committee will make Australia a centre for finance and stockbroking in this region. It will ensure that it is supported by a prudential, honest and legislatively backed set of arrangements that will give confidence to international investors that they can deal with people and institutions in Australia and know that they are honest and well backed by this prudential requirement. They will know that they can invest in Australia with confidence.12:46:0010376Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—May I take this opportunity to thank the erudite member for Corangamite for his always well-researched and thoughtful speech. I also take this opportunity to note in the House that the member for Corangamite has certainly been one of the most impressive members I have gotten to know in the parliament. He is always very thoughtful about individual issues that are to be dealt with, particularly in relation to financial matters. I not only enjoy our friendship and our thought-provoking discussions but really do appreciate, and have learned from, his never quenchable thirst for more information and for the logic behind individual issues. Perhaps that is why he is one of the leading thinkers in the parliament. I think the people of Corangamite are very well served by his endeavours.As the member for Corangamite pointed out, the Wallis reforms are indeed the blueprint reforms that are now being used in some of the biggest markets in the world as the path-breaking, path-finding process for global financial services and prudential regulation change.It is a little disappointing—and I know that he is better than this—that the member for Wills moves this guffaw as an amendment, talking about administration, transparency and consultations involving the levies. The fundamental point is that financial institutions in Australia have never had a better arrangement for prudential supervision. They no longer have half a billion dollars a year tied up in non-callable deposits. Even in the path-breaking reforms of the United Kingdom, which have adopted the Wallis report as the blueprint, there is still a requirement of financial institutions to keep a certain level of deposits with the FSA or an authorised body. It might be the Bank of England. There is still a requirement that they keep a certain level of capital—I think from memory it is about five per cent—with the government.In our case, we have said to the financial services industry in Australia, `Take back your non-callable deposits and you will pay a maximum per individual operating entity of $1 million for the prudential supervision of APRA and the contribution to ASIC for consumer activities, and also the ATO.' That is a great deal for Australian deposit taking institutions. It is a great deal because on the one hand they have significant benefit from the revocation of non-callable deposits, at some cost to the government, but on the other hand, in the interests of appropriate supervision, it is fair. There is no other major jurisdiction in the world that does not have a similar regime to that of the UK where there is a form of non-callable deposit for a certain amount of assets that need to be lodged with the government.In our case we have said no, prudential supervision is separate to the requirements of lodging capital with the government. Therefore we have a much fairer system and, indeed, one that is certainly working quite well. I do accept the concerns of international banks and some of the building societies and people involved in the transition of the most recent Wallis reforms from 1 July this year that they may be paying an unfair level of levy. In some cases there are entities that are not paying enough and, on the other hand, there are entities that are paying too much.I accept that, and that is why I announced a review of APRA levies some weeks ago. That review is being undertaken with a couple of initiatives in mind. The first one is to put in place a fairer system for the application of levies and the second one is to consider the concerns expressed, particularly by international banks about the level of levy that they are required to pay and, in particular, where, for example, one international financial institution might be operating three different arms. It might have a retail bank, it might have an insurance company and it might have an investment bank. Accordingly, depending on its size, it could be paying $3 million in APRA levies compared with far larger financial institutions such as the four major retail banks which operate as one entity with different operating arms and, therefore, pay only a maximum of $1 million. So that is part of the brief of the review, and we will be making some comments about that in the not too distant future.On that basis, I commend the bill to the House. I reject outright the proposed amendment put forward by the member for Wills. I urge him not to move everything that is put in front of him by his staff or the staff of Senator Conroy. It would be much wiser for him to read amendments before he moves them in this House and consider their ramifications and therefore avoid embarrassing himself and the opposition with what can only be described as `fluff in print'.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10377Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey) read a third time.Bills10377r87610377Consideration resumed from 30 June, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10377Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey) read a third time.Bills10377r88110377Consideration resumed from 30 June, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10377Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey) read a third time.Bills10377r88210377Consideration resumed from 30 June, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10377Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey) read a third time.Bills10377r88910377Consideration resumed from 30 June, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10378Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey) read a third time.Bills10378r67210378Consideration resumed from 22 September.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, page 13 (after line 8), after item 10, insert:10A At the end of subsection 31(1)Add:; and (f) the access to or the use of any premises, by persons with a disability, that the public or a section of the public is entitled or allowed to enter or use (whether for payment or not).(2) Schedule 1, page 20 (after line 4), after item 56, insert:56A Paragraph 31(b)After "any act or practice", insert ", including any systemic practice,".(3) Schedule 1, item 59, page 26 (after line 25), after subsection 46PK(2), insert:(2A) The person presiding at the conference must ensure that the conduct of the conference does not disadvantage either the complainant or the respondent.(4) Schedule 1, item 59, page 27 (after line 7), after subsection (5), insert:(5A) If, in the opinion of the person presiding at the conference, an individual is unable to participate fully in the conference because the individual has a disability, the individual is entitled to nominate another person to assist him or her at the conference.12:57:0010378Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.The passage of the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 by the Senate is an important step in providing human rights complainants with an effective and cost-efficient process for making complaints under antidiscrimination legislation. The amendments moved by the government in the Senate were all designed to better protect the rights of persons protected by the Commonwealth human rights legislation package. The first amendment empowers the Attorney-General to formulate standards under the Disability Discrimination Act in relation to the access to and use of premises by persons with a disability. This amendment will add a new paragraph (f) to subsection 31(1) of the act to empower the Attorney-General to formulate standards with respect to the treatment of persons with a disability in relation to access to or the use of any premises that the public or a section of the public is entitled or allowed to enter or use, whether for payment or not.The second amendment is to paragraph 31(b) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act to make clear that, when the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission inquires into any act or practice that may constitute discrimination, it may inquire into any systemic practice. This will ensure that the commission is sufficiently equipped to inquire into complaints of discrimination in all appropriate cases.The third and fourth amendments both relate to the conduct of compulsory conferences before the commission and are designed to ensure fairness and equity for all parties. The person presiding over a compulsory conference being held as part of the conciliation process for a complaint of unlawful discrimination must ensure that the conduct of the conference does not disadvantage any party—the complainant or the respondent. This will be achieved by amending item 59 of the bill to provide a new subsection (2A) in section 46PK.In addition, the bill now provides an entitlement for a person with a disability who is unable to participate fully in a compulsory conference because of that disability to nominate another person to assist him or her at the conference. This will be achieved by amending item 59 of the bill to provide a new subsection (5A) in section 46PK. As the government noted in the Senate, this bill remedies deficiencies in the current system for dealing with antidiscrimination complaints and ensures that human rights litigants are given fair and equitable access to justice, should they choose to pursue a human rights complaint in the Federal Court. I commend these amendments to the bill to the House.13:00:0010379McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The opposition will not be opposing the adoption of the amendments to the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 , but I would like to make a few comments. Initially, I should expressly note the Attorney-General's good faith in the government's negotiating with the Australian Labor Party some of the Labor Party's suggested amendments and accepting those in the Senate. In particular, I refer to the making of disability standards in relation to access to premises, issues of systemic discrimination, the amending of complaints during the litigation process, the referral of discriminatory awards and determinations to the Remuneration Tribunal and the Defence Force Tribunal, and the court fees that should apply to discrimination cases. We welcome the government's reconsideration of those issues.We are concerned that our suggestions in respect of the applicability of the rules of evidence and representative complaints to the Federal Court were not accepted. The Labor Party also has great concern in respect of the issue of the awarding of costs. The act will provide that costs follow the event—that is, if you commence proceedings in the Federal Court and lose, you will be ordered to pay the successful party's costs. That is going to be a significant disadvantage to anyone commencing proceedings in the Federal Court; they simply will not have the resources to risk that loss. We have to bear in mind that in this area the awards of damages are not usually very large at all, particularly in the area of physical and intellectual disability. Usually, it is a symbolic issue or access issue that is, nonetheless, very important as to how society treats, cares for and assists disabled persons.There will not be a big pool of money at the end of the tunnel to pay legal fees. In circumstances where there is not going to be much money, any litigant would have to balance that against the prospect of paying very substantial costs in the Federal Court proceedings should they lose their case. We also have to bear in mind that it is still the case that there is very little precedent law as to how these cases should be determined. Many of these cases are ploughing new ground, so any litigant in this area does take on a considerable risk. We think there is going to be a significant disincentive for these disability issues to be aired in the courts and, ultimately, for the community, having regard to those court decisions, to take on board the principles. Those points have been made today, for instance, by the National Council on Intellectual Disability and the Australian Psychiatric Disability Coalition. They said this in a media release:The Democrats and the Coalition have ensured that human rights justice only exists for the wealthy. People with disabilities will not be able to risk their meagre possessions in taking an action in the Federal Court. It is now unlikely that any Federal Court decision will be made under the DDA. While ensuring that discrimination and human rights decisions will now be enforceable, people with disabilities will not be able to afford the financial risks in taking their case to the Federal Court.That simply puts the reality of the position. I should say that the government's position on this matter has substantially been one of good faith. They have negotiated their position, explained their logic and received the arguments to the contrary. They have not accepted our suggestions, but we respect their position. We do not respect the position of the Australian Democrats, however. Indeed, the disability groups to which I have referred described their action as `shameful'. It was indeed shameful. The Democrats did not disclose how they intended to vote on this matter and, rather than arguing their case, they simply put forward selective arguments that had been made by the disability community and let the government take a swing at them. They did not present any arguments to back up what they were putting forward or enhance, develop or explain those arguments that had been put by the disability community. Effectively, they selectively quoted from the submissions of disability groups, effectively placing the ball for the government to come in and have a kick. They really let down the disability community. (Time expired)13:05:0010380Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I am aware that some members of the disability community would have preferred a different costs regime to apply in cases before the Federal Court and, of course, we were aware of the Australian Labor Party's position. However, the government remains firmly of the view that the maintenance of the existing Federal Court regime offers the best outcome for people with disabilities—indeed, for all those protected by the human rights and antidiscrimination legislation.I would like to outline again the basis for this view. I noticed the member for Barton read from a news release from a couple of disability groups. The approach taken by those groups is simplistic, and I do not believe they fully understand the ramifications of what they are saying. And we have no criticism of the Democrats whatsoever for taking a different view. As far as we are concerned, they acted in complete good faith in our negotiations with them. I should mention at the outset that we have undertaken that the Attorney-General's Department will review the impact of the cost regime on human rights cases within the next three years, in the light of experience.Under the current system, the court has the discretion to order costs in relation to actions to enforce determinations of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Section 43 of the Federal Court of Australia Act provides that the awarding of costs is at the discretion of the court or judge. This leaves it open for the court to award costs in favour of a party where the circumstances or merits of the case warrant such an approach.Lawyers are, in fact, more likely to take cases on under a costs follow the event regime as such a regime will encourage contingency fee arrangements. As the commission has noted, parties have often been unable to secure legal representation for proceedings in the commission because it is a no costs jurisdiction. The same outcome would result in the Federal Court under the opposition's preferred amendment. The opposition's amendment appeared to be modelled on provisions in the Workplace Relations Act for the award of costs in certain types of proceedings under that act, and provides for costs to be awarded against a party who makes a frivolous or vexatious application. The provisions in the Workplace Relations Act, however, follow from a different costs regime. They make no sense in this context, and the outcome for complainants would be exactly the same as under our proposals. With the usual Federal Court cost regime applying, an applicant who makes a frivolous or vexatious application would pay the costs under a costs follow the event regime because they would lose their case.The wide discretion available for the Federal Court under section 43 of the Federal Court of Australia Act allows the court to take any considerations into account that it considers appropriate in making a costs order. Although there are special rules for workplace relations cases, there is no justification for treating human rights litigants in any manner differently from others. The respondent may well be a small business or an employee who, for example, has been accused of sexual harassment and, therefore, may have no greater resources than an applicant. It is preferable in those circumstances to leave costs issues to the discretion of the court so that these issues may be addressed.A concern has been raised that public interest test cases, particularly where there is a lack of precedent in relation to a particular question of law, might be discouraged by the normal rule that costs follow the event. In relation to this issue, the government would point to the ability of the commission to act as amicus curiae to assist in such cases. In addition to this, people suffering from financial hardship will be entitled to apply to the Attorney-General for financial assistance to run court proceedings in human rights matters.The proposed Federal Magistrates Service will have jurisdiction over human rights complaints which have not been satisfactorily conciliated in the commission. One of the attractions of the magistrates service is that it will keep costs down for litigants. It will utilise streamlined procedures and a less formal judicial culture, which should allow for quicker resolution of cases and will act as a factor to reduce costs. Many litigants in the human rights jurisdiction are expected to be unrepresented, and they will also be helped by the simplified procedures.These factors should help reduce legal costs and result in savings for litigants both in terms of time and money. It is envisaged that most human rights matters will be able to be dealt with in the more informal Federal Magistrates Service environment. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the Law Council of Australia both support the government's position on costs. (Extension of time granted)In addition, this bill envisages a scheme where court costs would be reduced because of the emphasis on informality initiatives to reduce costs, which include that the commission may assist an applicant to prepare his or her court application forms—and the court is developing simplified forms. In addition, HREOC commissioners may appear as amicus curiae with leave of the court.The government has listened and responded to the concerns of the disability community in relation to the fees which apply to matters in the Federal Court. We welcome Labor Party support for that situation. In response to the concerns, the government has reached an agreement with the Australian Democrats to provide that the only fee to apply to human rights cases in the Federal Court will be a flat rate of $50. This will provide a significant up-front saving to human rights complainants.In concluding and in commending the amendments to the bill to the House, I would call on those disability groups which make such vigorous representations to all parties to carefully consider what it is that they seek to achieve because in some cases—and this bill has been an example—what they seek to achieve is not necessarily going to be achieved by what they seek to have the government do.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills10381r91610381Debate resumed from 2 September, on motion by Mr Tuckey:That the bill be now read a second time.13:12:0010381Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading the House condemns:(1) The Prime Minister for attempting to deceive the Australian public by announcing a policy concerning diesel fuel rebate for the timber industry in his media release of 31 May 1999 and then reneging on that policy commitment less than three months later;(2) the Deputy Prime Minister for claiming the House on 28 June 1999 that the cut in the diesel fuel rebate was as a result of the deal with the Democrats when the Government now claims that that decision was a mistake;(3) the Minister for Forestry and Conservation for not protecting the interests of the timber industry and allowing its access to the diesel fuel rebate scheme to be traded off with the Democrats in securing the deal to pass the GST".There is a mystery for the unravelling here. I do not know if we have a great deal in the way of investigative journalism these days, but it is certainly there for anyone who is interested in it, and the likes of Agatha Christie would take a great deal of interest in it indeed. I invite the House to consider the history of this matter and to have a look closely at what has happened. The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 9) 1999 proposes to undo one aspect of the deal done between the Prime Minister and the Democrats to secure passage of the GST, namely, the reduction of the amount of diesel fuel rebate eligible for forestry operations. This will increase the amount of the rebate by 100 per cent for forestry operations.By way of background, the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme returns to certain businesses—such as mining or primary production—all or a proportion of the diesel excise that they pay on diesel fuel used in their business operations. The rebate applies only to these off- road uses, presumably because of the historical link to excise and road funding.The Prime Minister announced in a media release on 31 May this year the following change of policy regarding the GST package, which had proposed to extend the off-road uses of diesel which would qualify under the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme. I quote:Off-road Diesel and Like FuelsThe extension to the off-road concession for diesel and like 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. The proposed full credit for mining currently accessing the DFRS will be maintained.The government then followed up this announcement by introducing the Customs and Excise Amendment (Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme) Bill 1999 which was passed by the Senate on 28 June. This bill specifically limited the amount of rebate to 35/43 of diesel used in forestry—not a full rebate at all. The amount was expressly limited in this legislation to 35/43 . Minister Anderson commenced the second reading speech by stating that the bill:. . . implements changes to the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme agreed with the Australian Democrats as part of the package of environmental measures that will now accompany the introduction of the new tax system on 1 July 2000.Subsequently, the minister at the table, Minister Tuckey, claimed that the legislation was a mistake, and that the government did not intend to reduce the rate of rebate to forestry.Mistake, my foot. It is quite clear from the legislation that was introduced into the Senate in June 1999 that it was the government's intention to limit the rebate to 35/43 diesel used in forestry. A mistake is the sort of thing we were considering earlier in the legislation to do with regulatory levies in superannuation—where the government introduced a regulation and then found that it offended against the Acts Interpretation Act and therefore had to come into the House with a bill. That is a mistake. This is not a mistake; this is something else altogether.The issue to be determined here is: should we support forestry being treated in the same manner as other off-road industrial users of diesel or should the current limitation of 35/43 remain? The case in support of the legislation is that it has the support of the relevant industry organisations such as the National Association of Forestry Industries. This association argues that it merely restores the parity between forestry and other primary industries and that there is no case for their industry to be discriminated against. I think that is a fair argument. This legislation also has the support of relevant unions. Labor has always treated forestry operations like all other forms of primary production for the purposes of the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme. That is to say, it has always been eligible for a 100 per cent rebate, so supporting this bill is consistent with that situation. Opposition to this bill would involve a change to policy on our part.The case against the legislation can be summarised briefly: the environment movement do not support logging in native forests, they certainly do not support any public subsidisation of that activity, and they see the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme for forestry as a subsidy in that context.The other relevant aspect of the legislation that we should consider is the question of whether we facilitate the government's reneging on its public commitments. Opposing the bill would amount to holding the government to its public commitments. As I have indicated, on balance, the argument that there ought to be parity between forestry and other primary industries in relation to the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme is a compelling and reasonable argument, and we are not going to oppose the legislation.I think it is extraordinary that the Democrats have so far sat absolutely mute while the government has reneged on a deal which was an aspect of the agreement with the Democrats to secure the passage of the GST. That strikes us as absolutely extraordinary and, on that basis, there is a case for this legislation to be referred to a Senate legislative committee which could look at the deal making process between the government and the Democrats on the GST. I think there would be considerable public interest in some of the questions being asked.We have to ask ourselves, `Just how weak are the Democrats in their present mode? Where are the Democrats?' They have disappeared completely on these sorts of questions. Their deal with the government on the environmental consequences of the GST generally was appalling. They cooperated with the government in the passage of legislation for the government to be able to devolve some of its national responsibilities to the environment back to the states. Their position on these matters has been entirely unsatisfactory.The financial impact of this proposal has not been disclosed by the government; the explanatory memorandum states that the cost is nil. We think, in fact, that it would cost tens of millions of dollars, and we would be interested to hear any further information the government can provide in relation to this matter. We will not be opposing the second reading. We do, however, think that a substantial fraud has been perpetrated on somebody if the government and the Democrats can say, `We have a deal on the GST, and we have associated elements of the environmental package with it. One of them is the reduction of the diesel fuel rebate for forestry operations.' Now the government comes back into the parliament and says, `No, the diesel fuel rebate for forestry is going to be 100 per cent,' completely contradicting the Customs and Excise Amendment (Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme) Bill 1999, which they introduced and passed in the Senate as recently as 28 June 1999.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Order! Is the amendment seconded?N36EVANSMr Martyn Evans—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.13:22:0010383Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise to support Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 9) 1999 and certainly to support the Minister for Forestry and Conservation in his view that there should be equity in primary industry with the diesel fuel rebate and that it should be passed on to those operating in the forestry industry. The bill aligns the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme so that the rate that applies to the forestry industry is that which applies to the agricultural and fishing industries. I do not believe that anybody could rightly say that you should single out the forestry industry and say, `You should not get it; you are a different part of the primary industry sector that should be discriminated against.' The bill merely seeks to ensure that the forestry industry is no worse off after the introduction of the new tax system. The full rebate will be payable for fuel purchased after 1 July 2000.I have listened to the comments of the shadow minister in the debate, and it is a fairly typical approach of the opposition to want to have two bob each way. They come in and say that on balance they will support it. I wonder whether the minister heard the key phrase that the unions said they are in support of this. As we know, the marching orders for the opposition come from the union movement. If they say it is okay, then ahead they go; if they say it is not okay, then of course they do not support it. So much for a new initiative in deciding their own direction for the country!It is good to see that the opposition will support it overall, although they are going to play their own games by referring it to a Senate inquiry. Over what position—the fact that the government changed its view on this in terms of its arrangements with the Democrats? It is clear that it was an anomaly and that it should never have happened. Surely, we as a government have the right to say, `Well, yes, that may not have been appropriate. Let us consider taking this back to where we were before.' I think that shows commonsense on the part of the minister, who has shown strong support for the forestry industry and for those who work in it.There is an attitude that has developed among some sections of the environmental movement, the Democrats and even some sections of the opposition that seems to suggest that forestry workers are some type of lesser individuals and are not working in the national interest. Of course the reality is quite the reverse. These are the people who provide the timber that is used right throughout Australia in construction, in providing homes for families and in very worthwhile activity. Some 84,000 workers and their families are in the forestry industries. The coalition is committed to assisting those rural workers. It is very difficult to find replacement industries in the rural sector. There is lip-service given by the opposition to assisting people in regional areas in employment, but when the crunch comes there is always some reason why they find it all too hard. A lot of the new growth industries—e-commerce, finance, banking, development and tourism—has taken place in the cities. The growth that has occurred has, in many ways, bypassed sections of regional Australia. Here are real jobs in regional Australia. Here are 84,000 people working in regional Australia, and they should be supported.The industry is important for its export potential. It is performing very significantly by providing export dollars. Members of the Labor Party often stand up and talk about the balance of payments situation. This is an area in which we can assist our balance of payments situation by assisting our forestry industry. It is in the building blocks of the economy, such as the forestry industry, that these decisions are made. If the forestry industry is not assisted, if it is not competitive with timber producers overseas, then contracts will go to those countries. While we need to be very mindful of environmental concerns, we also need to be aware of two key factors in regional areas—some 84,000 jobs and the great earnings that were produced last year, amounting to just on $1.3 billion, with paper board packaging and woodchip areas being the strongest components.However, one of the most important aspects of this legislation is the concern for the environment. A responsible and sustainability focused Australian forestry industry should be supported as far as possible to relieve our demand for less responsibly harvested forest products. The reality is that, if we do not assist our own forest industry, we will be importing more and more from countries which do not have the same regimes and do not protect their forests to the extent that Australia does. In the global forests situation, it makes sense on an environmental basis to assist our own industry, which meets the environmental credentials and guidelines that the minister has been championing. In fact, there is a temptation to act not on a global basis but locally and say to the greens, `We are on your side, we will stop all the axing of our forests.' But we should think on a global basis.It is quite ironic that the bill would be opposed in the Senate by the minor parties as a result of their concern for environmental damage done through the use of fossil fuels. Maintaining forestry industry access to the full diesel fuel rebate is crucial to Australian industry to maintain its competitiveness. It is also important in the sustainability of the industry and the expansion of our forest estate.The regional forest agreement signed between individual states and the Commonwealth of Australia maintains a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system, an internationally competitive timber industry and an ecologically sustainable forest management across the whole of the forest estate, including production areas. The reserve system provides for ensuring the conservation of biological diversity within the system and these criteria include objectives to achieve reservation of 60 per cent of existing old growth forest and 15 per cent of the pre-1750 complete forest biodiversity. The 15 per cent of pre-1750 biodiversity target far exceeds the international level of remaining forest established by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, IUCN, and recognised by international conservation groups. That is, we have set ourselves and achieved a far harder target than that advocated by the green movement for all countries in the world, and of that we should be proud. Other nations are in fact less responsible in the way they go about harvesting the trees in their own area. By comparison, we can be rightly proud of the standards and the safeguards that we have established.The ABARE figures show a $1.963 billion deficit in forest products. We are strengthening prospects for our wood product exports. It is clear that there is much to do before we can do without the $3.258 billion of wood imports. Although our high wood product import level can be explained by a lack of an efficient domestic paper mill industry, Australia imported some $830 million worth of sawn wood last year. That is a situation which is very difficult to support in that we are losing our competitive position, we are importing product into Australia, we are blowing out the balance of payments situation because of this reliance on imported product. Were the forestry industry not to be assisted through the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme, things would be made more difficult—so difficult that there would be more and more product imported into the country.Given the fact that this country is ranked in the top three nations in terms of forest per capita, we should be able to supply our own needs, provide sustainable value added products for export and take some pressure off those forests in the world which are subject to threat. Yet disadvantaging the industry through the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme would certainly not help that situation and we would increase our reliance on foreign grown product. There are some well meaning environmentalists in the country, but I would urge them to think on a global basis. I believe that the Democrats cannot see the forest for the trees on this issue.Through responsible harvesting practices, which has had the support of both sides of the House since 1992, we can manage our timber in a sustainable fashion. Production forestry does not result in the reduction of the forest estate. In fact, the national forest inventory shows that in Australia the area of forest is increasing. We have more forest now than we had a decade ago and we will have more forest in 10 years than we have now, even with a production forestry regime. Responsible forest management includes the retention of wildlife corridors which support tree-dwelling animals. Responsible management also has regard for retention of a diversity of plant life.Australia is on track to achieve our 20/20 vision, a target of lifting annual plantation plantings threefold from 30,000 hectares per annum to 90,000 hectares per annum by the year 2020. Conservative estimates presently put this figure at in excess of 50,000 hectares per annum.So clearly we support these proposals. I support the minister and his efforts in managing this important industry. In conclusion, I just want to say that it is important that we take a global position on this, that we are wanting to assist our own industry to remain competitive. If we do not pass on these concessions, the cost of our product would increase, our ability to compete internationally would be eroded and the attractiveness of imported product would be further increased. This is not in the interests of our own balance of payments situation. It is not in the interests of global environmentalism, given the fact that Australia has a much higher standard of regulatory control and standards than exist in many countries overseas from where the product is drawn.I am pleased to see that the opposition will be supporting this bill, even though they are referring it to inquiry because the government has changed its position. All power to the minister that he has come to this position—one, I am sure, that is welcomed around Australia by the 84,000 people who work in the forest industry, who provide real input in terms of jobs and in terms of economic growth in regional areas which is so needed right across this country.13:35:0010385O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—As has been indicated by the shadow Assistant Treasurer, the opposition will not be opposing the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 9) 1999 , but we have moved a second reading amendment which I think encapsulates some of the important considerations that this House ought to be turning its mind to in considering this bill.The reason why we are considering the bill is the incompetence of the government. That is the simple explanation as to why we are debating this bill in the House today. Since this government came to office we have seen a succession of ministers in its first term having to leave the front bench for a variety of reasons. It has been a government that has not upheld parliamentary standards that are required of Australian governments. But, apart from that, there is another dimension to this government's performance and that is its sheer incompetence in bringing forward its policy proposals and getting them through both Houses of this parliament.I am rather intrigued that the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, who sits at the desk today, in his second reading speech on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 9) 1999 said this: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.`An inadvertent consequence'. Of course, if we go back to the particular agreement that was struck between the government and the Democrats, it states this:The extension to the off-road concession for diesel and like fuels will be limited to providing full credits for marine use, bush nursing homes, aged person's homes and private residents but not for construction, power generation, manufacturing or forestry.There in the agreement that was struck between the government and the Democrats on the ANTS package is the specific exclusion of this industry from the particular concessions that were on offer to other industries.Of course, when the legislation to give effect to what the government intended in this agreement came to this House, the changes to the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme that were contained in the Customs and Excise Amendment (Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme) Act 1999 specifically gave effect to the agreement between the government and the Democrats. Minister, I would hardly call it an `inadvertent consequence' of the passage of the overall package. It is hardly `an inadvertent consequence' when you bring legislation into this House that specifically gives effect to the nefarious agreement that you made with the Australian Democrats which excluded forestry. Now you have to come into this House with your tail between your legs—the great supporter of forestry industries in Australia, the great defender of working people who get a living out of this very important industry—and eat humble pie in the form of this bill to straighten out the incompetence of the government in dealing with this matter.The Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme is very important to the rural sector and to forest industries. It was a scheme that we supported when we were in government. It is a scheme that over time has had many problems. Part of the problem with the scheme has been over time its burgeoning cost and the complexity of its administration. These are two particular aspects that have bedevilled this scheme since it was introduced. In 13 years of government, Labor, mindful of the budgetary impact of the scheme, made significant amendments to it to make sure that in an administrative sense the capacity to rort it was reduced and that in a fiscal sense we were responsible in retaining it.When this government came to power and it put before the Australian people the GST proposals that it said we would never have, a central part of the pitch to rural and regional Australia and, indeed, to the forest industries was the fact that the GST package as it related to the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme would be particularly advantageous to rural and regional dwellers and to industries, such as the forestry industry, that use this particular fuel.What we have here in the legislation before us is a deepening of the administrative problems and burdens associated with this scheme. We now find the government deeper in the mire with the very thing that we had hoped it would avoid in making adjustments to this scheme. We have always held the view on this side of the House that the claims that the government was making on the benefits to rural and regional Australia from the GST package and, in particular, the savings that would flow to rural producers, forestry operators and others in rural communities who use this fuel, were grossly exaggerated with regard to the benefits of the ANTS package put before this parliament and the Australian people.We have always held the view that the benefits on diesel fuel that were touted by the government would not be realised to the extent that was claimed. In a political sense, we have seen in rural and regional Australia how people in country areas view the Liberal and National parties. I say to the minister opposite and to the government, `If you really think you have taken a belting in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland in rural and regional Australia, wait until people living in those areas really understand the implications of what you have put before them in the GST package.' If you go behind the rhetoric, you will find that the benefits claimed that should flow to the sector are not really there. They are not going to be there simply because the changes that have been made with the imposition of the GST, given the concessions that the government has made in the diesel fuel area, will not translate through to cheaper transport costs to the extent that the government has claimed.There is a very interesting analysis that has been done on the impact of the government's measures on transport costs. I will not go into it again in this place; I already have in previous debates. But that particular analysis concluded that the bottom line is that the diesel fuel credit of 23c a litre will mean a reduction of 0.33 cents in the dollar in the cost of producing food and service sector outputs in rural and regional Australia. Here we have the government touting a particular fall in the price of diesel and parading this around rural and regional Australia saying that this is the greatest thing since sliced bread for farmers and others who live in these communities as well as other industries such as the forest industry. At the end of the day, all it will mean is a reduction of 0.33 cents in the dollar in the cost of producing food and service sector outputs in rural and regional Australia. When you take into account the enormous impact that the GST is going to have on living costs for people in rural and regional Australia, this gain, when translated into reduced prices for goods sold at the corner store in regional Australia is going to be very small. These businesses are going to be lumbered with a nightmare in terms of administrative costs associated with the GST and huge compliance burdens, so you can see that the gains that are being touted by the government to the sector with the amendments that have been made with respect to diesel fuel will simply not materialise.When that happens and the penny drops, this government is going to find that what happened in the Victorian election is going to be repeated across the length and breadth of Australia. And so country people in rural Australia ought to take it out on coalition governments. We have the Liberal Premier beating his breast yesterday in the press saying, `Oh, I am sorry,' and then we have the Leader of the National Party saying, `Well, if we are in coalition with the Liberal Party again we are going to demand that things are done differently.' What a gutless lot they are in coalition.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just raise the purpose of this particular bill. I can see that there is an association with the ANTS package, and I can allow that, but when one gets to some presumed or otherwise perceived dispute between two politicians that can hardly be considered relevant.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I thank the minister and I do remind the honourable member for Corio that the bill is the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill, and I am sure he will continue in his attempts to be relevant.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I accept your ruling on the direction of the debate. I simply make this point in conclusion. The reason why we are debating this bill today is the incompetence of the government. The greatest deception perpetrated on the forest industries of this nation has been perpetrated by the minister who now sits at the desk.84HZAHRAMr Zahra—He is a fraud.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—He is more than a fraud. The government is a fraud.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—If the honourable member for Corio will resume his seat, I anticipate what the honourable minister will say. He is objecting to the member for McMillan calling him a fraud. I would be grateful if you would withdraw.84HZAHRAMr Zahra—With great deference to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—No, not with deference to anybody. You just withdraw.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—What we have here in the legislation is really policy fraud because here we have a government that had put before the Australian people a deal that it had done with the Democrats which specifically excluded this industry. The minister knew it. The Prime Minister knew it. The coalition knew it. The National Party members knew it.Mr Laurie Ferguson interjecting—WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—The member for Corangamite knew it. He knew it when he went into the Western District and spoke to the workers and the community in his electorate trying to whip up this frenzy about regional forest agreements. He was able to stand there in front of those people knowing that his own government was perpetrating this deception that they are trying to gloss over here today. I will leave my remarks there. Really this is the latest in a long line of incompetent policy backtracks that we have seen from the coalition, and the minister really ought to resign.13:51:0010388Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill must surely be one of the most incredible pieces of legislation to come before the parliament since the last election. At one level, the effect of the bill is relatively straightforward. It seeks to amend the Excise Act 1901 to align the rate of diesel fuel rebate for forestry use with that of agriculture, with effect from 1 July next year. In the words of the explanatory memorandum circulated by the government:An inadvertent consequence of the passage of the overall package of amendments to the modified ANTS scheme is that the forestry and timber processing industries would have been required to pay approximately 8 cents 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.We are thus invited to believe that we are merely correcting a simple mistake. But we are entitled to ask, as the Australian people are asking: how did this so-called mistake happen and who was responsible for the mistake?To find out why the forestry industry was under the impression that it was not going to get the full rebate, you do not need to look very far. In fact, you need only to read the Customs and Excise Amendment (Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme) Act 1999 passed by this parliament at the behest of this government in June and given assent on 8 July. It said:A declaration . . . may declare different rates for:(a) the use of diesel fuel in primary production other than forestry; and(b) use of diesel fuel in forestry.However, the rate declared for use of diesel fuel in forestry must be 35/43 of the rate declared for use of diesel fuel in primary production other than forestry.The inescapable fact that many members opposite know—and they have been onto the minister about this—is that this clause did not sneak into the legislation through an amendment moved by the Greens, Labor or Harradine; this wording, we are supposed to believe, was actually in the government's original bill by mistake. With the exception of Minister Tuckey's press secretary and the person who wrote the explanatory memorandum for this bill, everyone knows that that clause came to be passed into law in June. It happened because it was an integral part of the coalition's deplorable GST deal with the Democrats—those well-known friends of the forest industry. The text of the Howard-Lees GST deal is publicly available to everyone. The diesel fuel rebate section says, in black and white: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, aged persons homes and private residences, but not for construction, power generation, manufacturing or forestry.One would believe that someone in the government managed to send a copy of the agreement to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, and surely he read it and noticed that paragraph—one would hope he did. Despite their subsequent attempts to rewrite history, that is the package that the Prime Minister negotiated, that the Deputy Prime Minister defended, and that the Minister for Forestry and Conservation has been trumpeting around the place as a great outcome in regard to the GST. They were all obviously delighted to have brought the Democrats to get their long-sought GST.As previous speakers have indicated, the opposition will not be opposing this bill. This is because we do not see why the timber industry should be the meat in the sandwich between the coalition's incompetence and the Democrats' duplicity. The fact that we are not opposing the bill does not mean that we accept the ludicrous claim that this bill is merely correcting a mistake that no-one knew about at the time.In totally rejecting the government's claim, I remind the House of a raft of references to this matter on the public record. The Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Anderson, recently elevated to Deputy Prime Minister, commented on 29 May, `The size and scope of the rebates for diesel agreed with the Democrats will not change. That is the deal. The interests of rural and regional Australia have been protected.' They were not protected enough for them not to need this legislation.Next we deal with two quotes from the Senate Hansard of late June. Senator Ian Campbell on 28 June commented:. . . in the case of forestry, this industry will continue to have access to the rebate in the proportion that it currently receives.If this were not enough to alert even the dimmest coalition member to what was going on, we then had Senator Lees, unable to resist the temptation to skite about what she had done. In the Senate next day, after Senator Campbell, she said:In this bill we have increased the costs for forestry by 8c a litre. It is probably not something that we should point out to the National Party, but there it is, and that is what we have done in this legislation.Senator Lees was not hiding under a bushel; she was making it quite clear that this government had come to a deal with her with regard to diesel and the forestry industry.At this point, surely even the Minister for Forestry and Conservation should have woken up to what was happening, but apparently not. We are supposed to believe that he was really a latter-day reincarnation of the television character, Sergeant Schultz, famous for always responding, `I know nothing.'Next we turn to a media release issued by Chris Althouse from the Forest Protection Society on 3 July 1999 which said in part:The Forest Protection Society members are outraged that an apparent backroom deal with the Democrats had singled out forestry for an 8c per litre penalty on the diesel fuel rebate, whereas all other users of the diesel, such as primary producers, received a full rebate of 43c per litre.We can be pretty confident that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Forestry and Conservation were briefed about the release because it coincided with a demonstration by FPS members outside the Liberal Party Federal Council meeting that day in Canberra. Still the government maintained its silence and made no attempt to say that a mistake had been made or that there was a problem that needed to be rectified. As evidence of this, let me refer again to the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anderson. On 4 July, in a very long interview which meandered through the matter of the Democrats and rural communities, he commented that there had been an understanding `because of the Democrats' concern about pollution and their view that what might loosely be called some "non-sympathetic views" of the forest industry in particular, where they will keep what they have but not enjoy the extension of the grant system'.Once again, as late as 4 July, we had no remorse from the government, no hint that a mistake had been made—this mistake that the minister now parades before us. In fact, we had the man whose mission in life is supposed to be to protect the interests of rural and regional areas including, presumably, the timber industry, saying on national television that `nobody really says there are any serious anomalies there where the use of diesel in rural and regional areas is concerned'. After all these announcements from government members that there were no mistakes, that there was a clear deal with the Democrats, that this was the right policy and there were no anomalies, a mere seven days later the Minister for Forestry and Conservation either came clean or woke up to what had been happening. He said, `An inadvertent consequence of the passage of the overall package of amendments to the modified ANTS was that the forestry and timber processing industries are required to pay approximately 6c per litre more for off-road use of diesel.'That was not the intention, he commented, and steps would now be taken by the government to address the problem. After being told by all and sundry in the government—by the Deputy Prime Minister and everyone else—that there were not any mistakes, that there were not any anomalies and that it was a deliberate policy, the Minister for Forestry and Conservation finally told the Australian electorate that there had been an anomaly. From that day forth the government has steadily stuck to this fictional line: that it was a big drafting mistake that could easily be fixed without any cost to the taxpayers or without ratting on the Democrats.You do not need to accept the word of the opposition that these claims are a complete untruth. Already, confirmation of the true situation was provided by Senator Allison from the Democrats. She said in the West Australian on 13 July that everyone understood this meant a reduction in off-road diesel rebates for the forest and timber industries. There was absolutely no lack of clarity on this. It was very straightforward.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Questions Without Notice103901039010390Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Defence. Minister, have you seen reports of comments this morning by Major General Peter Cosgrove, Commander of INTERFET, stating that its security is well stretched and that he has not enough soldiers to protect all of Dili's residential areas? In the light of increasing security incidents, including the murder yesterday of a foreign journalist, what direct personal efforts are you making today to ensure that General Cosgrove is receiving the troops and resources he needs for the East Timor operation? Given that Australia is leading the INTERFET operation, can you assure the House that you are directly communicating with other defence ministers involved in INTERFET to ensure that their commitments of troops and support are being delivered as agreed? Minister, what contingency planning are you making today to accelerate that deployment if a more rapid response is required by General Cosgrove?10390Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—Next week the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be at the United Nations, at which time he will contact all the relevant foreign ministers who have indicated support for the coalition forces and make sure that there is a follow-up on the commitments that have been made. In the meantime, I have spoken to some of the ministers concerned in defence, the VCDF has travelled in South-East Asia in contact with a number of his interlocutories and we are still receiving contributions from coalition partners this day. Being deployed into Townsville at the moment are some Filipinos. I anticipate that the build-up of the coalition forces will take some time. In the meantime the ADF, the New Zealand contingent, elements of the British and elements of the Gurkhas are deployed in East Timor, along with some American elements. That force is doing a particularly good job, and I would like to pay a very big compliment to General Cosgrove.1039010390Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—My question is also addressed to the Minister for Defence. With the first week of the Australian Defence Force's deployment to East Timor coming to a close, could the minister inform the House of the progress of Operation Stabilise?10390Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—I would like to thank the member for Lindsay for his question. As the member for his particular seat, he has responsibility for the Lavarack base—UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Herbert.EI4Mr MOORE—I said his seat.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will not respond to the quite unnecessary interjections.EI4Mr MOORE—I will rephrase that. I thank the member for Herbert for his contribution in asking the question. He does represent the Lavarack base, which is one of the main contributors to INTERFET—International Force East Timor—that is currently being deployed in East Timor. Therefore, his particular contribution has proved very much welcome.I am able to inform the House today that we have deployed 2,468 ADF personnel to East Timor and another 987 are serving in ships in the operation. The speed and smoothness of the build-up of these forces, along with the very welcome contributions of our coalition partners, is most heartening. I am particularly pleased to be able to report that the current level of deployment includes 282 personnel from our coalition partners. As I said before, I think the people of Australia should be very proud of the way in which we have been able in three weeks to put together a coalition force, to land them in East Timor and to be operating in that country today.The situation in East Timor remains very dangerous. We have been tragically reminded of this by the death of a Dutch journalist there in the last couple of days. I want to take this opportunity to convey to journalists and to their editors that East Timor is, and will remain for some time, a very dangerous place. INTERFET cannot provide protection for all individuals who travel to East Timor. Its priority is the safety and security of the people of East Timor themselves. INTERFET is able to provide protection and support for a small number of accredited journalists chosen on a pool basis. Others travel strictly at their own risk. I urge non-accredited journalists, and especially their editors, who should take responsibility for their safety, to stay out of East Timor at this time.Clearly the scale of the deployment to East Timor is posing a major challenge for the ADF. However, because of the decision we took in February this year to raise the readiness of a second brigade, we have now available to us sufficient forces to deploy and maintain on East Timor a contingent of up to 4,500 personnel for about a year. This includes sufficient forces to allow for rotation of units. The government has been advised by the ADF that they will spend no more than nine months on deployment, and if possible less. These are operational matters, and the government is in very close contact with the leadership of ADF and will naturally act on its advice on these important matters. We are also conscious of the families at home of our troops in East Timor and, within the bounds of the operational requirements, we will try to provide as much certainty to these families as possible in regard to the duration of the deployment.Our present force will also allow us at the same time to maintain significant forces to deal with other contingencies that may arise and to ensure that we have the forces for critical national tasks such as a counter-terrorism response for the Olympics. That is most important. We hope that within a year the situation in East Timor will have improved to the point that our forces can be withdrawn or at least significantly reduced, and we are certainly working with the United Nations to ensure that this occurs. But the government recognises that there is a possibility that they may need to sustain deployment for longer than that. We are therefore developing plans to provide the extra forces that would be needed to sustain a deployment of 4½ thousand personnel beyond the initial 12 months. That will involve raising the readiness of a number of additional battalions.The government will be taking decisions in the near future about the ways in which this can be best done to ensure that the preparation of these forces can begin early so they can be as well prepared as those currently there. At present reserves are not required to meet our main personnel needs for the deployment in East Timor, although we will seek reservist volunteers for some specialist areas, such as dental and engineering services, as we have often done in other deployments. We have not yet decided what call there will be on the reserves to help provide the extra battalions we will be preparing to support the longer term commitment. This is one of the issues that will be considered over the next week.I reject totally the scaremongering of the opposition on this matter. We do have sufficient forces to deploy and maintain a contingent of 4½ thousand in East Timor for at least a year. That includes sufficient forces for rotation of units. The government is working closely with the leadership of the ADF to ensure our deployment to East Timor is adequately resourced. That is the case at the moment and will continue to be the case. The government is committed very much to the forces of the ADF.1039210392Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Defence and it follows very much the answer that he has just given. Have you seen the comments today of Major General Warren Glenny, the President of the Defence Reserves Association, stating that the government has left it too late to recruit extra troops to allow rotation of forces in East Timor? Is it also correct that the ADF has only met half of its reserve recruiting target for the last financial year? Minister, now that defence reserves are being called upon, have you directly approached the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business requesting immediate changes to the Workplace Relations Act to allow defence reserve leave to be reintroduced as an allowable matter in employment awards? If you haven't, why haven't you? Will you give an undertaking to the House that you will pursue this matter urgently?10392Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—I am aware of the comments made by General Glenny. I disagree. We are in a position, because of the foreplanning of the government in raising a second brigade in readiness, as I said just a minute ago, to keep 4,500 Australian forces in East Timor for at least a year and rotate. That is genuine forward planning and it does not show any shortage of personnel or resources.Some members of the Reserve have volunteered to go to East Timor; some have volunteered to join the permanent force. Those elements of the reserves that we have asked to serve in that area are doing so on a purely voluntary basis. In the meantime other questions of direct detail about the reserves should be directed to the assistant minister.1039210392Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. Minister, can you inform the House what role the reserves will play in maintaining the Australian Defence Force capability to support the deployment in East Timor?10392Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I thank the member for Hughes for her question. The government's Defence Reform Program has produced a Defence Force more combat ready than it has been for a quarter of a century. The coalition's focus on combat capability has seen a shift of resources from the administrative areas to the sharp end. Because of this there are more regular Army personnel in combat related roles than when the coalition came to government. These are the facts. We have brought a second brigade sized group—1 Brigade in Darwin—to a higher state of readiness at 28-days notice to move. In December 1997 we introduced to the Army individual readiness notices. What that means is that personnel must now meet set fitness requirements and be ready to deploy, focusing on the individual soldiers and their need to be combat ready. So we are in a very strong position to support this deployment.The deployment is relying primarily on our regular forces, although reserve specialists like medical officers are a vital component. Of course, in our overall defence capability reservists do fill an important role. We have at the moment some 23,000 regular Army personnel who have the basic soldiering skills required for deployments like East Timor. Our active Reserve numbers are significant. The Army has some 20,000 personnel, the Navy some 1,300 and the Air Force some 1,600.Over 2,500 of the Army reservists are recent trainees who have been through the same level of basic training as our regular forces, through the common induction training. This means that they are available and are useful if needed. We do have a sizeable pool of skilled personnel to draw on in our Reserve ranks. Having said that, we will continue our existing recruiting program for reservists and also for regulars, particularly at this time of the year as the school year and the academic year ends. It is obviously an ideal time to be out there recruiting, as has been happening for many years, and looking for the skills that are needed in a modern defence force. In the medium and longer term, an increased recruiting effort and more flexible training will continue to ensure that we have sufficient part-time and regular ADF personnel to meet our nation's needs.1039310393Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—My question is again to the Minister for Defence. Minister, in the light of your last answer and given that the defence reserves are being called upon in increasing numbers, will you directly approach the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business requesting immediate changes to the Workplace Relations Act to allow defence reserve leave to be reintroduced as an allowable matter in employment awards?10393Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—The government, needless to say, is looking at the question of the reserves and as to what might be the best way to approach it. The matter raised by the member for Cunningham is one of those that will be considered.1039310393Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister inform the House of the situation on the ground in East Timor with the arrival of INTERFET? What is the level of risk to Australians in East Timor at this time?10393Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Fairfax for his question. I begin by saying that I am sure all of us here were very saddened by the death of the Dutch journalist, Mr Sander Thoenes, and I wish to express the government's condolences to his family. His death and the recent attack on two other journalists are, however, tragic reminders that the situation in Dili remains extremely dangerous and unstable. While the arrival of INTERFET is having some impact on improving security, particularly in and around Dili, the risks involved should not be underestimated.The government has stressed that the post-ballot period would be difficult and dangerous, and we have made clear, without any attempt to underestimate the task, that our forces would be going into a potentially dangerous situation. There are now around 300 international journalists in East Timor, which is a very large number, as well as a significant number of humanitarian and NGO workers. These people need to be very alert to the enormous risks that they face. INTERFET cannot guarantee the safety of foreign nationals who move beyond the force's area of immediate control.The advice of the government to Australians, for whom we obviously have a particular responsibility, but this does apply to foreigners generally, is that the situation remains extremely dangerous and Australians are advised not to travel to East Timor. We recognise there are Australians who want to travel to East Timor to do humanitarian work there, but too large an influx of Australians and foreign nationals will make the work of INTERFET more difficult, not easier. As I said, those people will be at risk. The government's concerns at the risks, especially for journalists, have been very long held. Indeed, members may be aware that earlier this year I wrote to the major Australian media outlets warning them of the very great risks to journalists in East Timor. We had discussions with newspaper editors, and their representatives, and other media outlet editors just before the results of the ballot were announced to once more underline the risks involved and to advise of the contingency plans to get people out. The important point for all Australians in East Timor, or who wish to go near East Timor, and to foreign nationals is that this situation is extremely dangerous, and they should act with the greatest caution and avoid East Timor if they possibly can.1039310393Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and concerns his claim this week that no-one could have anticipated the scale of the post-ballot violence in East Timor. Minister, isn't it the case that in early August our consulate in Dili received from UNAMET copies of documents detailing intimate cooperation between TNI and the militias, and their plans for widespread violence following the vote, including the mass deportation of the population and liquidation of pro-independence East Timorese? What assessment was made of these documents? Would you not concur with the view of an Australian CIVPOL officer who prior to the vote wrote:You do not have to be a rocket scientist to work out a frightening prognosis from all these sources . . . East Timor will descend into the same hell that Somalia went through, Dili could become a mini Mogadishu.Minister, why did you leave it so late before you first called for peacekeepers?10394Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for his question, and obviously I am aware of a large amount of information that was available both before the ballot took place and after the ballot took place but before the result was announced. I have said on many occasions, including publicly—I recall an occasion at the end of July in Jakarta when I did that and it was widely publicised in the Australian press—and also privately in conversations with other foreign ministers, including Madeleine Albright, that the most dangerous period in this East Timor process would be the beginning of phase 2, after the result of the ballot was announced. And we have never had any illusions about that.It is okay to make party political points, and I am not knocking you for that because I accept that is the nature of the system, but I would have thought the fact that the Australian Defence Force was ready for such a contingency—that is, a contingency where it would have to go in as the lead element of a peacekeeping force—was a pretty clear demonstration of the measure of our concern. I remember the newspaper headlines earlier this year, when the brigade was established in Darwin, about Australia getting troops ready for East Timor. Obviously we were concerned that these headlines might not play very well in Jakarta but, nevertheless, that was very much the motive behind the establishment of the brigade, that we would be ready in the event of a contingency.I also draw the honourable member's attention to the fact that we had in place a very sophisticated and a very successful arrangement to evacuate people from East Timor in the event that the sorts of circumstances that did arise arose. I would have thought just the fact of the readiness of the Australian Defence Force, both in terms of the brigade in Darwin and the contingency plans for evacuation—which, by the way, worked very well—demonstrated the depth of our concern as to how things could change for the worst and what could happen. There are obviously a range of assessments, and the honourable member quotes one, and many others, of one kind or another, have been quoted to me. All I can say is that we now know what happened. We could not precisely predict the future, and no-one ever can, but we did make available and put in place contingencies in case what happened did happen.When the history of this issue is written, one of the things which people will regard as remarkable will be the speed with which we were able to get this multinational force onto the ground. Member countries of the United Nations have been enormously warm in their congratulations for what Australia has done in putting together that multinational force so quickly. Whatever the debate may be here in Australia, I can assure the House that, out there in the international community, this country has won enormous admiration for what it has done to get that force onto the ground so quickly. I have been told by long-serving Security Council diehards—and the honourable member can check this in New York next week to see if it is right—that the resolution got through the Security Council in record speed. We stayed there, I recall only too clearly, until after 3 a.m. to get that Security Council resolution through.To get that force onto the ground as quickly as we did demonstrates that (1) we were ready if the worst happened, which it did, and (2) our diplomacy was effective in making sure that a multinational force could be deployed within three weeks.1039410394Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Treasurer, will you advise the House of the government's substantial reforms to the capital gains tax, as announced as part of the new business tax system?10395Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for her question. As members of the House would be aware, the government announced during the week the first overhaul of Australia's capital gains tax system. This has the opportunity to cut capital gains tax by half for all individual taxpayers. It means that taxpayers who elect to go into the new system after 30 September 1999 get the option to pay capital gains tax at half the rate.I saw some commentary in the paper today from ACOSS saying that this was too generous and, on the other hand, I saw some commentary from the Real Estate Institute saying that it was too tough. I want to make it entirely clear that the changes involve a trade-off. For those people who elect to go into the half-rate system, it will be on the nominal gain; there is a trade-off for indexation and averaging. For those people who want to keep the benefit of indexation, they keep that benefit until 30 September but will have to pay at the full rate in relation to gains.Yesterday the New South Wales Treasurer, Mr Egan, said—and I recommend this to members of the Labor Party; he is one of its own Treasurers—to the Legislative Council:I do not often do this and I do not expect I will do it often in the future, but on this occasion I would like to give the Federal Government and . . . the Commonwealth Treasurer, high marks: somewhere between a credit and a distinction. The New South Wales Government welcomes the Commonwealth's response to the final report of the review of business taxation.No wonder we have this constant baying from the Labor Party frontbench. It is yet to take a position in relation to business taxation. These changes to capital gains tax are due to start on 30 September, and people will be making decisions from 30 September on the basis of this new taxation system.Either Labor can follow the lead of Mr Egan and endorse the package, in which case people will know, and there will be certainty in relation to the taxation system, or Labor can continue to search around looking for an opportunistic or populist issue to try to avoid the crunch. I commend Mr Egan's comments to them:The New South Wales Government welcomes the Commonwealth's response to the final report of the review of business taxation. It believes that the changes proposed by the Commonwealth will, overall, have a favourable impact on business in Australia and, as a consequence, jobs growth.1039510395Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It arises from the 13 August hearings of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee inquiry into East Timor, when DFAT deputy secretary John Dauth told the committee that he could not confirm reports of Indonesian Kopassus troops in East Timor. He said:I am not really able to say, not because I am hiding anything but because we do not have any definitive information on that . . . I simply do not know whether it is true.Is it not the case that at least five weeks before Mr Dauth's testimony Australian CIVPOL and military liaison officers had reported their serious concern about the presence of a large number of Kopassus troops in East Timor? Minister, was your deputy secretary woefully ill-informed or were his remarks a further example of the state of denial which characterise government policy?10395Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—Let me begin by saying that I regret the attack on John Dauth by the member for Kingsford-Smith. Mr Dauth was chief of staff to the member for Holt at one stage, and he served the member for Holt with loyalty. He has also served me and the government with commendable loyalty as a deputy secretary and, before that, as first assistant secretary in my department. I remember when we were in opposition that, if there was any sense of criticism of a senior public servant from the opposition, there was enormous outrage from the Labor Party. I think the Labor Party should be reminded of that point.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—What about you?4G4Mr DOWNER—Funnily enough, I was not actually at the Senate committee meeting nor, my friend, was I quoted. On the more specific question of the relationship between Kopassus and the militias and the activities of Kopassus, as you can imagine this is always—as Mr Dauth's carefully chosen words illustrate—a very delicate and sensitive question because Kopassus is the special forces element of the Indonesian military. Any bold assertions and claims one way or another can raise questions about the source of that sort of information and, of course, has political implications as well. Let me put it to the House this way: there have been concerns expressed from time to time about the association between not just the Indonesian military but specifically the Indonesian special forces and the militias. Putting this into some sort of context, the House may be aware that this government suspended the joint exercises that we used to have with Kopassus, which were set up by your government.1039610396Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can he inform the House whether the budget surplus for the financial year 1998-99 is likely to be in line with that forecast in the 1999-2000 budget?10396Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The end of the financial year for 1998-99 was, of course, on 30 June 1999. At the time of the budget, which we did in May, we estimated that the outcome would be a surplus of $2.9 billion. I have been advised by the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Finance and Administration that the actual outcome, the underlying cash surplus, for the year completed 1998-99 will not be the estimated $2.9 billion but in fact will be $4.2 billion, exceeding the estimate made in the May budget. In addition to that, in the 1998-99 budget the Commonwealth reduced net debt by over $24 billion. That was, of course, principally from the proceeds of asset sales and, because the budget was in underlying surplus, every last dollar of asset sales went to reducing Commonwealth net debt. Mr Speaker, that compares with the 1995-96 budget which, you will recall, the Labor Party said would be a surplus but ended up as a $10.6 billion deficit some months later.Obviously, in relation to 1999-2000 and the following year, 2000-01, there will be addi tional new expenditures that were not forecast at budget time, principally in relation to East Timor. As a result of Australia's commitment in military and humanitarian terms, there will be considerable new expenditures to maintain the force in East Timor and to engage in the humanitarian aid that is required. We expect that those expenditures, which were unforeseeable at the time, but are absolutely necessary—and the government has given a commitment that the Australian forces in the field will not suffer from a lack of resources in any way whatsoever in relation to that—will have to be funded as new expenditures under the budget. We expect to be able to announce some of the impact of that when we do the mid-year reviews in November of this year. But, of course, one of the measures that allow us to make that commitment in East Timor is the fact that the budget is now in surplus. If Australia had not been able to run a strong economy in the last couple of years, we would not have been able to mount the operation that we have and, consistent with those requirements, the government is still determined to exercise a strong fiscal line in the years in front of us.1039610396Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and arises from his answer to my question on Monday and the Attorney's comments on Tuesday, concerning crimes against humanity in East Timor. Minister, can you assure the House that, when you attend the United Nations in New York next week, Australia will campaign for the Security Council to adopt a resolution establishing an international commission of inquiry into the atrocities in East Timor as a first step to bringing those responsible to justice?10396Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for his question. Let me begin by saying that our immediate priorities obviously remain the improvement of the security situation in East Timor through INTERFET and to ensure that humanitarian assistance is provided to the population in East Timor because, obviously, the suffering and the killing must end and end quickly. We have said that we would support an investigation of human rights abuses through a coordinated, United Nations-wide response based on the existing United Nations Security Council resolution. Consistent with the established principles on the handling of these sorts of matters, the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva will be considering this matter on 23 and 24 September. Honourable members may know that Australia is not a member of the Commission on Human Rights so we of course cannot vote on any resolution that may be introduced into the special session. A draft resolution is being prepared for this special session by the European Union and that is being circulated now for consideration by other members. In relation to this process, it will be important for the effectiveness of any resolution to have the broadest possible support among members of the Commission on Human Rights. This would not be an occasion for grandstanding but for ensuring that there is genuine assistance to the people of East Timor.Any decision to, for example, examine crimes against humanity will, I think you will find Mr Speaker, flow first and foremost from this resolution and then in turn be considered by the Security Council. I have been advised that this is a procedure that has been followed on previous occasions and is judged by the United Nations to be the appropriate way to carry this forward. I understand the honourable member's quite sincere concern about this, but next week when he is in New York it will be an opportunity for him as well as me to take these procedures up. Of course, by then we will know whether the European Union's text has been accepted by the Commission for Human Rights in Geneva. I think it is likely that it will be. I am not going to foreshadow what that text says, but that does provide a course of action for taking this matter forward.1039710397Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—I address my question to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Can the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House of the benefits for investment in infrastructure flowing from the Ralph report?10397Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for her question, and know of her real interest in the importance of infrastructure. There is no doubt that the future of our infrastructure industries in this country will be heavily dependent upon private sector investment. I was surprised to learn recently that of the 100 biggest economic entities in the world today, more than half are not nation states, they are private sector business entities and, increasingly, they have an interest in providing infrastructure. I believe we as societies have an interest in facilitating that investment. One of the tasks faced by the Ralph committee was to look at how this country could best mobilise the resources of business to contribute to the infrastructure development which is so essential to the future development of economies and jobs such as we see in Australia. In fact, I am told that the total transport task in Australia—the total volume of goods to be moved around and the weight of those goods—will double over the next 20 years, which is faster than economic growth and certainly much faster than population growth in this country. That gives some idea of how urgent the task will be in relation to, in particular, transport infrastructure.To invest, business needs an environment that encourages rather than hinders investment in infrastructure. A business tax system is therefore needed that is simple—not complex—and tax law that is certain both in its application and administration and eliminates, as far as possible, doubt. The government announced on Tuesday that it would deliver, very strongly against those objectives, a world-class tax system that will provide a major stimulus to investment in infrastructure, and through an internationally competitive company tax rate reward that investment. I believe that private infrastructure investors should feel very confident about the encouragement these changes provide for them to add to the country's productive capacity through basic infrastructure investment.The current tax regime—Labor's tax regime—includes a series of complex interlinked mechanisms which have often acted together to dissuade private sector investment in infrastructure. Our announcement that accelerated depreciation will be replaced for those outside the simple tax system regime by an effective life based regime, at the same time as we indicated that we will consider providing investment allowances along with an expanded strategic investment coordination process for major projects, means that decisions will be taken in due course on how this target assistance will be provided and what form it will take.It also led the Ralph committee to recommend that, if accelerated depreciation was replaced by effective life depreciation, section 51AD of the Income Tax Act—which has created some problems for infrastructure investment through public-private partnerships—would no longer be relevant, and simpler arrangements could be put in place and could be applied to leases over major depreciable assets such as infrastructure. I believe that we are looking at a major simplification that will really encourage investment by the private sector in infrastructure in this country. I think that is a very good thing for taxpayers, for the community at large and for jobs.1039810398Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's statement today that he has plenty of talent on his front bench, such as Alexander Downer and John Moore. Prime Minister, is the Treasurer indispensable?10398Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have got to give the Leader of the Opposition full marks for a surprise question. I really do have to give the Leader of the Opposition full marks. That came like an Exocet missile on an unsuspecting Prime Minister, that is all I can say. Mr Speaker, having been caught utterly unprepared and having been caught totally by surprise by this question, cunningly devised at the opposition tactics meeting this morning, let me take a moment to reflect upon the capacity of those who sit on the front bench of the government. I look immediately behind me and I see the Treasurer. The Treasurer has had the major responsibility for presiding over a remarkable transformation, to the great benefit of the Australian nation, of the books of account of the Commonwealth. He inherited as Treasurer of Australia—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The House will come to order. I appreciate the fact that much of the exchange is good-natured, but I suspect—ZD4Mr HOWARD—Yes, it is, and I would like to prolong the humour, Mr Speaker.Mr Zahra interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for McMillan is defying the chair. That was not a good-natured exchange. I appreciate the fact that much of the exchange is good-natured, but as we would all be aware most of Australia watching the debate will not be aware of that. The Prime Minister is entitled to be heard in silence, and I call him.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Mr Speaker, the Treasurer has presided, in a quite remarkably skilful fashion, over the transformation of the books of account of the Commonwealth—inheriting a deficit of $10½ billion and, a year ahead of schedule, turning it into a surplus. In that respect, I cannot think of a performance that has been surpassed by any other Treasurer, and I give him full marks for that remarkable achievement.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The House will come to order.Mr Hatton interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When the member for Blaxland exercises sufficient courtesy to allow the Leader of the Opposition to be heard, I will call the Leader.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—My point of order goes to relevance. My question on this matter was quite specific. Is the Treasurer is indispensable? That was the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister is responding to the question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—`Indispensability' goes to quality, and he is quality. I move on and look further behind me, slightly to the right, and I come to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Of all the difficult issues that my government has had to handle over the last 3½ years, none has involved more sustained pressure on the responsible minister than the remarkable transformation of the Australian waterfront. I want to pay tribute to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business for the tremendous job that he did.Mr Bevis interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane!ZD4Mr HOWARD—He displayed both strength and grace under great pressure, and I pay him an unstinting compliment. Then I move to the Deputy Prime Minister, the now Minister for Transport and Regional Services. If ever anybody was responsible for beating off the scourge of One Nation, it was John Anderson. John Anderson beat off that scourge. John Anderson stood there against those unacceptable attitudes in the Australian bush, and I give him full marks. Then I go to the Minister for Foreign Affairs.Mr Albanese interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler!ZD4Mr HOWARD—The Minister for Foreign Affairs has been an absolute ornament to that position.Opposition members interjecting—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minster has the call.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Gee, I like question time. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has been an ornament.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The House will come to order.Mrs Crosio interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect!ZD4Mr HOWARD—Not only did he play an absolutely indispensable role in putting together the international peace force but, Mr Speaker, if you go back over the 3½ years that the minister has been occupying that position, you will find that he was also responsible in a very major way for the ban on landmines. He played a very major role in relation to the ban on landmines. He has played a very major role in rebalancing Australia's foreign policy.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Under standing order No. 145, the divide and conquer strategy to defend against the stiletto has nothing to do with the Treasurer's capabilities.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke's point of order does nothing to address the Prime Minister's answer.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I have previously spoken very warmly of the skill, tact, diplomacy and ability of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I want to say to the House that he has done a remarkably fine job in that position over the last 3½ years. And his colleague the Minister for Defence: we are able to play a lead role in East Timor because of the foresight of the Minister for Defence. If the Minister for Defence had not come to us and given us advice to get that brigade into a state of greater readiness, we would not have been able to respond immediately. We would not have been able, to the great pride of Australia, to assume leadership of that mission. Then I go to my colleague the Minister for Finance and Administration.Mr O'Keefe interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The Minister for Finance has presided over a most remarkable program of privatisation. He is responsible for the fact that we now have the second largest share-owning democracy in the world. Next to him is the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. He has been responsible for bringing back apprenticeships to Australia. The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has rebuilt the Australian apprenticeship system. Along with his colleagues Senator Vanstone and the Minister for Employment Services, he has played a major role, an absolutely major role, in designing a world first—that is, the market based employment services of Australia. That is a world first.Then we have the Minister for Aged Care sitting next to him. I tell you what: one of her remarkable achievements has been to put the member for Lilley in his place on numerous occasions. Then there is the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Amongst the things that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs has done is to carry on, in an extremely dignified way, representations in the interests of veterans in Australia and also Defence personnel. I might remind the House that only last Friday this government increased, by almost 50 per cent, the tax-free operational allowance of the men and women of the Australian Defence Force who are serving in East Timor. That has happened under the authority of that particular minister.I move then to my colleague and friend the Minister for Employment Services. The Minister for Employment Services, in his engagingly laconic style, has played a major role in selling to the people of Australia the great benefits of the new deregulated labour market in this country. He has demonstrated, in a short period of only a year in that job, what a great grasp he has of that portfolio and his great concern for the young unemployed of this country.Then we have the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. There is no minister in this country who is a greater friend of blue-collar workers than the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. If the blue-collar workers of Australia want a friend, Wilson Tuckey is their man. Then there is the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, who is carving out a new horizon, leading the charge to make Australia a world financial centre, already attracting investment from firms like Merrill Lynch and many others.His colleague the Minister for Sport and Tourism I think is bringing great skill and great charm to a very important portfolio—that is, the portfolio of the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games. As for the Minister for Community Services, of all the people that I have seen cut their teeth early as a minister on a series of allegedly difficult opposition questions, none has come through with more flying colours than the Minister for Community Services.Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—I would not like anybody over here to be left out. Mark Vaile has, in the two jobs that he has held in this government—particularly in the grasp that he has quickly acquired in relation to the Trade portfolio—demonstrated a great understanding of the diverse trading interests of the Australian community.I now turn to the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation. The Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation did have a short period of time on the interchange bench, but he has come back with tremendous skill and flair. The Minister for Health and Aged Care has presided over some of the major reforms in the Australian health system and I am immensely proud of him. The Attorney-General personally led the Australian case before the first major decision of the international tribunal testing the provisions of the law of the sea treaty and he won a resounding victory in relation to the Japanese incursion in relation to bluefin tuna fishing.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. I ask the House to come to order. I call the Leader of the Opposition.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. Since he is going to go through each one of them, can we have a break down on the numbers also?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is well aware, as I suspect he may have been when he asked the question, that this might be the response. I need to reassure both watchers and listeners that almost all of the interchanges are good natured. I call the Prime Minister.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I move with very great deliberation and seriousness to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. I think even those who might disagree with the minister politically will acknowledge the self-evident decency and compassion that the minister brings to a very important portfolio.Finally, that brings me to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, who was another one who faced an overwhelming assault from the forces of One Nation in rural Queensland at the last election. He took a brave and principled stand in relation to the allocation of preferences. He is bringing very great determination and skill to his job. The answer to the Leader of the Opposition's question is: they are all indispensable.8I4MARTINMr Martin—What about the Senate?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Cunningham is not assisting the debate.1040110401Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—It is a hard act to follow.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Curtin will come to her question.83PMs JULIE BISHOP—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Can the minister advise the House—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Curtin has the call. The member for Curtin will commence her question again.83PMs JULIE BISHOP—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Can the minister advise the House on how yesterday's business taxation announcements will improve the links between Australia's research and the development of new products and ensure that good ideas stay here in Australia rather than go offshore? What is the minister's response to comments which have been made about the government's announcements?10401Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Curtin for her question. Australia has been very good at producing ideas out of its research. We have not been nearly so good at developing those ideas through to successful commercialisation. Knowledge is mobile and too often good ideas have had to go overseas to be properly developed. One of the reasons for this history has been the uncompetitive capital gains tax that we have had in this country discouraging venture capital investment. Changing capital gains taxation is crucial to investors putting their money in longer term ventures that will deliver gains over the years ahead.The capital is available. The key thing is to have a taxation regime which will encourage people to invest that capital. As a result of the government's taxation reforms announced by the Treasurer, the incentives for venture capital investment have been dramatically changed. Overseas pension funds that are tax exempt at home will be tax exempt here when selling investments in venture capital enterprises. Australian widely held superannuation funds will be provided with an exemption when they receive income from a pooled development fund representing gains on the disposal of eligible venture capital investment. This is going to further encourage the pooled development funds to engage in such investments. I have no doubt that these changes are going to significantly improve the availability of venture capital for Australian ideas and Australian research.I was very pleased to see Hugh Nile, the Manager Director of the pharmaceutical group Biota, welcome the reforms by saying:I think the tax reform puts Australia on an equal footing with other countries. The Australian capital gains tax system is now internationally competitive.The Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee has also welcomed the lowering of the company tax rate which, it says:. . . gives companies increased scope to think about the medium- and long-term benefits of higher investment in research and development. This is essential if we are to encourage more and better linkages between business and our research centres.These decisions are an important complement to the green paper on research and development and research training which I have released. These initiatives of the government are going to make sure that in the years ahead more and more good Australian ideas are developed in Australia and do not have to go overseas to be developed.1040110401Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. I ask whether the Treasurer has seen, in today's Financial Review —that is, if he has got past page 1—comments by Access Economics' Commonwealth budget expert, Mr Graham Matthews, on the business tax package, which state:They have used risky assumptions . . . that look a bit rubbery. They might be right, but the normal conservative Treasury approach has not been used. Treasurer, is it not true that if these assumptions are not realised your funding gap will be even larger? Will you release the full costings of your business tax package?10402Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The full costings are in an 800-page report. There is no great secret about them. Since the release of the report, you have been able to look it up and find it out. If you open up the book, the costings are all there in the tables. We have taken them from the tables that were put to us by the Ralph review. Not only that, but we have actually accepted the recommendations of the Ralph review in all key areas, including in relation to capital gains tax and the assumptions that underpin them. As I said earlier, we have announced changes to capital gains tax that apply from 30 September. From next week people will be making decisions based on the new taxation system.What is the Labor Party going to be doing about that? Is it going to be trying to create an area of uncertainty so that people who are trading next week have to run the gauntlet of Labor Party oppositionism? Or will the Labor Party, as I thought it was going to do on Monday night, come along and say, `We accept this decision. It is a good decision. This is a great reform of business taxation and we support it,' so that people have certainty? That is a critical choice. The lead that has been given to you is the lead of Mr Michael Egan. He gave the Commonwealth government somewhere between a credit and a distinction in relation to business taxation.What is the Labor Party waiting for? Here you have an opportunity to be relevant to the tax debate, to endorse the government's decision and to get on with capital gains tax. All we say is: let us do it before next Monday because then people will be able to get on, make their decisions accordingly and take the benefits of a great new taxation system.1040210402St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Will the minister inform the House of the benefits to Australian exporters that will flow from the government's new business tax system an nounced this week? How will this help boost jobs growth?10402Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the honourable member for New England for his question. The taxation reforms announced by the government this week will unambiguously assist to improve the circumstance of Australia's exporting industries. They will also assist in jobs growth in export industries. In Australia, 1.7 million jobs rely on exports, that is, one in five Australian jobs. In America, it is only one in 10. This tax package unambiguously supports our export industries. Our farm exports account for $25 billion of exports; minerals and energy exports are worth $40 billion; manufactures are worth $22 billion. In the New England electorate alone, the wool industry, the beef industry, education services and manufacturing industries will all benefit from the lowering of the corporate tax rate to 30 per cent by this government. The lower tax rate will make the Australian economy and Australian exporting industries much more competitive.Australian companies will enjoy a rate which is 14 per cent lower than Canada's, 12 per cent lower than Japan's, five per cent lower than the rate in the US and equal to the rate in the UK, Germany, Europe, Thailand and Korea. Through modernising our taxation system, we are making the Australian economy far more competitive with the rest of the world. We want Australia's economy—in which Australia's exporting industries operate and use as a launching pad—to be seen as one of the world's most competitive economies for the new millennium.1040210402Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question again is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, do you agree with the study by international capital gains tax expert, Dr Jane Gravalle—also reported in the Financial Review , but not on page 1—which shows your capital gains tax assumptions to be far more favourable than those actually experienced in the United States? Treasurer, why have you assumed a huge rush to realise capital gains, much greater than was the actual experience in the US? Is it not a fact that, if these risky assumptions are not achieved, there will be an even bigger funding gap in your business tax package?10403Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The assumptions on which that is based are the changes to capital gains tax generally and the fact that this will be such a significant cut. This is a halving of the actual Labor rate. As a result of the inquiry and the costings that were put to it, the Ralph committee said that it would lead to greater activity. Of course it will lead to greater activity, not only for the millions of Australian shareholders but in relation to scrip for scrip rollover and the opportunities that you will have to grow a small business big again, and the capital gains tax relief. Of course you will get much greater activity.I do not know where this is leading, but if it is leading to the point that the Labor Party opposes capital gains tax cuts, why doesn't it just say so? We are quite happy if the Labor Party stands up and says, `We are opposed to capital gains tax cuts.' But the Labor Party does not do that. The truth of the matter is that the Labor Party cannot bring itself to support a good government policy but it cannot bring itself to oppose it either. After we announced the change to business taxation, we had the extraordinary situation where the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, `It's a good basis for negotiation.' No, it is a good basis for legislation. That is how you actually get good tax change. If the Labor Party wants to come out and stand for higher capital gains taxes, we would be happy with that. We will explain to the Australian people that that is consistent with the view the Labor Party took before the election. Remember? The Labor Party wanted to tax all pre-1985 capital gains. It would be totally consistent for the Labor Party to oppose cuts in capital gains tax.I think you will remember that it did not get you anywhere in the election. Afterwards, the Labor Party came to the view that this was not consistent with aspirational politics—and this is aspirational politics for the millions of Australians who own shares. We are quite happy to say that we support cutting the capital gains tax burden. If the Labor Party is opposed to it, say so. We will make sure that we negotiate these matters with the Australian Democrats. If the Labor Party is in favour of it, come out and say so positively. Make it clear, because people are going to want to take decisions on 30 September and they deserve to know what the taxation treatment is going to be.1040310403Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forests. Minister, would you inform the House of the reaction of primary producers to the new business tax system announced early this week by the government?10403Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the member for Parkes for his representations on behalf of the primary producers in his own electorate. I am sure that they have given him the same enthusiastic response to this new tax package as other government members have noted in their own electorates. Yesterday the House heard how the National Farmers Federation have warmly endorsed this proposal. One of the major rural weeklies had as its headline today `Tax reforms to benefit farmers'. There has indeed been a very generous and warm response to the government's new tax arrangements, particularly with regard to the way in which this new package will reduce the compliance burden that faces farmers. There is nothing farmers hate more than paperwork. This new tax system will provide real benefits from 1 July 2001. Most will have access to cash accounting and the simpler arrangements for depreciation.Amongst the many media releases that have welcomed this proposal is one that particularly attracted my attention. This media release said that it supported the simplification of taxation arrangements for small farm business. It supported the objective of lowering the company tax rate for incorporated farm businesses. It was pleased that the government had decided to retain tax concessions for Landcare. It said that removing capital gains liability for farm assets held for more than 15 years will benefit a number of farmers planning to retire. It welcomed the decision to introduce new measures for venture capital—an outstanding endorsement. It may surprise you to know that that endorsement came from none other than the member for Corio, the shadow minister for agriculture. There is quite a deal of confusion on the opposition benches, but at least the shadow minister for agriculture wanted to play himself into the field and to make it clear that there were many good measures in this proposal.Of course, he did like to have two bob each way; I will be fair to him. There is one group of people he is concerned about, and that is the small group of farmers who have a turnover of more than $1 million a year. The Labor Party well and truly lost its touch with the battlers in the bush. Their concerns are about the agribusinesses with turnovers of more than $1 million. The shadow minister is upset that they may not have access to some of these benefits. What he forgets is that these are the sorts of people who will benefit from a tax cut from 36 per cent to 30 per cent. That is a pretty worthwhile business benefit for anybody in agriculture, no matter how big their operation is. He complains that the government has not done enough, but I am sure all the farmers of Australia know full well that in 13 years Labor did nothing like this. All they did was put up taxes. Farmers well and truly know that under Labor they will get higher taxes; that it is only the coalition that delivers tax reform and real benefits to the rural sector.1040410404Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Again my question is directed to the Treasurer. Treasurer, have you heard the comments of tax expert Dr Rick Krever, someone who worked on your business tax review, that your proposed changes will `see far more of our national wealth being diverted from productive investments in businesses and enterprises to passive speculation in land and similar assets, stamp collections, French artwork and holiday houses'? Treasurer, have you estimated the amount of investment that will be diverted from productive to non-productive investment and the impact that will have on jobs? What are these estimates?10404Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Labor Party is apparently worried about productive investment; it wants productive investment and, just to encourage it, wants a 48.5 per cent tax rate on it. The Labor Party has been running a 48.5 per cent capital gains tax on productive investment and stands here and says, `We are worried that, if you actually cut it, it might decrease productive investment.' If you cut the rate in half on productive investment you are worried that might decrease investment? We have heard a lot of propositions come out of the Australian Labor Party, but this has to be one of the great ones. Somebody behind me—I think it was the member for Adelaide—handed to me earlier a press release from the Financial Planning Association:The government's new business tax system reforms provide great incentives to invest and save, with effective CGT reform, support for superannuation, help for small business. The reforms will provide great support for Australia's investors, including retirees and small investors, through reductions in corporate tax rates, substantial improvement to the capital gains tax structure and benefits provided for business.What did Mr Egan say? Somewhere between a credit and a distinction. What was the Labor Party saying yesterday? I will go back and read the Hansard , but I thought the Deputy Leader of the Opposition came to the dispatch box yesterday and said he supported capital gains tax cuts.The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is remembered for two things in the last election. One is that he was going to tax pre-1985 assets and the other is that he was going to put up tax on Land Rovers—the memorable grab that he gave us about the Toorak tractors. He was the man who was going to chase the Toorak tractors off the road. Then we got elected and he decided that both of his policies were wrong. Lucky he wasn't elected to government.What this country needs are reductions in tax rates. It needs greater business tax reform. We need to get company taxes down, we need to get out concessions, we need to give small business relief, we need capital gains tax relief for small business. We need to cut the capital gains tax. This is the biggest review of business tax that we have had in Australia's history. It is an opportunity for Labor to dance the waltz of cooperation—with apologies to Mike Seccombe. It has been a great tax reform, it has been a great reforming government, led by the Prime Minister. On behalf of all of his indispensable ministers, I would like to mention the indispensability of the Prime Minister, the leadership he has shown and the way the government is committed to reform. All it needs is a little bit of cooperation and a little bit of leadership from the Leader of the Opposition. 1040510405Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Would the minister advise the House of the benefits to the information technology sectors as a result of the government's new business taxation system? How will the very significant reforms to capital gains tax assist capital investment in these emerging industries?10405McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I thank the honourable member for Forde. I well know her interest in these matters and how she appreciates that information technology and communication companies have embraced wholeheartedly the tax reforms the government has delivered, for they knew how uncompetitive the tax system was and how that drained investment in Australia and how it also led to innovation and innovators going overseas. It did not matter how much they pleaded with the previous Labor government: there were no changes to that uncompetitive tax regime.We have seen a lowering of the rate of capital gains tax. That is very important for foreign pension funds, which are the largest source of venture capital. They will now be able to invest tax free in Australia's early and expansion stage venture capital market. Attracting investment from them has also been successful in countries such as Israel in developing a successful growth strategy.Australian superannuation funds will receive a similar benefit in relation to investments made through pooled development funds. The Venture Capital Association now says that the amount of venture capital funds flowing into Australia could double or triple in the next few years.For rural and regional Australia, the great potential of information technology and telecommunication industries is that people can work in remote areas. We are already seeing that with call centres and software development businesses being established in regional towns. So our policies are designed to coordinate this growth and development throughout Australia, including rural Australia.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper . In so doing, Mr Speaker, could I respond to the request of the members for Barton and Cunningham and others in wishing the great St George-Illawarra team great success on Saturday. Perhaps in a triumph of hope over expectation I wish Carlton well as well, Mr Speaker.Documents1040510405Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are tabled as listed on the schedule circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings .Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following papers:Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency—Second Quarterly Report of the Chief Executive Officer, for period 1 April to 30 June 1999.Finance—Final budget outcome 1998-99.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.10405Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I present a paper on the following subject, being a petition which is not in accordance with the standing and sessional orders of the House:The widespread community support for the Australian Government to help ensure safe and fair consultation in East Timor and a free and fair United Nations supervised act of self-determination—from the member for Grayndler—134 petitioners. Ministerial Statements104061040615:19:0010406Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—by leave—I thank the House for this opportunity to report on the outcomes of my visit earlier this month to four South American countries, and on the meetings of the Cairns Group and APEC that I also attended.In Buenos Aires, I chaired the 19th Ministerial Meeting of the Cairns Group of fair trading agricultural nations from 27-29 August. Coming less than three months before the World Trade Organisation meeting at Seattle, which is expected to agree on an agenda and a framework for WTO trade negotiations, the Cairns Group meeting could not have been more timely. I am pleased to report that, in a strongly worded communique, the group reaffirmed its commitment to an ambitious liberalising outcome from the next round of agricultural negotiations and agreed to work closely during the lead-up to Seattle.The meeting reconfirmed the group's ambitions for freer, fairer and more market oriented global trading conditions, with trade in agriculture placed on the same footing as trade in other products. The group agreed that, at Seattle, they would push for a clear and detailed mandate for agricultural negotiations to ensure they begin on time, conclude before 2003, and have clear objectives.The group also welcomed the strong message of support from Mr Dan Glickman, US Secretary for Agriculture, who was a guest at the meeting and who assured us that the United States would not agree to any WTO outcome that did not include a good result on agriculture. Given the broad convergence of Cairns Group and US interests, Secretary Glickman agreed that the United States should cooperate closely with the Cairns Group in the lead-up to Seattle and beyond. Secretary Glickman's presence also gave me another opportunity to convey Australia's continuing concerns over the US decision to restrict Australian lamb exports, and also to seek details on the United States' proposed $US7.5 billion emergency farm aid package. Secretary Glickman assured me that the proposed package would not breach US obligations under the WTO. Cairns Group ministers agreed to meet next in Seattle, on the eve of the WTO conference, and again in Canada next year.During my trip to South America from 27 August to 5 September, I visited Argentina, Brazil, Peru and Uruguay. Highlights of those visits included the signature of a double taxation agreement with Argentina, the opening of the new Australian Consulate-General and Austrade office in Lima and an IDP Education Australia office in Sao Paulo, as well as high-level official and business contacts in all countries that were visited. My meetings with Australian business representatives emphasised the trade and investment opportunities for Australian companies in the region, particularly in the mining, agribusiness, infrastructure and services sectors.The rapid development of these markets demonstrates the effectiveness of the government's policy of encouraging greater market diversification by Australian exporters. Merchandise exports to South America were valued at just $200 million in the mid-1980s, but have grown to around $900 million in 1998-99. While Australia's exports are concentrated in the minerals and resources sector, exports of manufactures have grown strongly in the last decade and now account for over 40 per cent of all exports. With merchandise imports from South America valued at $550 million in 1998-99, Australia enjoys a substantial merchandise trade surplus with the region. South America is also a promising market for services. Australian exports of services now exceed $250 million. Apart from traditional areas like banking, finance and mining, there are also new opportunities in education, superannuation, health and telecommunications.Investment, estimated at $3.6 billion in mid-1998, has been the cornerstone of Australia's involvement in the region. South America's strong resource and agricultural base has been attractive to Australian companies—particularly the mining sector, but the range of Australian investment is diversifying. The longer term economic outlook for the countries I visited is positive. All have massive natural resources and increasingly affluent populations, and are moving towards more open markets. Opportunities in South America warrant a fresh look by Australian businesses. The government is doing its part to help, as the new trade focused consulate-general in Lima demonstrates. The current inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade into Australia's trade and investment relationship with South America will provide a valuable review of Australia's links with this region.Together with my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I attended the APEC Ministerial Meeting in Auckland on 9 and 10 September. I went with three key objectives: to produce a strong unambiguous statement of support by APEC for the launch of a new WTO round; to maintain the emphasis in APEC on trade and investment liberalisation and to ensure that individual action plans reflect a determination to meet the Bogor goals; and to highlight the useful trade facilitation work that has been done by APEC and to accelerate progress where possible.I am pleased to report that the ministerial and leaders meetings delivered strong outcomes that very much met these objectives. We now have an unambiguous commitment by the Asia-Pacific region to a pragmatic set of negotiations that deliver substantial improvements in market access. The agreement forged by APEC in Auckland, which has set the scene for a successful WTO meeting in Seattle, includes: a call for comprehensive market access negotiations, including on industrial tariffs in addition to agriculture and services; agreement that the round should be completed in three years as a single package without precluding the possibility of implementation of early results on a provisional basis, including the accelerated tariff liberalisation package; and, on agriculture, a commitment to participate actively and constructively in the negotiations and support for the elimination of agricultural export subsidies and unjustifiable export prohibitions and restrictions. Another significant outcome of the meeting was agreement to improve APEC members' individual action plans—the documents which record the steps economies have taken, or will take, to reach the APEC goals of free and open trade and investment. I will be working hard to ensure that the individual action plan process delivers better market access for Australian companies and that the plans themselves are improved. To this end, Australia will provide technical assistance to help developing economy APEC members produce better plans. I presented Australia's own individual action plan to APEC in Auckland. I have the pleasure of tabling it today for the information of honourable members. I commend it to the House.I also used the margins of the APEC meeting to launch a study on the benefits to APEC members of opening up sugar markets in the region. Australian sugar producers are the most efficient in the world and I will be doing all I can to highlight the distortions in global sugar trade, including at the WTO meeting in Seattle.The other outcome from Auckland with which I was closely involved was an agreement to boost business facilitation. APEC's work on streamlining standards, customs procedures and business travel, and in other areas, complements the more traditional trade liberalisation work and reduces costs of conducting business in the region in a very concrete and direct way. For example, the Auckland meeting signed off on a new mutual recognition agreement on conformity assessment for electrical and electronic goods, which could take five per cent off the production costs of this $US250 billion regional trade, saving exporters and consumers up to $US12.5 billion a year, once fully implemented. APEC ministers agreed in Auckland to give more attention to this practical kind of work and to involve business groups more in setting priorities and taking advice.The Cairns Group and APEC meetings have laid the groundwork for the crucial WTO meeting in Seattle. I am encouraged by the great support Australia has generated for its WTO objectives. Our government is deter mined to pull out all stops to ensure that those objectives are met.15:29:0010408McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—by leave—I wish to make a brief statement on the same matter. The three priorities on which the minister has reported are indeed fine priorities. The Cairns Group is a fine initiative of former Labor trade minister John Dawkins. It needs the ongoing care and attention of Australian trade ministers and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The tradition that trade ministers, when they go to Cairns Group meetings in Latin America—which occurs every second year—should use that opportunity to make bilateral visits to our major trading partners in Latin America is a fine tradition started by me. The APEC initiative, particularly the Bogor agreement that is driving APEC, is another fine Labor initiative. So it is hard to say that the three issues about which the minister has reported are not very worth while. But, in responding to each, I want to comment on each of those matters and on where this leaves us with the new WTO round fast approaching.With regard to the Cairns Group, the minister has given us a potted summary of the objectives of the Cairns Group but nothing of the challenges it will face and how it intends to meet them. Even worse, there seems to be no sense in the minister's statement that reflects how the Cairns Group fits into the overall trade picture. For example, eight of the 15 Cairns Group countries are also members of APEC, but there is no mention in this statement of how that substantial bloc in favour of agricultural trade liberalisation could have played a role at APEC. It reminds us on this side of the Cairns Group communique from Buenos Aires which read more like a tirade against agricultural protection than a strategy for removing the barriers that cost Australian farmers so dearly. It might also have been recycled from the year before with just the names and the date changed.Finally, Mr Vaile said that the US Secretary for Agriculture, Dan Glickman, assured him that the $US7.5 billion aid package to US farmers did not breach WTO rules. What would you expect him to say—that it did? But there are some more fundamental ques tions for him to deal with which you would expect would be in the forefront of the mind of a former agriculture minister. In particular, will the US package hurt Australian farmers? If so, what does the Minister for Trade intend to do about it? We look forward to hearing the answers from Mr Vaile on this matter on subsequent occasions.With regard to the South American visit, I welcome the fact that the minister continued the tradition of visiting South American countries in the course of his Cairns Group visit and that he focused on trying to get some improvements on market access in those important emerging markets. But, while the minister is focusing on market access, there is a much bigger game being played out, and that is the free trade agreement game. Negotiations are currently occurring on free trade agreements between a range of Asian countries and their South American trading partners—for example, between Japan and Mexico, between Singapore and Mexico and between Korea and Chile. All of these agreements, if they were to succeed, would have profound implications for Australia.But it is not only that we are not being asked to play in some of these games. Even where we are asked to play, we seem to have chosen to sit on the sidelines. The one potential free trade agreement that might include Australia is known as P5, made up of the United States, New Zealand, Australia, Chile and Singapore. However, despite frequent entreaties from the New Zealanders, we are refusing to put any real work into P5 whatsoever. Why? It is almost impossible to know, because the minister has made no public statement about it. Perhaps trade, for this government, is limited to issues of trade promotion.With regard to APEC, everybody knows that Labor feels passionately about APEC, which is why in June the Leader of the Opposition gave a pathway speech focusing on it and why the shadow minister for trade, Peter Cook, produced a 27-page discussion paper on it. We cannot help despairing as we watch the organisation drift under the Howard government. The minister's goals for Auckland give some idea of where the organi sation has got to. Labor had urged the government to grasp the nettle of achieving the Bogor goals: free trade by 2010 for developed countries and by 2020 for developing countries. We pointed out that the next WTO round will be the last round to be completed before 2010, so if Australia wants to see the Bogor goals achieved we need to get them up at the WTO. And that meant APEC members agreeing to take them to the WTO. Instead, anxious not to aim for something which it was not absolutely sure it could achieve before it started, the government just opted to have APEC members endorse a new round. They had already done that before they came, so that was a modest objective if ever there was one.Mr Vaile's two other goals for APEC are vacuous in the extreme. Goal No. 2 is to maintain the emphasis in APEC on trade and investment liberalisation. This is, after all, the core of what APEC is all about. It would be very difficult for it not to focus on its raison d'etre. Goal No. 3 is to highlight the useful trade facilitation work that has been done by APEC. So it is not surprising that the minister was able to declare success. If you aim low enough, you will always succeed.With regard to the broader issue and very important issue of the WTO, today's statement will do nothing to reassure those who were looking for a sense of drive and vision at November's Seattle WTO meeting. Already we are being told privately that the minister is not sure whether he wants to liaise with Australian business at Seattle. Conditions for liberalising world trade are better than at any time in the past 20 years, but there is no sense that this government and this minister are ready to play the leading role that Australia has played in the Uruguay Round. So we welcome the statement, but we are disappointed with the limit to its ambitions. However, we welcome the fact that the minister continues the tradition of reporting on these matters on return, particularly from the Cairns Group and from APEC.Motion (by Miss Jackie Kelly) proposed:That the House take note of the papers.Debate adjourned.Matters of Public Importance104091040910000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Cunningham proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The need for the Minister for Defence to ensure that the Australian Defence Force can sustain its deployment in East Timor as part of the Multinational Force.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—15:36:0010409Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—There would probably be no need for an MPI of this nature to be introduced into this place today had the Minister for Defence, when questioned by me yesterday in a genuine attempt to elicit some information about the reserve forces and the deployment of troops in East Timor, come into this place and given the answer that he gave today in a prepared statement to a question from one of his own. The response from this minister in parliament this afternoon in suggesting that the reason for me raising a question yesterday was scaremongering is a long way from the truth.What the parliament has to understand and what all Australians have to understand is this: Australia presently is in the process of building up to a commitment of the largest overseas force in 30 years. Australia is in the process of committing 4,500 troops to East Timor for good, sound humanitarian reasons. Australia is in the process of committing something like 10 per cent of the total ADF to an operation overseas which will, by necessity, see the need for those troops to be rotated. Why do I say that? I say that because any force structure planning that goes to the heart of an operation such as Operation Stabilise must make contingency plans for the deployment of troops and to rotate those troops over a period of time.The United Nations resolution that sees Australia as the leader of the multinational force in East Timor is open ended: there is no time constraint for that particular operation to conclude. I—like the minister and everybody else in this place, I am sure—would want to see that operation conclude quickly. We would like to think that the United Nations Blue Helmets will take over from the multinational force as quickly as possible and we would like to think that Australia's fighting men and women that are in East Timor at the present time will return home as quickly as is possible and as safely as is possible.But the minister's response yesterday and the general attitude that he displays in this place to questions about defence issues generally do not give us a lot of comfort because the simple fact is there is no place for complacency at the present moment. I remind members that today, in the news reports that have been coming in over the Internet, we find that Australian troops are actually involved in shootings and confrontations involving militia in East Timor.We are seeing threats being made—and I will quote one from a report. Apparently witnesses have said that there are about 500 pro-Jakarta militiamen massing in the town of Liquica, west of Dili, saying they would mount an attack on foreign peacekeepers. `We want war,' one of the camouflage wearing militia said, and this report goes on to quote an East Javanese territorial battalion major—that is, from the Indonesian army—saying:We will be departing from East Timor soon, maybe today. After today all hell will break loose.The simple fact is all hell will break loose in East Timor. The fact is that we have a commitment there of Australian fighting men and women to do a job that everyone in this parliament supports. The sentiments that have been expressed in here have been unanimously carried, as they should be. But the fact of the matter is that the minister, by his attitude in answering a question put to him yesterday—as has been his attitude when questions have been put to him in this place on previous occasions—does not give us confidence, and the newspaper reporting of that is just extraordinary. The Minister for Defence stood up in this place and said the question of the rotation of troops and the use of reserve forces to supplement our troops in East Timor was a matter that would be considered when it was relevant. Forty-five minutes later, the ADF spokesman on East Timor matters was briefing the media, telling them all of the contingency plans for putting the reserves into action, and 24 hours later the minister comes in with a prepared answer that basically mirrors what that man said. Twenty-four hours later he comes in with the answer to the question that he could have put at the time!Whilst his office was then denying that it actually had the reserve plans in operation, members of this place had people ringing their offices saying, `Guess what: the military has been on the phone asking us if we want to come back into active service.' But the minister's office is out there denying it in the media saying, `No, this isn't the case.' Peter Costello gets on the radio and says, `Well, actually, yes, it is.' He says:We'll have to ensure those troops have full equipment, allowances, support, rotation, leave. It will require another brigade, which we are already raising.So you have the military raising the brigade, the military talking about reserves and Treasurer Peter Costello talking about reserves, and the reserves in this case are the Army Reserves. You have people like Hugh Smith of the Australian Defence Force Academy saying that the ADF is very stretched and that, when it comes to training people to go on overseas deployment out of the reserves, those people need to be brought up to a standard that will take a considerable number of weeks.You also have the people referred to in question time this afternoon—for example, the President of the Defence Reserves Association, Major General Warren Glenny—also talking about the need to boost recruitment. We have the very fact that under this government we have seen our reserve numbers fall 50 per cent short of the recruiting targets in the last 12 months. We have seen this government change the Workplace Relations Act so that anyone who wants to serve in the reserves is going to be penalised because it is no longer an allowable matter. In other words, employers will not give them time off.We have asked the minister if he will do something about that and, to his credit, in his answer today in question time he did say that was an issue that he was going to talk through with the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. I hope he will. I hope that not only will he talk it through but that he will get the change that is necessary. I will give a commitment—and I am looking on our side for the shadow minister for workplace relations; he is not here but I will give it anyway—that if the minister brings in the change that will eliminate that particular issue from the agenda altogether we will pass it quickly.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Hear! Hear!8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—We will pass it through both houses just like that, Minister. So go and have a talk to P1. Have a chat to him, see if he is prepared to do it and we will be there with you.EI4MOOREMr Moore—P1 or P2?8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—Well, it's P2 but they are interchangeable, aren't they? They are all indispensable or are they not dispensable?EI4MOOREMr Moore—They're both indispensable.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—P1 or P2—we do not care. But there are other things that this minister must be doing at the moment, and we raised some of them in question time today. This minister must be talking to the ministers for defence in the coalition forces to ensure that those commitments are there. I raise with you, Minister, in this MPI our ability to sustain a deployment because of the concern that this operation is open ended. If we suddenly find that this operation is going to go on for a considerable time, what guarantees do we have that the other countries that are participating or are giving commitments to participate in this deployment will still be there?What commitment is there that after, say, three months, as we get to Christmas, our partners in this multinational force will continue to be there? Will they stick? The minister must be on the phone to them. The fact that this place is so dangerous—we already have the leader of the contingent saying on the public record that his forces are stretched—and the fact that all of the troops have yet to be deployed demands that the minister be on the phone, on a daily basis, talking to the ministers for defence in the countries that have agreed to deploy as part of the multinational force and, importantly, ensuring that they are going to stick.The minister must also try to re-establish some contact with General Wiranto. It is all well and good for the Prime Minister to say, `I have not spoken to President Habibie for a couple of weeks,' and for the Minister for Defence to say that he has not spoken to General Wiranto, the defence minister for Indonesia, for a couple of weeks, but the fact is that there are still Indonesian soldiers in East Timor. The reports coming across the wires today indicate that Indonesian soldiers may in fact be firing on Australian soldiers. The minister has to talk to General Wiranto on a regular basis and establish some dialogue. There is no point whatsoever in saying, `I can't get him on the phone.' The minister must try. The minister also has to get a bit of intelligence—I do not mean that in the normal sense; well, maybe I do—so that he is continually on top of the brief. He has to ensure that the intelligence coming out of East Timor from the ADF—the fine men and women that are serving Australia so well—is being digested so that if questions are put to him in this place, to try to elicit information, he is able to stand up and respond appropriately.The minister must also continue to liaise and consult on a regular basis with senior Defence officials. It is no good for this minister to come into this House, dismiss the concerns we have about raising the Ready Reserves—which we would like to see put back in place, I might say—and dismiss altogether the concept of reserves taking part and say, `We will worry about rotation and deployments and so on when the need arises.' The minister must come in here and be prepared on a daily basis to respond to these sorts of concerns. The minister, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition—in both Darwin and Townsville when we were all up there together to farewell the troops—spoke fine words about the job that the troops would do for Australia. Their families back here in Australia demand that the minister knows what is happening at a time when Australia has deployed the biggest offshore contingent in 30 years. They must be convinced that the minister will not simply glibly throw away any concerns that are directed towards him.We would also like to know whether the minister, as part of this rotation process, as part of the process of calling up the reserves, is looking at opportunities for our full-time defence personnel serving in other theatres to be redirected to East Timor. For example, is the minister considering recalling some of the troops that we presently have on peacekeeping duties in Bougainville, redirecting them to East Timor and replacing them with reservists because he believes that it is not as dangerous in Bougainville as it is in East Timor? We would like to know that. I am sure the people on Bougainville would like to know that. I am sure people elsewhere, and their families, would like to know something about that.Has the minister finally found out, given that the contingency is now in East Timor, whether medical practitioners will be available to give service to our serving men and women should the need arise? When a question was put to the minister some weeks ago about the level of availability of those people, he glibly said, `They will be there when they are ready and when they are needed.' Well, they are needed now, and we would like to be assured that they are in fact going to be there.The simple fact is that the circumstances of East Timor are dangerous. While the scenes of East Timor that we are seeing on our televisions at night may not be any longer filled with vision every couple of seconds of marauding militias with home-made guns or machetes hacking into people, or people throwing rocks, they are being replaced with discoveries of mutilated bodies in the bottom of well shafts. We are being told about journalists being murdered. We are talking about Australians going into buildings in Dili unable, necessarily, to convince everyone that they can secure the environment around Dili—let alone out around other locations. We want to know, and the people of Australia and the families of those serving men and women in East Timor want to know, that the minister is across his brief, that the minister has a handle on the responsibility he has.The Prime Minister, for a variety of reasons that have been canvassed, went out and committed Australia to this action and we have the leadership of it. The defence minister has the responsibility for the welfare of those people serving there. In question time today the Prime Minister said, in reference to his ministers, `indispensability comes to quality'. The funny thing is that, when the Prime Minister was talking about potential leaders to replace him in the interview that he gave to Howard Sattler today, he mentioned Alexander Downer and John Moore, but when the transcript was put out by the Prime Minister's office—guess what?—John Moore, you were missing. You have been missing for a number of weeks now. Show us that you are across your portfolio. Show us that, as the defence minister, you are concerned about those people in East Timor.15:51:0010412Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—The member for Cunningham is a nice guy. He is popular around the House, but he makes a dreadful spokesman for defence. He comes up and away he goes with a series of allegations. He is not aware of the facts. It is nice to take him around to some of these shows, but he needs to get up with the facts. The ADF is adequately resourced. We can maintain a deployment of 4,500 troops in East Timor for 12 months. We can rotate those forces within that 12-month period.The issue we are considering today is a critical one. It is therefore important that we be aware of the background of this historic deployment. As we all know, the government supported the decision of the Indonesian government—a tripartite agreement set out on 5 May—to hold an action of consultation in East Timor on 30 August. It is well known that Indonesia had responsibility for security in the period surrounding the ballot and that on the day of the vote there was very little disturbance. We acknowledge the role of the Indonesian government in achieving this.The widespread violence after the ballot, however, was completely unacceptable. Since then the Australian government has worked tirelessly to help stabilise the situation and to provide a path for the will of the East Timorese people to be given effect. We were well pleased when the Indonesian government announced its decision to accept a multinational peacekeeping force. The Australian government worked very closely with the international community to obtain the agreement of the United Nations to allow the deployment of troops into East Timor.The United Nations Security Council reached its resolution in an incredibly short time. The UN mandate is a strong one, and we believe it fully meets INTERFET's requirements. The mandate authorises INTERFET to restore peace and security in East Timor, to protect and support UNAMET and to facilitate humanitarian assistance operations. Importantly, INTERFET is authorised to take all necessary measures to fulfil the mandate.At the request of the United Nations Secretary-General, Australia accepted the leadership of this peacekeeping force. Major General Peter Cosgrove, one of Australia's most distinguished service-in-combat soldiers, has been appointed to the commander's position, and I am sure that all Australians are very proud of the role that he and his colleagues are playing. This was all achieved within the space of three weeks, and that is worth recording. I have certainly never seen that before. It is a great credit to the diplomatic efforts of the Prime Minister, my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs and senior officials of our departments.This deployment is a very important one. As I said in the House earlier this week, it clearly meets the test of Australia's national interests. We have a vital strategic interest in promoting peace and stability in East Timor. Without that peace and stability we cannot be confident of our own security, so our leadership of INTERFET not only is about being a good international citizen but equally is about promoting regional peace, security and Australia's national interests.It is our objective to ensure that the United Nations process moves back on course as soon as possible. Our aim is for phase 3 of the United Nations process—the period after the Indonesian parliament ratifies the 30 August vote and a United Nations transition authority takes over—to commence as soon as possible. The intention of the Australian government is for the multinational force to carry out its mandate and to hand over to the United Nations transition authority as soon as possible. Currently, phase 2 of the operation, INTERFET is expected to last for up to four months.I would now like to turn to the current status of the INTERFET operation. As of this morning, there were 2,750 personnel deployed in East Timor, comprising some 2,416 Australians and 282 foreign forces. Another 987 Australian personnel are serving on ships involved in Operation Stabilise. The build-up of troops, stores and equipment will continue today through both the port and Dili airport.INTERFET is continuing to develop its operations. Yesterday the Bacau airport was secured by Company Group in preparation for the deployment of further INTERFET forces. A suspected militia location in the Tropicana Hotel in Dili was investigated by INTERFET forces yesterday. A cache of approximately 40 weapons, mostly handmade, were discovered and five personnel were detained for questioning. Twelve Black Hawk helicopters are now located in Dili. Security elements will be deployed to Dare and Uamori today. Twenty C-130 sortis, of which nine are Australian, have been planned between Darwin and Dili today, including three air drops of humanitarian aid—two by Australian aircraft and one by French aircraft. A total of 85 C-130 sortis, 52 of them Australian, have been completed between Darwin and Dili up to and including yesterday. This includes six humanitarian drops delivering over 100,000 pounds of food and supplies.As far as the current state of the INTERFET coalition is concerned, firm commitments have now been received from 12 countries. These are the Philippines, the United Kingdom, the United States, Singapore, Thailand, New Zealand, Italy, France, Canada, Ireland, Brazil and Malaysia. Eight other countries have indicated a willingness to contribute but actual commitments have not yet been agreed. These countries are Fiji, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Egypt, Mozambique, Norway, Spain and Denmark. International contingents continue to arrive in Australia and will be deployed in Dili in due course as part of the force build-up. Forces or elements from the United Kingdom, New Zealand, France, Thailand, the Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia and the US are located in Darwin and will continue to deploy to East Timor. Brazil and Italian force elements are undergoing force preparation in Townsville prior to deployment. This has been an excellent deployment and an excellent example of international cooperation between nations. I commend the ADF on this well-planned and well-executed operation. I thank the nations involved for their contributions and, in particular, for their speedy response to the request from the United Nations.I now turn to the issue of sustainability of our contribution to INTERFET and East Timor. Clearly the scale of our deployment in East Timor is posing major challenges for the ADF. However, because of the decision we took in February this year to raise the readiness of a second brigade, we have now available to us sufficient forces to deploy and maintain on East Timor a contingent of up to 4,500 personnel for a year. This includes sufficient forces to allow for a rotation of the units. The government has been advised by the ADF that they are planning for units to spend no more than nine months on deployment, and if possible less. These are operational matters.The government has very close contact with the leadership of the ADF and will naturally act on its advice on this important matter. As I said at question time, we are also conscious that our troops in East Timor have families back here. Within the bounds of the operational requirements, we will try to provide as much certainty for families as possible regarding the expected duration of the deployment. We hope that, within a year, the situation in East Timor will have improved to the point that our forces can be withdrawn, or at least significantly reduced. We are currently working with the United Nations to ensure this occurs, but the government recognises that there is a possibility that we may need to sustain the deployment longer than that.Our present force will allow us at the same time to maintain significant forces to deal with other contingencies, may they arise, and to ensure that we have the forces for critical national tasks, such as a counter-terrorism response for the Olympics.I would now like to turn specifically to the important issue of the possible need for rotation of the Australian contingent. This is an issue that has been under close consideration by the government. Firstly, we need to be clear that the current mandate should not be seen as a substitute for the tripartite agreement between Indonesia, Portugal and the United Nations. The purpose of the current deployment is to create the conditions on the ground that will permit the process put in place under the agreement to get back on track as quickly as possible. If this can be done quickly and effectively, there should be no need for the rotation of the forces currently in East Timor. We intend to work vigorously towards that outcome. All parties to the mandate are keen to see the situation on the ground stabilised to the point where we can transfer the mandate for a peace enforcement operation to a United Nations peacekeeping operation in support of a United Nations transitional authority in East Timor.Australia will, of course, contribute to the peacekeeping force as well as to the transitional authority. The nature and scale of our contribution to phase 3 of the peacekeeping force will be tailored to the situation at that time. I can say, however, that I expect we will not need to deploy on the same scale as under the current peace enforcement mandate. It is likely, however, that phase 3 of the peacekeeping force will be required to support the transitional authority in East Timor for some considerable time. Accordingly, my department is now planning the likely manpower and resource requirements to allow an effective ADF contribution to such a force. Our initial studies indicate that the support for phase 3 of the peacekeeping force could largely be sustained from within the current force structure. There is a need, however, for prudent planning in case the peace enforce ment operation under the current mandate needs to be extended beyond the current projections for phase 2.As I said in question time, I am advised that the current manning levels are robust enough to support a projected ADF contingent of some 4,500 personnel, including any requirement for rotation, for a period of at least one year, although additional resources will be required to cover equipment and operating costs. Any extension of the current mandate beyond the 12 months would require some form of expansion to maintain a force at the higher end of the scale. This will require an early decision on the requirement to raise additional regular elements based on 7 Brigade in Brisbane. My department is now doing the detailed planning work on this issue and I will take the matter to the National Security Committee very shortly. While I do not wish to pre-empt their consideration, I can say with great confidence that the government will take whatever decision is necessary to ensure that our defence forces are properly manned, trained, equipped and sustained to support our forces in East Timor, whether under the present peace enforcement mandate or under the phase 3 peacekeeping mandate.The coalition has spent the last three years focussing Defence on its reasons for being: providing combat capability to protect Australia and its interests. That focus on combat capability through the Defence Reform Program has shifted resources from administrative areas to the sharp end. Because of this, there are more Regular Army personnel combat and combat related roles than when the coalition came to power. We have brought a second brigade sized group, 1 Brigade in Darwin, to a higher state of readiness, at 28 days notice to move. In December 1997 we introduced the Army individual readiness notice. Personnel must now meet set fitness requirements and be ready to deploy, focusing our individual soldiers on their need to be combat ready. So we are in a strong position to support any deployment.Listening to the contribution made by the member for Cunningham today, I have to say I totally reject the scaremongering of the opposition on this matter. We do have suffi cient forces to deploy and maintain a contingent of 4,500 personnel on East Timor for a year. That includes sufficient forces for a rotation of those units. The government is working closely with the leadership of the ADF to ensure that our deployment to East Timor is adequately resourced. That is the case at the moment and it will continue to be the case for the total period of the deployment. The government is committed to ensuring the ADF is properly resourced.16:05:0010415Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—It is a sad testimony to the gross inattention and incompetence of the Minister of Defence that we must have this debate today. On Tuesday this House, on a bipartisan basis, totally supported our contribution to INTERFET and we offered our best wishes and support for the men and women of the Australian Defence Force who are already in Timor or those who will be there in the near future. On that occasion, we highlighted the failure of the government to address a raft of issues regarding the Defence Force, and particularly the urgent need to rebuild the Australian Army Reserve. Our concerns have been met with denial and buck-passing by the government. The government continues to congratulate itself for acting in April to place a second brigade on 28 days readiness.As I said on Tuesday, we have consistently supported the decision. But I remind the House of the time the minister told the Ten Network that placing two brigades on 28 days readiness would require a bigger base of reserves and improved cooperation from employers. What we need to know is what action he took on this very same requirement that he himself identified. The government continually had advice from military intelligence about what was really happening on the ground in Timor, particularly in relation to the integral links between the TNI and their surrogate militias.Equally, it has been receiving advice for the best part of the past year about the poor state of the reserves. Indeed, a quick check through my own records reveals the following media releases and speeches of mine in 1999 on issues facing the reserves: 8 January, `Coalition policies harm reserve recruitment'; 15 February, `Army Reserve', in grievance debate; 20 April, `Liberals disown Reith on defence reserves'; 3 May, `Action needed on leave for defence reservists'; on 11 May, there was an MPI in this House with regard to the reserves; 11 August, `Scott unrealistic on reserve leave'; 20 September, `Government fails to recruit 2,300 defence reservists'. So there has been a long, hard effort by the opposition to alert this government to the problems of the reserves in this country.Indeed, on the resumption of parliament for the budget sittings the opposition initiated a matter of public importance, highlighting:The disastrous impact on the Defence Reserves of the Coalition's industrial relations and defence policies.Then, as now, the government's response was denial on the one hand and, on the other, the false promise that it was, once again, looking into remedial measures for the reserves. This approach has continued this week, but in the changed context where we now have troops on the ground in Timor—troops potentially in harm's way who have a right to expect that this government and this parliament have in place proper contingency plans to support them and to replace them when the need arises. Yesterday my colleague the member for Cunningham asked the minister to:. . . explain how Australia is going to rotate Australian troops deployed in East Timor, especially considering that the government abolished the Ready Reserve scheme, removed leave for Defence Force reservists as an allowable matter under the Workplace Relations Act, and allowed recruiting to the reserves to fall short by nearly half the target?Most Australians would have thought that was an apt question, reflecting strong views widely held in this country, which needed a detailed response from the government. What was the substance of the minister's reply? The crux of it was:. . . some 3,000 troops will be deployed in that province in the very near future, with full equipment, food, fuel and resources. As I said, thequestion dealing with the reserves should be addressed to the minister assisting. The question of rotation will be dealt with when that becomes relevant.It is not relevant now, apparently. What an appalling performance: fobbing off responsi bility for the reserves to his junior minister and implying that the question of rotation was irrelevant at present.Unfortunately for the minister's shrinking credibility—but fortunately for the Australian people—the Australian Defence Force had other ideas. Within hours of the minister dismissing the matter, the ADF's official spokesman on our Timor deployment, Colonel Duncan Lewis, told the media that a new recruitment drive was under way `because of the urgency of getting a rotation in place'—quite a contrast to the minister's assurances—that the 7th Brigade was being mobilised, that the reserves would be looked at and that former defence personnel would be encouraged back into uniform. Apparently, all this was news to the responsible minister—the Minister for Defence. His spokesman was quoted on the front page of the Canberra Times as follows:The Government had not made a decision on boosting the 7th task force. the army could sustain the East Timor force for some time and there was no rush to enlist recruits.Today the minister played games of semantics to avoid confessing the true situation; namely, that Colonel Lewis was right and the minister was totally wrong again. So despite the denials last night we now hear that, while the reserves `generally' are not needed, `specialist' reserves, such as dental and engineering personnel, are needed and that the government was again looking into the need to increase the readiness of additional battalions.Later in question time the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, Mr Scott, answered that the government was again looking into the reserves. This is an appalling state of affairs. The Minister for Defence does not know what is going on in the Defence Force. Every genuine problem raised is met with the response that the opposition is being alarmist—just like we were being alarmist for the last year with regard to what was going on in Timor on the ground. When they are finally forced to admit that there are unresolved problems, the two ministers say they are looking into a response. When they are finally forced to admit that there are unre solved problems, the two ministers say that they are again looking into a response.Of course, it is not just in the past 24 hours that our military leadership has been trying to give the government soundly based—but unwelcome—advice. Indeed, I have here today a copy of an official Headquarters ADF minute that was sent to the former Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel, Bronwyn Bishop, on 24 May 1996—more than three years ago. It has a very unambiguous heading: `Inclusion of leave provisions for Defence purposes in the Workplace Relations Bill. The minute begins by noting that on 9 April 1996—not 1999; 1996—the author had discussed with the minister the concerns of the official Defence Reserves Support Committee. They are people who put a lot of their time into promoting reserves in this country. He had spoken to the minister about:. . . the impact the [Workplace Relations] Bill may have on the availability of Reservists and the consequences that would have on the ADF, particularly if existing provisions for leave for Reserve training were removed from Federal awards.The minute was very perceptive. It went on to say:As Reserve members constitute approximately 40 per cent of the ADF workforce, their continued availability for training, as currently provided for in awards, agreements and company personnel policies, is essential—underline `essential'—to Australian Defence Force capability. Existing awards have been important in providing institutional support for Reserves through the inclusion of provisions which allow leave for military training purposes for members of the Reserves. Over one hundred awards include leave provisions for Reserve training provisions.I am pleased that the member for Herbert is here today, because, unlike the Australian Defence Force, he does not understand that over 100 Australian awards and agreements had these provisions. He told his electorate that there was no such thing in the Australian industrial relations system. The minute—that brief that the minister had 3½ years ago—further told Bronwyn Bishop:If not identified as a matter for inclusion in awards, Reserve training leave may not be picked up within either the Certified Agreement, Australian Workplace Agreements or other State Agreements which will increasingly supplant existing awards.Although not one of the safety net employment conditions identified in the Bill, Reserve availability for training is critical to maintaining defence capability and award coverage of this issue is an important component of ensuring availability. The Bill should therefore include provisions which would permit awards to continue to cover Defence Force leave provisions.So the people who actually know something about this in the Australian Defence Force—the people who actually have carriage of this, regardless of governments and regardless of the ineptitude of individual ministers—told this minister that he should stand up to the minister for industrial relations and basically stop that change. Whether it was Bronwyn Bishop or the current minister, there has been a serious dereliction of duty with regard to maintaining Australia's reserves. No doubt when the then minister got that advice she said she would be looking into the matter—just like her successor said today, more than three years later. In the meantime, things have gone backwards. Defence leave has been taken out of awards, recruitment of reserves is at its lowest level in living memory—all at a time when the ADF is involved in its biggest overseas deployment since the Vietnam War. So, indeed, there is a need to condemn this minister for the gross inattention he has shown his portfolio. Quite frankly, the bonhomie that he daily produces and the friendly quips across the House are not good enough in such a serious matter.16:15:0010417Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—Today the matter of public importance put forward by the other side of the House states:The need for the Minister for Defence to ensure that the Australian Defence Force can sustain its deployment in East Timor as part of the Multinational Force.UNKNOWNGovernment memberGovernment member—It can.YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTT—I agree with the interjection from the back: that is exactly what we can do. Because the Liberal-National coalition is in government, we as a country are able to do just what the motion states. That is the important point.Let us just look at the facts. We have been here for about 3½ years. What was the sustainability of our Defence Force when we first came to government? This is the critical point in relation to the matter of public importance put forward by the other side of the House. Let me remind the House that, under Labor, combat capability was run down, and it is about time that those on the other side of the House admitted it. The only evaluation undertaken after 13 years of Labor was one of self-assessment—it was carried out by the Army itself, not by us when we first came to government—being taken from the Army 21 document. I will quote from that document. It says `units not adequately prepared for combat' and `army lacks efficient combat power'. It says, `It would require substantial warning time and financial expenditure to mobilise for a major conflict.' Also, `With some exceptions, units are understaffed, poorly equipped and have low readiness levels.' That is from the Army 21 document, a self-assessment carried out by the Army and given to us when we first came to government.After having had the coalition in government for only 3½ years, this country is now more combat ready than it has ever been in the last 25 years. We have put the resources into the sharp end; we have put them into the areas where they are needed. For the very same reasons for having a defence force, not only do you have to have combat capability but also you have to give the troops the resources to do the job that the government and the nation asks of them.Let us look at some of the dividends that 3½ years of coalition government have brought about. I remind the House that, when we came to government to find that we had to deal with an appalling budget deficit, we quarantined the Defence budget from any savings measures. Let us look at some of the measures that we have been able to deliver in terms of combat capability.We have been able to free up some 1,000 military positions from administrative func tions and transfer them to combat and combat related duties. We have been able to refit the HMAS Tobruk and retain it in service. Under the opposition's policy, Tobruk would have been on the bottom of the ocean by now; it was to be scuttled. We know that ship is playing a vital role in the deployment in East Timor right now. We also have been able to lease the Incat catamaran, which is a vital part of the capability that we now have for this East Timor deployment. These are just some of the dividends that this government has been able to deliver.On top of that, we have 1 Brigade in Darwin on 28-days notice to move. Effectively, this means that we have doubled our capability for an early deployment. That is as a result of the minister's taking forward to cabinet the decision that we needed to increase our capacity for combat capability. That is another one of the dividends brought about by this government. Mr Deputy Speaker, when you relate that and the other action we have put in place to the motion before the House, I think quite clearly you can see that we are able to sustain that deployment.Let me give the House an idea of the numbers that we have in the ADF. With some of the scaremongering that is going on out there, I find quite irresponsible some of the armchair experts and their comments. What we have now are troops up in East Timor, and I think they are doing this country proud in the time-honoured tradition of the ADF. We as a government—and I note that the other side of the House supported the resolution the other day—have to be right behind those people. The last thing that this nation can afford is a situation such as the one we saw at the end of the Vietnam War. Because that war was politicised, those veterans, when they came back from Vietnam, never received their due respect from the community. We have to make sure that that does not happen in this country for any cheap political reason or for any people trying to take cheap shots.Let me give you some idea of the numbers that we have. We currently have 23,000 Regular Army personnel. They have the basic soldiering skills that are needed in East Timor. Also, of active reservists, we have something like 20,000 in the Army, 1,300 in the Navy and 1,600 in the Air Force. Those numbers include the additional personnel that we have been able to add by the common induction training that we introduced in January last year. Through the common induction training, we have been able to turn out 2,500 Army reservists who have received the same basic training as regular recruits who go into the Army. In other words, those reservists have had the same basic training that regulars have received. There are 2,500 of them, and they obviously could be trained to the same level as the regular force in a very short period of time; they could, and may, make an invaluable contribution, should we need to call on reserve numbers for rotation.Let us contrast that with the Labor Party's policy on the Ready Reserves which they have been talking about in the last few days. The Ready Reserves scheme introduced by the Labor Party in 1990 peaked at around 2,500 personnel. What they did to put those Ready Reserves in place was cut two regular battalions. Their solution was a part-time Army, not a full-time Army. They produced 2,500 personnel, but to fund them they cut two battalions.QI4PRICEMr Price—But you haven't replaced them.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The honourable member for Chifley.8I4MARTINMr Martin—He makes a fair point, Mr Deputy Speaker. They haven't replaced them.YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTT—We have. Quite clearly, we are making sure that we have not only combat capability but also Army reservists who are receiving the same basic training as those going into the regular force.The Labor Party are saying that we should have made reserve leave part of the Australian workplace agreements. The fact of the matter is that there are now more reserve leave provisions in those agreements than there were in the awards. When I talk to the people out there in business, many of whom employ reservists, they say, `We would rather cooperate with the government and cooperate with the Defence Force than be coerced into employing someone and give them that leave through the award system. We would rather work cooperatively with the reservists rather than be coerced.' That system is working.We know that the Commonwealth Bank have it in their Australian workplace agreements. Telstra have it in their agreements. The Northern Territory administration have it in their agreements. Our system is working. I wish the opposition would get into the real world and see how it is working and get behind good public policy that not only supports small business but also supports the reservists who want to have leave as part of an agreement under the Australian workplace agreements.I will quickly touch on the other problem we have in relation to recruiting. This is an important point. We have in this country a shrinking number of 17- to 24-year-olds. We have an ageing population in Australia today. As a result, we do not have the number of people we previously had in the younger generation. It is a problem. Career perceptions and lifestyle expectations have changed. The other thing is that the economy is strong and there are many more job prospects out there for young people. We do not think that is a bad problem. We can support the troops in East Timor and we can support the rotation. It is only the coalition that is going to be able to deliver. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion has concluded.Bills10419s22310419Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.10419Bill (on motion by Miss Jackie Kelly)—by leave—read a third time.Committees10420104201042016:26:0010420Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—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: Housing Development at Parap Grove, Darwin.The aim of the Defence Housing Authority is to provide housing for members of the Australian Defence Force and their families. The volume and location of housing provided must meet the operational requirements of the Australian Defence Force and other needs of the Department of Defence.The Defence Housing Authority proposes to spot purchase 50 project homes within the Parap Grove development located within the Darwin suburb of Ludmilla, an established residential suburb located reasonably close to the city centre. This development will offer the Australian Defence Force personnel and their families a secure suburban environment with good access to community facilities, such as shops, schools, public transport and recreational facilities.The Defence Housing Authority considers the spot purchase of these houses to be a sound commercial option. Market investigations have found that serviced land availability for detached dwellings in Darwin and its surrounding area is limited and there is a lack of suitable established Darwin residences for spot purchase.These houses are required to be online and available for the December 1999 to end January 2000 posting cycle for the Australian Defence Force. The estimated cost of the proposal is $17.15 million at July 1999 prices. Subject to parliamentary approval, the Defence Housing Authority intends to enter into an agreement with the developer to spot purchase these project homes in November 1999. Settlement is to be completed by the end of January 2000 to coincide with the posting cycle of the Australian Defence Force. I commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills10420r91610420Debate resumed.16:30:0010420Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—As I indicated before question time, the opposition has cited a large number of government spokesmen—Senator Ian Campbell, the Deputy Prime Minister and others—with respect to their recognition that what happened in regard to diesel and the forestry industry was well known and was part of an understanding with the Democrats in return for the passage of the GST. Similarly, we have cited a variety of Democrats spokespeople, including Senator Allison and Senator Lees, who have been gleefully boasting how they pushed the government up against the fence and, because of their attempt to undermine the hardwoods forestry in this country, had persuaded the Prime Minister, in return for their support of the GST, essentially to ensure that forestry was not given the same level of support in regard to the rebate on diesel oil.Throughout this time we never heard from the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. He was never sighted. I do not know whether he had not read the bill, whether he was away on holidays in Finland looking at a few forests over there, whether he just had too much on his plate, whether he had to contend with attacks on him by Minister Tehan in Victoria, and later by Minister Edwards in Western Australia or whether he had had blues with the minister in New South Wales, Mr Yeadon. I do not know whether his obsession with attacking every relevant state minister in the country was the reason why he missed this crucial bill for the industry, whether he really did not know what was going on or did not concentrate; I do not know what the reason was.He came before the Australian people in the last month or so and said that this was all a big mistake. The Democrats leader did not know that no understanding had ever been reached. Apparently Senator Lees was not at meetings where she, the Prime Minister and I guess the Treasurer came to this understanding. The Deputy Prime Minister apparently did not know what he was talking about. This had been a mistake. The Deputy Prime Minister was wrong to say that there was an agreement and that there were `no anomalies' in the legislation.Today we have a situation where, on the one hand, with the government's ineptitude in allowing this measure to operate and also the Democrats' weakness, having passed the GST and condemned the Australian people to the effects of that, particularly lower middle income earners in this country, having reached that agreement, they now have to eat their words and essentially back off while the minister pushes forward to bring in this equal rebate.The opposition supports the government's move because it is needed by the industry. Anything other than this would discriminate very strongly against it. The opposition reiterates that this has been a very sorry example of monumental duplicity on the government's part, monumental naivety on the Democrats' part and, if he is to be believed, monumental incompetence on the part of the Minister for Forestry and Conservation.16:33:0010421O'Byrne, MichelleMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—The diesel fuel rebate returns to certain business all or part of the diesel excise they pay on diesel fuel used in their business operations. As from 1 February 1999, the excise on diesel fuel was 43.355 cents per litre. Forestry, along with agriculture and fishing, was included in the category of primary production. The rebate applicable to primary production was 35.027 cents per litre. The effective rebate rate was 35/43.The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 9) 1999 seeks to redress the failure of this government to ensure the diesel fuel rebate is extended to forestry operations. The government's previous position outlined by the Prime Minister in late May indicated that `the extension to the off-road concession for diesel and like 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'. This ensures a full credit or a 100 per cent rebate for those nominated areas.Changes to the diesel fuel rebate were contained in the Customs and Excise Amendment (Diesel Fuel Rebate) Act 1999. Subsection 5AAA allows for the declaration of different rates for the use of diesel fuel in forestry. The declared rate was set at 35/43 of the rate declared for use of diesel fuel in primary production other than forestry, or as Senator Lees puts it:We have increased the costs by 8 cents per litre for forestry. It is probably not something that we should point out to the National Party but there it is.This position would have meant that forestry and timber processing industries would have been required to pay substantially more for off-road users of fuel than other agricultural industries, despite the historical equity in the area of primary production. This position was greeted with harsh criticism from the industry and workers.It is at this point that we start to see the unravelling of the Democrat-government deal on diesel fuel rebates because the minister claims that there was never an intention to give a lesser diesel fuel rebate to the forestry industry, that it was indeed an `inadvertent consequence'—an inadvertent consequence that Senator Lees was happy to claim as an achievement. The minister claims that `the intention of the government was always that these industries would receive the same rebate amount'. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry supports the claim that the impact was unintentional and in fact that the government always wanted to extend this concession to forestry.The Democrats claim that the decision to exclude forestry was deliberately negotiated with the coalition, a position the government no longer subscribes to. In fact, according to a report in the West Australian regarding any modification to the government's position, Senator Allison of the Democrats said `that the move meant that Mr Howard was reneging on an integral part of the deal made to secure Democrat support'. So we have the option of four possible truths before us. Did the minister pay so little regard to his portfolio area; was he so unconcerned about the future of the forestry industry that he did not even notice his government's failure to treat them as any other agricultural industry; was he always planning to renege once the government had its way and pay no regard to the negotiations with the Democrats; or was he prepared to gamble timber workers' jobs to get the GST through? After all, the minister admitted in an interview on 14 July that he had `anticipated that they'—the Democrats—`would not agree to this particular change being made'.I am afraid that none of these options inspire confidence in either the operations or the integrity of this government. All we can see is incompetence, dirty deals and blatant disregard. This government, however, have achieved one thing with this debacle, but I am afraid the minister may also have to refer to this as an `inadvertent consequence'. They have said to timber workers, `There are other areas of so much importance that we will let you hang while we ensure passage of other legislation.' They have signified their willingness to take a risk on this issue but hasten to assure workers: `Don't worry because we never meant it, anyway.' The big question is how much of this process the Democrats were aware of. Did they agree to exempt forestry, with the full expectation that the matter would be redressed? Were they misled into believing the government supported their position?The Democrats have not proven to be skilled negotiators with this government. They walked into the negotiation room with firm commitments to the electorate regarding the GST in hand and they threw them away. One wonders if they even put up a fight. They fell over then, but did they fall over this time? If they did not, they must find this bill very disturbing because it shows exactly what their deals are worth. What this deal has shown is that even when they take a stand they have no capacity to enforce it. The government is not bound by their agreements. In fact, their deals have been labelled `inadvertent consequences' and as such can be amended at will. The government's escape clause? `We didn't mean it.'This bill will ensure that the full rebate will now be payable for fuel purchased for eligible forestry activities from 1 July 2000 in line with the rebate for agriculture. Its practical application will be welcomed by timber industries and workers. However, it illustrates to the Australian community so much more. What this whole episode indicates is that there are many questions to be asked about the credibility of this government's deal with the Democrats. It depicts a sad story of incompetence, dirty deals and blatant disregard. I fear the Australian people are, and will continue to be, the victims.16:39:0010422Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—In speaking on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 9) 1999 , I welcome the decision to amend what was a very discriminatory situation with the diesel fuel rebate scheme. The forest industry 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 and mining. This was a nonsense. It came about when all the wheeling and dealing went on with the Democrats when the GST was being negotiated. It was an absurd situation. There was such an outcry by the industry that the government has had to renege on its sleazy deal with the Democrats. Yet the Minister for Forestry and Conservation had the hide to say that the deal was not there. `No, no,' he said, `this was an inadvertent move that occurred during the passage of the documents.' Strange, isn't it, that every other report of its omission was put down to the deal with the Democrats and the passage of the GST?When this government released details in May this year the wording seemed quite clear. With the motion that went through the Senate in June, the bill specifically limited the amount of rebate to 35/43 for diesel fuel used in forestry. Now the government says it was a mistake. The minister said that the full rebate will be payable for fuel purchased for eligible forestry activities from 1 July 2000, which will align the diesel fuel rebate for forestry use with the rebate for agriculture. Once again, the poor timber industry has been taking the rap for the failure of this government to understand or to be involved in deals—somebody just being off to lunch. The timber industry was being used and held to ransom through a shabby deal.There still seems to be a case as to whether this bill has gone far enough. It apparently restores only partially the parity between forestry and other primary industries. There is no case for the timber industry to face discrimination, particularly as it is the only sustainable resource industry that is able to put environmental benefits back into the community in the form of new forests that can deliver carbon credits. `How?' you might ask. Well, trucks and other machinery are not just used to take out timber; they are also used to prepare the ground and the roads and to develop seed beds for plantations or regrowth areas for new timber—you cannot say that about mining and other off-road users in other areas.There are a number of flaws in the whole diesel fuel rebate legislation because the definitions are so fuzzy. I have had some difficult situations in my own electorate in trying to get people their rebates. I have spent quite a bit of time trying to interpret for my constituents what the definitions are. It really comes down to: when is a road a public road and when is it a private road? This can be a dilemma, I can assure you, in Tasmania.Many of the roads that are used frequently by the public to pursue forestry, tourism, picnics, forest walks and the like—uses which are encouraged by both industry and local councils in these areas—are private roads that have been planned, built and maintained by private companies or by Forestry Tasmania. They have been opened to the public on the basis that it is good public relations to be transparent and open, to put on show forestry activities and to invite the public to see what is being done. Because of this, small contractors that get contracts from major companies or from Forestry Tasmania to build roads have real difficulties in claiming the fuel rebate. That needs to be dealt with in a fair and positive way.This government keep tripping over their shoddy workmanship. They have tried to be too clever by making deals here, there and everywhere without really understanding what the legislation meant. I thought I heard it said that the minister went to Europe—he probably chose the wrong time to go. He got lost because these negotiations were going on and people got stuck into the timber industry. Now he has had to come into the House and eat humble pie and present this bill. I support the opposition's amendment.16:44:0010423Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—When you distil this whole debate on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 9) 1999 and everything to do with what we have seen here today, it comes down to being a dirty, filthy, shabby little deal which the Liberal Party has done with the Democrats to sell out the interests of blue-collar workers in the forest and forest products industry. That is what it is, Wilson, and you have been caught napping. You should be embarrassed, you are embarrassed, and you know it. We hear a lot of talk about how this government is all for blue-collar workers. I heard the Prime Minister today refer to how Wilson Tuckey, the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, is a champion of blue-collar workers—one minister, he said, who was the champion of blue-collar workers in the government. Let me make this clear: over on this side we have 30 frontbenchers who are the friends of blue-collar workers—not one frontbencher who is claimed to be a supporter of blue-collar workers.Let us have a talk about the reality of the forest and forest products sector under Wilson Tuckey, the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. What have we seen of late when it comes to the forest and forest products sector? The sacking of the CSIRO Forest Products Laboratory in Clayton. What an absolutely disgusting performance! The work that was going on there was the future of downstream processing in this country. It would make sure that in electorates like mine there would be a viable future for the timber industry. And what do we see from the government? We see it prepared to sit back and see 37 skilled professionals sacked from a laboratory of 83 staff. When I talk about the sacking of the Forest Products Laboratory, I am talking in the context of the sacking of Rome. I am talking about its destruction and the destruction of all that knowledge—all laid to waste—because that is what we have seen under Wilson Tuckey, the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. He likes to talk the talk about how he is a great mate of blue-collar workers whilst, at the same time, he is selling out their interests. Selling out their interests is exactly what he did when it came to the diesel fuel rebate. He sold out blue-collar workers right across Australia. He did not care. He did not go into bat for them—or, at best, he did not know. At best, he was asleep at the wheel. His being asleep at the wheel is the best you could hope for when you analyse his performance. It was a disgusting and weak performance from this bloke—absolutely disgusting and absolutely pathetic.When we consider the government's performance on regional Australia, I suppose we have plenty of reason not to be surprised at that sort of performance. Let us talk about unemployment in my electorate and in Gippsland. It has the second highest unemployment rate in Australia and nothing is being done about it. There is no adjustment package, no consideration and no compassion from this government. All it does is talk about the regional forest agreement process—`We support the regional forest agreement process.' And well you should, because it is a Labor initiative. That is why we on this side support it as well, but we recognise that it is not a panacea for everything confronting the forest and forest products sector.You can always tell when Wilson Tuckey, the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, is getting desperate because he usually wheels out something about the RFA process and starts bagging out some state minister for the environment or forestry. That is simply because he has come up with nothing when it comes to the industry policy confronting the forest and forest products sector. He has done nothing creative to ensure a viable future for this most important sector. Increasingly, the forest and forest products sector is taking on a greater importance in regional Australia because the federal government is pulling out services from those areas. As it pulls services out, there are fewer and fewer jobs there. The only jobs remaining are those jobs in the forest and forest products sector, and these are exactly the jobs which the Minister for Forestry and Conservation is ensuring will not have a future because of his sacking of the Forest Products Laboratory in Clayton.It is a weak performance. Any sort of competent minister who had an interest in the future of the forest and forest products sector would intervene and say to CSIRO management, `You've got it wrong, and this is what you're going to do: you're going to fix it. You're going to get it right and you're going to reinstate the Forest Products Laboratory.' If we had a minister with any sort of commitment at all to the forest and forest products sector, that is what he would do. Minister, you should get off your backside, take your hands out of your pockets and get on with the job of ensuring that there is a sustainable future for the forest and forest products sector.16:49:0010424Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—Let us note the litany of alleged mistakes related to this issue. Let us give the Minister for Forestry and Conservation the benefit of the doubt that this was indeed just a mistake, a blunder—inadvertent and dumb but not deliberate or deceitful. Firstly, what do we make of the Prime Minister's media release of the 31 May 1999 noting the change of policy regarding the GST package which proposed to extend the off-road uses of diesel which would qualify under the DFR? Not only does the PM's release identify concession industries which specifically do not include the forest industries but, as if to reinforce the point, to specifically exclude the timber industry, it is actually named or identified as not to receive full credits—`but not for construction, power generation, manufacturing or forestry'. No benefit of the doubt here, Minister.What of the Customs and Excise Amendment (Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme) Bill 1999, which was passed by the Senate on 28 June 1999? This bill specifically limited the amount of rebate to 35/43 of the diesel used in forestry. No benefit of the doubt here, Minister. What of Minister Anderson when he commenced the second reading speech by stating that the Customs and Excise Amendment (Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme) Bill 1999:. . . implements changes to the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme agreed with the Australian Democrats as part of the package of environmental measures that will now accompany the introduction of the new tax system on 1 July 2000.No interjection from our Minister for Forestry and Conservation. No shouts from the floor of, `Hey! Hang on a minute, there's a mistake here. Hey John! You've missed out the forestry industry. Stop your speech and save me having to be humiliated by introducing an amendment. Hey, stop!' No benefit of the doubt here, Minister.What about the media release issued by Chris Althaus of the Forestry Protection Society on 3 July 1999? I quote:FPS members are outraged at an apparent backroom deal with the Democrats that has singled out forestry for an 8 cents per litre penalty on the diesel fuel rebate whereas all other users of diesel such as primary producers receive the full rebate of 43 cents per litre.This is Chris Althaus, who, like his colleagues in Tasmania, Barry Chipman and Christine O'Connor, is alert to impediments to the operations of the forestry industry and is `committed to encouraging regional, economic and jobs growth in an innovative timber industry, whilst also balancing responsible environmental concerns'—the very objectives the minister lists in the amendments. The FPS saw the dud, but the minister didn't. Surely this defies belief. Didn't the minister see the FPS media release condemning the Democrat-Coalition deal? Didn't he receive a copy?I know how effectively the FPS lobby their cause. You, Minister, would have been a prime target and let me assure you they rarely miss their target. No benefit of the doubt here, Minister. This clearly demonstrates the truth of the situation: (1) the Democrats demanded the exclusion of the forest industry from the full DFR; (2) the PM and Minister Anderson dudded the timber industry, either with your complicit knowledge, Minister, or despite you; (3) the Democrats were appeased by this exclusion and the deal was done; (4) the FPS, CFMEU, AMU, NAFI and supporters of the forest industries strenuously objected to this discrimination against the timber industry and forced the government to correct its discriminatory exclusion of the timber industry from a full credit of the DFR; and (5) the government has now reneged on its deal with the Democrats. Its `mistake' has been publicly acknowledged. Minister, you cannot expect the benefit of the doubt on this issue. It is either incompetence or complicity.16:53:0010425Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—I intend to be charitable this afternoon. After all, is this not the minister that was described by the Prime Minister only today as the friend of the blue-collar worker, as the man who has brought certainty to the timber industry? Do not ask me how he has done it because, with decisions being made on the run, such as this one, how any industry could plan or decide it was going to invest in the timber industry is beyond reason. After all, is this not the minister that has had the RFA agreement for northern New South Wales sitting on his desk since November last year? He still has not signed off on it. This just happens to be an area that affects the blue-collar workers in my electorate. I can assure you, Minister, that they want to know when you are going to sign off on that one, too.I certainly support the legislation, as does all the Labor Party. We believe that forest jobs are honest jobs. We know there are responsible people out there that need the assurance of this government, so that they know they can invest and they know that they have the support. That is why we are making sure they get the message that the people in the timber industry do have the support of the Labor Party. I only wish that the minister could have given that assurance some months ago.16:55:0010425Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I will comment first on the claims of the member for Braddon that nobody shouted out that there was something wrong with the legislation. I happen to have a list of the speakers to the legislation at the time. The names given to me—and you will excuse me, they are not in their electorates—are Crean, Kernot, Fitzgibbon, O'Connor, Thomson and Horne. I have checked their speeches. None of them said there was a mistake here, either. None of them stood up and said, `Hey, we are for the timber workers. Why are you having a shot at them with this particular matter?' When it came to shouting out and protecting the timber industry in this issue, there was a great deal of silence on both sides of the House. So we do not want to get too moralistic or hypocritical when it comes to—UNKNOWNGovernment memberGovernment member—What, not a word from them?SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Not a word from all those speakers. On 23 June, they all were listed as speaking. They never raised the issue. The government of course rejects the opposition's pious amendment but welcomes its support for the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 9) 1999 . Nevertheless, in terms of the opposition's attack on me in that amendment, let me apologise to the timber industry for my lack of diligence in not noticing this mistake before the bill was introduced. But let me reiterate: this situation was not a breach of the ANTS tax arrangement. The agreement with the Democrats was that all primary entities that benefited from the current diesel rebate system would retain that right to the same extent. The forestry industry currently has the benefit of the full diesel rebate for off-highway activity. The mistake was based on an assumption that somebody had that that privilege was not extended to the forestry industry. I do not know who that person was. And maybe it was a belief held by the Democrats. But all that was agreed at the time was that when these matters were corrected under the new arrangements those in receipt of the full rebate retained the full rebate. That of course included the off-highway activities of the forest industry.As a consequence, the government is rectifying its mistake. I find this quite remarkable. It seems that a lot of the people thought it was our responsibility to keep a promise that was applying a higher tax to the industry when in fact it would seem that we would be much better off reducing the tax. That stands in stark contrast with circumstances I well remember in 1993, when the present opposition, then in government, went to the people with a promise of tax reduction called the l-a-w tax cuts and as soon as they were re-elected threw them out. At the same time, having said that there would be no increase in indirect taxes, they added two per cent to every rate of sales tax and 6c a litre to the diesel tax on every truckload of logs and every railway trainload of logs—for instance, in Tasmania—that went along, outside of the forest industry. When one gets down to the issue of what promises one keeps, one should be reminded of those circumstances.This was a mistake made by someone who had a misconception of the arrangements available presently to the forest industry. As such, they are now being rectified. That is an example of good government. We are fortunate inasmuch as these provisions do not go into effect until next year and therefore there has been no loss to the industry. They are very supportive of the fact that, once the issue became apparent, the government responded positively.I also want to respond to a couple of other remarks that were made. The member for McMillan clearly does not understand what went on at CSIRO. He should also know, if he had been here a bit longer and bothered to study the forms of this place, that I am not the minister responsible for that.8T4FERGUSONMr Laurie Ferguson—He did not say you were.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Yes, he did. He said I should ring up the CSIRO. I checked. The member for Reid ought to know you cannot rewrite history in this place. It is all on the record.What I am saying is this: the people whom he has mentioned were all employed, to the best of my knowledge, under a CRC, a cooperative research corporation, which this government introduced as a measure to encourage industry to participate with the research organisations, to get together to put together partially industry funded arrangements for research. It is not totally prescriptive, but one of the conditions is that it is a one-off grant, and in that period of time industry support is supposed to increase for that purpose. In the circumstance it did not. The government has outlaid, again to the best of my knowledge, the same sum of money this year and in so doing has funded a lot of new projects.Why was there a lack of industry funding? The reality was that the industry was in dispute as to the application of the levy and some were not wanting to pay it. My response to that quite some time ago was to get all the industry people together in a room, remind them of the fact that in these matters the government is only a facilitator, not the originator of all these ideas, and encourage them to come up with a proposal that would be satisfactory to them so that they could be out there spending money on research and, of course, creating employment for researchers such as those who have lost their positions at CSIRO. That meeting was extremely successful, and in fact the industry agreed with us on that day to a new set of levy arrangements—being progressed at the moment—that hopefully will deliver a very substantial amount of money into research, which I would agree is most important to the future of the industry.The point on which all opposition speakers were silent was what they are going to do about security. I have discovered today that our deficit in forest products, which we constantly quote at $1.5 billion, has risen to nearly $2 billion. Of course, that is a deficit in value added products. To value add our timbers above the level to which they tend to be exported or sold locally today, you can start bidding at $100 million and you can go up into the billions of dollars. Nobody is going to spend that money until this parliament and certain state parliaments act. The member for Braddon knows very well that his state is already there, having bipartisan support and having passed RFA legislation, waiting to benefit and be the frontrunner in this sort of investment flow, the minute this parliament passes regional forest legislation that the industry trusts and that the unions trust—and that is not legislation with the amendments that the opposition has proposed. That is another point that I would make.It is a pity to give me a lecture when I am here supporting legislation and proposing legislation to reduce the tax on the timber industry. We are doing the right thing. We made a mistake. We are not hiding from it—8T4FERGUSONMr Laurie Ferguson—You are trying to.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—No, I have never hidden from it. I said to the people straightaway that, through a misunderstanding of how the tax applied to a certain part of the industry, we allowed legislation to pass this House that was incorrect. Our response is not to tough it out; our response is to come in here and say, `We will fix it.'I must also respond to the member for Paterson. There is no completed RFA in existence in the New South Wales parliament or here in Canberra, as he suggested, on my desk. What has happened is that we have returned to the appropriate National Forest Policy Statement procedures set out by the Labor Party in 1992, and we are going through that process in the north-east and the lower north-east of New South Wales. The interesting thing is that we are just doing things like consulting the people with a proper, advertised process. We are doing those things so that there can be a properly negotiated arrangement, and the progress is being made. What is more, when it is signed, if the member for Paterson can convince his caucus to pass the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 without amendments of the nature that they have proposed, then the security he demands for the local workers will be on the way. Those are the sorts of points we need to make.I do not want to take any more of the House's time. I point out, firstly, that this was the appropriate measure for the government. Secondly, when it comes to breaking promises on taxes, you do not look to this side of the House with the Liberals and the National Party in office, you look to the other side. The only promise we are breaking is in order to make something better, but we have not changed the promise at all. The promise and the understanding were very clear, except that somebody at some point in drafting, I assume, believed that there were different arrangements in place for the forestry industry.8T4FERGUSONMr Laurie Ferguson—There weren't.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—We know that there weren't. We agree with you wholeheartedly. The fact of life is that someone thought there were, and for that reason we got some legislation wrong. I apologise to the timber industry for my lack of diligence in not picking it up, but we have fixed it before it did any harm. I thank the House and those who participated in the debate.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10428Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Tuckey) read a third time.Miscellaneous1042810000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed Monday, 27 September 1999 at 4 p.m. as the time for the next meeting of the Main Committee, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed.Bills10428Message from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bills: 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 Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1999 Bills10428The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request: Customs Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Bill 1999 Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Consequential and Transitional Bill 1999 Crimes Amendment (Fine Enforcement) Bill 1999 Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1999 Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 States Grants (General Purposes) Amendment Bill 1999Bills10428r84610428Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration at the next sitting.Bills10428s21910428Bill received from the Senate and read a first time.Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills10428r88010428Debate resumed from 30 June, on motion by Dr Kemp:That the bill be now read a second time.17:10:0010428Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—The Indigenous Education (Supplementary Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999 amends the Indigenous Education (Supplementary Assistance) Act 1989 to provide $126.1 million to extend the higher level of funding which has been provided for the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program, or IESIP, from 1997-99 to 30 June 2001. It also amends the act to incorporate the mixed mode course delivery away from the base element of the Abstudy scheme into the above act by providing funds in block grants to participating institutions. The opposition welcomes the government's commitment to maintain expenditure under IESIP for the most educationally disadvantaged group in Australia.We do, however, have a couple of concerns. For a start, the government has never made public the findings of its review of Abstudy, on which it apparently based the changes announced in December last year. Those changes involved not only retaining Abstudy as a student support scheme separate to the Youth Allowance but also aligning many of the payments with those made to non-indigenous students under the Youth Allowance. The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs claimed that the alignment was justified except in cases where `special provision needs to be made to cater effectively for the particular disadvantages faced by many indigenous students'.The most obvious losers under the Abstudy changes will be students aged 21 and over, with some payments dropping by around $65 per fortnight. The minister has not explained why these students do not qualify for his special provision, given that the figures he himself released on 10 September showed that in 1996 only 13.6 per cent of indigenous people had a post-school qualification compared with 34.4 per cent of the general population.Furthermore, in his media release of 15 December last year the minister assured us that the Abstudy changes would be budget neutral, yet no information has been provided to show how that is the case. In fact, all of the Abstudy changes have been shrouded in secrecy. The opposition has sought, on three separate occasions, information about the number of students and the cost of the part of Abstudy affected by this bill. We asked for the information in respect of 1998—information which the minister's department must surely now have access to—but no response has been received.Secrecy and silence are not the way to encourage support from the opposition. We come to the issue of indigenous education in a spirit of bipartisanship, as we believe it is far too important to be used to score political points. It is extremely disappointing then that the minister, in question time on 24 August, attacked the record of the federal Labor government on indigenous education. It is indeed true, as the minister said, that with the problems a satisfactory solution has not been achieved. But the minister's own glossy presentation on 10 September to the Ministerial Council for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs was littered with headlines about the improvements made in indigenous education participation and outcomes over the years of the Labor government.For example, between 1986 and 1991 enrolments of indigenous students in higher education grew by 148.7 per cent compared with 28.3 per cent for the general population. As a proportion of total higher education enrolments, the number of indigenous students rose from 0.3 per cent in 1981 to 1.2 per cent in 1996. Year 12 retention rates for indigenous students rose four percentage points between 1992 and 1996 while they were falling for non-indigenous students. The indigenous retention rate is now 32.1 per cent compared with 72.7 per cent for the general population.What these figures tell us is that improvements have been made and that the minister would be far better advised to work with his colleagues on both sides of the House instead of trying to score these political points. The figures also tell us, of course, that a great deal more needs to be done, which brings me back to asking the minister why he feels justified in significantly cutting assistance to indigenous students aged over 21 years.A report prepared for ATSIC by Ms Wendy Brabham and Associate Professor John Henry, from the Institute of Koorie Education, Deakin University, details the effect of the changes to Abstudy to come into effect on 1 January next year. The report showed that the changes will advantage indigenous TAFE and university students who are under 21 years of age, independent and single, of whom there were 730 in 1998, and those who are aged over 20 living at home. There were 165 such students in 1988. The report showed that the changes will significantly disadvantage indigenous TAFE and university students who are aged 21 and older, independent, single or with a partner, with or without children. There were 9,950 students in this category last year. The other group who will be significantly disadvantaged are those people who are getting either a sole parent or disability support pension, and there were 4,810 such students in this group in 1998.So, excluding school age students, the balance—according to the ATSIC report—is around 900 students better off and almost 15,000 worse off. I would like to know how the minister expects changes like that to address the problems in indigenous education which he outlined at the ministerial council meeting recently. The most important point about the ATSIC report findings is that it is mature age students who make up almost 80 per cent of the indigenous TAFE and university student population.The report quotes research over the last 30 years indicating that it is indigenous people of mature age, with community and family responsibilities, who are most likely to return to study, showing a pattern significantly different from the rest of the population. Why is the government making changes which will work directly against the positive trends in indigenous education, which will discourage more mature students who have family and community support from returning to study when they are keen to do so? Why is this not a case of the indigenous population having a special need and deserving special support?In terms of the Abstudy changes dealt with in this bill, the away-from-base assistance for residential schools for distance tertiary students, or mixed mode, is being transferred to IESIP. It will be administered by DETYA and paid to institutions as block grants under indigenous education agreements. I understand that away-from-base assistance for testing and assessment, some field trips and placements will be retained as an existing benefit, administered by Centrelink.This change is apparently to focus more on outcomes rather than the simple enrolment of indigenous students. Institutions will report on module and course completions, and I understand that some VET institutions are already operating this way. This seems a sensible and constructive approach, but the question which arises is how much more program money will be eaten up by necessary administration costs. I call on the minister, or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, in summing up the second reading debate, to come clean on how much money we are talking about. I would have thought that there were some lessons for governments about secretive behaviour and lack of accountability in the recent Victorian election.In terms of maintaining the current level of funding for IESIP, the ALP is strongly supportive. IESIP was established by the Labor government in 1988 and is the main source of supplementary assistance for education providers catering for indigenous students. We support the concept of education agreements with providers, as well as the focus on outcomes, and urge the government to continue the Commonwealth's close interest in indigenous education. Given the concerns I expressed earlier, I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading the House:(1) notes that indigenous Australians are the most educationally disadvantaged group in the country;(2) condemns the Government for: (a) failing to release the findings of the 1997-98 review of ABSTUDY; and (b) cutting ABSTUDY payments to some categories of indigenous students; and(3) calls on the Government to legislate to re-direct savings from its ABSTUDY changes into indigenous education".10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the amendment seconded?PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.17:19:0010431Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—The purpose of the Indigenous Education (Supplementary Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999 is to transfer some Commonwealth support for indigenous education from the Abstudy program to the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program, IESIP. The bill also provides for the administration of funding from within IESIP and the appropriation of required funds from consolidated revenue.Indigenous education is a difficult issue and it requires that governments face up to the facts of it. One thing I can say is that the federal Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, is going about it in the right way. He has broad support for the kinds of initiatives he has undertaken in relation to indigenous education—and I note most recently from the Hon. Bob Collins, who is engaged at present in a review of indigenous education in the Northern Territory. In announcing the proposed changes to Abstudy, the minister stated:The new ABSTUDY arrangements will be implemented from 1 January 2000 and will be budget neutral. There will be no change to ABSTUDY benefits to those students claiming assistance in 1999.The shadow minister spoke about the away-from-base proposals, and in addressing that the minister stated:The `Away-From-Base' benefit for `mixed mode' course delivery provided by educational institutions will be transferred from ABSTUDY to the Government's Indigenous Education Strategic Initiative Program (IESIP) to ensure flexibility. Under the new arrangements the Government will settle individual agreements with institutions for the purpose of achieving improved educational outcomes for Indigenous students from remote communities.This is an appropriate move. Directing the funding through the institutions will, I think, stabilise their stream of funding in this regard and improve the delivery of courses in those circumstances.I note that time is limited, so I will jump straight to the circumstances concerning one of the institutions that will be directly involved in dealing with the these new mixed modes of delivery. I am talking about Batche lor College in the Northern Territory. It is a very good institution which addresses a specific need in the Northern Territory. It provides courses for Aboriginal people from remote Aboriginal communities and delivers them in a way that is relevant to those communities and assists in their development. So we are taking people from a remote community, giving them skills appropriate to that community and then returning them so that they can advance their local community.I will go over some of the details in relation to Batchelor College. Approximately 85 per cent of students come from those remote indigenous communities where the majority of people speak English as a second language—it could be said that it is a foreign language. That is obviously one of the major challenges. Currently there are 1,700 students, or 1,100 equivalent full-time student units, enrolled in Batchelor College in the longer accredited courses in more than 20 discipline areas. There are other courses, but the emphasis on the longer courses is on education, health and other areas applicable to the community development aspirations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.Batchelor College aims to progressively develop into a multipurpose centre of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander scholarship, recognised nationally and internationally as an independent indigenous university. That is a very worthwhile aim. It is very important that the college proceeds and is further developed. What must be kept on track, though, is the absolute rigorous standard that applies to those university courses. People who look in from the outside often have a false perception that, because this institution operates as an enclave, it is in some way offering some mickey-mouse style courses. That is exactly what it is not doing. It is providing courses that are appropriate to those communities, and it is delivering them in a very special way.To outline the way they do it, for the most part students are based in their home communities and attend intensive workshops several times a year at the Batchelor campus. They also attend the Alice Springs campus and annexes at Katherine, Tennant Creek, Nhulunbuy or Alyangula, or in other communities. In addition to these intensive workshops, students undertake continuing studies in their own communities, where they are visited regularly by college staff and receive instruction face-to-face through distance education and through electronic technology. No doubt the importance of that part of the course is increasing all the time.To aid its operation, the college has established a network of community study centres in more than 35 remote Northern Territory communities. This shows the depth to which the college has gone to make its learning processes appropriate and applicable to the system. Currently across Australia there are 8,557 preschool Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, 61,332 students at primary level, 27,147 at the secondary level, 8,859 TAFE students and 5,563 tertiary students; and 34.4 per cent of the indigenous population attending an educational institution compared with 35.5 per cent of the total population. In stating that, I should say that those are 1996 figures.In 1998 there were 7,789 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students enrolled in higher education courses. In 1997, 0.7 per cent of course completions—we are talking now at tertiary level—were by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. That sounds very small but is a 12.3 per cent increase on 1996. That is a trend we must continue to foster. The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has his eye on the ball in relation to indigenous education. He said:Indigenous Australians must have the same opportunities educationally as non-indigenous Australians.That sounds like he is stating the obvious, but as we shall hear in this debate—and, unfortunately, I am going to be restricted in my contribution to this debate—the capacity of people to realise that basic goal in many cases is being fundamentally eroded by their circumstances and by a conspiracy of various factors.There have been various agreements that have set aside those sorts of targets. We need to ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have access to the world via the education network. That is an important goal to bear in mind. It is no good merely focusing people on activities in their community. We have to open them up to the whole world because, like every one of us, they are citizens of the world and they have the right to expect that.Literacy and numeracy are very important factors in the performance of Aboriginal people in the education system. There were 8,200 people studied Australia-wide in a 1996 study of national school literacy. To give you an idea of the depth of the problem we are facing in indigenous education, the percentage of indigenous people who met the standard for year 3 reading was only 19 per cent; 81 per cent did not. At year 5, 23 per cent of the indigenous sample met the standard for reading; 77 per cent did not. When it came to writing in year 3, there was a 29 per cent achievement rate, and at year 5 there was a 24 per cent achievement rate. Clearly those numbers are not acceptable.It is significant that the survey found that the lowest achieving year 3 indigenous students make little or no progress after the following two years of education. That is a very difficult hurdle to overcome. Relatively high rates of absence from school are evident amongst the indigenous sample, and this higher rate of absence appears to be a factor in the lower literacy achievement of these students. That is probably the number one problem.English literacy achievements of indigenous students increased with the frequency of speaking English at home. About 30 per cent of indigenous students sampled did not speak English at home. I repeat: the English literacy achievements of indigenous students increase with the frequency of speaking English at home. That sounds like an obvious thing, but when you are in a remote part of Australia in a community where everybody speaks a language other than English and that is all you hear it must be very hard to come to grips with a common understanding of English. If people who try to learn Mandarin or Indonesian or anything like that do not get regular exposure to the language, it is very hard to make a fist of it. Likewise, if you have not got access to English, there is no way that you can access the world of learning and achieve the goals a normal everyday citizen of Australia has a right to achieve.Debate interrupted.Adjournment1043310000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 5.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.1043317:30:0010433Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—In one of the most famous literary exchanges Australia has experienced, the Bulletin , amidst the turmoil of the 1890s depression, featured a series of contributions from Henry Lawson and Banjo Paterson. The theme was a simple one, as you would know, Mr Speaker: the city versus the bush. Lawson, in his hard-hitting style, would emphasise the uncertainty, trials and tribulations of country life while Paterson, in his own style of romantic prose, would remind us of the intangible benefits of the lifestyle, space and freedom that country life can offer. Between these two great poets lay a gulf in experience and of perspective. It is a gulf that remains relevant a century later.Conservative governments, both at the federal and state levels, are finally being held accountable by those in rural and regional Australia who feel left out. While the politicians, Kennett, Howard, Costello and others, tell Australians how good things are, those in the bush are asking the question: where is our share? In Victoria they have just asked Jeff Kennett why, despite representing a quarter of the work force, they have received just 7.5 per cent of the new jobs in the past three years. They are asking the Prime Minister and Treasurer why it is that economically depressed communities bear so much of the burden of economic change. They will soon be asking why the top end of town is getting such massive tax relief when those who are struggling get their services and assistance cut.The Victorian election result reminds us that not everyone is sharing the benefits of economic growth. The Howard government has left individuals, families and communities without the essential support services they need to feel included in modern Australia. Like the Kennett government the Howard government will be punished for that because, while the city versus the bush debate is one that still figures in the Australian psyche, no-one believes that is justification to exclude such a significant number of Australians from full participation in society. The Howard government, like the Kennett government, claims to be about economic modernisation. But the economic issue that presents the greatest challenge is the shift towards a knowledge based economy, and that has been left unattended. It involves issues of research and development, innovation, investment in human capital and investment in the infrastructure that supports a forward looking economy and society. These issues affect all parts of Australia.Economic modernisation for the Howard government, like the Kennett government, has been about cutting costs. It has been about closing schools, cutting education funding, extending hospital waiting lists, removing services from depressed areas and removing the support systems that underpin our social sanity. All of these have hit economically depressed areas the hardest. While all of this is hitting those in depressed areas, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer will go down in history for squandering billions of taxpayers' dollars on tax relief for those who are doing well. The new economy increasingly rewards those with high skills. The focus of government should be on helping those without those skills. I am clearly a supporter of globalisation and economic reform, but I also believe that governments have a responsibility to protect society's vulnerable. The Howard government is unique in not having that capability. When governments become obsessed with cutting essential services, when they seek to undermine what it means to live in a community and when they start to believe that the only way forward is to divide and rule, they lose not only the faith of the people but also their moral legitimacy. The message is clear: we must complement economic reform with policies that can take with it those who would otherwise be left behind. Those of us charged with that responsibility should not pretend that the task is easy, but we should not be so irresponsible as to throw away the potential for investment in those individuals, families and communities that need it most and call it economic modernisation.We cannot take the path of rejecting change, but we must see change for what it is—a challenge, not a choice. But I believe it is a challenge this government has failed to understand. Where you live, where you go to school and your family and social support networks all still impact significantly on your life chances. Just ask the thousands of Victorians who have chosen to vote Labor for the first time ever. The issue of location is as important to Australians today as it was a century ago.Our economically depressed communities have been missing from the unemployment debate for far too long. Improving living standards and opportunities in our most economically depressed areas is essential if we are to give meaning to the notion of equality of opportunity. Regional Australia is crying out for support, and it delivered this government a message last Saturday. (Time expired)1043417:35:0010434Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—Tonight I would like to pay tribute to Raisa Gorbachev, the wife of Mikhail Gorbachev, who died from leukemia at Munster in Germany just three days ago. Raisa Gorbachev accompanied her husband, the former leader of the USSR, on most of his journeys abroad, latterly on lecture tours for his Moscow think tank, the Gorbachev Foundation. The last public function she attended before her illness was discovered was in May of this year when she attended a lecture that Mr Gorbachev gave here at Parliament House. Raisa Gorbachev broke the mould of Soviet leaders' wives, who tended to be seen only at their husbands' funerals. Mrs Gorbachev refused to fade into the background. She was a constant presence beside her husband, and that physical proximity spoke volumes for the closeness of their relationship over 48 years. In a society in which there is no romantic tradition, companionate marriage is a novelty. Pravda was deeply shocked when Mikhail Gorbachev first confirmed on American television in 1987 that he discussed everything with his wife, including the highest affairs of state, and they cut out the offending lines.Raisa Gorbachev was born the eldest of three children to the Titorenko family in Rubtsovsk in Siberia. Her father was a Ukrainian railway construction worker. His employment meant that the family was itinerant and she went to school in different parts of the country. She was an extremely bright and assiduous student, receiving a gold medal in her final school year. She entered Moscow University in 1949 at the age of 17, where she met Mikhail Gorbachev in 1951. They married two years later. She accompanied her husband to Stavropol in southern Russia, where he began his political career in 1955. Their only child, Irina, was born in 1957.During the 1960s she did sociological research on the Russian peasantry, for which she was awarded a candidate of sciences degree—the Russian equivalent of a PhD. She taught in various institutes, particularly the Stavropol Agricultural Institute, rising to the rank of associate professor. She was a thoroughly modern Russian woman in combining work and family life. She wrote in her book I Hope, published in 1991:For me work was not just a means of earning money. It was also a cause without which I would have thought my life was a failure.She did much to enhance her husband's image in the West because of her stylishness and her intelligence, but this of course was used against him in Russia where she was deeply resented for the same reasons. Myths sprang up that she went on credit card spending sprees and bought all her clothes in Paris. At the time of the credit card story she did not know what one was, and her dressmaker was in fact in Moscow.She suffered badly when she and her husband were detained by the putschists in August 1991, temporarily losing the power of speech and becoming paralysed in one arm. During her husband's years in power and after the collapse of the Soviet Union she was active in raising millions of dollars for good causes. Ironically, one of these good causes was for children suffering from leukemia—the disease she was suddenly struck down with earlier this year. It was only when she became ill that the Russian popular opinion began to shift in her favour. True of their relationship to the last, Mikhail Gorbachev remained at her side constantly from the time she was admitted to hospital in the middle of July. I can think of no better testimony to the strength of marriage than Mikhail and Raisa Gorbachev. I am sure that I speak on behalf of all honourable members in extending our sympathy to Mr Gorbachev and his family.1043517:40:0010435Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—Before I proceed to address the remarks I had planned for the adjournment debate this afternoon, I would support the comments just made by the member for Menzies about the passing of Raisa Gorbachev. The role which she played indirectly in changing the face of global politics in the last 25 years is one which is probably unsurpassed in terms of those who informally advise heads of government and heads of state around this world. I think when the history of the 20th century is written, her role and, more particularly, that of her husband will be recorded very largely indeed.In the adjournment this evening I will refer briefly to the provisions of the Aviation Noise Ombudsman Bill 1999. This is a piece of legislation which has been introduced into this parliament and which contains within it a range of powers which I believe are of potential benefit to communities right across the country, particularly those communities directly affected by the problems of aircraft noise.There are two specific powers outlined in this draft bill. One is that it provides a power for all complaints concerning aircraft noise to be referred to an independent ombudsman—complaints concerning noise abatement procedures, complaints concerning fuel dumping and complaints concerning those things which affect the quality of life of local communities as a consequence of being located close to large operating metropolitan airports. The second power which the bill contains relates to any change by Airservices Australia in the flight paths or air routes which are operated near large metropolitan airports.This legislation is derived from a similar piece of legislation which has been in force in the United States for the last three years. The previous US Aircraft Noise Ombudsman, Mr William Albee, will be visiting this country in November this year and attending a conference. We find from that, therefore, that there is precedent elsewhere in the world for the operation of this legislation, including in a country which contains within it the largest volume of civil aviation traffic in the world.The tradition of the office of the ombudsman is a good one. It is one in which communities around this country both at the state and federal level have confidence. It is a tradition which derives from Scandinavia. It is a tradition whereby, detached from the official machinery of state, you have an institution and a person capable of independently reflecting upon the objections raised by individual citizens. Here we have a particular application of that institution on a matter which concerns so many communities around Australia, including in my own city of Brisbane.It is also demonstrably better than the arrangements we have at present whereby Airservices Australia in effect act as Caesar judging Caesar in terms of complaints about aircraft noise which are registered with that body. After all, it is Airservices Australia—an arm of the federal government—which both designs and implements flight paths and air route procedures in general. Therefore, when the community comes to Airservices Australia with a complaint, obviously Airservices Australia is placed in a conflictive position. Secondly, Airservices Australia, by its very nature, must have a close operating relationship with the large airlines. As a consequence of that relationship it is conceivable—and in fact I am sure it has occurred on many occasions—that its deliberations on complaints from the community are shaded by the closeness of its commercial and other dealings with the large airlines.In Brisbane we have a large potential application for the provisions of this proposed piece of legislation. We have a large north-south runway which has a concentration of flight paths across the north and south of Brisbane. We also have proposed by the Brisbane Airport Corporation a new runway—a parallel runway—which of itself will have a large new concentration of flight paths across the southern and northern suburbs if it is built. In the southern suburbs, in particular, which I represent in this parliament, we also have many reported examples of fuel dumping—an area where, again, the aircraft noise ombudsman would have a particular reference.I therefore urge those opposite to support this piece of legislation, particularly those members who come from metropolitan centres affected by airports. We need an independent umpire on these questions. We can no longer confidently rely upon Airservices Australia discharging this function, because it is compromised both by its closeness to government and by its closeness to the major airlines.1043617:45:0010436Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—Political parties of both persuasions have seen the awarding of fringe benefits by employers as a legitimate area for the application of taxation. While some might argue that at times it is a little heavy-handed in respect of, say, the use of motor vehicles and parking arrangements, it is nevertheless applied fairly and equitably. As all members are aware, the government has mandated that fringe benefits received appear on group certificates. Let me make it perfectly clear, though sadly it is misunderstood in parts of the community: this in no way affects the recipient's tax liability—in no way. However, if a person is on, say, $50,000 a year and receives a $10,000 fringe benefit, he or she is living at a $60,000 level of income or lifestyle; or if the benefit is, say, $20,000, a $70,000 lifestyle. In circumstances such as this, it is hardly fair or just that the recipient should receive social security or family benefits means tested at the lower level. To allow that to occur would be a corruption of the system.Nevertheless, the government has recently accepted that members of the military forces should not have to declare certain areas of fringe benefits—in fact, about 70 per cent of their fringe benefits entitlements—and notable amongst these is housing. The argument is—and I accept the argument—that they serve in remote and sometimes basic conditions; that they are liable to transfer at short notice; and they must serve where they are sent, having no choice in the matter. I for one—as I am sure all honourable members would—accept that this is fair and just; that they should have this exemption on their group certificates.But, Mr Speaker, spare a thought for teachers, police and others in public service who deliver health, education and other services while serving in distant, remote and sometimes deprived areas of Australia. It is my appeal that they too be exempt from the group certificate declaration, especially in respect of housing.I received a letter from Ray Johnston in my electorate. In that letter he said:My wife and I choose to be a one-income family as we are raising five young children. We currently receive family allowance payments. I am in subsidised housing through the nature of my work. Under these rule changes, any benefit in receiving this housing assistance—which is because I have chosen to serve the people in a country area of my state —will largely be negated by the drop in family payments.Then, on the basis of an article by Robert Garran in the Australian of 21 and 22 July, he goes on to argue that this:. . . does not show military personnel to be in a unique situation but rather to be in similar circumstances to teachers, police, nurses and others who work for the public good, often in localities not of their choosing. It would be unjust for the exemption not to apply to other Commonwealth or State Public Servants besides defence personnel.I have a great deal of sympathy for that view. I for one am not suggesting for a minute—especially in the circumstances of this current week—that we should in any way not ameliorate the benefits for military personnel, nor do I suggest that they are not entitled to that exemption of 70 per cent of their fringe benefits being removed from their group certificates.But I would argue that we need people like doctors, nurses and teachers continuing to go to country areas, and especially nurses, teachers and police—we are already having trouble in attracting doctors. What a dreadful thing it will be for regional Australia if we cannot get teachers, nurses and policemen to go to these areas because we have not thought this matter completely through to its logical end. I make an appeal tonight that those people be exempt from having to show housing, in particular, on their group certificates. (Time expired)1043717:50:0010437Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—I take this opportunity to refer to the catastrophic earthquake and aftershocks that struck Taiwan earlier this week. Tragically, more than 2,000 people have been killed, many thousands have been injured, an estimated 100,000-plus people have been made homeless and an estimated 2,600 people are still trapped under collapsed structures.Taiwan is an important trade and investment partner to this country; there are strong people-to-people contacts. Many people of Taiwanese origin reside in Australia. And over recent years, Taiwan has been an important beacon in the Asia-Pacific region for democratic development. Therefore, in question time yesterday it was pleasing to see the Minister for Foreign Affairs convey the condolences of the Australian people to the people of Taiwan and also indicate that Australia was offering a team to assist in the disaster.A disaster is a disaster, and an emergency is an emergency—and one would have hoped for somewhat quicker action than has been taken. A press release did come out from the foreign minister's office today in which he names five people from five state emergency service departments across Australia who are to leave Australia as part of a United Nations disaster and assessment coordination team. I hope those people have already left. I wish them well if they have. If they have not, that really is not satisfactory because, as I have indicated, there are some 2,600 people who are trapped in the current climate, and a number of other countries have responded very rapidly to this disaster. The United States, South Korea, Singapore, Japan, Russia and Germany were on site as of yesterday, as I understand it. So, in my submission, Australia really ought to have reacted somewhat more quickly in the circumstances.In addition, it is worth taking this opportunity to refer to the important fundraising efforts that are occurring throughout Australia in relation to this disaster. The Chinese community in Melbourne, under the leadership of Jack Wu, had a meeting last night, at which 10 organisations were represented, to start the process of collecting donations for victims and recruiting the support of Red Cross and World Vision. An important fundraising function is to be held in Melbourne on 12 October. It is being organised by the Taiwanese community, and the Chinese community more generally, in Melbourne to raise funds for the victims. I am sure that it will be a most important and successful occasion, occurring, as it does, two days after the important date in the Chinese political calendar: 10 October, known as the `double 10' which is the anniversary of the Sun Yat Sen revolution in China earlier this century.A number of other important observations need to be made arising out of this disaster. Whilst the disaster is obviously catastrophic for Taiwan, there are, even in these difficult times, some positives. One is the very rapid and efficient way the emergency services in that country went into action to respond to the disaster. Another very important indicator of the democratic development and the positive political development in Taiwan, which I referred to earlier, is that, despite the ferocity of this earthquake, the loss of life has been kept down, compared to other catastrophes of a similar scale, by the Taiwanese authorities' enforcement of substantial building codes.Tragically, in other countries where perhaps less than satisfactory or possibly even corrupt practices occur in relation to the enforcement of building codes, the loss of life in these situations is catastrophic. I think it speaks volumes for the open and democratic development of Taiwan that their sound building regulations have undoubtedly contributed to the saving of lives which otherwise would have been lost. It speaks very highly of the standards of governance that apply in Taiwan and for which we ought to congratulate its people. I extend my condolences to the Taiwanese people and I trust that the Australian team reaches Taiwan quickly and makes a substantial contribution to rescuing many of the estimated 2,600 people under the rubble. (Time expired)1043817:55:0010438Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—Tonight I speak on behalf of a young lady aged 17 who is in year 11 at St Johns Evangelist School in Nowra. Her name is Kim Payne and she is sitting in the gallery tonight. These are her words; this is her story:In Mrs Gash's electorate of Gilmore, there has been a conflict.No news breaking headlines of violence, yet a conflict that is important on a local scale.The two areas coming into conflict are tourism and youth, both of equal importance.Tourism now, and the youth for the future.All too often young people in their teens and early twenties are stereotyped, downtrodden and downgraded.Recently, youth groups in her electorate have tried to break down these preconceived ideas by working to provide their own facilities such as sporting complexes for the use of the younger members in the community.The conflict has arisen where tourism associations are afraid of the effect the facilities would have on business highlighting aspects such as noise and pollution.The youth support the tourist industry.In the holidays local businesses employ more of the young people to cope with the influx of tourists.The youth are more than happy to oblige, as they could do with the extra money and it provides something to do during the holidays.But, who wants to spend the whole of their school break doing even more work.So, the youth need a place for recreation.Some youth groups showed the initiative and started organising places for their benefit.All was going well until they found the people that they support by working for them will not return that support for fear that having young people around, will bring down their business.A group of hopefuls in the small tourist town of Kangaroo Valley spent many hours working over an application for a grant to construct a netball facility. There was a catch though, the safety of young people had to be compromised due to the fact the preferred position, the safer of the options, was found to be a heritage park designed for visitors to the area, so the netball facility failed.Just over the mountain in the city Nowra, also tourist orientated, another youth group was experiencing similar problems.For two and half years a group had been fighting for a skating facility to take the skaters off the main streets.There is a lovely huge park that would make an ideal place for a Skate Park except that it would supposedly disturb the nearby motels.These are both examples of where the needs of youth have been put on the backburner for tourism.Groups like these two encourage young people to work with Council in the future.It is like starting a snowball rolling. Early positive responses will see more communication with more young people.If one group succeeded with its goals, other groups would see that it isn't impossible and dreams are attainable.This encourages more youth groups to give it a go.While doing this, not only do they obtain the facilities wanted they learn to use their initiative, they will also learn skills such as leadership and interpersonal skills.By obstructing the youths' journey towards achieving their goals adults will rupture their confidence, belief in themselves and continue the stereotype of the no-hoper young person.The main organisation involved in putting the youth's ideas to fruition would be the local government, the Council.In the Saulwick Poll conducted by the Sydney Morning Herald, people aged between eighteen and twenty four were asked "Which level of government do you think ordinary people can have the most influence on?"85% of respondents stated the local government.Less than 10% said the State government.Less than 10% said the Federal government.It is sad to see that the level of government the youth think they have the most influence on is the one that currently is letting them down the most.When eighteen to twenty-four year-olds were asked about the amount of power the local government had, although the majority said they had about the right amount, 36% said they had too little but no one said that they had too much. So the balance is about right.The Council often supports youth initiated ideas. But where the tourist associations and tourism business is concerned, local government will rule against the young people's ideas on the majority of occasions.Our net ball court and the skate facility are examples where the local government has chosen tourism over young people's needs.If there is a chance, perhaps the tourism association and the youth should work together to aim for a win/win situation, aiming to close the gap within a community.Until then, the younger people of Mrs Gash's electorate should be encouraged in the stand they are taking to break down the stereotypes.As the youth are the future, they need the encouragement and the support from the people closest around them.The ones in the local community and local council.As I said, these were the words of Kim Payne, who is currently sitting in the gallery and who has been with us all week in Parliament House.House adjourned at 6.00 p.m.Notices10439The following notice was given:Mr Beazley to present a bill for an act to amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996 to ensure that leave for participation in service and training as a member of the Australian Defence Force Reserves be one of the matters which can be taken to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission for conciliation or arbitration1999-09-23Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.55 a.m.Statements by Members104401044010440Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—The graphic pictures that have come from East Timor in recent weeks have shocked us all. The death and misery that have been brought to the island by the militias are well known. But we are only just starting to come to terms with the sickness and disease that is spreading due to hunger and exposure of the refugees who fled into the hills to escape the militia's genocidal attacks.One news report this week stated that 20 people had died in one village as a result of malnutrition and disease. Thousands of people are currently suffering from wounds they have received in fighting and many will die without early medical help. Our first priority should be to provide security throughout East Timor to enable medical teams to enter the areas of refuge and start the provision of emergency aid. There will be a huge job to rebuild the health system to cope with this crisis and to provide for East Timor after it achieves independence.I am told that there are two health systems in East Timor: one previously provided by the Indonesian government and the other based around 27 hospitals and clinics run by the Catholic aid agency, Caritas. Caritas have only recently been able to re-enter East Timor and, along with other aid agencies, they will face a huge task. I was very pleased to hear there are moves afoot within the pharmaceutical industry to provide large quantities of urgently needed pharmaceuticals to assist the work of the major aid agencies. This is being coordinated by the aid group OPAL—Overseas Pharmaceutical Aid for Life. This group is run out of South Australia. Manufacturers around Australia are donating their products to meet the needs identified by major aid groups. A large container load is being loaded in Adelaide and will soon be dispatched.Caritas has also collected a significant stock of materials through Catholic Health Australia by donations of medicines from Catholic hospitals. These will be distributed quickly in packs accompanied by advice in the local language so that local doctors and paramedical staff can get the medicines they desperately need. I understand another collection is being coordinated by the Australian Nurses Federation. These are all excellent initiatives which demonstrate the generosity of spirit that Australians have to help those in need. I am sure there are many other ways in which the health community in Australia can play a vital role in helping East Timor start on the road to recovery.I also understand that many people have expressed an interest in assisting East Timor. Many are health professionals with important skills to contribute. The avenue for interested people to get involved is to register with Australian Volunteers International, the largest body in Australia supporting overseas aid projects through recruitment of volunteers. AVI has opened a special register of interest for people who have skills to offer in East Timor, with the intention of providing recruitment and training services to support delivery of emergency aid and longer term projects to support the development of the country. (Time expired)1044110441Stone, Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLP10—It is with great pleasure that I aim to put on the record some of the outstanding contributions that younger people are making in Australia today in natural resource management. We have a number of government programs, for example, Green Corps. A lot of our Work for the Dole programs are particularly aimed at younger people taking on work that is of paramount importance in terms of sustainability of our biodiversity, water and land resource management. These younger people are doing an exceptional job.With Green Corps, for example, we have had more than 1.3 million trees planted. There is a sudden realisation in Australia that, if we do not gain control of vegetation management, we are going to see things like dry land salinity and exacerbated water quality throughout the country and other serious problems. As well as the 1.3 million trees planted by our younger people, through the program called Green Corps, they have collected over one tonne of native seed.In previous generations, we had a view that any vegetation would do, but we now understand that our indigenous vegetation is of critical importance. A lot of us do not yet understand how to collect and germinate that native seed. These younger people are learning the basics. It is essential for us that our younger people carry on that knowledge into their adult life, perhaps in careers of natural resource management or whatever work they do—the philosophy of our indigenous vegetation being of major significance to this country. After all, it supports our flora, our fauna and our insect life.In this country we have mega-diversity. We have lost a lot of that diversity but we are still amongst the most mega-diverse of nations on this earth. The Diamond Creek Green Corps team, for example, were in the northern suburbs of Melbourne. They have done a lot of work in the urban rural fringe. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded. The Main Committee will now consider government business.Bills10441s22310441Debate resumed from 2 September, on motion by Mr Ruddock:That the bill be now read a second time.10:00:0010441Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—It is a pleasure to speak today in support of the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, John Herron, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 . The bill does not do anything of great note, but it is very symbolic. It is symbolic of John Herron's careful and attentive management of his portfolio and the recognition by the government of the importance of supporting the Aboriginal people's right to achieve as much say as possible over their affairs. This bill is a progression of that—let me explain why.The bill deals with the present structure of ATSIC, which is a representative body of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island peoples. It has been operating in Australia since 1990, and has a tremendously difficult and complex task, I might add. There are many critics of ATSIC; I can only advise those people that are critics to step back and look at all of the issues and then make your judgment. Do not make your judgment on one or two issues alone.That is not to say that ATSIC is perfect—it does not claim to be. It is not perfect, and from time to time it has had problems. No doubt in the future, with the complexity of its role, it will continue to have some of those problems. But we hope that, with good government and a good minister like John Herron, these will be overcome.84HZAHRAMr Zahra—And a good shadow minister.XU5Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMAN—And a reasonably good shadow minister, Daryl Melham—who is a better committee member, might I say. He is a member, as Mr Haase is, of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, which I have the honour of serving as chair and which works pretty well for Aboriginal people, for Australians and for the parliament.ATSIC regions are incorporated into zones in Australia. There are 35 regional councils, which are then divided into 16 zones. The position to date is that the minister, John Herron, and his predecessors have appointed the chairperson and one other commissioner. The rest have been elected. This provision of the act was amended in 1996 and provides that the commission consist only of elected representatives, not those appointed by a minister. I welcome that because that is the sort of thing that we need to do. White man's parliament, meaning well, should try to limit as much as possible its involvement in the decision making process that indigenous people want to make themselves. We should be encouraging indigenous people to have a go and make decisions, to be accountable to their own people and to Australians. It is better for them to do that than for governments to appoint people to these sorts of bodies. That amendment was a good one and it is about to take place. There was a deferral of the implementation of that, by agreement of both sides of politics, when we entered government in 1996.I would also like to pay tribute to the chairs of ATSIC, who include Dr O'Donoghue. Sometimes she has been a pretty severe critic of the government that I am a member of—unjustly, I think. But on other occasions she has been a good advocate for indigenous people and is generally well respected. We wish her well. The current chair, Gatjil Djerrkura, is a remarkable man. I have got to know him quite well and I wish him every success. I am not sure what is going to happen with the current elections, but I certainly do admire Gatjil and thank him very much for his good advice to me from time to time and, especially, for his very generous comments in relation to the report on the Northern Territory land rights act that the committee which I chair recently released, which is entitled Unlocking the future. We understand that the chair of ATSIC has endorsed the general thrust of that report, and we appreciate that generous endorsement.The bill before us today does not include any major changes to the ATSIC Act, but it does clarify the process pertaining to the new arrangements for the chairperson. The bill provides that the person who will be elected—in contrast to being appointed as in the past—by his or her fellow commissioners to be the ATSIC chair ceases to hold his or her original office—that is, of being a regional councillor and a zone commissioner. Obviously, it would be wrong to hold both positions. The present act does in fact provide that they would hold both positions, and that is not practical. The chair, having been elected, should not have those other positions. The bill deals with that situation.The bill goes on to say that the positions left vacant by the election of the chair will be filled through a process set down in the election rules made under the ATSIC Act. What will happen is that the indigenous people in the affected region will not have to vote again, having lost their zone commissioner, that person having being made chair of ATSIC. A recount will be done to elect the new councillor—they will go through the votes that were recorded in the previous election. In the case of the vacant position of a zone commissioner, the regional councils will elect a new commissioner in a by-election. That process is facilitated in this bill. It will complement the policy of the government, allowing commissioners to be elected by the people and elected commissioners to elect the chair.The bill is a simple one. There are no substantial financial costs on the Australian taxpayer, except that the person who fills the vacant office of the commissioner and the regional councillor would, of course, be entitled to the appropriate salary and allowances.In conclusion, there is a lot of work to be done by all of us to address the unfortunate disadvantage that indigenous people suffer. Unfortunately, they die a third sooner than all other groups of Australians, their unemployment rates are 60 per cent higher than the rates in any other area of Australia and their health is in many cases very bad. So the government's focus, under John Herron, has been to give greater attention and targeting to that.Hence, we have brought in a policy where all the skills of all of the health deliverers in Australia, at both Commonwealth level and state level, are brought into play. Rather than have ATSIC being the one that has to struggle to provide the health services and planning for indigenous people, it is far better to use the whole of the talents of all Australian health workers, the family of health people and the ministers to work collectively together. Michael Wooldridge has brokered agreements between all the state health ministers to that effect. That is a much better, targeted way of doing it.My colleague Barry Wakelin, with Harry Quick, who is deputy chair of my committee—Barry is chair of the other committee—is inquiring at the moment into indigenous health and has issued a discussion paper—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—You mean the members for Grey and Franklin.XU5Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMAN—That is right. I am sorry, I am being too informal. They are doing a wonderful job. I would encourage all members to read their discussion paper because it does highlight a number of important issues. In training, the ministers David Kemp and Peter Reith, together with ATSIC and others, have put in a targeted program to create partnerships where targeted results and outcomes will be achieved. We have already got a great development there.My colleague the member for Kalgoorlie has been briefing me about an exciting development in Murrin Murrin in Western Australia where Anaconda has formed a partnership with the local Aboriginal people and they are talking now about establishing a training college, which is a fantastic idea. So there are great, exciting things happening—good, positive things, and the best thing for us to do is to focus on the positives. Don't ignore the negatives, but don't allow the negatives to knock off the positives. It has been a shame in indigenous politics in Australia that there have been too many negatives knocking off the positives.I support the bill and wish it a speedy passage. Again, I record my appreciation of John Herron's work for the Aboriginal people of Australia.10:09:0010443Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 . Let me preface my remarks by congratulating the member for Indi for his remarks and for his chairmanship of that committee. I have often been criticised as a savage political opponent of the Liberal Party, but I find it appropriate at this juncture to congratulate the member for Indi for his generosity of spirit towards the Aboriginal people of Australia and for the integrity with which he has conducted himself in his dealings with Aboriginal people.Speaking on this bill provides me with an opportunity to provide a few ideas about how we can bring ATSIC closer to the people whom the commission seeks to represent. I think that we can go some way towards doing this by devolving authority from ATSIC to the local communities which it seeks to represent.I, like many other people in this parliament, read with great interest the paper delivered by Mr Noel Pearson to the Brisbane Institute some months ago. Noel Pearson, as many people in this place would know, is the director of the Cape York Land Council and a prominent Aboriginal leader in Australia. His paper offered a great insight into the ways in which governments might be able to relate to Aboriginal communities in the future.Mr Pearson spoke about an interface between Aboriginal communities and the state government and the federal government. So he was talking about moving away from some of these joint committees which exist and these departmental responses to the problems which Aboriginal communities face. He is talking about making a radical departure from that and starting again with something new, something over which the people in that community can have greater control and which would give greater responsibility to the people in those communities. I congratulate Mr Pearson on making those remarks. He has been very courageous, certainly politically courageous in the context of the constituency which he speaks for. I congratulate him on that initiative.One of the things which ATSIC needs to consider in the future is regional offices. I come from Victoria and had the good fortune to work as the chief executive of the Central Gippsland Aboriginal Health and Housing Cooperative, in Morwell, where our primary responsibility was the delivery of an Aboriginal health service to the people there. We were not a large organisation; we had, I think, only 16 or 17 staff at any one point. But our dealings with ATSIC, whilst very good in the context of trying to negotiate the best outcome for the people we sought to deliver services to, would have been made better if we had had an ATSIC office based in Gippsland, as opposed to an ATSIC office based in Melbourne. We need to encourage the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission to consider more closely whether or not this would be practicable.I know that many of the Aboriginal people in Gippsland with whom I have the good fortune to be friends consider ATSIC still an organisation far away from their needs and aspirations. I think that placing an office there, of whatever staffing would be considered appropriate, considering the size of that Aboriginal community and also the community's needs, would be a step in the right direction. It would give the likes of the Central Gippsland Aboriginal Cooperative, the Ramahyuck Aboriginal cooperative in Sale, the Gippsland and East Gippsland Aboriginal Cooperative in Bairnsdale, and the Aboriginal cooperative in Orbost much closer links into that very important organisation, which still is responsible for delivering a large number of programs to Aboriginal people. I mention that today, not in the context of trying to impose the view which I have about the way that Aboriginal services should be delivered in regional parts of Australia, but rather offering it as an idea based on the experiences which I have had in the delivery of Aboriginal services in Gippsland.In considering the bill and its provisions which relate to the democratic provisions of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, there are a few important points which need to be made. The first is the very low rate of participation by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in elections. We have such a small number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people on the Australian Electoral Commission rolls. When members here go through their polling booths on election days—as I think most people do; they visit the various polling booths in their constituencies—I would just ask them to consider how many Aboriginal people they ever bump into as they are doing the rounds of their constituencies. The truth is probably not many, even though many of us have significant Aboriginal communities in our electorates. This is something which we need to address very seriously.I noted with some alarm that there were substantial cuts to the Australian Electoral Commission Indigenous Enrolment Program in 1996. I would urge the government, in the best bipartisan traditions of this place, to urgently reconsider whether or not it would be appropriate to reinstate that program as a way of encouraging Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participation in general elections in this country. I think that we are all the better for having those people participate in the democratic process.I cannot tell you how much it pains me when I go and see Aboriginal people in my constituency and talk to them about an election coming up—as we have just had in Victoria—only to find that there is indifference in some people's minds about the fact that there is an election on and many people still are not registered to vote. We have a great democratic tradition in Australia. We need to seek to extend that democratic tradition to include all people in our community, and especially Aboriginal people who, for so long, have been marginalised from the political process.A second point I want to make is that little is being done to empower Aboriginal people to participate in the entirety of the democratic process. It concerns me that so many Aboriginal people still feel very locked out from that process. I am talking about not just encouraging people to vote but also encouraging people to participate fully and wholly in the democratic process.It was with some enthusiasm that my office advised me that a number of people involved in the land claim which is being pursued by the Gunai/Kurnai people in Gippsland have made an appointment to see me at my office in Moe this Friday. I am fortunate in that many Aboriginal people in our community feel confident coming to see me in my electorate office and, I hope, feel that they get some service from me.I am very pleased indeed to see that that group of people—a group of people who are usually marginalised from the political process—had the initiative and, in many ways, the courage to go and see a local member of parliament to discuss this claim. Often local members of parliament are seen as people who will not be supportive of the cause of Aboriginal people in their community. It is a shame that that has been the case for a long time. I am very pleased that that group of people has had the confidence—and the confidence in me—to come and see me to discuss the issue of their land claim.There tends to be a lot of talk about empowerment, but I think we need to be careful not to allow that talk to just be the shrill banter which politicians can go on with from time to time. I notice, with some concern again, that the Community Training Program, which is worth about $67.2 million, has been cut. I think this has undermined the efforts of people on both sides of parliament who are committed to genuine participation by Aboriginal people to try to encourage more Aboriginal people to be involved in the process.I think it is worth reflecting on what the Community Training Program aimed to achieve. In the ATSIC Annual Report1996-97, the objective is listed as follows:To improve decision making and service provision by Aboriginal organisations, through training which aims to increase skill levels and enhance employment prospects.I think most people in this place would agree that this is a very important objective. In describing community training, the document lists a few dot points, one of which is as follows:. provides assistance to selected individuals to enable them to undertake specific accredited training or education courses.It continues:The component had three elements:. community training funded through ATSIC Regional Councils;. Inwork, funded through ATSIC State and Regional Offices; and. Full-time Professional Study Grants, funded through ATSIC Central Office as a national program.So it is a shame that this Community Training Program has lost $67.2 million worth of Commonwealth funding and will now be unable to be delivered to Aboriginal people. I think it is worth noting as well that cuts to ATSIC, totalling nearly half a billion dollars, have occurred and have undermined Aboriginal self-determination.Whilst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission regional council elections will take place in October this year, we need to consider what the government has done to empower Aboriginal people to participate more fully in this process. It is worth considering the program that existed previously to encourage more Aboriginal people to get onto the electoral roll. I can remember that the Aboriginal organisation which I used to work for had some great posters up around the place encouraging Aboriginal people to participate in elections. We had these posters up all around the organisation, and as people came into the organisation they would say, `Here we have an Aboriginal organisation'—these were all funded by ATSIC—`giving us encouragement to get involved in the political process.' As a result of that and of having some Australian Electoral Commission enrolment forms around the place, people were certainly encouraged to get involved and to have their say in ATSIC elections and also in the general election process at both state and federal levels.Most people would understand that the advantages of having more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people participating in the democratic process are huge. By having more involvement by Aboriginal people in democracy, we end up with much more representation at federal, state and local levels. This can only be a good thing in making sure that the interests of Aboriginal people who have traditionally been very marginalised from the political process are not forgotten.I think it also encourages more understanding by Aboriginal people of the democratic process of local land councils, for example, and also of health services and cooperatives which are often charged with the responsibility of delivering various services to Aboriginal people. It is worth noting that in the past a number of problems have been encountered by organisations delivering services to Aboriginal people which have been run along democratic lines.Questions have to be asked about how realistic it is to expect Aboriginal people to deliver services to their own communities using the democratic processes of cooperatives, elections for land councils and all the rest when not enough effort has been made by Commonwealth or state governments to try to engender greater understanding amongst Aboriginal people of the democratic process. We cannot just set up an organisation to fail and then wash our hands of it saying simply, `We gave the funding to a democratic Aboriginal organisation. Unfortunately they did not run it correctly and therefore we are not to blame; they are to blame.' That sort of approach is clearly unacceptable.We should use the opportunities we have through funding to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission to try to encourage people to participate in programs which engender within the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community a greater awareness of the role of individuals in the Aboriginal community in electing directors onto Aboriginal health services and local Aboriginal land councils and in electing people to serve on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander regional councils.I think we have a great responsibility. If we are going to take it seriously, we have to look at empowering some of those organisations which deliver Aboriginal education programs and encourage and support them in delivering programs to the Aboriginal community of which they are a part. For example, in my own electorate there is an enormous amount of good work done by the Koori unit at the Central Gippsland Institute of TAFE. This group of very hard-working people deliver programs in adult literacy as well as in a whole range of other programs such as computer literacy and Aboriginal child care and assist Aboriginal people to access mainstream programs.We need to talk, through ATSIC, about how we might ask the Koori unit at the Central Gippsland Institute of TAFE, or other organisations, to deliver some type of management training or community leadership training to Aboriginal people. We talk a lot about the need for leadership in communities. Members of parliament who represent regional areas hear regularly that there is a need for community leadership to come from the regions so that the regions may seek the opportunities which are available to them. We talk a lot about the realities of globalisation and how regions are competing against not just other regions in Australia but regions in other parts of the world. However, we have not put in place processes which will allow Aboriginal people in regional areas to step forward as leaders in their own communities to take advantage of the opportunities that exist to put in place empowering practices for communities—not the type of paternalism we have seen in the past but empowering practices. We need to look seriously at the way in which we can deliver those services to Aboriginal people and encourage the likes of the Koori unit at the Central Gippsland Institute of TAFE to be a participant.An important point is that the government is letting Aboriginal people down through its inaction in this area. We need to be serious about preparing Aboriginal people for leadership roles in management, assisting them to understand their roles and responsibilities in the positions of director in the various organisation which I have mentioned.There are some opportunities for director training for Aboriginal people. I note that ATSIC, some years ago, produced a very informative video titled So You Want to be a Director. It was in plain language and very easy to understand format—I myself found it very useful—and provided clear indications of what the responsibilities of being a director would be. I think that sort of service delivery—that type of appropriate education—is something that we should try to encourage more.In conclusion, I will speak briefly about a great dream that I have and which I hope some day will be realised—that is, that we will have a system of Aboriginal scholarships in this country which will be genuinely available to ordinary men and women and their children in Aboriginal communities right across Australia and that this would be something which Aboriginal communities could control themselves and therefore have responsibility for. Aboriginal communities would choose the leaders of the future and would have a stake in it. People in those communities would be able to undertake the type of management and leadership training which would empower them to be able to go out and seek new opportunities for their community, which they need to take advantage of if they are to succeed as a people in the future.We have some great Aboriginal people and some great Aboriginal leaders in this country. Noel Pearson, whom I mentioned earlier on, is a great example of that. If we had a process in place which was able to produce Aboriginal leaders with experience and training in management, in accounting, as well as in director training, we would be going some way towards meeting our responsibilities—giving Aboriginal people the tools of empowerment. This is an area in which we are not going anywhere near far enough. I think everyone would agree on both sides of the parliament that there has been far too much paternalism in terms of Aboriginal service delivery in the past. We need to relate to Aboriginal people as partners in the process. Only by including them as partners in the process can we possibly hope to assist them to choose a better future for themselves and for their children. Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important matter.10:29:0010448Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—I rise to speak in support of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 . This marks a stage in the evolution of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. ATSIC, as it is known, was established under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989. One of its objects, as set out in its legislation, is `to ensure maximum participation of Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders in the formulation and implementation of government policies that affect them'.ATSIC has an elected arm to represent the interests of indigenous people. There are 35 ATSIC regional councils throughout Australia, plus the Torres Strait Regional Authority, whose members are elected by indigenous people. These regions are then grouped into 17 zones. A short time after an ATSIC election, regional councillors from each zone meet to elect one of their number to represent the zone on the ATSIC Board. The next ATSIC election is scheduled to be held on 9 October this year. It is expected that the elections of zone commissioners will take place in early December 1999. Those regional councillors elected as zone commissioners following this election will, for the first time, elect one of their own number to be the new ATSIC 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 process 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 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.There is quite a history to the choosing of the chairperson. Originally, the minister chose the chairperson. Later, the act was amended so that the minister appointed the chairperson from amongst the commissioners. Still later, an amendment was passed which provided for the commissioners to choose their own chairperson. This amendment will come into effect after the next election on 9 October. This bill concerns the arrangements that follow from the appointment of one of the commissioners as chairperson. Section 26 of the ATSIC Act allows the commission to review, from time to time, such aspects of the operation of the act as it determines. The bill also provides that a commission chairperson who resigns is taken to have resigned as a member of the commission.In April 1997, the board of commissioners determined that a review of the act under section 26 should be undertaken. This review involved comprehensive and wide ranging consultations with indigenous people. The ATSIC board requested that appropriate arrangements be put in place prior to the next ATSIC election.In 1998 the board reported to the minister, putting forward a number of recommendations arising from the review. Recommendation 7 says:Where the person elected to represent a zone is subsequently elected as Commission Chairperson, the person should cease to hold office as a member representing the zone and as a Regional Councillor, with these offices to be re-filled through the normal electoral process.It is this recommendation that is reflected in the bill before the House today. In its report on this recommendation, the commission said:There was strong support from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community for such a provision to be included in the Act.It went on to say:Bearing in mind the strong support expressed for the proposal during the consultations and the undoubted heavy workload falling on the Chairperson, the Commission favours, on balance, that he or she be replaced as the Commissioner representing the zone and as the Regional Councillor.This bill reflects the commission's view and its provisions will be in place before the next ATSIC elections. I am sure that ATSIC and the indigenous community will welcome the clarity and certainty that this bill brings.In particular, it is pleasing that representation at the regional level will not be diminished. There is much to be positive about in indigenous affairs, not only for indigenous people but for all Australians. Indigenous people are undeniably severely disadvantaged against all socioeconomic indicators, but we are beginning to see some real and lasting improvements. As a government we are committed to addressing that disadvantage in a practical way so that indigenous Australians can enjoy equality of opportunity with other Australians. While money alone is not the answer, we are committing record levels of funding to specific programs that will address that disadvantage.Self-reliance through greater economic independence is the ultimate goal in enabling indigenous Australians to create their own businesses, generate employment and generally create a more positive future for themselves and their children. A new indigenous employment program, IEP, has been announced in the budget. This program has an emphasis on private sector opportunities and support for indigenous small business. Major features of the IEP include a strategy to encourage chief executive officers to recruit and train indigenous staff, private sector structured training and a national cadetship program for cadetships in the private sector.In my own electorate, in the towns of Leonora and Laverton in the north-eastern goldfields, exists an organisation called the Leonora-Laverton Cross-Cultural Association. This is a group formed with the cooperation of mining operations in the area and is a classic example of the opportunities created under our new employment programs. The opportunities for Aboriginal people in the goldmining and exploration sectors are quite extensive. One of the sad realities, however, is the level of base education currently possessed by Aboriginal people in the goldfields area, and it is creating a great problem for the LLCCA to effectively employ and continue to provide employment for Aboriginal people.The problem highlights itself in a specific area. In Western Australia, state legislation enacted allows for the forfeiture of driving licences in the case of unpaid traffic infringements and other fines whereby individuals owe money to the government. A consequence of this may arise if Aboriginal people who have sat for, passed, been issued with a motor vehicle driver's licence and had it forfeited apply for employment in this particular local employment scheme and state that they are licensed to take a position that involves driving on a mine site. It is a clear requirement of the mining companies that all drivers so employed be licensed under state legislation as drivers. It is subsequently realised, often through a routine licence check on community roads, that the individual has had outstanding fines, has not paid them and that their licence has been forfeited. The fact that they have been stopped whilst driving a motor vehicle results in a further fine for driving whilst unlicensed, and the revolving door continues to revolve.Of course, the immediate consequence is that the individual is no longer licensed and able to hold down employment on a mine site as a driver. Once again, the opportunity to gainfully employ one more Aboriginal person and get them out of the welfare paddock is lost. I believe that my approaches to the state government are being considered, but more needs to be done in this field to effectively remove this insidious and revolving door situation. Some of its solutions are to be found in more effective communication when licensing drivers—I am not just referring to Aboriginal drivers but to all new drivers gaining their licence—that informs them of the consequence of not passing on their current address to authorities and of not paying fines.However, that said, we have made great progress with programs for employment and education, health and housing of Aboriginal people generally. In fact, 70 per cent of the $2.2 billion budget this year is going on health, housing, education and employment programs for indigenous Australians. To give you just a few examples of these practical improvements, four years ago there were just 800 indigenous Australians doing apprenticeships or traineeships. Today there are 4,800. The number of indigenous apprentices and trainees is an example of the success of the coalition's approach. When we came to office in 1996 there were just 800 indigenous apprentices and trainees Australia-wide. Three years later, this number has grown to 6,000.Twenty years ago, only 8.6 per cent of indigenous students stayed at school until their final year. Today, over 33 per cent finish school, and that figure continues to rise. Expenditure on indigenous education programs will be increased by $16.3 million in 1999-2000. The Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program will target indigenous students' literacy and numeracy competencies and school attendance levels. A decade ago there were 1,600 indigenous university students. Today, there are almost 9,000.The indigenous infant mortality rate is of great concern, but even in this area things are improving. Twenty years ago, the indigenous infant mortality rate was more than 20 times that of the wider community. Today, with still some improvement to be made, it is only three to four times higher, a considerable improvement. This is an area that will continue to be addressed, particularly in remote communities where there has always been a lack of prenatal and postnatal care. Over the past three years, 35 additional Aboriginal medical services have been provided, mostly in remote areas. Indigenous health funding has quadrupled over the past decade.The Indigenous Business Incentive Program has provided about $18 million in seed funding to 84 businesses. Successful indigenous business means more indigenous employment opportunities and therefore less dependency upon welfare. The CDEP Work for the Dole Program is a great success in indigenous communities with 33,000 indigenous Australians voluntarily working for the dole.In conclusion, these may be only small steps towards addressing disadvantage and there is still much work to be done. Nevertheless, they are steps in the right direction because they are steps away from welfare dependency and towards economic self-sufficiency, and they are important steps on the road to reconciliation. I commend this bill to the House.10:43:0010451Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—in reply—I thank the honourable members who have contributed to this debate on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 , and also thank particularly the opposition for their cooperation in expediting the bill.I want to say how pleased I was to hear the contribution from the honourable member for Indi, Mr Lieberman. The honourable member for Indi is following in the steps that I followed at one stage in this parliament by chairing the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. I know my colleague the member for Aston, Mr Nugent, has also had a long period of involvement with that committee and in these matters.The honourable member for Indi has been very much involved in pursuing, as this government has, the best ways and means of ensuring that Aboriginals are able to play a meaningful role in the decision making that affects their own lives. And particularly through the consideration recently of some of the issues relating to the reform of Aboriginal land rights law in the Northern Territory, he has had a focus on consultation and involvement.This has been the hallmark of this government and former governments. There is nothing new about the emphasis on Aboriginal self-management or upon individual self-determination. This is a view supported by the government. It is part and parcel of the way in which previous ministers such as Ian Viner, Peter Baume and Fred Chaney implemented programs when the Fraser government was in office.I find it very beneficial when we have contributions from members of parliament with considerable experience, like the member for Indi. I welcome the contributions from newer members, such as the informed contribution from the member for Kalgoorlie, who was able to outline, in a very comprehensive way, some of the programs of the government, particularly in the area of training, and the impact that they are having, and the cooperation that is now being seen in the areas of cross-cultural training through the Leonora-Laverton program, which he enumerated. I thank him for that contribution.I welcome also the contribution from the honourable member for McMillan, because he showed perspicacity in his comments—something that is not often understood by other members of the opposition. He recognised that, ultimately, education, health, housing, employment, and particularly training, are keys to Aboriginals being able to have the capacity to make those decisions in relation to their own lives. That is a very good starting point. He may not know everything that has been done; he may not have the detail of that in his mind, but it is a good starting point for him to focus on those programs and to assist the government with the initiatives that they are taking in this regard.It is important to focus on training, but you cannot focus on training until you have really started with basic education—literacy and numeracy. They are the sorts of issues that have been very comprehensively dealt with in the programs that my ministerial colleague the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, David Kemp, has been pursuing. It is important to recognise that there has been some movement. As one who has examined these matters over a long period of time, when I look back at what I saw when I was fairly new in the parliament more than 20 years ago, as I visited many centres around Australia, and when I visit those same places today, it is important to recognise that there remains very considerable disadvantage, but there has been change, and it has been positive.Without that change, the Noel Pearsons of this world, having regard to the education that he has received, would not be there—and he is not alone. When I started in public life 26 years ago, I recall there being two Aboriginal graduates—Charles Perkins and Margaret Valadian. Today, we are talking about thousands of young Aboriginal graduates. That is a very significant shift in a very short period of time. Of course, today, we see year 12 retention rates that have quadrupled over a period of time. We see post-school qualifications doubled to 13.6 per cent. We have seen higher education enrolments trebling. We have seen the proportion of indigenous people in professional occupations rising from 14 to 22 per cent.These shifts do not occur without a good deal of effort and commitment. But it also ought to be recognised that when you are coming off such a very low base—and it is acknowledged that that is where we were—these sorts of changes are going to be generational in terms of ultimately bringing all Aboriginals to the same sort of standard of living that Australians generally are able to enjoy. That is where we want it to be. That is what we are seeking, and we are seeking it through very practical programs, but also by trying to address the issue of self-esteem, particularly through the approach that we have taken in supporting reconciliation.Some of the steps that have been taken recently by the parliament, and the support that has been given to the work of the Reconciliation Council, are all incremental, but are going to be very positive in terms of creating an environment in which the programs that are in place—and bear in mind that they cost in the order of $2 billion—are able to have a positive impact.It is in that context that I want to thank honourable members for their contribution to this debate. The debate is really about implementing ATSIC's section 26 review. I found a high degree of awareness amongst members of what we are doing here: simply ensuring that, when you have an ATSIC chair elected from amongst the members, the place that he or she would have otherwise occupied as one of the regional councillors and zone commissioners be able to be filled in the normal way, so that those people who have given up their representative to assume this leadership role will not be left unrepresented.We have an election under way. That election is going to be an important one. This will be the first time in which ATSIC is able to elect its own chair. These changes are necessary to ensure that it is able to be conducted and that these aspirations in terms of the new structure are met. I am delighted at the support that is being given to the bill and the expeditious way in which it is being handled. I commend the bill.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Miscellaneous10453Debate resumed from 22 September, on motion by Mr Reith:That the House take note of the paper.10:52:0010453Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—I am pleased to continue my remarks, which were interrupted yesterday, on the motion before us on East Timor. Yesterday I had outlined a number of very direct things relevant to East Timor and some of the things that were going to happen in the future, and I had identified some of the longer term aspects of the issues this raises for this country in terms of foreign affairs. I had particularly been exploring the relationship with the United States and the fact that these days that country no longer regards itself as the world's policeman, and that that had perhaps caused us to have some reappraisal of our military and diplomatic relationships with that country.One of the problems in the United States is the current leadership. In terms of Australia, I am not so sure that we are actually on the radar screen on occasion. One of the reasons they perhaps were so slow in responding to our requests was that they do not have the background that the leadership of 20 or 30 years ago had of direct exposure or experience here and in this part of the world because of World War II, the Vietnam War, the Korean War and so on. We certainly have this problem of East Timor on our doorstep. Military capacity is, of course, limited. We cannot quite rely on who we thought we could in the same way that we thought we could, and so it all gets a bit lonely.To me, it has been staggering to see some of the comments in the media from so-called serious journalists about our handling of the East Timor and Indonesia situation and that US relationship. Not only have there been some total reversals of position by those journalists in very short order, but some of the alleged facts have been way off beam. The public deserves better—but more of that on another occasion.Indonesia has seen us as interfering, as causing their public humiliation, and there is talk of retaliation, of interfering with our shipping, our aircraft navigation and so on. It will take a long time, I suspect, to patch up that relationship, but patch it up we must. We cannot live forever with the fourth largest country in the world—which, in our lifetime, will overtake us in GDP and military terms—being at odds with this country.We have taken a principled stand on East Timor and backed it with actions, and quite rightly so. I believe that, recently, the Prime Minister and the foreign minister have navigated very well through some pretty difficult and rough seas. Nobody really knows how this will finally turn out. But we can say with confidence and certainty that it will take time; it will take money. We need to reappraise our military situation; we probably need to reappraise our relationship with the United States; we need to work harder still with our neighbours in the region; and we will eventually have to normalise our relationships with Indonesia.May I close by saying that, as one who has served in the military for a great number of years and served in areas on active service, I wish our military personnel in East Timor the very best and a safe return. I wish this not only to the Australians but to all the members of the international force. These are difficult times, as we have heard on the radio and the television this morning. Our thoughts go out very much to the families and our hearts go out to the East Timorese people. I support the motion.10:56:0010454Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I am very pleased to be able to participate in the debate on the motion before the House this morning. I would like to start by responding to the recent events in East Timor, and in particular the plight of the dispossessed East Timorese, forcibly removed from their land to West Timor and other parts of the archipelago.On Saturday, 18 September 1999, Sister Susan Connelly, of the Mary MacKillop Institute of East Timorese Studies, gave an address to a large crowd at the East Timor rally assembled in Sydney's Hyde Park. It is worth quoting from those words, placing them on public record. The speech is a demand to the government to use all force necessary to give those dispossessed people of East Timor the right to be repatriated to East Timor if it is their wish.Sister Connelly notes the United States comments likening East Timor to a `speed hump' in the path of Indonesian diplomatic progress. `East Timor,' they say, `is a speed hump on the way to Jakarta and we must get over it safely. Indonesia is such a big place and so central to the stability of the region.' This statement represents a profound ignorance of policy and I note Sister Connelly's observation:This speed hump insult betrays a monumental ignorance of human nature and human self-understanding . . . All of our cultural traditions and religions present us with stories and reflections which show that the small ones are ignored, not only to their peril but to ours.We too are a small nation, of only just under 20 million, neighbouring a powerful country of 211 million. Are we going to allow ourselves to be subject to the same rules that we allow East Timor to be subject to?To put this another way, the ethic we have applied here alongside the United States is now the same ethic being applied to Australia. It is the ancient pre-Christian ethic of Greek origin that, indeed, `might makes right'. The weaker give way to the stronger. It is the central rule of law. It is purely nihilist, purely secular. It asserts that, because I am stronger than you, therefore I am morally right to do whatever I do to you and you are wrong. This is the ethic of our modern government, this government, in rewarding the rich and punishing the poor because they are incapable of defending themselves.What was the principal factor that led to the United States winning the Cold War? Was it that the United States had more military force than the communists? No, they were not always stronger militarily. The former Soviet Union, at certain points in time, easily outmatched the United States and her allies militarily. The United States and her allies did not win the Cold War; the former Soviet Union lost the Cold War. The communist regime was so hated that it literally disintegrated. It was unsustainable.Any regime, be it fascism, communism or the regime in Indonesia, that places its foundations on cultural relativism or other false ideologies faces the same destiny of disintegration. Thus Australia faces the same plight so long as we place our trust in philosophies that violate the rule of law and the natural law. That does not mean we do not apply force. That means that our policy formulation must acknowledge up front when the ballot in East Timor is imminently likely to be violated by parties that do not honour the rule of law but seek to violate its principles with alternative false and evil philosophies.What can we as Australians say now without the assistance of the false United States umbrella of protection—that delusional lie that we have been living for so very long? What will be our response when we too are subject to the same worldly philosophy that drives mobs of militia or even governments to perpetrate what we know in our hearts and minds to be the most conspicuous evil?It is clear that we as a culture in Australia have lost the Christian ethic that underpins our legal system, our very notion of the rule of law. I note that the rule of law has been said a lot lately in respect of the United Nations peace enforcement charter in East Timor, but do we know what that means? Let me tell you what that means. It means that a law is applied probatively and predictably without favour. It does not discriminate between one citizen and another. The rule of law is universalist in its perspective. It is not cultural relativist.What does this mean in East Timor? It means we are dealing with regional powers that have no concept of the rule of law. They apply cultural relativist standards. I go so far as to say that if the East Timorese had not been Christian then we would not have seen anything like the massacre that happened. I note that even Mr Xanana Gusmao was surprised and shocked at the extent of the carnage. Even he did not anticipate the scale of the reprisal.Sister Connelly is totally correct when she begs the question, `After 2000 years, haven't we yet understood that might is not always right, that big is not always better?' Sister Connelly reflects on the law of the world, that Greek philosophy that is so seductive, so evil, so wrong. We face the same threat here in Australia. We are just one big populated island with vast resources. Are we too to be subject to the same ethic by which we adjudged East Timor, allowing ourselves to carry on in some vain hope of an idyllic world where Indonesia would seriously honour the commitment following a vote?It is time this parliament wakes up culturally to who and what we are. The naivety of our beliefs were profoundly ignorant. Indeed, such beliefs are invincibly ignorant. We were told a vote would secure a peaceful transition. We were told that cultural relativism would not be the rule of law for East Timor. We then witnessed cultural relativism at its very best—the systematic annihilation of a people culturally different, and I say religiously different, from those perpetrating the evil. I say `evil' because under any definition it is evil. The action of the militia, backed by the Indonesian army, offends every moral code imaginable, the rule of law, human rights and universalism.This brings me to the next point about the plight of the displaced persons forcibly expatriated from East Timor to West Timor and other parts of the archipelago. I quote again from Sister Connelly who says, `The East Timorese people's troubles are far from over.' We must pay particular attention to those in West Timor. The majority of East Timorese at present in West Timor have been kidnapped at gunpoint, forced to move to enemy territory and are living in mortal fear for their lives. The retreat of many militias and some Indonesian troops from East Timor to West Timor, defeated, humiliated and vengeful, are a major threat to life and limb. They have proved themselves willing and capable of attacking unarmed women and babies, and so the fear is well founded.The Indonesian government's reluctance to admit care agencies from outside Indonesia into West Timor and elsewhere, to say nothing of foreign journalists, is a disturbing signal of its intention to allow further ferocious slaughter. We must all redouble our efforts to help an estimated 150,000 East Timorese hostages. We must demand that the Indonesian government face reality and accept the help it needs to repatriate those people safely to East Timor and to protect them in the meantime. We must lobby our leaders and the world's leaders to induce Indonesia to make this happen. We must appeal to the Indonesian leaders to redeem their international image by facilitating the return of these people.We are starting to hear about the `hurt feelings' of some people. We are told that we have to consider Indonesian sensibilities. Well, I have got news for people pushing this barrow. The life of one Timorese baby, the thumb of one Timorese youth, the pain and terror of one raped Timorese girl, and the sorrow of one Timorese father is of more consequence in the scheme of things than having to consider Indonesian sensibilities.Australia, the United States and the United Nations got it totally wrong in respect of the East Timorese ballot—fatally wrong. We cannot be fools and get it wrong one more time. A failure to understand our own reasoning has been the cause of an estimated 20,000 deaths, including the deliberate killings of specific individuals such as pro-independence community leaders, priests, community workers, nuns and so forth. For the first time in history the Red Cross has come under attack, its buildings and property destroyed.Do we now believe that the philosophy of cultural relativism has suddenly lifted from the paradigms of Indonesian thought? I do not believe it has. For that matter, neither have our paradigms shifted. We are patting ourselves on the back for a so-called leadership role we cannot lay claim to. We play a significant but limited role in the initiative of the United Nations. Only by the grace of the unanimous vote of the Security Council are we in East Timor at all.Thus, the scene is set for recalcitrant and recidivist tendencies that may see the matter resurface again. Both our views are institutionalised in terms of belief systems. They are not remorseful because they have killed innocent women, babies and other people. They are remorseful because they did not get away with it. They will now attempt to do exactly the same with the displaced persons in West Timor and elsewhere. We, on the other hand, will fall into the same error of judgment and will repeat history if we do not change our process of reasoning now.I urge the government to encourage the international community to press the Indonesian government to repatriate the displaced people of East Timor who have been forcibly removed against their will to West Timor and elsewhere. I urge the government to not become complacent in seeing that these displaced persons be placed under the immediate care and control of international care agencies and ensuring their safe repatriation to East Timor.I strongly endorse the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mrs Mary Robinson, in seeking an international commission of inquiry into all aspects of these atrocities, and expect Australia to make available all intelligence resources at our disposal to present evidence in support of the laying of charges and convictions flowing from a commission. I would hope this parliament likewise endorses the president's recommendations.Finally, God bless the people of East Timor and all the members of the peacekeeping force, guard their safety and unity and preserve their harmony, for therein lies our strength and peace. Amen.11:06:0010457Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—We all appreciate the heartfelt comments of our colleagues on both sides of the House in relation to this very difficult matter. It gives me great comfort to know that in my comments I enjoy the broad support of the people from right across my electorate, from East Roseville to the Harbour Bridge and from Linley Point to Cremorne. The 140,000 people of my electorate have certainly, as one, spoken with a sense of frustration, at times outrage, and occasionally deep anger at the events that have occurred in East Timor over the last few weeks.At a time when the world around us seems to unravel and events, including those causing great emotion, start to unfold, it is important that we keep a level head. That is the great test of leadership—your strength at a time when things are going badly, when you are under enormous pressure. The test of leadership does not come when things are going well. So Australia's leadership—and I say that as a nation we have displayed leadership—in helping to resolve the problems of East Timor has had a profound impact not only on our relationship with our near neighbours in Asia but also, importantly, in a global context. I say that because if we put in some perspective the events that have occurred over the last few weeks, we will start to get a grasp of how significant the reaction of the world has been to the events that have occurred in East Timor.The United Nations throughout its history since 1944 has been developing as a body to try and resolve human conflicts. It has had police actions initiated by the most powerful countries in the world, such as the United States or the Soviet Union. It has always had a Security Council where the veto has been exercised on a regular basis. But, most importantly, when you have a good look as an outside observer at international relations you start to pick up that very few actions by the world's peacekeepers are an answer to a matter of principle. Sometimes political ideology is involved; sometimes religion is involved; sometimes—mostly, in fact—economic interests are involved. Where was the principle of the UN action in Kuwait when around 27 countries participated to push Iraq out of Kuwait? Where was the principle in Rwanda when the Hutus and the Tutsis were turning the rivers into a flow of red bodies, and the world stood back and watched TV each night? Where was the principle? There was no principle. Economic interests were the main focus in Kuwait, and the world did not react on principle in Rwanda.Whenever you look at international relations, you see one constant theme: that there is virtually no principle regarding humanity that results in an immediate reaction. Everything was weighing against the world reacting swiftly to the events in East Timor. The first question you need to ask is: how long should it take for the world to react to a domestic activity in East Timor? Before any government commits troops, it needs to ask the question: what are the army and the troops of the existing nation doing to protect the interests of the people? Timor is still a domestic matter.President Habibie had the courage—and I say that not lightly—to have a vote, when President Suharto and every Indonesian leader of any consequence to challenge President Suharto over the last 25 years had always rejected a vote. There was a free vote, supervised by the United Nations and taken with the knowledge that it would be, effectively, an overwhelming vote in support of full independence. When did that last happen in the history of the modern world? When did the existing government of a sovereign nation agree to have a secessionist vote, supervised by an outside body? The only case I can think of is Quebec, in Canada, but even then it was not supervised by the United Nations. In this case, President Habibie then went on to agree to have UN peacekeepers there. I commend him for that.The United Nations Security Council reacted within days, in a time frame that has been unheard of. Most importantly and most far-sightedly, the United Nations reacted by sending troops to enforce a matter of principle, one that is fundamental to the charter of the United Nations: the freedom of individuals, the liberty of a people to declare their culture, to have their own government. This, hopefully, wraps up the end of a dramatic century in the history of humanity, when—for all the wrong reasons, and all the right reasons at times—we have gone to war. Hopefully, at the end of the 20th century and as we approach the new millennium, this act of principle involving East Timor by the United Nations and the world community is going to have a profound effect.There have been numerous people in my electorate that have felt the pain of what has happened in East Timor. I particularly reach out to my friends in the Jesuit community, who have lost three of their colleagues to the murderous treachery of the TNI and the militia. The Jesuits are fantastic human beings and their sacrifice, like those of the nuns of the world, is never ending. The sacrifices they made in defence of humanity in East Timor have certainly not been lost on me, and I reach out to the communities around St Aloysius College and St Ignatius, Riverview, and also the parishes of St Mary's, in North Sydney, and St Francis Xavier, at Lavender Bay.Others in my community, like James Harker-Mortlock of North Sydney, have long been advocates of a free East Timor, a peaceful East Timor, and an independent East Timor. But, at the end of the day, the challenge for all of us is to maintain relations with Indonesia, our nearest neighbour, and to recognise that the people of Indonesia do not support the bloodshed inflicted by the militia and the TNI in East Timor. Most Indonesians are peace-loving people. Most Indonesians are happy to have warm and close relationships with Australia. They are our nearest neighbour. They are a developing country. They are the fifth largest country in the world. They are a Muslim country occupying 17,000 islands.We must have the courage at this moment to recognise and exact appropriate justice on the people who have inflicted crimes against humanity. Whoever they may be, we will go after them. When I say `we', I mean the world community that will not tolerate crimes against humanity in a century where we have had the most heinous crimes in the history of mankind. But, we also need to keep our heads and recognise that the leadership displayed by Australia, and particularly by our Prime Minister, in a very difficult situation, means that we will prevent, hopefully, further bloodshed in what will be a very volatile region in the years ahead.11:16:0010458Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—First of all, I would like to compliment the member for North Sydney, Mr Hockey, the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, on his very thought-provoking speech here in the Main Committee. Well done!I would like to take a few minutes and add a few thoughts of mine on the motion before the Main Committee today concerning East Timor. I, like others, welcomed United Nations resolution 1264 authorising a multinational force to restore peace and security in East Timor, to protect the United Nations mission in East Timor, and to facilitate humanitarian assistance.How does one convey in a few minutes the impact of what has transpired in East Timor? The past few weeks have seen the best and the worst of humanity. We have witnessed through our television screens families lining up to exercise their democratic rights for the first time. They were lulled into a false sense of security by the international community. They went to vote naively believing that the transition to independence was going to be smoothly achieved and that their Indonesian masters would walk away from it all without blinking an eyelid.We have all watched the horrible aftermath unfold on the television, and seen the homicidal behaviour of the militia and some of the Indonesian troops. We even saw evidence of that this morning on our morning television programs. I have been reminded, as all of us have been, of just how fragile the veneer of humanity really is.As an Australian, I experienced a wide range of emotions. As a member of the House of Representatives, I wondered just how to put into words my current feelings towards the Indonesian people, their leaders and the Indonesian military. We have seen on television the stage-managed demonstrations by groups of Indonesians, with their messages of hate, their burning of the flags, burning of effigies, and the messages of what they intend, allegedly, to do to those of our peacekeeping forces stationed in East Timor. We have seen President Habibie address his parliament the day before yesterday and trot out, to my mind, a biased and emotive speech to justify staying on as a leader. Just how stupid does he really think we all are?I would like to take this brief opportunity to convey to General Wiranto and his officers the statement that I have nothing but contempt for them. I abhor their collusion and complicity in allowing the systematic brutality meted out to those Timorese who dared vote for independence.Members in this place would probably say that we should not apportion blame to the Indonesian people as a whole, that it is not their fault, rather, we should continue the dialogue, continue the aid and the financial assistance in the hope that democratisation will solve all the ills currently evident in Indonesia. I agree with this sentiment. I have worked tirelessly, as many in this House have, to promote international understanding and to alleviate Third World poverty and Third World debt.I do not want to see Australians harassing Indonesian students as they walk through the streets of Australia. I would rather that we sat down with them and conducted a real dialogue in order to strengthen the deep friendship that exists between Australians and Indonesians. On the other hand, what is our response to be to the tens of thousands of people who have disappeared; to the countless families brutalised by the militia and the Indonesian army as they rampaged through East Timor? Go and browse through the history books. Look at the pictures. The uniforms are different, but the looks on the people being herded away are just the same.People in this place and in the House have already spoken of how the defence and intelligence experts and the diplomats failed to see that this horror would eventuate and of just how ill-prepared, as an international community, we were to resolve it. Others have spoken of the speed with which the United Nations moved to implement resolution 1264, which enabled the peacekeeping forces to enter the scorched land of East Timor. One wonders what these experts thought was actually going to happen after the vote for independence.The peacekeepers are there now. Our troops are gradually restoring some semblance of normalcy to a crazy mixed-up world. My thoughts and those of the people of my electorate go out to them as they face uncertain months ahead in a strange land. Our thoughts are also with their families and close friends. I know that those serving overseas will serve with distinction, as did their forebears in the same countryside. To the numerous aid agencies who are being confronted with the huge task of providing humanitarian assistance, I would like to convey, on behalf of my electorate, my heartfelt appreciation for the superb work they have already done and will continue to do in the months ahead.To Xanana Gusmao, I express, on behalf of my electorate and myself, the heartfelt hope that East Timor will be given the opportunity to live in peace and harmony. Australia has gone some small way to repay the huge debt we owe the East Timorese people. We will not let them down a second time.11:22:0010460Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—Before I start my remarks on this motion on East Timor, I must say how moved I was by the previous speaker, the member for Franklin. I share his heartfelt appreciation of the situation in East Timor.I rise this morning to speak in favour of this motion moved by the Prime Minister. This is probably one of the most tragic motions I have ever had to speak to in the short time that I have been a member of this House. Like all Australians, I was horrified at the events that have unfolded in East Timor in the last few weeks. And I have been horrified by the long history of suffering and violence inflicted on the people of East Timor.I am sure that the images will never fade for me of the mothers and fathers passing their children over those razor wire fences into the compound in their terrible flight from the militia terror. Those images will also make their way into the archives of mankind's cruelty, alongside the images from Tuol Sleng prison in Phnom Penh and of the genocide in Rwanda. Another image that comes to me as I speak today is of the death of a mother in the hills and the television footage showing the very tragic grief of her young daughters as they cried for their lost mother.The death of a Dutch journalist a few days ago continues to remind us of just how dangerous and perilous life is in East Timor. All those who are there at the moment, whether they are inhabitants, whether they are foreign companies which invest there, whether they are children who are attending international schools or our soldiers and humanitarian aid workers, are facing daily peril as they go about their tasks.The events that followed the declaration of the referendum result were some of the most shocking and appalling that we have witnessed in our region in recent times. It is really a testament to the strength and commitment of the East Timorese people that they have suffered for so long and that they have been able to hold out for what they have always dreamed for. This is all the more so when you consider that their voice was finally heard and yet they still had to suffer. I do not think any members here today would disagree with me when I say that the East Timorese have shown themselves to be a proud and resilient people who have maintained their dignity in the face of all this barbaric cruelty.At the height of the murderous rampage in East Timor, my Petrie office was flooded with calls from average Australians who were angry, horrified and absolutely overwhelmed by the brutality of the militias and elements of the Indonesian military. I was struck by the emotion of some of those telephone messages. Clearly, people were phoning with tears in their eyes and were very moved by the situation, and I must share that sense of revulsion at what was happening in East Timor.I am very proud to be part of a government that has put aside long held conceptions of Australia's immediate national and political interest, to ensure that the popularly expressed wish of a very small emerging nation is respected. More importantly, I am very proud of our efforts and, in particular, those of the Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Foreign Affairs in securing an international peacekeeping force for East Timor and, hopefully, putting an end to the wanton violence of the militias and rogue elements of the Indonesian military, or TNI.It is in this sense that I wholeheartedly support the first two statements of the motion by noting the results of the East Timor referendum and also welcoming the United Nations Security Council's resolution 1264 authorising the multinational force to bring peace and security to East Timor. One should never underestimate how quickly that resolution was passed by the United Nations Security Council—a resolution that usually would have taken probably two to three months, at the very minimum, to have been put through. It is an absolute credit to the work of our foreign minister, our Prime Minister and the members of that council to ensure that it was put through by such a speedy process.It is a sign of Australia's hard work and leadership on the issue of East Timor that the international community, through the United Nations, has requested that we lead this mission. I endorse our leadership and I want to state publicly my personal support for all those service men and women who are serving with the United Nations—soldiers from Brisbane, from my electorate of Petrie and, particularly, from Bracken Ridge. When I spoke to the mother of one of the soldiers who at the moment are waiting on alert in Darwin, I was very touched by her feelings. She said something that reminded me how real the pain is of the mothers and fathers and the families of military personnel. She said that they love what they do and they are trained to do their particular jobs and carry out their profession, but it was not real before the order was given that the soldiers were going to East Timor, and now it was real.At one meeting we were at, somebody spoke about the death and the possible carnage that might be involved. She was clearly distressed by the prospect that there is always a real danger. There is always a danger that there will be carnage, there will be death and there will be losses. So I am very pleased today that this motion states our support, expresses our confidence in the ability of the armed forces and, more importantly, looks to their safe return home. I know that they will do us proud. They will certainly renew the long held ties between the people of East Timor and the Australian service men and women.The motion before the House marks a watershed in the political geography of South-East Asia, particularly in terms of Australia's relationships in the region. Not only do we have a new nation on our doorstep, but we have a chance to imbue our relationships with Indonesia with a new level of maturity. It is little wonder that Australia's leadership, particularly on the East Timor issue, has placed great strain on our relationships with Indonesia. It has also tested our relationships with other countries such as the United States, which may not have always been as positive or as strong as we believed them to be in the past.Recently I heard the statement by Indonesian President Habibie to the Indonesian house of representatives. I believe that his view that he is `disappointed by the Australian attitude in dealing with the matter' will allow us to redress the past mistakes of Australia's relationship with Indonesia.For too long, it seemed to many that our relationship with Indonesia was unbalanced. Australian governments, particularly the Keating government, in the past were often too eager to please the Jakarta political elite at the expense of our long-term relationship with the region and humanitarian concerns. It is worth noting now that our relationship is at an all-time low. It is symbolised by the imminent danger of conflict involving our forces and by the abrogation of this agreement.It sounds like we have a lot to consider in the future and we have much to do at a particular time in our relations with Indonesia. We have a chance to reverse the imbalance and, much more importantly, to recognise that our policy should not be based solely on deference to the concerns of one small section of Indonesian society, regardless of whether or not those people are in power in Jakarta. It is with this in mind that we will be on an even footing with our Indonesian neighbours. It is in our longer term interests, and also in the interests of humanity, that we look at this relationship.I express my absolute best wishes to our soldiers for a safe return. The prayers and thoughts of our nation are with them and their families. I also express my gratitude to the international agencies for the work that they are doing with many of the refugees at the moment. It is too early to anticipate where this situation will lead. How long it will go for is another thing that is uncertain. It has every potential to be, as I mentioned to someone the other day, what Albania was to Italy; certainly that situation has unfolded in past months. A considerable amount of funding for the military will be needed, and also for a continuing international relief program. There is a nation that has to be rebuilt. There are no utilities. There is absolutely nothing there at the moment. I hope and pray that Australia can play a very positive role in ensuring that East Timor will again rise from the ashes.11:32:0010462Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—East Timor has haunted Australia's national consciousness for more than 50 years. There is a deep feeling amongst many Australians that we owe a great debt to the East Timorese that we have failed to honour. That, I think, is one of the reasons why so many Australians have so strongly endorsed calls for international action to end the bloodshed that has taken place in East Timor since the referendum on 30 August. Irrespective of our political persuasion, Australians feel that we cannot stand by and allow such a convincing and brave vote for independence to be overturned by violence and oppression.Many Dickson residents have contacted my office—along with the member for Petrie, I also record the emotion that was expressed in these telephone calls—and many who have signed petitions about East Timor have wanted it to be made known that their argument is not with the people of Indonesia. They do want Australia to have a productive and friendly long-term relationship with Indonesia, but not at the expense of the lives and the freedom of the East Timorese.Many Australians are also wondering why the referendum went ahead at this particular time. They wonder how wise it was to set off down this path in the first place, with militia violence and the complicity of the Indonesian military evident in East Timor well before the ballot and when East Timorese leaders themselves were urging a longer time frame. Many Dickson residents expressed to me their concern about whether lives have been lost unnecessarily and whether a more peaceful transition to independence might not have been achieved at a later date.I do not think that these questions have yet been answered satisfactorily by either the Prime Minister or the Minister for Foreign Affairs. To say that `no-one could have predicted the events following the ballot' I think must rank as one of the more ingenuous statements of all time. To ignore the concerns of Xanana Gusmao and Bishop Carlos Belo—and, as we now know, the United States—in favour of the assurances of President Habibie and General Wiranto now looks to have been a terrible error in diplomatic judgment.To have sided with Indonesia in its refusal to accept peacekeepers prior to the ballot taking place—and I know you can always say that you can see things with hindsight, but I am arguing there were a lot of circumstances evident before this decision was taken—now seems a wilful and blinkered denial of the facts. None of this, however, excuses the behaviour of the militias, of the Indonesian military or of the Indonesian government. But it does now seem that what could at best be described as Australia's naivete contributed to the destruction wrought on the people of East Timor over the past three weeks.Of course the United Nations also chose to ignore the evidence and pressed on with the ballot even though it, too, knew the militias were not being disarmed. As the Labor shadow minister for foreign affairs, Laurie Brereton, said in the parliament on Tuesday, there can be no doubt that the people of East Timor have been grievously betrayed by both the United Nations and Australia.I agree with those who say that we have let these people down once again—as we did in 1942; as we did in 1975; and as we did in 1979, along with another 32 countries, when we recognised Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor. We have let them down by helping to push forward a flawed and dangerous process that has ended in violence and ruin.Having said that, I think we must now look to the future. We must now honour our debt and meet our responsibilities towards the nation of East Timor. It is not going to be a small responsibility or a minor commitment. We, as a nation, must be prepared to play a strong and positive role in returning East Timor to peace, in rebuilding its towns and its infrastructure, in returning home its refugees and in helping it to become a free, peaceful and prosperous nation. I believe the vast majority of Australians would support a government commitment on that front.I also believe the vast majority of Australians want a friendly relationship with a democratic Indonesia. Irrespective of provocation, we must remain positive, calm and constructive in that relationship. Perhaps now is also the time for the coalition to recognise the serious error it made in reducing funding for Radio Australia. I join others in asking the government to rebuild that service as an important part of informing Indonesians of our goodwill towards them.Finally, I think we have to take stock of what East Timor might mean in the wider regional and international context. There is often a tendency to place stability in a nation or a region above human rights concerns or democratic principles. History is littered with the disastrous consequences of appeasing brutal regimes in the perceived interests of regional stability.But this really does seem to have been changing since the end of the Cold War. We can see people's movements, democratic movements, springing up all around the world. I think we have to face the fact internationally that some nations may not be able to hold themselves together in the future, particularly those with diverse cultures, faiths and ethnic backgrounds within their borders. And this may not be such a bad thing. In a globalised economy, the actual size of countries may not matter all that much in the future, providing those countries can sustain friendly relationships with their neighbours.But there will be those who cannot let go and who will seek to hold on to power at any price, and the rest of the world has to ask itself how it is going to respond to the growing tide of independence and separatism. Writing in the Guardian a fortnight ago, the columnist Polly Toynbee summed up the question very well, I think, when she said:The world should consider whether it really wants to waste the next century trying to hold together those who wish to break apart, at what cost in money, arms and blood and according to laws laid down by what authority? Far better to let the people go.Perhaps that is a message Indonesia should have heard in regard to East Timor. But it is also a message which the rest of the world has to pay close attention to in the years ahead if other nations and other peoples are to avoid paying the same terrible price for independence and freedom as that paid so far by the people of East Timor.Like other speakers, I want to close by sending my thoughts and best wishes, on behalf of all the people of the electorate of Dickson, to those parents I have met who have children serving in this operation and also to those serving personnel who are indirectly or more directly involved. Their safe return is obviously at the forefront of our thoughts.11:40:0010464Katter, Bob, Jnr, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyNP10—During the last world confrontation—the Second World War—it was proposed to abandon part of Australia north of Brisbane to the Japanese invaders. The people of North Queensland have a very strong memory of that and there are very few who are not conscious of the fact that we were simply going to be abandoned. If you take away a very small strip of land about 100 kilometres wide running down the east coast of Queensland, the population in the northern half of Australia—in that infamous Brisbane Line, if you like, that stretches right across Australia—is much the same, in terms of numbers, as when Captain Cook arrived. It has not changed very much at all.You cannot say that there are no resources there. Half of Australia's agricultural production comes off the Murray-Darling system, which has 22 million megalitres of water. Just North Queensland—my electorate and its periphery; not the coastal strip, but the Gulf country—has 126 million megalitres of water. So if half of Australia's agriculture can be produced off 20 million megalitres, how much should we be producing in the Gulf country with its 126 million megalitres of water? We have twice as much arable land—flat rolling blacksoil plains—in the Gulf country and its periphery as the Murray-Darling system which extends over three states.That brings me to the subject of Indonesia, where 200 million people are jammed on to six main tiny little islands. We have to understand the way that those 200 million people will interpret our actions. It is with deep regret that I say that many of those people will interpret those actions as people of European descent depriving them of half of one of those six main islands—and they are not going to be very happy about the situation. We have reacted with righteous anger over the killing of Indonesians—and righteous compassion too—and I think it is right that we reacted to what was taking place there. But if we have been upset over the sight of Indonesians killing Indonesians, you must understand that they are not going to be very happy about the sight of the people of European descent who are now there, and undoubtedly people will subsequently die.Let us turn back to Australia and think about the defence of a country and how we would protect our own nation and its territorial integrity. There was a wonderful series on SBS recently, and Ian Causley, one of my colleagues, rang me to tell me to switch it on. In fact, I already happened to be watching it. The program was about the German invasion of Russia where the Germans had taken two-thirds of the Russian population. They had the three major cities under siege and they had killed 3½ million Russian soldiers, which was almost the entire size of the German army. So the Russian people were conquered.The reporters were interviewing an old lady who had been a teenager at the time, and they asked, `What did you do when the situation arose?' She said, `I got the family's hunting rifle out and shot 12 German soldiers.' The interviewer asked, `What did the Germans do?' She answered, `They shot 20 villagers by way of retaliation.' The interviewer asked, `What did you do then?' She said, `I went out and shot 20 German soldiers.' The interviewer asked, `What did they do?' She answered, `They put a cordon around a whole village and slaughtered all of the 102 people inside that cordon.' Then the interviewer asked, `What did you do then?' She said, `I got two other people who also had hunting rifles and we shot 103 German soldiers.'The point of the story is, of course, that the Germans had conquered nothing. Every person behind their lines was there with a rifle and was prepared to shoot German soldiers at whatever cost to themselves. The Germans had conquered nothing, even though there were 3½ million Russians killed or captured in the space of about seven months and the Russian army was left with very few people and very little equipment.I spent a bit of time with a businessman in Australia who was a colonel in the Six Day War with Israel and I said, `Those Arabs can't fight.' He said, `The only people that say that are people that have not fought the Arabs. I might remind you that you people took them on and you threw the whole might of the British Empire at them for six months and you never made it off the beaches at Gallipoli. Don't ever say that the Arabs can't fight.' I asked, `How do you people keep beating them?' He said, `Even if they can get an army of a million people together,'—that is a very big army—`when they invade Israel, or attempt to invade Israel, there are 3½ million people of whom pretty close to three million have automatic weapons they are trained to use.' So they are up against an army of three million when they confront Israel.Switzerland has been left out of most of the big wars because every Swiss family has an automatic weapon at their house and they are trained to use it to protect and defend their country. So people do not pick fights with people who are tough, whether Swiss, Israeli or Russian.Going back to the situation that exists here: we have huge undeveloped spaces in this country and there is no way that we, as a people, can morally defend a situation where we are sitting on the resources of the Gulf of Carpentaria without developing those resources. And we cannot develop those resources without the assistance of the government of Australia and the government of Queensland—it is impossible. In fact, the laws, under national competition policy and native title, make it almost impossible to develop those areas. So those laws must be changed and attitudes must be changed.If you do those things, we are told, people in Indonesia—and there are 100 million people going to bed hungry in Indonesia of a night, we are told—have not got the money to buy our products. That is not entirely true, because one-eighth of this nation's cattle, until the recent economic upheavals, were going to Indonesia. With a very enlightened government in Indonesia, simple little farmers take those cattle and feed them on reject bananas and rubbish until they are big cattle and then they slaughter them over there. But the point of the story is: poor as that country may be, it is already taking one-eighth of our entire Australian cattle production, and I am quite sure that we can produce numerous other products which will make us good trading partners with people whom we desperately need. It is vitally important that we are friends in the longer term.So, whilst we go forward in a righteous cause, there is no doubt that there are very grave dangers indeed for people of my age in Australia. I was handed a gun when I was 18 years of age, I think it was, and told to go and fight the Indonesians in Sarawak. Soon afterwards we were then told that we were on 24-hour notice to go and fight in Vietnam, where 300 million in the countries of the United States and Canada faced off against 30 million Vietnamese. The Americans lost heavy casualties in Vietnam. Fifty-six thousand Americans were killed in Vietnam, versus only 54,000 in the war against Japan. So if we go forward, we must go forward in the knowledge of the very sober realities of the situation which Australia and our neighbours are in today.11:49:0010466Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—My good wishes and my support, and I guess the support of most of my electorate of Lyons, go out to the Australian troops now attempting to engender some peace and protection in East Timor. They have my personal backing in this unenviable task of trying to broker peace in a situation where nothing is known.I have been totally dismayed at the way the foreign affairs portfolio has been managed by this government, with an inarticulate foreign minister, an indecisive Prime Minister, and a ministry of defence without its most senior adviser. This would be a joke if it were not so serious. It is serious because we have let down badly again those East Timorese who fed, sheltered and nurtured those Australians who survived in East Timor during the Second World War. We owe so much to these people, both now and then.Times do not change much. The scene was set for disaster when Australia demanded a referendum vote without any thought of what might happen afterwards, and when no provision was made to assist in the changeover between Indonesia and East Timor. There was no thought given as to how the local people might act, both the bewildered Indonesians—a lot of whom have property in East Timor—and the terrified East Timorese.Over the years there has been a lot of work done building up Australia's relationship with this part of the world, something this Prime Minister did not really understand when he took office. He rubbished Labor's efforts to obtain a greater understanding of South-East Asia and APEC, yet when the Indonesian economy started to break down and the Indonesian election did not produce a clear result there was a definite feeling of unrest. There were warning signs there that this government did not read.The Department of Foreign Affairs does not seem to have grasped the background or the history of the situation in Indonesia at all. The political situation in Indonesia has been in turmoil for some time. The Indonesian people themselves had been revolting against militarism and demanding to have a more democratic government. The outcome of their election has brought a tough time for them as well. With the overthrow of Suharto, Indonesian politics changed. Currently, there is no government in place and players are jockeying for positions of leadership. The military prepared for this at least a year ago. Now was not a good time to try to annex a part of that country.The other thing that seems to have been forgotten is that the military have played an intimate role in government since Sukarno took over Indonesia for the Indonesians. What we have here is a series of small countries put together under one umbrella to help them set up a structure to govern. The military have been placed strategically at every level of society, from community groups and local councils upwards. The military have been in the local council. They have been the provincial leaders. They have representatives in the parliament. The military have been in government. You cannot change that overnight.There are many different peoples in the Indonesian archipelago and, although many have not agreed with the role of the military, they came to respect the relative stability the military brought to Indonesia. However, when it started to become corrupt, many questioned the role of the leaders and how they used the military. Violence comes from corruption, and power with violence.This is perhaps oversimplifying a very complex structure, but suffice to say that the military have been government, the seat of power, and now this is in turmoil because of the election. Somehow it has brought the hostility of many nations against them because of their treatment of the East Timorese. I do not believe the East Timorese are the only ones very frightened.No one can condone the killings, the murdering and the violence, and I hope all those who had any part in it will be taken to task very severely. But we should understand the situation as it really is. The militia are the worrying ones as they are not apparently led by anyone in government and have used their military protectors as a licence to cause mayhem. They are paid provocateurs, and paid by the military to kill, maim and scare people out of the country.The Labor Party recognised this complex situation and realised that there was no way that East Timor was likely to have a violence free vote or achieve independence without some sort of aggression, given the instability of government, the economic crisis and the role of the military in government. We asked for assistance to be set up and to go in before the vote was taken. But the Prime Minister vacillated. He hesitated. He hoped for the best. And then when disaster struck, nothing had been done to put a contingency plan into action. People died. Finally, under pressure, late in the game after the vote, he suddenly decided that Australia had to intervene in the slaughter of East Timorese. He started his foreign affairs and defence ministers off in a direction to try and cobble together a United Nations force two weeks after the vote. Meanwhile, people died. Then people started to flee because they felt the situation was helpless and that, if they stayed, they would have been shot, or starved to death.It was an appalling lack of forward planning and an amazing lack of judgment. No wonder the Indonesians are objecting now and no wonder we have a situation of people being massacred. It was a total disaster. The mismanagement and misunderstanding were woeful. Even food aid took far too long to be started. Now we have a situation where troops are being sent to East Timor with little idea of what will happen to them. Some of the people they may have to be in conflict with are those who have trained with them. I suppose one consolation in all this is that I have great faith in our defence forces. They have been on other peacekeeping missions. They know what is going to be asked of them and I know they have compassion.I have had heaps of email since this situation became critical. People from all over Australia have been desperate to communicate their views. To deal with this, I set up a section of my web page and developed a regular bulletin that can be accessed by anyone. I have also personally answered the emails and tried to give practical ways for people to be able to assist in this process. I think many have. We must continue to gather funds and resources for the relief of the East Timorese people. We must start planning ways of helping them set up their structures for democracy with their new leaders now. The country is devastated and will need a lot of time and energy to put it back in order. We need to think about that and start planning it now.I can only say again that the Prime Minister should be condemned for the disgraceful way he has dealt with the situation. And, quite frankly, the Minister for Foreign Affairs should be replaced by someone who actually knows a little bit about what is going on in Asia and in the world.My best wishes and hopes go to the troops and their commanders. If anyone can help the Timorese in their time of need, I believe these people can. I would like to thank all those other countries that have heeded Australia's call to come and help them try and solve this terrible problem on our doorstep. Most of all, I would like to commend those who stayed in East Timor—those members of the UN who remained in the compound, a few journalists, incognito and acting as aid workers, and all the aid workers who did not leave those people on their own. They were heroes among the people and they stayed to try and protect them and give them advice. Their courage is an inspiration to all. I certainly hope that we can assist East Timor to grow as a nation, to build itself into an independent, democratically elected nation with good structures for the future. (Time expired)11:59:0010468Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—In beginning this contribution I must say that I was absolutely appalled when listening to the last speaker, the member for Lyons. I have never heard such a woeful effort, at a time when one would have thought that the parliament was going to give real support to what we are trying to do. You could not even call that half-hearted. It was just equivocation. It was like so much of what the Labor Party has been saying in this debate: `Good on you for the troops, but we cannot really say that we are going to support the decision,' although it is in the national interest. That really is pathetic, and I will come back to it in a minute.The important point to note is that, as the Prime Minister said to the parliament this week, there is no more serious decision than to commit Australian troops to a foreign country. What the Prime Minister has done is an example of real leadership, and something that Australians right around the country have really got behind. It seems that about the only people who cannot support—A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 12.01 p.m. to 12.13 p.m.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—As I was saying before the division, I was absolutely appalled by the presentation of the previous opposition speaker. I would just like to contrast the presentation of so many members of the Labor Party with the support given by the then opposition in 1991 when Prime Minister Hawke sent troops to the Gulf War. On that occasion it was quite clear that the opposition was right behind the decision of the government and gave wholehearted support to the government of the day. I would have thought that the Australian troops in East Timor will be mortified to see all the equivocation that is going on within the Labor Party at the moment.I would like to congratulate Prime Minister Howard on the magnificent job he has done over what has been a very difficult period. I would like also to congratulate the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, and the Minister for Defence, John Moore, for the professional way they have handled a very difficult situation, and for the way they have shown very strong support for our troops.It is important to note also that in my role as Chairman of the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—and I note the deputy chairman, Mr Price, is in the chamber—I had the opportunity to meet with Major General Peter Cosgrove before he went over. I can assure all honourable members he is a very fine soldier and will do a very fine job in what is going to be a very difficult situation.When talking about the soldiers, it is important to note the support that is there. For example, Lieutenant General John Sanderson, a former Chief of Army, said recently:The Australian Army is well trained for the situation it will confront in East Timor. Good field skills and self-discipline have earned its soldiers a strong reputation for success in places such as Namibia, Cambodia and Somalia.I believe that East Timor will certainly be added to that list. I would like to refer to a couple of points raised by the member for Lyons, because I really do not think he can get away with what he said. He made some reference to the Prime Minister demanding from President Habibie an immediate ballot. In fact, that was not the case at all. When the Prime Minister wrote to President Habibie late last year, he argued for a long period of autonomy for East Timor, leading up to an eventual vote on the region's future. I make that point very clearly, because it seems that the member for Lyons was either unaware of or chose to totally misrepresent what the Prime Minister did.It was the decision of President Habibie of Indonesia to bring on a quick ballot which created all the various difficulties that we have since had to confront. But to the credit of the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence, they have confronted them in a very professional way, and in a way that does us all very proud.It is also important to recognise that the government was not caught short. It was the government that took this decision, through the Prime Minister, to approach President Habibie last year. It was an initiative by this government. When you compare that with what the Labor Party did, you see that they sat on their hands and did nothing for all those years when they were in government. It is rank hypocrisy for them suddenly to be critical now.Let us look at what followed from that. The Minister for Defence, months ago, as the member for Chifley would know, got the 3rd Brigade onto 28-day readiness. That decision has stood us in very good stead.QI4PRICEMr Price—And we supported it.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—He should support some of the other things we are doing, too. Following that decision by the Minister for Defence, we have seen the work done by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in getting United Nations support for a multinational peacekeeping effort. It is very important to note that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in his work in the United Nations, got a decision in record time. Australia has worked extremely hard to do everything we can to try to alleviate what has been, as all members would acknowledge, a very difficult situation.That is why I find it so difficult to accept the criticism by some of those opposite who seem to have completely overlooked the facts and have come in with this mealy-mouthed duplicity, almost, saying on the one hand, `Of course we'll support the troops,' while on the other hand saying, `But we're going to sit there and bag the government for doing this.' The hypocrisy just leaves me cold.It is worth looking at the efforts of the Prime Minister. He did approach President Habibie. What did former Prime Minister Keating do? He was happy to go over there and have little pacts which have since been torn up. It was not a great achievement and certainly did nothing to help those in East Timor.The efforts of the Leader of the Opposition have been disappointing. He chose to selectively quote some media commentators. We could quote the commentary by some highly respected journalists. I refer, for example, to Glenn Milne in the Australian on 20 September. With respect to the criticism about not talking to the United States, the article points out:In fact, when Howard visited President Clinton in July they spent more than a third of their working lunch at the White House discussing East Timor.That is not a matter of just bringing it up in passing. It was made a prime focus. Likewise, the article states that he pointed out to President Clinton that he had raised the same concerns with President Habibie at their Bali summit in May. It goes on to point out that that meeting went on for an extra hour, and that when Prime Minister Howard suggested to Habibie that he allow an international peace force under UN auspices into East Timor before the independence ballot, those present say that President Habibie went `ballistic'. So to say that we had not been trying to do something about it is not to look at the facts. Milne pointed out later in the article:. . . for those who say Howard should have done more to put an international peace force in place ahead of the ballot, the question also remains: exactly what should he have done?He goes on to point out:He had put the proposition to the Indonesian President and been refused. And he'd briefed the US President. What point would there have been in proposing a pre-poll peace force to Clinton when Habibie had made it plain such a force would be regarded as invaders?Of course, at the same time, had we taken that course of action, the ballot would not have gone ahead. That is an important point to note. Another important point to note in this article is that:United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan was among those who backed Australia's balanced judgment to proceed with the ballot.So, again, Kofi Annan from the United Nations made it very clear. If we look at another article that appeared on the same day in the Financial Review , Christopher Pearson pointed out:Howard is the first prime minister in a quarter of a century to have confronted what are literally life and death decisions.And take note of this next point:Doing nothing would have meant that people died.As he pointed out, the policy of the previous 25 years of doing nothing would have meant continued unchecked genocide. In other words, doing nothing would only have allowed what had already been going on—which people have been so concerned about for all these years—just to continue.It is time to get this debate back into focus and to realise that what the government has done deserves the support of all Australians. And it is time that those on the other side put aside their silly prejudices, stopped trying to play cheap politics, and got right behind the work that the government is doing and supported our troops in the very difficult task ahead of them.12:22:0010470Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I rise today not to talk about the performance or lack of performance of the Howard government on the issue of East Timor. History will make an appropriate judgment on those issues. More importantly, I rise to talk about human rights violations, which I do not believe are acceptable at any time or in any place. They are morally wrong because our essential commonality as human beings must triumph over any differences we may have between us. Where people choose to impart violence on others, we have to stand up and say no. The rights of the vulnerable in the world are no longer protected only by organisations such as Amnesty International; they are now protected by most of the developed nations. They are not protected nearly enough, particularly in the case of minorities, but they are at least protected.Australia in its role in East Timor is doing just that—protecting human rights. A measure of a modern nation such as Australia is its ability to face up to its shame. Around the world, we see expressions of national pride, but it is often too difficult for some to also face up to questions of shame. I raise that today because I also think it is part of the debate. Rarely do we see genuine acknowledgment of national shame. Governments taking responsibility for matters of national shame are actually showing leadership, because it is not an easy thing to do. Very often, it is not a popular thing to do. Unfortunately, this is not just restricted to Indonesia in 1999. There remain many Australians who cannot bring themselves to recognise our national shame in relation to the treatment of indigenous people. We should not pretend, in the relatively comfortable light of Australia today, that the issues are easy; they are clearly not.Australia has in the past sent its troops on very different journeys. While the world wars are still sources of great national pride and respect, the memory of Vietnam is one that still sits uncomfortably in the Australian psyche. The fact that after putting their lives on the line for their country, in some cases without choice, Australian military personnel were treated with disdain by some in our society is a shameful reflection on our society of the time. The fact that an Australian government has in the past embarked on conscription is, too, a shameful reflection on the times. Fortunately, I believe that on this occasion we are mature enough to take these issues off the agenda in this case. We have learned from our mistakes. Such issues should never again be part of the Australian defence debate.The journey our soldiers are embarking on may be a long one. It may even be that some of them do not return. That is something that we all need to be prepared for. It is the reason we must tread warily in relation to these matters. It is about the lives of our fellow citizens, our families, those whom we care about. With all of our hearts we wish them, above all else, safety. We hope that they will return to their families, to their communities and to the normalities of life.Though the prospect of international engagement typically incites feelings of animosity towards Indonesia, I would also make a plea for a perspective. We must keep in mind the importance of our long-term relationship with our most powerful neighbour to the north. I suggest to the Australian community that the Indonesian people are not to blame. In the long term, Australia needs Indonesia and Indonesia needs Australia. We must be sensitive to the task of repairing that relationship in the future. Such repair will not come easily, but our economic and cultural role in the region is at stake if we do not face up to the issue of repairing that relationship. In the same way, we must face up to our responsibilities with respect to the people of East Timor.One of the most important immediate tasks is to ensure that our aid assistance is also fully utilised. The approach must be a cooperative one. We must not have competition between delivery agencies which sees a waste of scarce resources in the rebuilding of East Timor. Immediate assistance is needed to ensure the basic needs of people are met, but we must also be thinking about how we can assist the East Timorese people in the long term.The East Timorese people have always stood by Australians in times of need, most notably in the Second World War. Now it is Australia's turn to stand by the people of East Timor, not just in the months ahead but right through to the establishment of the institutions and structures that will be critical to their long-term future—their democratic, economic, cultural and social institutions. Australia's interest in East Timor has reflected the legacy of the Second World War when, as we all would know, Australian commandos operated against the Japanese with the assistance of many East Timorese people.The controversy surrounding the manner of Indonesia's invasion of East Timor and the deaths of five journalists working for Australia's media in October 1975 rings in the mind of a lot of people at this time, and so do the allegations of human rights abuses over the past quarter of a century. The ongoing nature of human rights abuse in East Timor, particularly in the Dili massacre of 1991, have left many people asking the question: are we too late? The simple answer in some ways is yes, we are too late. That, therefore, creates a sense of urgency in the minds of many Australians who want to do the right thing on this occasion by the people of East Timor.Perhaps the more complex answer is that probably we could have saved lives earlier but now it is important that we do all that we can to reverse some of our mistakes of the past. In many minds, the end of the Suharto regime brought the prospect of the East Timorese status being revisited. The agreement of 5 May 1999 to allow the East Timorese a vote for independence was met with hope and in some quarters, let us be honest, scepticism. The scepticism has proven well founded. Our task now is to ensure that the hope also proves, on this occasion, well founded.We must recognise the courage implicit in that August vote for independence. Amid threats of death, amid the very real possibility that turmoil would precede triumph and that many of those who voted for independence would not live to see it, the East Timorese turned up to vote conclusively in favour of their future, and they did so in droves.That is an enormous statement by a little nation of solidarity and courage, something that all Australians should recognise as cause for pride. After almost a quarter of a century of human rights abuses, the resolve was thick. That is what comes of being tortured, being starved, being beaten. The old paradigm that `might is right' no longer has credibility in East Timor. It never had credibility in the hearts of the East Timorese people, and they voted in their droves to put to bed the old paradigm that `might is right'.As a recently returned aid worker reported, many of the East Timorese people voted with the statement, `We will suffer for the next generation,' and suffer they have, after the vote. The militia have sought to maximise the devastation, the intimidation, the human tragedy. But, at the end of the day, the human rights tragedy will only strengthen the resolve of the East Timorese people and of those in the international community who realise what is at stake. Systematic intimidation cannot be allowed to suppress the right of self-expression and self-determination.Debate interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—Some may see it as sad that it has taken Australia so long to recognise that. To the East Timorese refugees we say this: our hearts are with you; we are by your side; we are your friends. Given the tragedy and suffering that you have seen and endured, we cannot claim to understand. We offer you our open hearts and all that we can to ensure your safety and wellbeing.We should also be concerned at the plight of Indonesia—and there is concern that Indonesia may slip into deeper recession. We should be aware of the potential for a downturn in the industrial sector to impact on the agrarian sector, the poorest Indonesians. They are not to blame for the problems of East Timor.It is essential that Australia, in facing up to its responsibilities in East Timor, also does what it can to ensure that hyperinflation is kept in check, that financial institutions are fundamentally reformed and economic stability is restored to Indonesia. It is a mistake to believe that it is a short-term task; it also carries political risk as the millions of Indonesians without work may not appreciate aspects of the necessary reform process.We must resist the temptation to see this as a conflict with the Indonesian people—it is not a conflict with the Indonesian people. They, too, are human beings. They are not responsible for the complicity of their military or some in their government.Finally, I would like to wish our soldiers and those from other nations who have joined us in the peacekeeping effort a safe return. Our hearts are with you and you can be assured that they will be with you on your return. I also simply say in conclusion: yes, we must do our best in East Timor. Also, in looking to the stability and safety of our own region, we must face up to our responsibilities, support reform in Indonesia and maintain its developing democratic structures. That is in the best interests of Australia and it is also in the best interests of the people of East Timor.12:32:0010473Sullivan, Kathryn, MPMrs SULLIVAN3E4MoncrieffLP10—Along with many other Australians, through our public media I witnessed the agony of the East Timorese in the days following the announcement of their ballot. People at the time thought our intervention was too slow, but I want to congratulate the Prime Minister and our Minister for Foreign Affairs for the speed with which they managed to move the issue to a strong, internationally supported agreement on intervention.This crisis has also focused public attention on the urgent need to get humanitarian aid to East Timorese displaced by the events of the past three weeks. As parliamentary secretary with the responsibility for administration of Australia's overseas aid program, I should like to place on the record the matter of Australian aid to East Timor and how it will contribute to the territory's rehabilitation and reconstruction.Even without the terrible destruction of the past three weeks, East Timor's needs are immense. East Timor is the poorest of Indonesia's provinces: 80 per cent of East Timor's population depend on subsistence agriculture for their livelihood. According to the most recent statistics—1990—life expectancy is a low 57 years, and infant mortality a shocking 124 in every 1,000 live births. A 1992 UNICEF study found that more than half of East Timorese children under five were malnourished. The Indonesian government itself estimated that 53 per cent of the population of East Timor did not have access to safe water. In 1997, almost half the population over the age of 10 had never attended school. These are the sorts of indicators of severe poverty which place East Timor's people amongst the poorest of the poor on a global scale.I believe our record in East Timor needs to be stated for the record, because in recent times it has been brought home very strongly to me how much the Australian public is in ignorance of what we have been seeking to achieve in East Timor for some time now. Australia recognised East Timor's needs at an early stage. Between 1980 and today, Australia has provided more than $50 million in development assistance to East Timor. This is more than any other donor country. Australian assistance to East Timor has a clear poverty focus. Over a period of six years, Australia has helped to more than treble the number of people with access to town water in Suai and Dili. We have trained 3,500 agriculture sector workers to give them basic skills in micro enterprise development, planning, extension and animal health services. Since 1982, Australia has provided more than $6 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross for its work in East Timor. We have worked closely with both Australian and local non-government organisations to support a large number of small scale community development projects.Since well before the autonomy ballot, Australia has been planning to expand its aid program in East Timor. A program planning mission in May this year recommended not only a continued and expanded focus on critical poverty related areas of rural development, health and education but also more attention to building the capacity of East Timorese institutions to deliver basic services. This latter focus was especially important in light of the growing exodus of those non-East Timorese workers who have historically occupied most of the skilled positions in East Timor.However, the deteriorating security situation in East Timor made it difficult—and later impossible—to implement many of the recommendations of the program planning mission. Work on a number of proposed new activities had to be put on hold. Nevertheless, some important work was able to be done, in particular to strengthen East Timorese non-government organisations.Australia also made a major contribution to the successful conduct of the 30 August popular consultation. Australia was the largest contributor to the UN mission in East Timor—UNAMET—and provided a special aid program allocation of more than $20 million to support the ballot process. In-kind support, in the form of vehicles and helicopters, enabled UN officials to access remote areas of East Timor to ensure that all voters understood the importance of the ballot process. A very high voter turnout testified to the success of the UN electoral team, which was very well supported by expert advice from the Australian Electoral Commission.Finally, I must acknowledge the critical role played by Australian civilian police advisers and military liaison officers in ensuring that registration and polling was able to occur, substantially free of intimidation. Many of these officers stayed on with UNAMET after the ballot, showing great personal courage.The challenge we now face is to create an environment in which the will of the overwhelming majority of East Timorese people can be fully realised and the real needs of the East Timorese can be addressed.One tragic consequence of the terrible violence of recent weeks is that East Timor's economic and social development has been seriously set back, perhaps by many years.At this moment, we can only guess at the actual scale of the damage which has occurred. Almost three-quarters of East Timor's population—more than half a million people—have been forced to leave their homes to hide in the bush or, worse, to be transported against their will to West Timor or elsewhere. Their homes have been burnt and their livelihoods destroyed. Many people—we do not yet know how many—have been killed. The militia seem to have particularly targeted young men, community leaders and church workers—in other words, some of the very people most critical to the development of a newly independent country. Many of the survivors are deeply traumatised. Many may yet die of sickness or disease in camps of displaced persons before they are able to return to their communities. Many others may also face terrible hunger as they try to salvage something from ruined food gardens or to plant new crops before the coming wet season.Unfolding in Timor—East and West—is a human tragedy on a scale rarely seen in the Asia-Pacific region. It will require a massive and well-coordinated international relief effort to prevent it. Australia will make a major contribution to this through our aid program. As an initial step, the government announced last week a contribution of $3 million to support the work of major UN relief agencies, to be used by the World Food Program and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees to purchase and distribute emergency supplies including food and shelter materials, medicines, and household essentials. The government is also supporting the work of the UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs—the agency with the critical task of planning and coordinating the initial humanitarian relief effort.On Tuesday, the Minister for Foreign Affairs announced further funding of $4 million to assist the many hundreds of thousands of people in both West and East Timor who have been displaced or affected by the recent violence. This additional funding will be used to transport emergency relief supplies to East Timor, including through the use of ADF and commercial charter aircraft and shipping. It will also assist non-government organisations that are working to help people displaced by the conflict. The ICRC will receive $500,000 to assist its work in providing protection for displaced people and the reunification of families in both East and West Timor. Australian non-government organisations such as CARE Australia, Community Aid Abroad, Oxfam, Australian Red Cross and World Vision will each receive $250,000 to support their work in delivering rapid and effective emergency relief to displaced people in East and West Timor.Australia is also providing other support to the international relief effort. Quick action to pre-position supplies in Darwin and to organise transport will enable relief goods to be moved without delay to those in need, as soon as security permits. With the help of ADF C-130 Hercules transport planes, AusAID was able to make the first drops of emergency food supplies to displaced people in East Timor as part of the UN organised operation.Further contributions this week to the relief effort particularly focus on supporting Australian NGOs and other international agencies working amongst displaced East Timorese in both East and West Timor. As at today I can inform members of present activities relating to this contribution. Government funding assistance to date includes a barge loaded with humanitarian supplies and vehicles provided by the UNHCR, World Vision and Medecins Sans Frontieres, including 30 tonnes of medical supplies which should be departing today and arriving in Dili early tomorrow morning.Aid staff on the ground in Darwin are working closely with Australian NGOs and international relief agencies. Two warehouses in Darwin have been provided to store supplies, with one being used as a World Food Program logistics centre. Seven tonnes of first aid kits and water purification tablets and 100 tonnes of rice to act as an emergency food reserve have also been supplied.The situation in West Timor is especially worrying. Approximately 180,000 East Timorese are reported to be in temporary camps awaiting resettlement. Conditions in a number of camps are believed to be very poor with worsening water and sanitation problems as well as harassment or violence at the hands of militia members.The most urgent priority is to ensure relief workers are quickly able to access displaced persons both to offer humanitarian assistance and to help those who wish to return to East Timor. Most relief workers have been forced to leave West Timor in recent weeks because of worsening security. Representatives of the international donor community, including Australia, are now trying to re-establish that access to displaced people in West Timor. I am sure all honourable members will join with me in urging the Indonesian authorities to do everything possible to facilitate international relief agencies' access to East Timorese refugees in West Timor.In East Timor itself the work of reconstruction and rehabilitation must await action by the multinational force to re-establish security. Of course, the immediate priority will be to meet emergency relief needs—food, shelter, medical care, water and sanitation. Australia will work closely with the major international relief agencies to meet these needs as quickly as possible. Beyond this, Australia will work with other donors, the UN, the international financial institutions and, most importantly, with the representatives of the East Timorese people to plan for East Timor's future. There will be many jobs to do: reconciliation of communities deeply divided by violence; establishment of the rule of law with competent and impartial systems for the administration of justice including a new police force; rebuilding systems of basic health care and education; and repairing the damage to public utilities and essential economic infrastructure. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I would again remind the Main Committee that this debate concerns taking note of a paper. That paper is the United Nations Security Council Resolution of 15 September 1999. The Chair would be grateful if at least some passing reference could be made in members' contributions to the subject of the debate.12:42:0010476Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—Thank you for reminding us of that. It is perhaps one of the most important resolutions that this House has considered. It is the largest deployment of troops in peacekeeping since the Hawke, Keating and Howard governments have taken office. Like all members of the opposition and all members of parliament, I believe I can say, we wish our troops who have been dispatched to East Timor all the very best. They can be reassured of not only our support and interest in their welfare but also our concern and anxiety for their families.I rise to participate in this debate not only as the current deputy chairman of the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in this parliament, but also having been chairman of the defence subcommittee. When I was chairman, Mr Sinclair, the member for New England, was the deputy chairman and then, when he became the chairman, I was pleased to serve under him as I was to serve under Senator McGibbon and do now under the member for Wannon, Mr Hawker.It is true to say that the subcommittee really does reflect a bipartisan attitude to matters of defence. I have often said that perhaps we have not been critical enough of what has occurred. As momentous as this decision has been, and notwithstanding the unanimity of support for it, it behoves an opposition to raise questions where there are doubts and to seek answers where questions need to be answered. I regret to say that this is one very such occasion.I could dwell on the lead-up to the deployment of troops. There has been much comment about it. Of all the commentary I have read in the papers, the most objectionable has been the line fed out and peddled by Laurie Oakes in a magazine that this was `the massacre we had to have'. If the government will not accept the criticisms starkly put by the opposition about the lead-up to the deployment, it needs to re-examine what has happened to understand if mistakes were made. If mistakes are made and you do not learn from them, you will repeat them. The East Timorese have paid an awful price, notwithstanding the fact that we are going in.I want particularly to raise concerns about defence issues. At the briefing that Laurie Brereton gave our caucus this week, and indeed at our caucus meeting, I raised the issue of troop rotation. We are sending over more than 4,000 troops. I congratulate the government—and I did so at the time—on getting the 2nd Brigade to an increased state of readiness. It was quite clear that we had to plan for a worst-case scenario where peacekeeping troops would be required.Whilst we would all hope that these troops will be deployed and returned with great haste, we have been given no idea of the duration of this commitment. This government has broken new ground in peacekeeping, both in Bougainville and in East Timor. When you look at peacekeeping deployments under Labor, you see that clear objectives and a finite period of time were set. There were pleas to keep the Australians longer in Somalia, but we brought them out. This time, I believe, the troops are not being sent with the clearest of objectives. Certainly there is no clear idea of the duration of the deployment. I think it is fair to say that there was a great deal of planning made on the basis of sending such numbers in for a short time before bringing one brigade back to be rotated with another. It is becoming clear that that is not possible.When asked about this yesterday in the House, the Minister for Defence said, `We will address rotation issues when it is appropriate.' Wouldn't you need to plan for rotation now? Forty-five minutes later a colonel, the spokesman for the Defence Force said, `Yes, we do have plans. Our plans are to fire up the 7th Brigade.' This is the brigade that was re-formed after the axing of the Ready Reserve. The Ready Reserve provided 12 months of full training for recruits, 60 per cent of whom went on to university studies. The Army was delighted to be getting a different type of recruit, with different capabilities from what they had normally been used to, into the Reserves. But the government axed it. I have always said that was a mistake. The Army was not dissatisfied with it, but the government axed it. This was clearly a reserve that would have enabled the government to deploy troops overseas.We also have the conundrum that, notwithstanding recommendations from the defence subcommittee, reserves cannot be mobilised overseas. We have 23,000 full-time soldiers and 27,000 part-time soldiers who can be mobilised for Australia but cannot be sent on peacekeeping missions. So we ask platoons to nominate how many are prepared to serve. Not only do we have to get the platoon up to readiness, but we have to pick and choose from those who volunteer, regroup and re-form them and send them out. General reserves are on 365 days readiness. That is the doctrine; that is the state of preparedness. But what that means—if it is accurate—is that you have to pull them out full time for a year in order to send them overseas. Does that mean the deployment is going to be for 12 months? Clearly, everything we have learnt is that 12 months is too long.With great fanfare, the Prime Minister said, `I want a report into the reserves.' And where is that report? That report was due in June of this year. I am a fan of the reserves, and I heard the chief of the Army at his national press conference say that the reserves are playing a marvellous role overseas. Indeed, they are. But the reserves we are using are doctors. That is what he was referring to. And for those doctors who are in private practice, we pay practice payments. But if you are not a doctor, if you happen to be working for a small business or you happen to be a farmer or you happen to be self-employed, you do not get a practice payment. Why not? If it is good enough for doctors, why isn't it good enough for the rest of the reserve?I believe that the general reserve, as we know it, is reaching the limit of its usefulness. That is not to deprecate them, but when you have a government that will not guarantee job security for the reserves, that will take them out of award conditions and then out of firms for considerable periods of time—and I do not blame the firms, because they feel very keenly the loss of any employee—then the notion of reserves that we have been used to is running the limit of its usefulness. But do not accept my view on this. What about the former head of the reserves and his comment about the problems that exist with the reserves.Let me make another point. When you are mobilising the reserves to get them up to a higher state of readiness you not only have to spend 365 days in training them but also have to provide more equipment. Do we have that equipment? I think these are issues that are deserving of answers. I thought it was outrageous yesterday when the junior minister talked about the allowances and the family support he was providing for the troops being deployed overseas but could not answer the critical question: how long would each tour be—would it be three months; would it be six months; was it going to be 12 months? He would not provide the House, the people of Australia or the families of the servicemen with that information.I want to say this about the Minister for Defence: at the time the situation in East Timor was coming, he was preoccupied with sacking his secretary; and he is the only defence minister for some time—either conservative or Labor—whose Indonesian counterpart would not accept a return telephone call from. Such is the depth of the breakdown of our relationship with the second most important country with which we have a strategic relationship—the United States being first and Indonesia being second. (Time expired)12:52:0010478Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—Like the previous speaker, the member for Chifley, I would like to send my good wishes and support to all members of the peacekeeping contingent in East Timor. My hopes go with them. I express a sincere concern that they have a safe mission in East Timor and that the outcome for them and their families is positive, as well as being positive for the East Timor community.I do take issue to some extent with what the previous speaker said. I do not believe it is necessary on this occasion, when we are speaking to a motion to take note of a paper on the formulation of this exercise, for us to descend into a political debate about who did what and when and how. I think we should be looking at the great credit that the rapid build-up of personnel in East Timor has bestowed upon the efforts of the Australian Defence Force. We should note the fact that by yesterday over 2,300 peacekeepers were on the ground in East Timor and that by the end of today more than 3,000 peacekeepers—that is, the lion's share of the peacekeeping force—will be in place and undertaking their laudable activity in East Timor, fanning out from the capital, Dili, and restoring peace as they move around.I think that the smooth transition reflects great credit on the defence forces. It also reflects great credit on the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, as well as on the individual troops who have had to put up their hands for a very difficult mission. They have gone with the knowledge that there may well be, in the Prime Minister's words, `a risk of violence, a risk to their own personal safety'. The families left behind deserve to have 100 per cent support from their members of parliament, and I believe that everyone in the parliament should be out there making sure we give them that support and whatever assistance we can.As things progress in East Timor, we certainly should take nothing for granted. I noticed—and I think most members would have felt cheered by the fact—that the initial response to the troops when they arrived in East Timor was very positive. But, since then, there have been some ominous statements and, at the base of it all, I am thankful that the powers given to our troops to act are very clear.I would like to read the mandate and mission of INTERFET as it has been set out:In authorising the establishment of a multinational force in East Timor, the UN Security Council has acted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. INTERFET has been given full Chapter VII powers authorising it to take all necessary measures to fulfil its mandate.The mandate of the multinational force is expressed in UN Security Council Resolution 1264 (1999) which was adopted unanimously on 15 September 1999. Under UNSCR 1264 INTERFET has been mandated to:. Restore peace and security in East Timor. Protect and support UNAMET. Facilitate humanitarian assistance operations.I am pleased that that mandate is clear—that this chapter VII does authorise the use of deadly force when it becomes necessary. In the past, we have seen well-meaning UN missions get into deep trouble because of clouded mandates that did not have that degree of strength behind them. Once again, great credit is due in this case to the Minister for Foreign Affairs for his efforts to have that mandate passed and passed very swiftly with overwhelming support. That does him great credit.Australia has committed 4,500 troops to the operation. We should recognise the great contribution of other nations to this force, and it is reassuring to have the world community well and truly lined up behind Australia in this regard. We have seen firm commitments from Thailand, New Zealand, the United States, Italy, Canada, the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, France, Brazil and the United Kingdom. We also have expressions of willingness to contribute from Fiji, Brunei, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Egypt, Mozambique, Spain, Ireland, Germany and Denmark. Also, we have consideration of contributions from Chile, Sweden, Norway, Sri Lanka, Papua New Guinea, the Republic of Korea, Nepal, South Africa and Kenya.Recently, we had a rally in the city of Ipswich in support of the East Timorese, which was organised by local church groups. There was a great deal of emotion at the time but, overwhelmingly, the message was about peace and forgiveness and for support for our troops over there. It was a very positive occasion, and I note that amongst those countries that are considering making a contribution is Papua New Guinea. Some of the comments that were made at that rally noted the fact that many East Timorese are of Melanesian extraction, and there was a feeling that a contribution from Papua New Guinea might be a very good thing. On behalf of the people at that rally, I raise that in this forum, and I hope that people give consideration to it.I would like also to refer to the contribution to the INTERFET forces being made by RAAF Base Amberley in my electorate of Blair. Amberley is Australia's No. 1 strategic Air Force base. It is the home to squadrons Nos 1 and 6—the F111s. We also have the air defence guards and the 38 Squadron with Caribou aircraft.When we look at the TV reports coming back from East Timor, one thing that has grated a little bit on the locals out Amberley way has been the fact that we have had constant reports about the activities of the Australian Army. Anyone who knows the defence forces knows that, if you are a RAAF person, you are not an Army person. I think we should note the activities, particularly of members of the air defence guards, who were the ones from Amberley who helped to secure Dili airport. If people watching TV want to be able to tell the difference between RAAF personnel and Army personnel, and note perhaps who are the air defence guards and the other elements from the RAAF that are contributing, they can tell the difference by noting that RAAF personnel have their rank on their epaulets. While that activity has been going on, squadrons 1 and 6, commanded by Air Commodore Peter Growder, have been relocated up to Townsville and Tindal with their F111 aircraft and are on stand-by there. We have got a total of 100 people from Amberley participating in the East Timor activity.Amberley is a very close-knit community. Recently, when it was suggested that Australia could be put up as a temporary home for those Kosovar refugees, the people of Amberley were among the first in Australia to put up their hands and say that they would like to assist and to offer some of the disused housing at Amberley village as temporary accommodation. That request was not granted because Amberley is an operational Air Force base, after all, and operational considerations have to have right of way. I attended meetings out there where it was considered and the personnel were very outspoken in supporting the government's efforts. It is another example where a peacekeeping activity, which is contributing to the overall good of people across the globe, is well and truly supported by Australians, in general, and certainly by people from Amberley, in particular.It is a shame that Amberley village was not used to accommodate those Kosovar refugees because it is such a very picturesque location and for the people living there it has all the advantages of living in your own home rather than in a dormitory. Later on, some dissatisfaction was expressed along the way about some of the accommodation that was made available.It is a very busy time at Amberley at the moment. Apart from making this contribution to the East Timor exercise, Amberley is also contributing to Crocodile 99. Group Captain Stewart Cameron is the head of RAAF Base Amberley, and at the moment, in accordance with Crocodile 99, we have 800 marines in from the United States located at Amberley for the next four weeks. Of course, they are very welcome. These are busy times not only for RAAF Base Amberley but also for defence personnel across Australia. Once again, in closing, I express my complete support for the troops, RAAF personnel and all personnel who have been sent to East Timor in this peacekeeping exercise.Debate (on motion by Mr Somlyay) adjourned.Adjournment10480Motion (by Mr Somlyay) proposed:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.1048013:03:0010480Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I rise to make some comments with regard to the local government elections held in New South Wales on Saturday, 11 September, and the history of senior members of the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party in trying to avoid the democratic will of the people.Leichhardt Council is a somewhat famous council, made more so by the movie Rats in the Ranks. But stories of Leichhardt Council did not end in 1994. On 9 September 1995 there was a general election for Leichhardt Council. In the Glebe-Annandale Ward, Christine Bourne, the Liberal Party's No. 1 candidate, was successful over the ALP's No. 2 candidate, Ms Alice Murphy, by 17 votes. That was to be short-lived because, in the recount held on 15 September, that margin was reduced to three votes. Due to electoral irregularities, legal action was taken by Ms Murphy and on 27 September, in order to stop the mayoral election going ahead, an interlocutory injunction was granted to defer that mayoral election so that the challenge to the New South Wales Supreme Court, acting as a Court of Disputed Returns, could take place.The mayoral election was indeed deferred for a short time. Unfortunately, some two months later the mayoral election did take place. Christine Bourne's vote at that mayoral election saw the NAN—No Aircraft Noise—Party candidate, Ms Maire Sheehan, elected mayor by that margin of one vote. We then had long legal proceedings. Ms Bourne engaged Peter King, a former head of the New South Wales Division of the Liberal Party, as her barrister. Richard Smallwood was engaged as her solicitor. On 2 February, in order to show how keen they were to get costs, a bill of over $7,000 was sent to Ms Murphy on behalf of Mr Smallwood for the costs of that interlocutory proceedings.What occurred after that was that the Court of Disputed Returns overturned the result and ordered that the ballot be recounted with the votes that should have been included to elect Ms Murphy to be included. In order to stop the democratic process and will of the people being carried out by the correctly cast votes being counted, Ms Bourne took further action. She appealed to the Court of Appeal and that court handed down its decision, which was to cast aside the election of Ms Bourne and order a by-election. That was not enough. The Liberal Party heavies, including Peter King, still acting as her barrister, appealed to the High Court of Australia to stop the democratic will of the people being exercised in Leichhardt council. They were again unsuccessful and costs were ordered against Ms Bourne for those proceedings, which by then had gone all the way to the High Court.The by-election was then held on 14 June 1997. Ms Bourne, running under a `build Badgerys now' platform, failed to succeed in that by-election and Alice Murphy was elected by a significant majority. At that time it did not help that Christine Bourne was the executive director of a four-wheel drive group that had gone into the Wollemi pine, known as `the living fossil', and was advocating a free-for-all in national parks. This Christine Bourne has since shown her senior connections with the Liberal Party by being the state Liberal candidate for the marginal seat of Mulgoa at the last state election, and last Saturday she was a candidate for East Ward of Penrith council.What is significant about Penrith and Leichhardt and the link with Ms Bourne is that front parties, the Seniors Party and the Marijuana Smokers Party, appeared in both Penrith and Leichhardt giving preferences to the Liberal Party. Christine Bourne, in spite of all this, has refused to pay any of her legal fees and was served a bankruptcy notice last Thursday in the electorate office of the member for Lindsay where she works. Why is it that the Liberal Party of New South Wales, and in particular the campaign being run out of Jackie Kelly's office, is prepared to go to any lengths to stop the democratic processes from taking place? There were other parties there, of course—most amusingly, the No Badgerys Creek Party, which, given that Christine Bourne campaigned for Badgerys Creek when she was in Leichhardt is quite an extraordinary situation. (Time expired)1048113:04:0010481Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—At a special ceremony held last Friday morning, 17 September, at the Coolum State High School, I had the very great honour of presenting the Commonwealth Recognition Awards for Senior Australians to the 20 successful nominees from my electorate of Fairfax. These awards were instigated by the federal government as part of this International Year of Older Persons. Every older Australian nominated can be proud that their contribution has been acknowledged and is appreciated by our community. The school hosted this important event to promote the link between young people and older citizens, and was supported in its effort by local Coolum businesses, such as Festival IGA, Stewart's Hotels and Simply Pies, which supplied food and equipment for the occasion.I should like to record my special thanks to the Coolum State High School Principal, Warren Kelleher, and the Deputy Principal, Denise Schultz, for their generous hospitality in providing not only a venue for the presentation ceremony but also musical entertainment for guests, courtesy of the school band. The school captains, Clinton Hearne and Kellie-Lea Hey, did a sterling job in assisting me with the presentations and it was great to see so many other young people participating on such a significant occasion.Each award recipient was assigned a year 8 student who stayed by their special guest throughout the ceremony and afterwards when the refreshments were served. It was marvellous to see them get to know each other and appreciate the things they shared, despite the differences in their ages. There can be no doubt that our Fairfax award recipients are outstanding examples of how senior Australians remain active in the community and continue to show their value and skills in a variety of fields. They were chosen by the Fairfax Electorate Selection Committee, which did a tremendous job under great pressure and time constraints: Mrs Esma Armstrong of Belli Park, Mr Jim Barker of Coolum, Mr Ray Grace of Nambour, Mrs Maggie Roper of Wilsons Pocket and the chairman, Mr Peter Hardie of Marcus Beach.I ask honourable members to join with me in congratulating the Fairfax award recipients: Mrs Mary Bennett of Cooroy, Mrs Una Bryant of Cooroy, Mrs Joyce Coombs of Yaroomba, Mrs Edna Farrow of Bli Bli, Mrs Cecily Fearnley of Doonan, Miss Annie Haack of Cooroy, Mrs Maureen Hungerford of Nambour, Mr Clyde Kunst of Gympie, Mrs Eleanor MacLeod of Bli Bli, Mrs Betty Maher of Pomona, Mrs Iris Mitchell of Gympie, Mrs Betty Sinn of Gympie, Mrs Hazel Smith of Nambour, Mr Keith Steinhardt of Coolum Beach, Mr Arnold Tate of Mount Coolum, Mr Pat Tiley of Coolum, Mr Colin Townsend of Gympie, Mrs Greta Warner of Cooroy, Mr Raeburn Webb of Gympie, and Mrs Jean Williams of Coes Creek. Mrs Greta Warner, of Cooroy, was selected by the committee as the most outstanding local recipient of the awards. She will fly to Canberra with her daughter on 18 November to participate in special celebratory events with outstanding recipients from other electorates across Australia.1048213:11:0010482Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTONYK6IsaacsALP00—My family and I were privileged to attend a recent production by a fine local school, Chelsea Heights Primary, of its magnificent musical Around the World . Students from preps to seniors sang and danced their way through songs from across the globe. Whether it was 3 McCallum performing African Songs , 2 Colquhoun performing Animals of Australia or the Preps hanging ten with Surfing USA , there was something in this extravaganza for everyone who packed the Chelsea Town Hall. The occasion was superbly hosted by Felicity Button and Kye Lewis. The principal, Danny Mulqueen, his teaching staff and all the parents who sewed costumes, painted sets and sold tickets are to be congratulated for their efforts. This was not only a night of first-class entertainment but also one where all the students gained immeasurably in self-confidence, making this production a highly successful one and a tribute to the entire Chelsea Heights Primary School community.Last week my four-year-old son and I were privileged to attend a production by another fine local school, Rangebank Primary, of the musical Once Upon a Time. Students from grades 3 to 6 performed in what could only be described as a beautifully costumed and choreographed extravaganza. Every performer presented their lines perfectly and the dancing was superb. We thoroughly enjoyed the performance, as did the entire audience, which packed the local Cranbourne Hall over two nights. The principal, Nola Sterling, and her staff—notably Debbie Rolfe, Janine Ludenens and Liz Davis—and all the parents who painted sets, sewed costumes and sold tickets are to be congratulated for their efforts. That so many people could be so genuinely entertained and that all the children gained immeasurably in self-confidence made this production a highly successful one and a tribute to the entire Rangebank Primary School community.Last week my four-year-old son and I enjoyed a wonderful night's entertainment presented by an extremely talented group of students from another fine local school, Chelsea Primary. The children from all grades sang and danced their way through a fantastic production entitled Kids at Sea. The quality of their production and, in particular, the obvious joy that the children experienced in performing so well ensured that there was something in the play for each of the family members, relatives and friends who filled the Chelsea Town Hall. The principal, John Jackson, his teaching staff and all the parents who sold tickets, painted sets and sewed costumes are to be congratulated for their efforts. In particular, the obvious commitment and dedication of the Chelsea Primary School students in rehearsing their roles over several weeks was obvious. That so many people could be so genuinely entertained and that all the children gained immeasurably in self-confidence made this production a highly successful one and a tribute to the entire school community.1048313:15:0010483Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I must congratulate the member for Isaacs for spending so much time with his son and taking him to electoral functions. It is really good to see that. I try and extend that same opportunity to my children in the short time I have with them.I want to speak today about the seafood industry. I know that some of my colleagues always have a bit of a chuckle when I do this because they feel that I have some sort of declared self-interest in this. I am very passionate about the seafood industry not only because my family has been involved with the industry for 50 years but also because I represent the electorate of Petrie, which has 30 kilometres of peninsula extending all the way out to Moreton Bay.We have some very rich produce in Moreton Bay and a number of seafood processors down in the Redcliffe Peninsula. But the reason for getting up today is to particularly praise a publication that has come out, called From the Antarctic to the tropics: a snapshot of the Australian fishing industry. It details the composition of the Australian seafood industry, an industry that is always widely overlooked, I feel, even though it is one of the top five export earners. Just to give the House some idea: annual exports are $1.5 billion from this industry, and they are growing at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. As I said, it is one of our top five export earners. The seafood industry is worth some $1.9 billion in total for this country. One of the good things that the report highlighted was the fact that it is a high value product and that we are also developing best practices, particularly in the areas of fisheries and farm management.Australians are eating much more seafood these days than they ever have before and, clearly, when you look at the consumption patterns over the last 20 years, we are each now consuming some 12 kilograms of seafood a year. The report itself highlighted an increasingly valuable part of that market, the aquaculture industry—and I want to speak about that in the short time I have left.Aquaculture in Australia yields some very high value products for domestic and world markets. Some of the products are: oysters, Atlantic salmon, Karumba prawns—which are particularly popular in our export markets of Japan—and southern bluefin tuna and pearls. Aquaculture is clearly the way of the future for this country and it is one of the highest producers. Last year the value at the farmgate was something like $500 million per annum in aquaculture. It is important to note that we have developed this industry only in the last 15 years, and we have the technology in Australia to have some of the best practices. We are also early innovators of our industry around the world.Corporate farming is the way to go and, clearly, that is an area that many people are getting into. We need to be much more competitively focused on this area. I had the pleasure of touring the salmon factory in Tasmania, and we are producing great results in that area. But we must not overlook important things like environment and the role that that plays. Aquaculture is not a short-term thing; it has a long-term horizon, and we need to develop that vision. We also need to attract more investors to the industry. Also, consumers are much more confident about using aquaculture products. When many of you go to shop at the supermarket, you will see that much of the produce in the supermarkets will be farm produced, as well as sea caught. We must continue to encourage innovation, particularly with our scientists.I want to pay a great tribute to the work that the Fish Research Development Corporation does, particularly the work in Deception Bay in my electorate and in areas like Townsville. It is to be absolutely congratulated for the industry. It is still in its infancy and we do have a long way to go, but we need a greater commitment from federal and state governments and we also have to ensure that we continue to develop the industry. Regardless of the risks, there are also many rewards. We need to focus as well on keeping the waters pristine and on ensuring that we have a viable aquaculture future because this is the way that we will feed our growing population. (Time expired)1048413:20:0010484Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—Bankstown airport is in the electorate of Blaxland. In the last two weeks when the parliament was sitting I spoke five times on the issue of Bankstown airport and its future and on the proposals that have been put forward by a number of vested interest groups for moving country or regional services from Kingsford Smith to Bankstown airport. I want to take up one further aspect that has more recently been somewhat confirmed in relation to what the impact would be.In the speeches I gave I indicated that I had particular concern for the 3,500 existing jobs in general aviation at Bankstown airport. The fact that most of these proposals would shift those out to Badgerys Creek creates the conditions in which they would only look at general aviation at Badgerys Creek, that Kingsford Smith would inexorably expand after the extra spaces were filled up, that instead of 35 to 38 per cent of the slots being available the maximum would be about 25 per cent because of air space management considerations. I also made the point that for all of those people currently using regional services in New South Wales and flying into Kingsford Smith, the airlines are under pressure from the operatives of Kingsford Smith airport and they are under pressure because they want to jack up the landing fees. So part of the impetus to try to get the regional airlines to agree to go to Bankstown is the existence and the threat of increased air landing fees.I also indicated that it was my view that if it did come to pass that regional aircraft were moved to Bankstown, a direct outcome of that and the displacement of general aviation out to Badgerys Creek or elsewhere would be that the sustainability of a regional airport at Bankstown for regional services in New South Wales would not be there in the long term. The key reason for that is the requirement and demand of people using country services to access KSA and the movement that there already is to try to start a hubbing operation in Newcastle. All we need is one further operation for people to decide that they would hub in Newcastle and then west of the ranges and then fly small jets into Kingsford Smith to satisfy regional customers that Bankstown could be left with a great vacancy—a loss of 3,500 jobs in general aviation and a giant gaping hole because of the economic changes in regional operations as they are not going to stay with the aircraft that they have now.There is one key point that I did not make and that I make today. This is a message to the Prime Minister because if he has not got this message yet he should get it now: if regional aircraft move to Bankstown airport, then the long-term operating plan is dead. It is not just precision radar management which is creating some problems with that. It is dead, and it is dead on the day it happens. The reason for that is the airspace management demands are entirely different with a general aviation airport at Bankstown and moving regional aircraft to Bankstown.That would mean simply this: that the east-west runway use would be knocked out, Kingsford Smith would be back to two north-south runway operations, and the Bennelong funnel would be totally back into operation. The airspace management demands are such that that is an inexorable outcome of moving the regionals to Bankstown. That is underlined by the fact that Airservices Australia is moving towards trying to bring in precision radar management so that in all weathers craft would be able to come in. What they have proposed is that craft would fly at 3,000 feet and their approach should start at Hornsby. That would necessitate craft flying dirty at 30 per cent power into Kingsford Smith.We would have two effects, because they want to push that very hard, with at least 25 per cent and up to 30 per cent more jets running into and out of Kingsford Smith: the Bennelong funnel back in operation and people in north Sydney—in Liberal electorates—suffering a noise impact far greater than they have had before. I have had experience in Bankstown of just what flying dirty means. That has not come from our general aviation airport; it has come from the change when the two runways came into operation. When that happened, Airservices Australia ran three lines up through Bankstown and Parramatta, they ran at 30 per cent power, and at north Parramatta and over Drummoyne they went to 100 per cent and blasted Sydney with noise. (Time expired)1048513:25:0010485Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—I, like many members in this House, have seen some of my constituents go to make up the peacekeeping force in East Timor. I will say from the outset that the Australian Defence Force is at the highest point of military readiness since the Vietnam War. The creation of INTERFET is the first time Australia has been given the task of building and leading a multinational force on behalf of the United Nations. The United Nations Security Council's resolution 1264, which was adopted unanimously on 15 September, gave a mandate to restore peace and security in East Timor and to facilitate humanitarian assistance operations because the Security Council determined that the present situation in East Timor constituted a threat to peace and security.Australia faces a difficult task in East Timor but our personnel are there with a clear objective: to help restore peace in East Timor. The rules of engagement for the Australian contingent authorised the force not only to defend themselves but to use appropriate levels of force to fulfil the mandate given by the United Nations. Our troops are in East Timor in the knowledge that they have the full support of the Australian government and the Australian people.Months ago we made ready an additional brigade of the Australian Army in case Australian forces were needed for peacekeeping operations in East Timor. As a result, we were able to respond immediately to the United Nations request, not only to participate but also to lead the multinational force. The defence force follows in the footsteps of other Australians: the Federal Police, military liaison officers, consular officials and United Nations workers who have done so much in East Timor in past weeks to help its people.Although the goal of our forces will be the restoration of peace and stability, the conditions they encounter could well be violent and disruptive. Any operation of this kind is dangerous. There is a risk of casualties. Our troops, however, are highly trained and totally professional. We should not only feel proud of them but also have every confidence in their ability to do the job. Our soldiers go to East Timor as part of a great Australian military tradition which has never sought to impose the will of this country on others but only to defend what is right.It galls me, as a member of this House, to hear members of the Australian Labor Party—when we as a nation face this serious conflict that puts our young men and women at risk—running ideological arguments as to the way in which the peacekeeping force was put together and the actions of the Australian government in sending it to East Timor. That in itself gives an indication of just how shallow some members of the Australian Labor Party are in their commitment to this nation. As a parliamentarian I would have thought that, at this time of this commitment by this nation to our neighbours, we could have joined in a bipartisan way to wish well to the people who have gone over there on our behalf and at their risk to assist others. Whilst I can understand what drives some of the comments that have come out of this place in the last two or three days, I just question the motives behind them.We are committed, as part of the United Nations, to assisting our allies when we are requested to do so. Nobody should have the gall to say that we should have gone into East Timor when to do so without permission from the Indonesian government would have placed us on a war footing and created massive problems for the people in East Timor today. It is irresponsible of people to be pushing that line. I take this opportunity to praise the Prime Minister, the Hon. John Howard, for the very statesmanlike and professional way in which he has handled this matter at all times, keeping in mind—UNKNOWNMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! It being 1.30 p.m. the time allowed for debate has expired.Main Committee adjourned at 1.30 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing10487The following answers to questions were circulated:10487(Question No. 835)83510487Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 10 August 1999:Will the Minister bring up-to-date the information provided in the answer to question No. 1398 (Hansard , 13 May 1997, page 3439), concerning the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (Paris, 1970).10487McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:The latest information from UNESCO on the 1970 Convention, updated to 3 December 1998, shows the following states are parties to the 1970 convention:States participant:Ratification/Acceptance/Accession/Succession (s)Algeria24 Jun 1974Angola7 Nov 1991Argentina11 Jan 1973Armenia5 Sep 1993 (s)Australia30 Oct 1989Bahamas9 Oct 1997Bangladesh9 Dec 1987Belarus28 Apr 1988Belize26 Jan 1990Bolivia4 Oct 1976Bosnia and Herzegovina12 Jul 1993 (s)Brazil16 Feb 1973Bulgaria15 Sep 1971Burkina Faso7 April 1987Cambodia26 Sep 1972Cameroon24 May 1972Canada28 Mar 1978Central African Republic1 Feb 1972China28 Nov 1989Colombia24 May 1988Costa Rica6 Mar 1996Cte d'Ivoire30 Oct 1990Croatia6 Jul 1992 (s)Cuba30 Jan 1980Cyprus19 Oct 1979Czech Republic *26 Mar 1993 (s)Dominican Republic7 Mar 1973Ecuador24 Mar 1971 Egypt5 Apr 1973El Salvador20 Feb 1978Estonia27 Oct 1995Georgia4 Nov 1992 (s)Greece5 June 1981Grenada10 Sep 1992Guatamala14 Jan 1985Guinea18 Mar 1979Honduras19 Mar 1979Hungary 23 Oct 1978India24 Jan 1977Iran27 Jan 1975Iraq12 Feb 1973Italy 2 Oct 1978Jordan15 Mar 1974Korea, Dem. People's Rep. of13 May 1983Korea, Republic of14 Feb 1983Kuwait22 Jun 1972Kyrgyzstan3 Jul 1995Lebanon25 Aug 1992Libya9 Jan 1973Lithuania27 Jul 1998Madagascar21 Jun 1989Mali6 Apr 1987Mauritania27 Apr 1977Mauritius27 Feb 1978Mexico4 Oct 1972Mongolia23 May 1991Nepal23 Jun 1976Nicaragua19 Apr 1977Niger16 Oct 1972Nigeria24 Jan 1972Oman2 Jun 1978Pakistan30 Apr 1981Panama13 Aug 1973Peru24 Oct 1979Poland31 Jan 1974Portugal9 Dec 1985Qatar20 Apr 1977Romania6 Dec 1993Russia28 Apr 1988Saudi Arabia8 Sep 1976Senegal9 Dec 1984Slovakia *31 Mar 1993 (s)Slovenia5 Nov 1992 (s)Spain10 Jan 1986Sri Lanka7 Apr 1981Syria21 Feb 1975Tajikistan28 Aug 1992 (s) Tanzania2 Aug 1977Tunisia10 Mar 1975Turkey21 Apr 1981Ukraine28 Apr 1988United States of America2 Sep 1983Uruguay9 Aug 1977Uzbekistan15 Mar 1996Yugoslavia3 Oct 1972Zaire23 Sep 1974Zambia21 Jun 1985* Instrument of accession was deposited for Czechoslovakia on 14 February 1997.Note: Instrument of accession was deposited for the German Democratic Republic on 16 January 1974 but no longer applies.10489(Question No. 855)85510489McFarlane, Jann, MPMs Jann McFarlane83CStirlingALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 23 August 1999:(1) How many applications for visitor's visas were received from Indonesian citizens in (a) 1997-98 and (b) 1998-99.(2) How many applications for visitor's visas have been received by Indonesian citizens in 1999-2000, as at 23 August 1999.(3) How many applications for visitor's visas by Indonesian citizens referred to in parts (1) and (2) were rejected in each year.(4) Are Indonesian citizens considered high risk for overstay of visitor's visas; if so, why.(5) Are other policies to limit visitor's visas to Indonesian citizens being implemented by his Department; if so, what are the policies.10489Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) There were:(a) 93,545 applications for visitor visas from Indonesians in 1997-98(b) 70,262 applications for visitor visas from Indonesians in 1998-99These figures include tourist, business and medical visitor visas.(2) There have been 7,698 applications for visitor visas from Indonesians from 1 July 1999 to 23 August 1999.(3) There were: (a) 12,847 applications for visitor visas by Indonesian citizens refused in 1997-98 (a rejection rate of 13.7%);(b) 12,172 applications for visitor visas by Indonesian citizens refused in 1998-99 (a rejection rate of 17.3%); and(c) 1,555 applications for visitor visas by Indonesian citizens refused between 1 July 1999 and 23 August 1999 (a rejection rate of 20.2%).(4) Indonesian citizens are currently considered high risk for overstay of visitor visas. Until recently, Indonesia had been a high volume, relatively low risk visitor source. However this has changed dramatically since the Asian economic downturn and the ongoing internal political crisis. Since the May 1998 crisis the Jakarta post has had no choice but to adopt a relatively strict approach to visitor visa applications.Visitor visa applications lodged by Indonesians are being subjected to closer scrutiny. This situation is not due to any change in policy or new criteria, but to the fact that a dramatically increased number of applications are not providing sufficient evidence that they intend a genuine visit. As at 30 June 1998, the non-return rate for Indonesian visitors arriving in Australia in 1996-97 was 2.51%. As at 30 June 1999, the non-return rate for Indonesian visitors arriving in 1997-98 had almost doubled to 4.53%, reflecting the change in the integrity of the Indonesian visitor market. The global average is 1.98%. There were over 1,800 Protection Visas lodged by Indonesian nationals during the 1998/99 program year, over double those from any other country—only 1 was granted.(5) There are no policies to limit visitor visas being implemented by my Department. 10490(Question No. 859)85910490Hollis, Colin, MPMr HollisDH4ThrosbyALP00 asked the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, upon notice, on 23 August 1999:(1) How many applications for Centenary of Federation grants were submitted from the electoral divisions of (a) Macarthur, (b) Gilmore, (c) Cunningham and (d) Throsby.(2) How many applications for Centenary of Federation Grants submitted from the electoral divisions of (a) Macarthur, (b) Gilmore, (c) Cunningham and (d) Throsby were successful.10490McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I provide the following information on applications made under the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program (FCHP):Electoral DivisionFCHP ApplicationsSuccessful ApplicationsMacarthur91 Wivenhoe Villa ConservationGilmore41 Lady Denman Ferry Conserva tionCunningham50Throsby3010490(Question No. 867)86710490Pyne, Chris, MPMr Pyne9V5SturtLP10 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 24 August 1999(1) Was the Chifley Government involved in bringing suspected war criminals and Nazi party members to Australia as part of the Employment of Scientific and Technical Enemy Aliens scheme (ESTEA) between 1946 and 1951.(2) Were the backgrounds of prospective scientists covered up and were the objections of the Commonwealth Investigation Service and normal security clearances ignored.(3) Did the former deputy head of the Attorney-General's Department, Mr Andrew Menzies, give the ESTEA a clean bill of health in his 1986 government report; if so, is the Minister able to say whether Mr Menzies was misled and that his 1986 assertions that proper procedures were followed is incorrect.(4) Will the Government reopen the Special Investigations Unit and launch a full investigation into these allegations.10490Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Chifley Government facilitated the entry to Australia of many displaced persons to Australia, including from Germany, following World War II. Some of these people entered Australia as part of the Employment of Scientific and Technical Enemy Aliens scheme (ESTEA) between 1946 and 1951. (2) As indicated in the Menzies Review, "these people were subjected to a preliminary screening in Germany and were engaged only where a favourable security report was given. Further, they were on probation for nine months after their arrival in Australia. After this time, provided that there was no security objection, approval could be given for the admission of their wives and families. All documents examined by the Review indicated that normal security clearances were obtained and that the scientists were rejected if they were considered unacceptable due to their association with the Nazi Party".(3) Responsibility for the Menzies "Review of material relating to the entry of suspected war criminals into Australia" rests with the Attorney-General's Department.(4) The Special Investigations Unit was set up by the Attorney-General's Department to investigate allegations of war crimes and questions related to the Special Investigations Unit are a matter for the Attorney General.10490(Question No. 870)87010490Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 24 August 1999:(1) What classes of state-specific migration categories applied to the 1998-99 Immigration (Non-Humanitarian) Program.(2) In each category referred to in part (1), (a) how many persons went to each State and Territory and (b) was a quota available to States and Territories.10491Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The following State-specific migration mechanisms were available as part of the 1998-99 Migration (non-Humanitarian) Program:. Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme (RSMS) which allows for employers in areas covered by gazetted certifying bodies to nominate skilled migrants for entry to fill positions which cannot be filled from the local labour market;. State/Territory Nominated Independent (STNI) category which allows State or Territory Governments to nominate for entry skilled migrants who have skills in demand in particular jurisdictions;. Regional Linked category which makes it easier for persons residing in designated areas to sponsor their relatives for entry subject to their meeting threshold requirements relating to skill, age and English language proficiency;. Skilled-Australian Linked (SAL) category a high volume points tested category which contained a provision (up until 30 June 1999) whereby applicants whose sponsors live in designated areas of Australia accrued 5 bonus points. On 1 July 1999 those bonus points were abolished (applicants who would have benefited from bonus points under the pre-July regime will be picked up under the new Regional Sponsored category);. State sponsored Business Skills category in which there are four subclasses which allow for State and Territory sponsorship of business owners and of senior executives (two offshore and two onshore).. Regional Established Business in Australia (REBA) category which applies to business people who have entered Australia on long term temporary business visas and have established viable business ventures in designated areas of Australia. The category, established in July 1997, provides an avenue for them to obtain permanent residence subject to State/Territory sponsorship and their meeting a range of threshold criteria—the criteria applied under REBA are set at a lower level than those which apply to applicants under the Established Business in Australia (EBA) category. As applicants in this category must have a business operating in Australia for a period of two years before they can apply, the volume of applications is still small and no applications have been finalised.Both the RSMS and STNI are supported by the Skills Matching Database (SMD). The SMD has been in place since November 1996 and contains occupational data regarding offshore Independent category migration applicants who have already had their skills and English language assessed. The SMD can be used by State/Territory Governments or by employers to select and nominate applicants with particular skills.(2) (a) The table below shows the State or Territory of intended residence for those applicants granted visas under the categories listed in (1) above.(b) No quotas were applied to these categories in 1998-99. Powers exist under the Migration Act 1958 and the Migration Regulations which allow for limits to be placed on the number of visa grants or nominations under specific visa subclasses in a given financial year. These powers were not exercised in 1998-99 in relation to the State-specific migration categories and are unlikely to be used in 1999-2000 given the Government's commitment to promoting these mechanisms and to improving the dispersal of skilled migrants throughout Australia.DISTRIBUTION OF MIGRANTS GRANTED VISAS UNDER STATE SPECIFIC MIGRATION MECHANISMS IN 1998-99CategoryNSWSAVICWANTQLDTASACTTotalRSMS139436436741714523765STNI2169169Regional3 Linked2299848767SAL4773968011281719940861744SSBS51442392658REBA6---------TOTAL7132103487621262280911162803Source: DIMA MPMS and RESI 2 data—July/August 19991 Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme—sponsorship by employer2 State territory Nominated Independent category—nomination by State/Territory3 Regional Linked—sponsorship by a relative in a designated area4 Skilled Australian Linked category—figures in the table represent applicants who obtained bonus points because their sponsors live in a designated area5 State Sponsored Business Skills—sponsored business owners and senior executives6 Regional Established Business in Australia7 Total—this outcome presents a 67% increase over 1997-98 (1676 visa grants)10492(Question No. 881)88110492Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KerrRH4DenisonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 25 August 1999:Does the Government have plans to encourage the development of a nationally integrated emergency service communications system, including the co-ordination of police, fire and other emergency services; if so, what strategy will the Government pursue; if not, why not.10492McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:Telstra, in its role as the emergency call person (ECP) under the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999, already coordinates national emergency service organisations through its administration of the 000 emergency service.However, the honourable member's question could relate to either or both of two discrete matters: the Australian Secure Network (ASNET), or the arrangements pertaining to the 000 emergency service. In relation to ASNET, which appears to be the real focus of the honourable member's question, this is a matter which falls within the portfolio of the Minister for Justice and Customs, and I refer Mr Kerr to the Minister's answer to Question on Notice 882 which was tabled on [date].In relation to 000 arrangements, the Government considers that the provision of effective and reliable 000 call service is vitally important. This was recognised in the drafting of the Telecommunications Act 1997. Part 12 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 provided a comprehensive statutory framework for the provision of the 000 service. This is now been replicated in Part 8 of the new Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 (the Act).Within this framework, the Australian Communications Authority (ACA) is responsible for ensuring that the 000 emergency service is effective and reliable. The ACA is required to designate a person to be the emergency call person (ECP) and determine arrangements for the provision of emergency call services. Amongst other matters, in determining emergency call arrangements the ACA must have regard to the objectives that• as far as practicable, a common system is used to transfer calls made to an emergency service number to an emergency service organisation; • from the perspective of an ordinary end-user of a standard telephone service, there appears to be a single national emergency call system; and• the objective that reasonable community expectations for the handling of calls to emergency service numbers are met.Telstra is the ECP and service requirements are in place under the Telecommunications (Emergency Call Services) Determination 1997.As the ECP, Telstra's role is essentially to answer and transfer calls to emergency services organisations as appropriate. Telstra works closely with emergency service organisations in performing this role. Once the call is transferred the emergency services organisation deals with the 000 caller directly. Emergency services and their communications systems are the responsibility of each State. I understand emergency services already have their own established communications systems.