1999-09-273914REPS1049501999-09-27Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Delegation Reports104951049512:31:0010495Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the Philippines and Japan from 24 May to 5 June 1999. The visit of the parliamentary delegation to those countries occurred during the Asian economic downturn which had extended throughout the region during the previous year and which had been manifest in Japan somewhat earlier in terms of a prolonged financial recession.The aims of the delegation's visit were, in general terms, to strengthen the bilateral relationships between Australia and both countries at a time when economic pressures underline the necessity for regional stability as a means of enhancing mutual security and promoting economic growth and recovery. To this end, the delegation participated in an extensive program of meetings with members of the legislatures of both countries and with ministers and officials at the highest levels in the areas of economic policy, health, agriculture, foreign affairs, trade, defence and tourism—including the Prime Minister of Japan, Mr Obuchi.In the Philippines the government of President Joseph Estrada has continued to pursue the economic and social reform agenda established by his predecessor, President Ramos. Economic growth has proved difficult to achieve during the past year due to continuing regional recession and to climatic factors affecting agricultural production. The delegation was advised that economic restructuring was being pursued despite social costs, such as higher structural unemployment.Issues dominating the delegation's discussions in the Philippines ranged from tariffs on agricultural produce to investment and security issues. The Philippines is trying to pursue a policy of trade liberalisation to open new markets for such produce as tropical fruits, but continues to encounter political resistance to attempts to reduce tariffs on locally produced commodities such as sugar and rice, which are produced very inefficiently as peasant based industries. Discussions with a range of congressional leaders and provincial officials made it clear to us that there was little or no popular support for tariff reduction on commodities such as sugar.The extremes of wealth and poverty, as well as infrastructure deficiencies, remain critical problems in the Philippines. The immaturity of the existing party system and the extensive use of congressional `place filling' by families of leading political figures was an additional issue which became apparent to the delegation in discussions with political leaders both in Manila and in the provinces.Security issues brought to our notice by foreign secretary Siazon, and by Vice Admiral Santos of the Philippines Navy, included concern over Chinese incursions on islands in the South China Sea claimed by the Philippines, the continuing insurgency problem on Mindanao and the ratification of the visiting forces agreement with the United States by the Philippines Congress. The heavily armed escorts necessary for the delegation to make its way in safety—or to make its way under any circumstances—through Manila and to areas of the provinces underlined the continued existence of law and order and insurgency problems in the country—both significant problems for the Estrada government.In Japan, discussions focused on the economy and on the financial restructuring measures put in place by the Obuchi government to restore confidence in the banking system and stimulate consumer spending and investment. There remain continuing concerns about the pace of reform in the areas of financial market deregulation and tariff reforms on a range of agricultural imports, some of which are important Australian agricultural exports, such as dairy products, meat and rice.I agree with some of my delegation colleagues that political and business leaders showed a lack of urgency with regard to change, particularly in regard to trade and financial deregulation matters. Representatives of the Japan-Australia Diet Members League were very senior political figures and the league would greatly benefit from an infusion of younger Diet members. It was also apparent that the Japan-Australia Business Cooperation Committee consisted of very conservative and senior business leaders and was dominated by commodity importers at the expense of representatives of such sectors as food processing and information technology—both areas in which Australia is keen to develop markets in Japan.The delegation's visit to regional areas of Japan enabled members to strengthen and consolidate already effective sister city relationships with Sasebo and Nara, sister cities of Coffs Harbour and Canberra, to be briefed on regional trade initiatives being undertaken by the Australian Consulate in Fukuoka, and to observe the local tourism facilities in Nara and in the Mie Prefecture.In both the Philippines and Japan the delegation was received with warmth and friendliness both at official levels and by its many hosts within the capital cities and in a variety of provincial centres. I thank my delegation colleagues for their support and constructive contributions to our discussions. I would also like to mention the professional assistance received from the Australian Embassy staff in both the Philippines and Japan, the enthusiastic support of our delegation secretary, Dr Margot Kerley, and the wonderful support and friendship of Ambassador Tadashi Suzuki from the House of Representatives secretariat in Tokyo. (Time expired)12:36:0010496Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—The delegation to the Philippines and Japan was led by the Deputy Speaker and member for Cowper and it was a terrific experience. In the Philippines it was a good opportunity for us to observe a new government in office. Former President Fidel Ramos visited Australia during his time as president and he did tremendous things to reform the Philippines economy. Under the new president, President Estrada, things are slightly different. There are some security problems looming, and I think they will loom greater in the future. The troubles the Philippines were experiencing with China over some disputed sea territory flared up while we were there. In fact, on the very morning that we met the foreign minister, Mr Siazon, a Philippines Navy vessel had struck and sunk a so-called Chinese fishing vessel, no doubt having a more nefarious purpose than catching fish. They were dealing with it in a very constructive way and that was good to see.As far as their approach to their economic problems was concerned, I felt they perhaps were not on the ball quite as much as the Ramos administration had been. They were trying hard but were looking like they were going to run up a fairly sizeable budget deficit. Some of the fiscal stringency of the past seemed to be slipping away.As the member for Cowper said, it was very clear in the rural areas that we visited in the Philippines that they were having political difficulty with the notion of trade liberalisation. The price of sugar had come down a lot and they had a lot of employment dependent upon the sugar industry. Frankly, they were quite nervous about that prospect. Although we had very constructive exchanges with them, I felt that they really had some more work to do to resolve that in a political sense. All in all, you would not say that the direction of the Estrada administration is the wrong one, but there are some signs of the difficulties that they are encountering and we wish them more steel in their spine as they deal with them in the future.In Japan, my impression was that the reform process had slowed down, that there was a sense of satisfaction with what had been done so far, and that people were talking more about supplementary budgets being what would really fix their problems, which are really not enough. As the leader of the delegation, the member for Cowper, pointed out, the Japan-Australia Business Cooperation Committee is beginning to look very old-fashioned, as are some elements of the Japan-Australia Diet Members League. Certainly, the Australian embassy is well aware of that and there are moves afoot to introduce some new blood into both those organisations.I would like to give other members of the delegation time to share their reflections with the House.12:39:0010497Washer, Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—The delegation visit to the Philippines and Japan enabled members from both sides of politics to contribute to strengthening the bilateral relationship with two important countries in the Asia-Pacific region. The Philippines is a nation with which Australia has had important historic ties and with which it continues to maintain important links, particularly in the areas of trade and development cooperation. The delegation were aware of the great challenges facing the Estrada government, particularly with regard to improving the social and economic prospects of the nearly 25 per cent of the population officially accounted as poor.Infrastructure deficiencies represent a formidable problem and were obvious to members of the delegation as they made their way through the Manila traffic. Deficiencies were also apparent in the provinces where the delegation inspected an example of AusAID's Municipal Solar Infrastructure Project to provide clean water and electricity from solar cells to more than 370 rural settlements.Despite continuing difficulties with providing a secure food supply to its population, the Philippines economy as a whole did not perform as badly as some other countries in the region during the last year. The delegation was told that agricultural reform was a priority of the Estrada government. However, it was not apparent that the Philippines agricultural ministry was tapping into international sources of expertise in agricultural research, much of which Australia is in the position to supply.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The time allotted for the consideration of this delegation report has expired.Committees10497104971049712:41:0010497Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I present the report of the committee entitled Going for Gold: Immigration entry arrangements for the Olympic and Paralympic Games , together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—In 1998, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the Hon. Phillip Ruddock, asked the Joint Standing Committee on Migration to report on immigration entry arrangements for the Olympic and Paralympic Games being held in Sydney in September-October 2000. The inquiry lapsed when the parliament was prorogued. The minister again referred the matter to the new committee on 16 December 1998.The purpose of the inquiry was to review issues related to the planning and coordination of entry arrangements for visitors, participants and officials for the Olympic and Paralympic Games. The committee received 46 submissions and accumulated 250 pages of evidence at public hearings. Participants at the hearings included representatives of the tourist and travel industries, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the Australian Customs Service, the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Australian Federal Police, the National Crime Authority and the Department of Transport and Regional Services.While government departments were asked about their arrangements, tourism and travel industry submissions tended to focus on ways of simplifying access to Australia for visitors. The committee was not disposed to consider any waiving of visitor visa requirements, as suggested in some of the tourism and travel industry submissions. The committee felt that this would put added strain on Australia's border entry arrangements and cause delays in visitor entry processing on arrival.There was broad agreement by witnesses that Australia's paperless electronic travel authority, or ETA, was a satisfactory way of minimising formalities and speeding visitor entry while protecting Australia's border integrity. The committee recommended increasing the number of countries for which ETA was available. The committee also recommended investigation of the practice of travel agents charging visitors for the ETA.The committee was advised that the standard of scrutiny currently applied to intending visitors will continue through the games period. The committee was concerned that refusal to grant visas to some would-be visitors from specific countries could be caught in the spotlight of media attention during the games and generate negative publicity. Consequently, the committee has recommended forward planning to permit effective responses to visa issues which may gain a higher public profile during the period of the games.The Olympic and Paralympic Games will place considerable demands on Australia's capacity to plan and coordinate immigration arrangements. Not only are more people expected to visit Australia but the arrivals are also expected to be concentrated in a short period with most visitors expected to arrive through Sydney international airport.The games will also see increased numbers of people seeking to exploit any consequent weakening of DIMA's vigilance by attempting to enter Australia without documents or with false documentation. This will impose heavy demands on the skills and resources of Australia's border agencies, chiefly the Customs Service which staffs the immigration booths, and DIMA and AQIS. Although these agencies sought to reassure the committee that they would be able to handle the expected demands of the games period effectively, the committee noted there were only narrow margins between the border authorities' predicted capacity and the expected demand.Australia's capacity to handle predicted volumes of visitors is reliant on trained and experienced staff offshore and at onshore entry points. Staffing in DIMA, ACS and AQIS is generally being approached by restructuring staff arrangements rather than by recruiting more people. The committee was concerned that this approach would not permit the agencies to cope with unexpected events. The committee therefore recommended that staffing levels receive further consideration.The committee was also uneasy about the current and proposed staffing at international hub airports such as Singapore and Bangkok. It was felt that the provision of still further staff was needed to ensure that the personnel at these key locations would be sufficient to deal with games generated pressures.Efficient processing of visitors will be dependent on information technology, some of which is still to be tested. The committee was concerned that implementation dates had slipped significantly and it was not convinced the systems would be adequately bedded down and tested prior to the games. Consequently, it recommended that the installation of specific games oriented systems be given the highest priority and tested in situations as close as possible to those that will occur during the games period.As part of its games responsibilities, Australia will provide special immigration arrangements for the accredited members of the Olympic and Paralympic families, which include competitors, officials and other personnel nominated by national Olympic, Paralympic and other sporting bodies. The arrangements for family members are set out in an information booklet which is part of the broader visitor information campaign. The committee noted that this had been undertaken with limited supplementation of the funding for DIMA, AQIS, ACS and DFAT and it has therefore recommended some low-cost measures to further publicise Australia's immigration requirements.The special treatment of family members will impose additional pressure on Australia's immigration arrangements. Some of the concessions are procedural, such as quarantine arrangements for animals and equipment imported for the games and the waiver of duty free allowances. Other concessions relate to the manner in which Australia's immigration requirements are applied.The most significant of these is the provision of special purpose visas—the Olympic and Paralympic travel authority—to accredited games family members. This represents a temporary extension of ETA to nationals of countries which usually do not have this facility. A number of safeguards are in place to maintain Australia's visa requirements for the family members, including approval by DIMA prior to the issuing of such travel authority. A memorandum of understanding between DIMA and SOCOG on this process had not been finalised at the time of the committee's report. The committee therefore has urged prompt finalisation of the MOU so that committee members can reassure themselves that Australia's border integrity is being maintained.An entry response team drawing on the expertise of Australia's border agencies and SOCOG is being set up to facilitate the entry of family members. The committee has recommended that this team be operational well before the games. To speed their entry to Australia it is essential that visitors are aware of the arrangements made to facilitate their passage through our border formalities. The committee noted that there was an unwarranted assumption that the purpose and benefits of the express lane would be well understood by visitors. It is recommended that this mechanism for arrival and departure management be more widely promoted.The holding of the Olympic and Paralympic Games in Australia in 2000 offers us many opportunities to promote our country, to demonstrate our business capabilities and to emphasise our unique assets as a tourist destination. The committee has considered the work of the responsible agencies and has unanimously recommended a number of steps which can be taken to contribute to the success of providing a positive experience for visitors while at the same time maintaining border integrity.I would like to thank the committee secretariat—especially Steve Dyer—for their assistance with the inquiry. I also thank the committee members, most especially the Deputy Chair, Senator McKiernan, and my colleagues in the House, the Hon. Bruce Baird, Mrs Irwin, Mrs May and Mr Ripoll. I commend this report to the House.12:49:0010499Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—I would like to thank the committee and the committee secretariat for their work on this inquiry and their efforts in helping us prepare the final report. Our aim is to ensure that visitors to Australia are not in any way disappointed with their entry while we still maintain our border integrity.The first recommendation of the report deals with ensuring that the same arrangements for the Olympic families are extended to the Paralympic families. To help facilitate this process, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and SOCOG must work together and fast-track the memorandum of understanding in terms of border control.Ansett is the major airline sponsor for the games and, as such, is afforded special treatment as part of that deal. This could include special access to the Olympic Village and other locations for ticketing and other services. While the importance of their sponsorship is understood, it also needs to be understood that not all Olympic families will travel on the sponsor airline. If we are to provide the best possible access for Olympic families, then consideration must also be given to the other carriers. This does not need to detract from the advantage that the major sponsor might have but will ensure that the overall experience for all Olympic families is a good one.The advantage gained by the sponsor airline will have already been achieved by virtue of the sponsorship deal and related access to advertising and marketing. But the issues of access to the village and other resources at the games during arrival and departure need to be considered. Those who have chosen to fly by other airlines need not be disadvantaged. There may have been no other choice or their decision may have been made well in advance of the games or for other reasons. I believe it is essential that services and access are made available at the games sites and are not restricted to purely one carrier.I would like to note that, as far as the committee is aware, there are no exclusive arrangements in terms of access to the Olympic sites provided by the sponsorship arrangements in terms of easing the entry or departure process. In any event, the departure procedures should at least be treated differently, given that most people will be attempting to leave as soon as possible and will likely leave on the same carrier they arrived on. The committee noted that while there is an information campaign in place its effectiveness will only be measured by the amount of users who access and understand that information provided. The possibility that a large number of Olympic visitors from a certain country will be refused visas has the potential to embarrass Australia and also to produce large amounts of negative media worldwide. It should be ensured that, if certain countries are more likely to be treated less favourably, procedures are pre-organised to facilitate faster processing and less uncertainty.For the Olympic Games of 2000, Australia must do everything within its power to ensure the best games of the century and to use past experience to guarantee that success. The final success of the games will ensure a bright future for tourism promotion and the image of Australia worldwide.12:52:0010500Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—In its report entitled Going for gold , the Joint Standing Committee on Migration has set out its recommendations from its inquiry into the immigration entry arrangements for the Olympic and Paralympic games. As everyone associated with this issue—the department, the minister and all members of the committee—are aware, Australia will be on show at the time of the 2000 Olympics and Paralympics. As contact with immigration officers is often the first contact with an Australian government agency and as we can expect that visitors' first impressions of Australia will quite likely be the most lasting, we certainly want to make a good first impression.As everyone who has experienced undue delays with immigration officers overseas will appreciate, a bad experience at this time can put a dampener on your whole stay. We certainly do not want this to happen here at the time of the Olympics. In particular, we want the so-called members of the Olympic family—the officials, athletes, trainers, accredited media and major sponsors—to be processed through immigration as quickly, smoothly and efficiently as possible. The committee examined the proposed special arrangements and has recommended changes to existing procedures to provide for accredited members of the Olympic and Paralympic families. The committee had special concern about timing for the arrangements and has recommended that a memorandum of understanding between the department and SOCOG be finalised as a matter of urgency. There is less than one year to go before the Sydney Olympic Games, and these arrangements cannot be left to the last minute. With regard to the department's readiness, the committee has recommended that the proposed entry response team be formed as a matter of urgency to allow for full training to be undertaken. The committee noted the potential for embarrassment to Australia if large numbers of visa applications from some countries are refused. Refusal of visas particularly from the Middle East, Asia and parts of former Yugoslavia may spoil the plans for many families in electorates such as Fowler who hope that family members may be able to stay with them during the Olympics. The urgent extension of electronic travel authorities, as recommended by the committee, may go part of the way to reducing the potential embarrassment of refusing entry to people who wish to visit Australia to view the Olympics. It would not be in the friendly spirit of the Olympic Games if high refusal rates continue.I strongly commend the committee's findings to the minister for his urgent attention. I also thank the staff of the committee, who are in the chamber today, who laboured through a number of changes but still provided invaluable assistance to the committee in producing this report. Finally, I wish to thank the members of the committee for the way in which they have considered all viewpoints in preparing this report.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the member for Hindmarsh wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?10500Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.105011050112:55:0010501Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's report entitled Defence sub-committee visit to Defence establishments in Northern Australia 26-29 July 1999 , together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I table the committee's unanimous report on the Defence Subcommittee visit to defence establishments in Northern Australia in July this year, together with the minutes. The tour, encompassing visits to selected Defence establishments in Queensland and the Northern Territory, was initiated by the Defence Subcommittee following its re-establishment in the 39th Parliament. Primarily a familiarisation activity, the tour provided an excellent opportunity for members of the Defence Subcommittee to acquaint themselves with some current capabilities of the Australian Defence Force and its disposition in Northern Australia.Although brief, the tour covered a considerable amount of territory and included visits to a range of Navy, Army, Air Force and joint Defence Force establishments. The subcommittee was exposed to a wide range of defence capabilities and a large variety of issues. Time does not permit me to address the details of the tour or all of the observations made by the subcommittee. However, I must note that the subcommittee was particularly impressed with the efforts of the 1st Brigade in the recent achievement of an increased state of readiness. All personnel in the brigade are to be commended on their efforts in this regard. The current status of the 1st Brigade provides Australia with a formidable asset that will only be improved by planned enhancements to the formation's capability. Events of this month have clearly justified the government's earlier decision to increase the readiness of 1st Brigade.In the report, the committee makes a number of observations, noting the significant surveillance capability of the ADF deployed in Northern Australia, the marked capability improvement provided by the ongoing night fighting enhancement of 3rd Brigade and the training opportunities and advantages offered by the newly commissioned weapon training simulation system demonstrated during the visit to Lavarack Barracks in Townsville.The report also contains two recommendations by the committee. The first deals with financial allowances paid to personnel posted as caretaker staff to the RAAF bases at Learmonth, Curtin and Scherger. While caretaker staff are paid allowances to compensate for the increased costs of living associated with their posting, the subcommittee was advised that such allowances are insufficient. Indeed, it was suggested that an accompanied member could be significantly financially disadvantaged as a result of a posting to the caretaker staff of a bare base. Accordingly, the committee has recommended that the government conduct a review of the financial allowances paid to caretaker staff at the bases in Scherger, Learmonth and Curtin.The second recommendation addresses the issue of proposed changes to the fringe benefits tax reporting requirements. This was an issue which genuinely concerned many of the ADF personnel encountered during the visit. It was argued that the implications of the proposed changes would be significant for some service personnel, particularly in the areas of income tested government payments, liability for child support, liability for HECS, the superannuation contributions surcharge and the liability for the Medicare levy surcharge. The committee notes that since the tour this issue of FBT reporting has in part been addressed by the government, with the government moving to exempt Defence rental subsidies from FBT reporting requirements.However, while the decision to exempt Defence housing assistance from FBT reporting was a positive move, the committee accepts that some Defence personnel will still be financially worse off as a result of the proposed changes to FBT reporting. The committee is firmly of the view that financial conditions of service for ADF personnel are unique and reflect the circumstances and conditions under which they serve. Accordingly, the committee has recommended that the proposed changes to the FBT reporting requirements should be further reviewed to ensure that ADF personnel are not disadvantaged.I would like to conclude on the issue of the ADF's most important capability—people. The subcommittee was very impressed by the enthusiasm and professionalism of the ADF personnel encountered during the tour. They were well trained, capable and committed to the service of the nation. As a nation, we should be proud of the Defence Force and the people who comprise it. Of course, many of those personnel are now involved in Australia's efforts in support of INTERFET. I take this opportunity on behalf of the committee to thank the men and women of the ADF for their commitment to this task and to wish them well. To those deployed to East Timor, we wish them all a very safe return.Finally, I would like to thank all members of the committee and also Lieutenant Colonel Michael Ward and Margaret Swieringa of the secretariat for their excellent support. I commend the report to the House.13:00:0010502Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I am particularly pleased to be able to speak to this report entitled Defence Sub-Committee Visit to Defence Establishments in Northern Australia 26-29 July 1999 of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade as in the gallery there are a number of students from the Katherine High School in the Northern Territory. We visited the Katherine community when we visited RAAF Base Tindal where we were briefed by Group Captain Brent Crowhurst and executive officer Wing Commander Mark King.I do not want to talk in detail about Tindal this afternoon. I want to refer to those issues partly addressed by the previous speaker, the member for Wannon. I want to applaud, as my friend has done, the efforts of 1st Brigade, which is based in the Top End, on its ability to achieve an increased state of readiness. The 1st Brigade, which is under the highly capable and professional command of Brigadier David Hurley, provides Australia with a substantial defence capacity.The brigade can only be improved by planned enhancements to the formation's capability. Such enhancements are planned to include: upgrades to the Leopard tank, the introduction of the A3 variant of the M113 family of vehicles, the raising of an additional battery of 155-millimetre howitzers and completion of the introduction of the battlefield command support system to the brigade.The enthusiasm and professionalism of the ADF personnel encountered during the tour needs to be acknowledged. Many of these personnel, as the previous speaker observed, are now involved in Australia's efforts in support of INTERFET. A squadron of the 2nd Calvary Regiment, which is part of 1 Brigade, is currently in East Timor. The squadron commander is Major Chris Webstane and the officer commanding 2 Cav. is Lieutenant Colonel `Spike' McKaskill. I met with this squadron of soldiers a couple of weeks ago prior to its embarkation and deployment. I have to say that what struck me about it was the degree of its readiness, its professionalism and its willingness to tackle the task for which it has now been deployed.The Northern Territory community is indeed, as I am sure the Australian community is, right behind these brave soldiers and, of course, all of those others accompanying them and those who will inevitably join them. As a society, we have an obligation not only to these men and women but also to their families. This is an issue I have been pursuing for some time, and something which is addressed in this report. The significant issue among them is that of the fringe benefits tax reporting requirements. This was one that generally concerned many of the ADF personnel we encountered during the visit. Since the tour, this issue of FBT reporting has, as the previous speaker observed, been partly addressed. However, some defence personnel will still be financially worse off as a result of the proposed changes to FBT reporting, despite the changes acknowledged by the government. Accordingly, the committee has recommended that the proposed changes to the FBT reporting requirements should be further reviewed to ensure that ADF personnel are not disadvantaged.This made good sense some weeks ago. After what has been happening in East Timor over the past few weeks and the enormous stress that ADF personnel and their families are under, today there is no way that the government can refuse to exempt the other 11 elements. These are: the defence service home loans, defence home owner home loans, education assistance, airconditioning allowance, discharge removals and travel, child-care reimbursement allowance, remote locality leave travel, compassionate leave travel, reunion travel, home purchase and sales expense allowance, and removal costs for a non-serving spouse after a marriage break-up.We must also plan for a defence force that will take us into the next century. In terms of logistic support to deployed forces, throughout the tour the Defence Subcommittee was interested in the ability of integral logistic elements to support deployed forces. Of major concern was advice that the land force possesses only the capability to provide force level logistic support to one deployed force at any time. The limiting factors on the provision of such support appeared to be skilled personnel and ammunition, not necessarily consumables or spare parts. In addition, the ADF is largely dependent on commercial infrastructure for the support of any deployed force.These shortcomings are now being severely tested, as are significant personnel and recruitment issues that have been highlighted by Australia's commitment to INTERFET and our future Blue Beret commitments to a peacekeeping force in East Timor. Defence policy now is a central policy imperative of this parliament and something which we need to be addressing. Many of these issues will be addressed by the subcommittee when it pursues its current inquiry: the suitability of the Australian Army for peacetime peacekeeping and war.It is not good enough for us to have a backward looking policy as that being proposed by the Prime Minister and the coalition. The Howard doctrine takes us back to the past. We should not be the deputy sheriff of the United States. What we should be doing is concentrating on having a very disciplined defence policy for the defence of Australia and the defence of the north—(Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Wannon wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?10503Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting, and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.105031050313:07:0010503Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's report entitled Bougainville: the peace process and beyond , together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.MH4Jull, David, MPMr JULL—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I am pleased to present a report on the Bougainville peace process. The report is entitled Bougainville: the peace process and beyond , in order to emphasise that the committee's inquiry had a focus that went further than simply a historical review of the peace process since mid-1997. As an important part of the inquiry, a delegation of committee members visited Port Moresby and Bougainville in March this year. The visit provided an excellent opportunity for the nine members to see for themselves the extent of the destruction of Bougainville's physical, economic, social and political infrastructure. Most importantly, the visit enabled the delegation to hold frank discussions with most of the key participants in the peace negotiations and to gauge the scale of the reconstruction and rehabilitation tasks facing Bougainville. The visit program also enabled the delegation to visit several peace monitoring group team sites as well as major AusAID funded projects, such as the Bishop Wade High School and the Talena Specialised Training Centre, the Buka district hospital and the upgrade of Buka airport.The committee's interim report on the visit contained several preliminary conclusions, many of which have been reaffirmed in the final report presented today. As the interim report stated, the delegation was greatly encouraged by the almost universal desire for peace which was evident in Bougainville and by the positive signs that the lives of Bougainvilleans are at last returning to some degree of normality.In conjunction with other regional countries, Australia has made a major contribution to advancing the peace process—through political and diplomatic efforts, through our substantial bilateral aid program with Papua New Guinea and through the excellent work of the regional peace monitoring group stationed in Bougainville.Australia is not a party to the peace negotiations. The question of Bougainville's future political status is therefore one to be resolved by the PNG government and the people of Bougainville and their leaders. However, in bilateral discussions, and in conjunction with other countries of the region, Australia may be able to support education processes designed to reduce differences in perception between the negotiating parties.In this report, the committee has expressed confidence that, despite occasional setbacks, the peace process has continued to move forward. While major divisive issues still remain to be resolved, the committee views developments such as the peaceful elections in May 1999 and the successful establishment of the Bougainville People's Congress as very positive signs that the aims and objectives of the Lincoln and subsequent agreements will be achieved in the not too distant future. The committee recognises the possibility that tensions could again erupt if there appears to be any faltering on the part of the PNG national government in its resolve to pursue the peace negotiations and to restore effective civil administration to Bougainville.A chapter of this report is devoted to evaluating the role of the truce and peace monitoring groups in Bougainville since monitoring operations began in December 1997. The important contribution of both groups to facilitating the peace negotiations, and the neutrality with which their responsibilities have been discharged, have been widely recognised. Acknowledging that the PMG operation is not an open-ended commitment, the committee has recommended that clear guidelines for phasing out and eventual withdrawal of the PMG be developed in conjunction with our regional partners in the peace process steering committee.Australia is by far the largest donor of external aid to Papua New Guinea and Bougainville. For 1999-2000, the estimated total PNG aid program amounts to $328.9 million, which includes aid to Bougainville of approximately $21.5 million. Since 1991, Australia has contributed around $45 million in aid to Bougainville, and projects currently under way or planned represent a commitment of some $66.3 million. These projects have been listed in appendix L of the report.Clearly, however, Australian aid could not possibly—and should not—meet the entire development and reconstruction needs of Bougainville. It has been Australia's approach to work in consultation with the PNG and Bougainville authorities, as well as with Bougainville communities and their leaders and NGOs in the design and implementation of aid projects for Bougainville. The main focus for Australian aid remains on the priorities determined by PNG and the Bougainville people—direct assistance to the peace process, rebuilding of damaged or destroyed infrastructure and restoration of essential services in the priority areas of health, education and agriculture.The committee also endorses the aim expressed in much of the evidence received— that of making sure there is a Bougainville-led recovery in which a wide cross-section of the people of Bougainville have the opportunity to benefit from the `peace dividend'.At various times during the inquiry, the situation in East Timor was raised in the context of its potential to affect the level of assistance to Bougainville. Earlier this year, reassurances were given that there were no plans to divert aid from Bougainville. (Time expired)13:12:0010505Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—This inquiry into Bougainville, titled Bougainville: the peace process and beyond , was difficult in that the situation and personnel in PNG and Bougainville were constantly changing. In the middle of this year the peace negotiations were conducted against a backdrop of acute political instability at a central government level which culminated in the sudden resignation of then Prime Minister Skate in July. The Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade encourages the new Morauta government to keep Bougainville firmly on the national agenda.To say that most people in Bougainville want peace is stating the obvious. I do feel that there is a genuine desire for reconciliation. The people are tired of war and destruction and of the waste of life and personal property. Many are conscious that at one time Bougainville was the most prosperous of the PNG provinces. Today they see the infrastructure of the island in ruin. The healing process will take a long time, and it has been put to me that, until the grieving commences, which it has not as yet, there can be no real progress towards lasting peace.Other speakers have highlighted different aspects of our inquiry and especially our visit to Bougainville. The question of aid and how it is directed—whether there has been too much emphasis on large projects and whether priority should be given to village type projects—is difficult as conditions, not the least of which is the terrain, make the question of aid to Bougainville extremely complex. But there should be a maximum involvement of Bougainvilleans in all phases of aid projects.I want to highlight the work of the peace monitoring group which, in my view, has made an outstanding contribution to the peace process in Bougainville. It is ironic that, at this time as we are reporting on prospects for peace in Bougainville, Australian forces are in a neighbouring country, Timor. Just as Bougainville has been plagued by war and there has been no quick solution to the conflict, so I believe there will be no quick solution to the Australian presence in Timor.The peace monitoring group consists of Australian, New Zealanders, Fijians and Vanuatuan defence, police and civil personnel. Its mix of nationalities and experience has made the peace monitoring group a unique organisation, with each nationality and occupation bringing a range of cultural backgrounds and skills to the group. For example, it was put to us that in many cases it is easier for the Bougainvilleans to relate to the Fijian and Vanuatuan personnel than to the others but, as Australia is the main contributor, it is the Australians who have had the major impact. Different from other peace monitoring groups, the personnel are unarmed and a difficult situation must be negotiated.I was immensely impressed with the dedication of the Australian personnel I saw there, given their understanding of the complexities of the situation and their maturity of approach. It made me immensely proud of the defence and civilian personnel of the peace monitoring group. The trying conditions on Bougainville, the delicate political climate and Bougainville's isolation have made being part of the operation a challenge for every member. It is a challenge that all have risen to.No comment would be complete without noting the tremendous role the women of Bougainville played and continue to play in the rehabilitation process. The committee agrees that the effective participation of women in all phases of the peace process is essential. One area that I was particularly interested in was this: as Bougainville rebuilds, so also there will be a need to rebuild such things as archives. At one time Bougainville had excellent libraries and archival resources.Australia holds many records of administrative archives, reference collections and artefacts and I was pleased with the recommendation that funds be made available for rebuilding the archives and library collections of Bougainville by locating relevant material held in Australian collections and either copying the records or making them available to the Bougainvillean authorities in some other ways. It must be stressed that the future of Bougainville is a matter for negotiating between the Papua New Guinean government, the people of Bougainville and their leaders. We wish them well in that process. In commending the report to the House, I wish to place on record my appreciation of the work of the committee secretary, Cliff Lawson, and the secretariat staff, who all did an outstanding job in assisting the committee with its inquiry and in assisting us to bring down this report to the House today.13:17:0010506Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—The task of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in its inquiry and report Bougainville: the peace process and beyond was to assess (1) the prospects for the peace process; (2) the contributions made by the truce monitoring group and peace monitoring group; and (3) Australia's development assistance for reconstruction and rehabilitation. I would like to thank the members of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee secretariat—particularly the secretary, Cliff Lawson, who accompanied the committee to Bougainville in March 1999—for their assistance in the preparation of the report. I think the report will be an excellent reference for anyone with an interest in the Bougainvillean crisis.I would also like to thank all those who assisted with our trip in March: the Royal Australian Air Force, who allowed us to hitch a lift on a Hercules to the island; the peace monitoring group, who provided us with transport in Vietnam War era, orange Iroquois helicopters; and the High Commissioner, David Irvine, and the Third Secretary, Sarah Storey, who looked after our travel. Brigadier Bruce Osborn, a previous commander of the peace monitoring group, was also very helpful. Without their assistance we could not have carried out that part of the inquiry, the visit to Bougainville.There have been two previous reports on Bougainville by the committee and both were far-sighted in their recommendations. The 1991 report recommended program and project aid instead of budget support. That recommendation was adopted. The 1994 report advised that there could be no military solution to the conflict in Bougainville and that secession through military methods was not an option. Again, that was a far-sighted recommendation. Unfortunately, it was not adopted. Ironically, the Sandline affair of early 1997, once resolved, actually gave new life to the peace process in Bougainville. It led directly to the talks at Burnham in July and October 1997.The important point to make is that Bougainville has been peaceful for two years. Most Bougainvilleans have returned from refugee camps to their communities. While the peace process does not always keep to the schedules previously agreed, I was encouraged by the commitment shown to the peace process. The committee's conclusion in March and again in this report was that the peace process was moving forward despite occasional setbacks. Important factors here are the largely bipartisan support from Port Moresby for long-term arrangements in Bougainville, the importance of restoring law and order on the island, the difficulties in the disposal of weapons, the phased withdrawal of the Papua New Guinea Defence Force and the importance of basic communications and transport to the peace process. To give you an idea, we had consultations at various points on the island and people had walked for four or five hours just to come to the consultations with us.Australia has helped underpin the peace process of Bougainville by facilitating meetings between the parties and with the peace monitoring group and by development assistance from AusAID. Australia spends about $7 million on peace related activities and transport. This assistance is accepted by all parties.The peaceful elections in May this year and the establishment of the Bougainville People's Congress are all signs that the basis is there to establish a permanent settlement for Bougainville. Regarding the second part of the inquiry, the truce monitoring group and the peace monitoring group have helped prevent any outbreaks of violence and have acted as stabilising influences in Bougainville. The peace monitoring group comprises only 300 unarmed personnel—about 245 from Australia and the rest from New Zealand, Vanuatu and Fiji. The peace monitoring group is unarmed, neutral and actively disseminates information about the peace process—all of those points are important. All parties recognise the peace monitoring group is not a permanent presence and that its exit is linked to objectives and not a date. The ministerial statement of June this year indicates there will be a phased reduction in the peace monitoring group at a time to be decided in the future.As a previous speaker, the member for Fadden, mentioned, Australia is the largest contributor to aid in Bougainville. We will spend over $100 million in the five years up to mid-2003. Some examples of this aid are $9.7 million on Bishop Wade School and $6.7 million on the Buka hospital, both of which we visited; $8.5 million on 80 first-aid posts and double classrooms; $7.3 million on rehabilitation of the coastal trunk road; and $5.5 million on construction of wharves at Kangu and Mamogoto Beach.Restoring the infrastructure which was destroyed during the violence is a massive task. There were some concerns about bias raised. In fact, the projects are based on priorities set by the Papua New Guinean government. The committee found no evidence of bias in the delivery of aid. The committee, in this report, is also interested in aid being delivered as smaller community based projects, and there are a number of recommendations that deal specifically with that issue. I commend the report to the House.13:22:0010507Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I too would like to add my thanks to Cliff Lawson and the secretariat for the excellent job they did with the report, particularly Cliff in organising and accompanying the delegation to Bougainville. I would also like to commend the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Commit tee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade for his contribution and leadership in relation to this report.I do not want to go over the ground covered by my colleagues. However, there are a couple of things that I want to mention. It is a matter of concern to me that, in the two peacekeeping deployments undertaken in the term of the Howard government, there have not been finite objectives set and clear timetables for exiting. Indeed, one of the recommendations made, recommendation No. 5 of this report, addresses this issue. We can debate whether or not it was possible to do that, but I do highlight to the House an element of concern that I have about the failure to set clear objectives and finite exiting times.Like other members, I am certainly impressed with all those in the peace monitoring group we were able to visit and the role they are playing. What a courageous decision it was to actually send them in unarmed. I think a number of us were concerned that they were unarmed, although this was one of the real keys to success. I got into trouble with some of my colleagues for suggesting that, should the situation in East Timor develop, there would be a tendency by Australia to lose focus on Bougainville. I regret the situation in East Timor, but I also want to emphasise, as it is emphasised in the report, that Australia must have a commitment to ensuring that the peace process realises finality in Bougainville.Another issue I want to raise is the issue of aid. Australia has been most generous in its aid commitment to the people of Papua New Guinea. But, in making extra commitments to the peace process and reconstruction in Bougainville, it is clear that the money is coming out of what would otherwise have been allocated to other provinces. I believe that there ought to be a peace dividend, as has been mentioned. That is, as many people as possible in Bougainville should experience the benefit of peace and be able to get on with their lives. I also think it is appropriate for the Australian government to make an extra commitment to that peace process, not take it out of the existing $328.9 million allocation. I know it has been the practice of the previous government to do it, as it is the practice of this government, but I suggest that we ought to make extra commitments over and above what we would have otherwise made.Clearly the future of Bougainville should be in the hands of Bougainvilleans. The degree to which the province can exist with a greater degree of autonomy than it previously did will be part of the solution to that problem. But that problem is in the hands of the people of Bougainville, as well as the Papua New Guinean government. I commend the report. I think it is a very useful report, as my colleague has mentioned. This report will be a useful reference for anyone who wants to acquaint themselves with the history of as well as the situation in Bougainville.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Does the member for Fadden wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?10508Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.105081050813:26:0010508Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report entitled Eight Treaties Tabled on 11 August 1999—Report 25 , together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.FB6Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSON—The report I have just tabled deals with eight treaties that were tabled here on 11 August this year. This group of proposed treaties covers a range of subjects from double taxation agreements, through the Food Aid Convention to the Articles of Agreement of the IMF, to the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts. In all cases we have recommended that binding treaty action be taken, as was proposed by the government. We also made some additional comments on some of the treaties. I understand my colleague the honourable member for Lyons will make some comments on consultation issues in the treaty making process in his remarks on this report today.Two of the proposed treaties that were tabled originally on 11 August have not been included in this report because we want to continue our inquiries. Those two are the proposed termination of the social security agreement with Britain and the revised text of the International Plant Protection Convention. We look to reporting on those two matters later this year. I have advised the relevant ministers of that.Report 25 is the eighth report we have tabled this year. One of those reports—the big one I suppose you would call it—the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment, reported on a significant international issue. Another report dealt with a seminar that the committee held here in Parliament House on the role of parliaments in treaty making. The other five reports have examined treaties or different groups of treaties.It is likely that there will be another three reports tabled before parliament rises this year. Hence it is appropriate to say a few words about how the process we are conducting of reviewing treaties seems to be operating. The committee does continue to provide an opportunity for interested organisations and individuals to make comments on the text and national interest analyses tabled for each proposed treaty action. We send out a good number of copies of this material each time after tabling. We hold public hearings on all the treaties that are tabled in the parliament and, if we find there are issues that need further attention, we sometimes delay tabling the results of particular views. The committee does receive considerable assistance in its work from ministers and their officials. That does not mean, of course, that they agree with everything we say in our reports, but we appreciate their assistance.Today I would like to talk briefly about two of the recommendations in the report. The first one concerns the double taxation agreements. We note that the Australian Taxation Office, each time it negotiates a double taxation agreement, now consults with members of a panel that represents government, the accounting profession and business. We believe that there would be value gained by including the country specific business councils in the panel's deliberations. Plainly those bodies comprise companies that do business overseas in that particular jurisdiction, and we think they have a contribution to make in formulating these double tax agreements.Regarding the IMF treaty, we believe that the operations of the IMF and the World Bank have changed significantly since they were set up in the mid-1940s. These changes seem to have led to some duplication of effort and perhaps certain higher costs are being passed on to borrowers or developing countries via the loans they make. Were they to do something to rationalise the two parallel tasks that they perform, we think there could be some savings made in administrative overheads and either that could be passed on in the form of less burdensome loans or indeed the donors' funds would perhaps go further. We have recommended that the Australian government should actively support reform of these two important bodies with a view to reducing duplication and waste and with amalgamation as a longer term goal.We are asked to report on proposed treaty actions within 15 sitting days of their being tabled here. Depending on the program of parliamentary sittings, this period can be as little as five or six weeks. Today is in fact the 15th sitting day since these eight proposed treaty actions were tabled on 11 August. That is less than seven weeks ago.13:31:0010509Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—This is the 25th report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in just over three years. In that time there has been an election, so that gives some indication to the House that this committee's workload is reasonably heavy. I do not think we waste time or sitting periods; we certainly get through the work. This report, as the committee chair has said, deals with eight treaties that were tabled in the parliament on 11 August 1999. We recommend that binding treaty action be taken in all cases, and we have made some additional comments in relation to that.The treaties committee has always raised the point that consultation is a very key issue in relation to the treaties being discussed by Australia and we want consultation to take place right around the country with those individuals and groups that are going to be affected or touched by these treaties. I think it took some time for this message to get around the bureaucracy. In our early reports to the parliament, the committee certainly raised the issue of the need for sponsoring agencies to consult with interested individuals and organisations about proposed treaty action.In this report I think there are two significant examples of consultation. One is with the Australian Taxation Office in connection with the double taxation agreements with South Africa and Malaysia. The first time the ATO appeared in front of the committee in the last parliament, I do not think the committee was very impressed. Our report at that time reflected the concerns that the committee had in relation to what sort of consultation had taken place on the double taxation agreements that were in train at that time.The ATO's consultation processes for the double taxation agreements it negotiates now appear to be working quite well, and we would like to suggest an additional element to this process. We have recommended that the relevant business council be included in consultations on country specific double taxation agreements. We believe that those business councils are in touch with all aspects of trade between Australia and our various trading partners and that they would therefore make a useful contribution to the discussion when an agreement is being put together. I think that is a reasonable recommendation by this committee. There are, of course, sensitivities in negotiating such agreements. Many people, including private citizens, who have a variety of interests are involved in those negotiations as well. I think business councils would not even be involved where they could breach confidentiality in the process. We believe that the inclusion of this sort of representation would certainly increase representation and would give assistance to all those negotiations.The other example of consultation is not such a happy one. Since 1994 there has been an agreement with the European Community about scientific and technical cooperation. This report includes our review of a proposal to amend that agreement by extending its operations. During our review we were told that the Department of Industry, Science and Resources, DISR, maintains continuing contact with scientific organisations, major public sector research organisations and various researchers. While this is a good thing, there was no evidence that there had been any consultation with any of these organisations or individuals. It is unlikely that anyone would oppose this agreement, but it represents a significant widening of the range of the 1994 agreement, so we believe that there should have been consultation with interested bodies and individuals working in the various areas covered by the amending agreement. We would certainly seek that that should occur in the future. We find it hard to understand why the department has not had any discussion on this matter with the sorts of people and groups which it referred to in evidence. We have not made any recommendations about this matter other than to agree that the agreement should be proceeded with. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Does the member for Wentworth wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?10510Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Private Members' Business105101051013:37:0010510Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—I move:That the House urges the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to conduct a full-scale inquiry into the medical profession, focussing on:(1) anti-competitive practices, particularly among surgeons and specialists;(2) reform of medical training practices, particularly within the College of Surgeons; and(3) areas where the medical profession does not comply with trade practices law.When the parliament passed its national competition policy in 1995, there were high hopes that this would clean out anticompetitive practices in the professions. This was particularly the case for the medical profession and the notorious practices of the College of Surgeons. In some areas the ACCC has made good progress, especially in its scrutiny of contracting arrangements in hospitals. For instance, in December last year it won an important case to prevent price fixing by the Society of Anaesthetists. However, a key area of public concern is still unresolved: the anticompetitive practices of the College of Surgeons.We hear a lot of concern in this parliament about the costs of health care, the length of waiting lists and the paucity of health funding. These problems have been made much worse in Australia by restrictions on the supply of specialist doctors. These restrictions massively inflate the income of specialists within the College of Surgeons club. In nearly every specialty area Australia has many fewer surgeons than the recommended specialist to population ratio. Most people think that the New South Wales Police Commissioner, Peter Ryan, is Australia's highest paid person on the public payroll. In fact, they should have a look at some of the money earned by surgeons in our public hospitals. Medical specialists have formed a club, which keeps their numbers down and their prices up, and incomes of more than $800,000 per annum are not uncommon. To adapt a Paul Keatingism, `Never get between a surgeon and a pile of public money.'This decade we have heard a lot of noise about competition policy but too little action when it comes to the College of Surgeons. These practices are a deliberate anticompetitive strategy by the college. It is organised along the lines of a club: those inside the club protect their interests at the expense of those outside the club. They have adopted feudal training practices, virtually torturing prospective specialists such is the degree of difficulty in gaining entry, making it as hard as possible for anyone to join their club and thereby the public money benefits that come from it. Australia does not have medical academics, an unusual state of affairs. At huge public expense, the club is allowed to run our university medical programs. We have medical doctors running our university programs, not medical academics. This is not a standard of public accountability and competition policy that applies to any other profession in the country.The ACCC has made noises about this issue for long enough. It needs to establish a full inquiry into the College of Surgeons to effectively bust up the club. Australia needs an independent system for the training of medical specialists. This would produce a higher number of surgeons, more competition, more reasonable prices, smaller waiting lists and, of course, better service for the public. We need to make the medical profession as a whole much more accountable and transparent. For instance, the recent report by the independent pricing tribunal on the New South Wales health system showed that there is virtually no data relating to the salaries, costs or efficiency of service of visiting medical officers. As in any other area information is power, and the medical elite has all the information, thus, in this sector, they have all the power.The public interest can only be advantaged by greater transparency. Quality decision making in the public sector relies on quality information. Con Costa, the President of the Doctor's Reform Society was quoted in the Bulletin on 2 March 1999. He said:I've had specialists come to me complaining about the colleges that make the decisions about who gets the treating hospital positions. It's not an open and transparent system. It's still an old boys' network. Getting them to speak out is very hard because it's a small and closed circle. That works to disadvantage specialists and patients.I point out the hypocrisy on the part of the Howard government. If this government showed anywhere near the interest in the closed shop of the medical profession in this country as they did in the crane rates on the waterfront, then, by now, Australian medical consumers would have been far more advantaged. They might have seen this club busted up, some injection of competition and some benefits across the health sector. Most of all, action needs to be taken by the ACCC, and the purpose of this motion is to urge that action as soon as possible.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?UK6THOMSONMr Kelvin Thomson—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.13:42:0010511Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—The three issues we are talking about here today are, really, the issues of gaps, the lack of availability of services provided by specialists and the costs to the public purse. Quite clearly, as the member for Werriwa pointed out, it all comes back to providing competition in the marketplace. I agree with nearly everything the member for Werriwa said except, perhaps, the matter of timing. At least there is a procedure put in place to look at this issue. As I said, I think there needs to be a review into the whole process of selecting and training not only specialists but GPs, because we also have to look at the delivery of services, not just the costs. Having said that, there is an enormous number of dedicated specialists practising in rural and remote areas of Australia, and they are not getting the support they should from those who should be providing it. Obviously the colleges are big players in this equation. Certainly there is anecdotal evidence of the colleges allowing some hundreds of people to sit for the entrance exams to the courses at the colleges—collecting their money, I might add—knowing full well that the number accepted is predetermined and has nothing to do with the level achieved in such exams; the predetermined number may well be that only a few are accepted out of a couple of hundred who may sit for them.I believe the teaching hospitals also have a role to play in this, and they have a long way to go. Getting back to the delivery of services to rural and remote Australia, there is a perception among medical students who are interested in pursuing a specialist's career that, if they do go and do some of their pre-learning in the bush, they are cut out of the loop. They are no longer under the eyes of the specialists looking after an area and they have no chance of achieving their goals. So the teaching hospitals certainly have a role to play in encouraging people to go and gain the very valuable experience they will get by practising in a rural hospital.Debate interrupted.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 1.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day's sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed on that day.Statements by Members105121051210512Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—It is with great sadness that I report to the Australian parliament the passing, in the early hours of last Friday morning, of one of God's great priests, Reverend Father Joseph Elias of St Joseph's Maronite Church, Croydon. I was privileged to know Father Joseph. He was a beautiful, humble and very holy man. Tragically, Father Joseph was taken from us far too soon: he was only 35 years of age.Father Joseph had a very special relationship with the youth of his parish. My very dear friend, Norah Elias, Father Joseph's cousin, told me last evening of the extraordinary vigil of the hundreds of young people who flocked to his bedside at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, in the hours prior to his passing—such was the warmth, affection and love for him.Father Joseph's funeral service will be held tomorrow at Our Lady of Lebanon Church, Harris Park, and I know that the church will be overflowing. He will be buried in Lebanon, where he began his theological studies. To his mother, Mrs Maria Elias, his brothers Tony and George, his sisters Suad, Salma and Violet, and to his dear cousin Norah, my wife Adriana and I extend our prayers and deepest sympathy. It may help you to know at this time that we, too, share your loss.They have loved Father Joseph in life and they will not forget him in death. May eternal light shine upon him. May he rest in peace. Amen.1051210512Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—Last Saturday I was pleased to be the independent scrutineer for the draw of a house and land giveaway in Queanbeyan. This was a project of Queanbeyan Business Promotions Inc. which was designed to encourage people to shop locally in Queanbeyan. Pat Gagel, Bernie Baz and John Lea were the driving force behind it.The idea was that, for every $100 you spent in a participating business, you had one ticket in the draw. Between 300,000 and 400,000 tickets were in the cement truck supplied by Monaro Mix for the draw on Saturday. Catherine Garrett from Prime Television was there to select the winning ticket as the cement mixer churned them out. I certified to the fairness and impartiality of the process.The winner was Jim Cooper, a local small business operator who is, in fact, a born and bred Queanbeyan person. Jim, his wife, Jenny, and their four children are very fitting winners, as they are currently renting a house and were strong supporters of the project from the outset. Some people in this place might know Jenny, as she often works as a casual Comcar driver.It is great to see hardworking people have some luck go their way. Congratulations to Queanbeyan Business Promotions, Pat Gagel and Bernie Baz, and to all the participating businesses which put money up. Congratulations also to Queanbeyan City Council, which guaranteed it, but, as it turned out, they did not need to put any money in. It was a suc cessful promotion which will help to bind the businesses of Queanbeyan together better in the future.1051310513Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—As you are well aware, Mr Speaker, the Port Adelaide Magpies will play in a grand final this Sunday. They are of course the most successful Australian Rules football club of any code in Australia. Remarkably, they have played in 71 grand finals, of which they have won 35. On Sunday, hopefully that will be 36.We face arch-rival Norwood, whom we treat with great respect and an equal amount of mutual loathing. There will be a full house at Football Park. Our coach, Stephen Williams, our captain, David Brown, and 21 selected Port Adelaide Magpies in the traditional guernsey will represent the Port Adelaide area with great distinction. I am sure the newly appointed chief executive officer, Paul Belton, a former great player himself, is hoping for a successful induction as the premiership CEO.Football Park in Adelaide is the most spectator friendly stadium in Australia. Port and Norwood are sure to please not only the spectators; I am sure the SANFL chiefs, Max Basheer and Leigh Whicker, will be absolutely delighted with a screaming full house and an acknowledgment of their sound administration in past years.Here's hoping for a Port Adelaide Magpies win.1051310513Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—Following on from the member for Port Adelaide, I would like to continue on a sporting note.Congratulations must also go to Lleyton Hewitt and Wayne Arthurs for their wonderful victories in the Davis Cup semifinals in Brisbane, before a record crowd of 11,000 people yesterday at the ANZ Stadium. It is the first time since 1990 that the Davis Cup has been held in Brisbane, and Lleyton Hewitt's outstanding victory against the world No. 2 deserves special mention, as does the Davis Cup final, which will be held in France.Wayne Arthurs also deserves special mention for his outstanding achievements in beating Safin. John Newcombe certainly has a very difficult task ahead of him in choosing the people who will be in the finals.I would like to wish Pat Rafter, who is a Brisbane person, a speedy recovery, and I would like to acknowledge the wonderful work done by the Coops Tennis Centre in my electorate in Carseldine, particularly their outstanding work with the development of youth and tennis and in producing past and present champions in the world of tennis.1051310513Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTONYK6IsaacsALP00—I would like to congratulate a fine Catholic girls secondary college in the electorate of Isaacs. Of course I refer to the Kilbreda College in Mentone. On Sunday, 15 August, a significant achievement was reached in the wonderful history of this great school: its 95-year celebration. As reported in the recent newsletter by its much respected principal, Sister Helen Toohey, over 300 women from at least eight decades of this century gathered, and they renewed acquaintances, retraced the past and told of their hopes for the future. Sister Toohey reported in the newsletter:It was wonderful to feel the happiness, and hear some of the stories that have shaped so many women of "Strength and Kindliness." The 11 candles lit during the liturgy represented each of the ten decades, with the eleventh representing our hope for the future.Sister Toohey assures the school community that planning for its centenary in 2004 is well established, and a great collection of ideas has already been forthcoming. I would like to again congratulate this great school on achieving 95 wonderful years. I look forward to assisting it in whatever way possible to celebrate its centenary in five years time.1051310513St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—I rise today to pay special tribute to a great Australian from my electorate of New England—Mr Chandler Coventry AM. Chandler Coventry was born in 1924 and died on the 14th of this month. He lived the first 35 years on the family property outside Armidale, Rockvale Station, which was home to his large collection of contemporary Australian art.He started collecting in 1941 as a schoolboy. Even then, he bought and sold work in a manner that foreshadowed his career as a commercial art gallery director. He moved to Sydney in 1965. Soon afterwards Coventry opened his first Sydney gallery in Hargrave Street, Paddington. His eye for contemporary artists, particularly ones just establishing themselves in the art world was second to none. Coventry also became the catalyst in the late 1970s for the Armidale community to build an art museum to house both the Howard Hinton collection and his own collection. By donating a large proportion of his Rockvale Station collection to the New England Regional Art Museum, he ensured the continuation of his passion.Coventry's outstanding contribution to the visual arts of Australia was recognised in 1980 when he was made a member of the General Division of the Order of Australia. His death marks a significant loss. However, his collection ensures that an important legacy remains to the people of Armidale and the wider Australian community.1051410514Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—From time to time in this place various members utter certain forms of madness. Fortunately, these forms of madness are most often confined to our domestic political debate. When they do extend abroad, however, the airing which they get is usually of a type which does not go to the core of the interests of our neighbours in the region. However, unfortunately the same cannot be said of the recently proclaimed Howard doctrine, as outlined in last week's Bulletin . As part of the Howard doctrine, which supposedly will underpin our future defence and foreign policies in the region, Australia will now be running around the region as some sort of apprentice to Wyatt Earp in pursuing a broader security policy interest on behalf of the United States.One of the things that could be said about persons who start naming doctrines after themselves is that self-delusion has already started to exceed rationality. Certainly Presi dent Monroe comes to mind when he started to proclaim the Monroe doctrine in the United States some time ago. The regional reaction from every capital in Asia—from Beijing to Bangkok—to this statement which came out of the Prime Minister last week about a Howard doctrine and about acting as a deputy sheriff to the United States has been one of puzzlement and concern. At difficult times like this it is important that Australian Prime Ministers and foreign ministers exercise restraint in their language on sensitive questions of foreign policy and security rather than engaging in wild Rambo statements. (Time expired)1051410514May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—I have for a long time held great admiration for the volunteer workers of the Australian Red Cross. On the Gold Coast, the 600 Red Cross volunteers give a tremendous amount to our community in many ways. I rise today to pay tribute to members of the Red Cross Gold Coast and Hinterland Regional Committee who recently coordinated an art exhibition to raise money to run a youth suicide prevention strategy—the Life Skills program for young people.I had the privilege of officially opening this exhibition. The keynote speaker for the evening, Raylee Taylor—who herself lost a son to suicide—spoke on the community approach required to help reduce Australia's unacceptably high suicide rate. Money raised from the sale of paintings has been directed towards the Life Skills program. To Dorothy Spriggs, Gold Coast and Hinterland Regional Committee President, her band of dedicated workers, and to Judge Gordon Foulds, your input into such an event has resulted in a tremendous achievement. The Gold Coast Red Cross is doing a tremendous job locally to assist in reducing youth suicide rates. I commend their efforts which are in line with the federal government's whole of community approach to lowering youth suicide rates.I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate Red Cross on the launch of a new service, Telecross. I understand the Gold Coast is the first region in Queensland to receive funding from the Home and Community Care Program for such a service. This funding will enable someone special to call an elderly person every day for a friendly hello and a chat to check everything is okay at home. (Time expired)1051510515Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—There is a chronic and desperate need for the federal government to commit to an adjustment package for the Latrobe Valley. I noted with interest the remarks made by the member for Eden-Monaro in this place on 26 August. He was able to extract from the federal government a commitment for the Eden adjustment package of around $3.6 million to assist people in his electorate who had lost 145 jobs. I think that is an appropriate response for the government to make in those circumstances.However, there has been no commitment made by this government to the people of my electorate in the Latrobe Valley despite our having lost more than 10,000 jobs in a community of just 70,000 people. The cost to our community of national competition policy has been horrendous, but not one cent out of the hundreds of millions of dollars which have gone to Victoria as compensation for national competition policy has gone to the Latrobe Valley. It is a shame and it is absolutely disgusting that nothing has been done by the federal government to insist that that money go to where the greatest need is. Even the Productivity Commission has acknowledged that, of all the regions in which they have analysed the impact of national competition policy, only the Latrobe Valley—that is, the Gippsland region—has been assessed to have had a negative impact. The government should act now because our community cannot afford any more delays. We are suffering and we need this assistance immediately.1051510515Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—I am delighted to bring to the attention of the House the fact that the best team won on Saturday. I would like to acknowledge the wonderful achievement of the North Melbourne Kangaroos in winning the grand final on Saturday, which I had the pleasure to attend. We were undoubtedly the best team. Carlton were not even in the game. We have demonstrated that the Kangaroos have been the best team in the AFL throughout the 1990s.I am delighted to see that the Prime Minister has joined us, because I also have to remind the Prime Minister—with the greatest respect of course—that the Melbourne Storm won the rugby league grand final on Sunday. It was, I am sure, a great game. The Melbourne Storm are an outstanding team. In only their second year in the rugby league competition they have won the grand final. It just shows that Melbourne is the supreme city in this country for sport.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Ministerial Arrangements1051510515Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Treasurer will be absent from question time this week. He will be attending the World Bank Development Committee, World Bank and International Monetary Fund annual meetings in the United States, then travelling to Ireland and the United Kingdom to take part in meetings with government representatives, financial institutions and senior business people. The Minister for Finance and Administration will act as Treasurer in his absence. I also inform the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be absent from question time this week. He is attending the United Nations General Assembly in New York. The Minister for Trade will act as foreign minister during his absence from parliament this week.Questions Without Notice105151051510515Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY PE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Defence. Did the Prime Minister discuss with you the Howard doctrine of Australia playing a deputy role in our region in support of the United States's sheriff role before he outlined it to the Bulletin last week? Have you worked out the force structure, operational and budgetary details of this arrangement with the US Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Or do you agree with the Chief of the De fence Force, Admiral Barrie, who told Laurie Oakes yesterday that the Prime Minister's formulation was `a matter for him'? Are you going to sensibly ignore the Prime Minister's doctrine as well?10516Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—I do not believe that the article displayed the probable thoughts of the Prime Minister.1051610516Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister seen press reports claiming that he sees Australia acting in our region as a deputy for the United States? What is his response to these reports?10516Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for Menzies for his question, which gives me an opportunity to comment about both the article in which the expression was first used—which I might say is a very good article in the Bulletin magazine—and the way in which comment has subsequently been made about that article by other correspondents. I make it clear that the government does not see Australia as playing the role of a deputy for the United States, or indeed any other country in the region, and neither does the government see the United States itself playing a role as a regional policeman, although continued American involvement in the region is vital to our security. That expression was used in the interview by the correspondent himself. As happens, such words can mean different things to different people. I want to make it clear, therefore, that it does not accurately represent my position, particularly in the context in which it has been used subsequently by others who have been critical of the government's foreign policy stance in the light of the failure of earlier foreign policy approaches to Indonesia over Timor.The situation in East Timor was that security in that area had broken down with the most appalling violence, destruction was being carried out, deaths were occurring on a wide scale, and my view—and the view of the government—was that the region could not wait for the United States to take the lead in restoring security: it was a regional problem that the region itself should take a lead in managing. The government had increased the readiness of our armed forces in case peacekeeping was required and Australia was willing and able to cooperate with other regional colleagues in restoring order on East Timor and allowing the UN process, agreed with Indonesia, to go on.The government has made it clear throughout that we would not send forces to East Timor except at the request of the United Nations and with Indonesia's agreement. The government does not currently envisage other situations in the region that would require a peacekeeping response. Each and every situation has to be looked at on its own merits. East Timor was an exceptional situation: 80 per cent of the voting age population had opted for independence and their choice—as well as their lives—was threatened. Australia and the region, and the world as a whole, could not stand aside.As I made very clear in the Bulletin article, Australia makes absolutely no apology for the lead that it did take in relation to the East Timor situation, but it was, and remains, a lead taken in cooperation with our friends and neighbours in the region. An important characteristic of the multinational force in East Timor is that it is, as the name implies, multinational. The deputy commander of the force is an officer from the army of Thailand. In the past few days elements of the Philippines defence forces have appeared. There are contributions from the military forces of many other countries.It is worth reminding the House that at the very beginning of the crisis period of the very tragic East Timor saga a few weeks ago there were some in this country who were advocating that Australia should adopt a unilateral role—in other words, Australia should act alone; Australia should go in there irrespective of the consequences. We stood out very strongly against that. The course of events has vindicated the cool attitude that the government adopted at the time and the wisdom of the approach that was taken.It is also worth reminding the House that many of those, including some in the opposition who are now raising their voices in criticism of government policy, were themselves directly complicit in 13 years of foreign policy failure and neglect which, more than anything else, has created the situation that is now faced in East Timor. The reality is that no serious attempt was made by the former government to address the problem. It has been left to a coalition government to reverse 25 years of over-accommodation to Indonesia by governments on both sides of politics in this country.1051710517Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question to the Prime Minister follows the answer he has just given. Prime Minister, do you recollect back in September 1985, shortly after you became Leader of the Opposition, saying these things about the situation in East Timor:Generally speaking, I think that the preoccupation of the left of Australian politics with the events in East Timor has needlessly soured our relationship with Indonesia. It is just very much to our benefit and long-term interest that we have a better relationship with Indonesia.Then do you recollect the compere asking you this question:But the right of Labor politics, which happens to govern this country at the moment, some people would say bends over backwards to accommodate Indonesia. How would you bend over further?You then said:I don't think they bend over backwards. I think what they have really done is essentially left it in the pigeonhole because it is an internal embarrassment to them.Prime Minister, when you said that of the Australian Labor Party, did you mean it? And did the views that you expressed subsequently account for the failure on your part to press President Habibie sufficiently to allow peacekeepers in, and account for your failure to raise it directly with the President of the United States when you were there in July?10517Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In answer to the Leader of the Opposition, I would have said words to that effect in 1985 and I do not deny that for a moment. I have said before in this House, and I will repeat today, that I think over the last 25 years governments of both political persuasions have got it wrong in relation to East Timor. I do not exclude myself from that, nor should you exclude yourself from your complicity in your government's failure.If we are to have a remotely serious discussion in this parliament and in this nation about issues of this kind, it would be helped by people on both sides acknowledging occasionally that the views they may have held some years ago have been demonstrated by the passage of events to have been wrong. There has been a bipartisan view in this country for a long period of time that, if push comes to shove on East Timor, you give in to the Indonesians. If we are honest with each other, that has been the attitude. That was the view that was taken by earlier governments. I think it is fair to say that the government which immediately preceded the current one practised this with rather more vigour and enthusiasm, and rather more weight was placed upon the relationship between Australia and Indonesia, no matter the cost, than could be said perhaps of either the Hawke government or the Fraser government.Events have moved on. Indonesia has changed. There are democratic stirrings in that country, which of course played a role in the change of heart of Dr Habibie when he decided, surprisingly to many, in February this year to have a ballot on either autonomy or independence.The Leader of the Opposition is perfectly entitled, in the nature of political combat, to drag up some remarks I made in 1985, and I do not walk away from those remarks any more than he should seek to walk away from remarks he made in earlier years. We can have a debate about the past; we should also have a debate about the present and, most importantly, a debate about the future. What has happened is that the world has changed, both in Indonesia and in our region. As a nation and as a parliament, we have to try to come to grips with that.As a country, we have sought—under the supervision of the United Nations, with the acquiescence of the Indonesian government and in cooperation with our regional friends and neighbours—to play a constructive role in East Timor. We can spend the next few weeks and months in the blame game or we can endeavour to come to terms with the changed strategic reality that now faces this country.We are a nation that has a permanent interest in and a permanent commitment to this region. We also need as a nation to have a close relationship with Indonesia. Of course it is a matter of concern to me as Prime Minister, as I know it will be to the Leader of the Opposition, that relations between Australia and Indonesia, at certain levels, are under strain at the present time. That is something that in different ways different members of this parliament will endeavour to address. That strain was inevitable, given the stance that we took in relation to East Timor. We took a balanced approach. We endeavoured to engage the rest of the world about the fragility of the situation in East Timor. When it became apparent that the Indonesian government, through a combination of circumstances, was not doing enough to restore order and security in East Timor, we set about securing the support of the United Nations for the intervention of a peacekeeping force.It has to be said that if you look at the other peacekeeping force exercises of recent years, on this occasion the Security Council acted with remarkable speed. It acted with a speed which far exceeded the speed with which it acted in relation to trouble spots in Europe, in Africa and in other parts of the world over the last decade. That is a tribute to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. It is also a tribute to the diplomatic work of the foreign minister of Australia, who has displayed a very considerable professional application on this issue.Can I say again we seek good relations with the people of Indonesia. We seek a close relationship with that nation of 211 million people but as I said when I became Prime Minister in March 1996 and in relation to the rest of the world, that although we sought good relations with all countries, we had certain values and attitudes as a nation to propound and defend. We have continued to do that. We do not seek ever to impose our views on other countries; we do not seek any kind of regional police role. We seek rather to act in concert with friendly nations within our region to achieve mutually shared objec tives. Peace and security in East Timor is a mutually shared objective of Australia, of the Philippines, of Malaysia, of Thailand and of many other nations in our region, and I remind the House again that it is very much a multinational force. Australia is proud to be able to lead it but it is a multinational force, and I pay tribute to those nations that have made major contributions to it.1051810518Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—My question also is addressed to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to press speculation about significant changes to welfare payments in the context of analysis of social welfare policy by the minister, Senator the Hon. Jocelyn Newman?10518Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to that question is yes, it has. Can I inform the House that Senator Newman will be delivering a major speech on welfare policy this Wednesday. It will canvass a lot of the broad issues affecting welfare policy. I would not be the least bit surprised if some of those who sit opposite find a certain resonance in the speech. I think the member for Werriwa will find something in the speech for him as will quite a number of others. If we can have a sensible debate about welfare policy the country will be enhanced as well because you may find a little bit of common ground there about some common mistakes that have been made in the past about some of the dangers of ultra dependency on welfare. So come and join a very sensible debate.Can I make it clear there has been a lot of unfounded and inaccurate speculation about the speech's contents. Contrary to reports, it will not contain any specific proposals regarding individual income support measures. The government remains very strongly committed to a compassionate, effective social security safety net, and the speculation of recent days ought to be seen in the context of that ongoing commitment.1051810518McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. Minister, has your department received reports from our overseas posts of reactions by regional governments, regional foreign policy commentators and regional media to the announcement in the Bulletin last week of the new Howard doctrine? What has been the tenor and balance of these reports?10519Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the honourable member for the question. To my knowledge we have not received and I have not been advised of any comments with regard to the matter that you refer to, and I think the Prime Minister has adequately addressed the issue.1051910519Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, would you inform the House how the new business tax system will improve the competitiveness of the farm sector and in particular how it will assist farmers to pass on their farms to their children? What is the government's response to suggestions that such assistance may not be implemented in full?10519Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I should say at the outset that I believe the government's new business tax system will make a very significant contribution to an already very sound taxation and investment climate in this country which in fact is probably at its best for many years. This will undoubtedly build on that very real platform. Of course, that investment and the appropriate climate that we are now seeing is having a very positive impact on job creation as well as improving prosperity in real terms. We are seeing an improvement in people's living standards and a real improvement in prosperity of a sort that we have not seen for a very long time in Australia.This is good news that ought not be lost in the current climate. It will add to the significant gains that will flow from the removal of indirect taxation—of a sort that Labor wants to defend—from their broken tax system, the wholesale sales tax, and it will also see an improvement building on those big cuts in personal income tax that will come with the introduction of the GST next year. When you couple that—from the point of view of rural and regional Australia, which goes to the heart of the question asked by the member—with the very substantial cuts in diesel fuel for the transport sector, you really get quite a shot in the arm for the bush. It is an initiative that Labor's spokesman for transport and regional development, the honourable member for Dickson, absurdly dismissed a little while ago as a $7.8 billion pollution boost over the next three years. That is Labor's view of the sort of major taxation reforms that we are now introducing. Perhaps it could be said that if she does not understand the value of these enormous cuts in the cost of fuel, and therefore transport, in regional areas, rural and regional Australians do understand their value. They do understand the benefits that will flow.The capital gains tax changes announced last week are also profoundly important. They will be of great benefit to all small business and to farmers. Not only will the rate be halved—slashed—but 75 per cent of any capital gain on active assets will be exempt from CGT. This will very significantly alleviate the tax liabilities that often arise when it is time for the transfer of a family farm from one generation to the next. This tax burden often prevents the transfer from occurring before the death of the owner, and it is good farm policy to turn that over.In addition to that is the reform that has been widely welcomed in rural Australia and right across the community, particularly by the small business sector. If a farmer or a small businessman disposes of an active asset that has been held for 15 years or more by, say, selling or gifting it to a child and he or she is 55 years of age or more and intends to retire, the whole gain is exempt. Moving around rural areas over the weekend I found that has been incredibly widely welcomed. It is a very good reform. It means that the dead hand of the ALP's capital gains tax regime has been lifted—only presuming that they cooperate with good policy and pass it.This builds on the government's very good record of assisting with the intergenerational transfer of family farms. For example, the retirement assistance package for ageing farmers, which gives farmers in difficulty immediate access to the age pension or similar benefits where they gift their farm to the children, is very useful. To their credit, the states have helped as well with exemptions from stamp duties.Suggestions that somehow or other this important set of reforms might be resisted or tampered with ought to be exposed for the very opportunistic approach that they represent. The acid test on the Leader of the Opposition is to pass these measures expeditiously—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—The acid test or the assets test?4K4Mr ANDERSON—I said the acid test is to pass them expeditiously and to ensure that the benefits flow and flow quickly.Distinguished Visitors1052010520Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, from the United Kingdom. The delegation is led by the Rt Hon. Robert Sheldon. Members of the House will have opportunities to meet members of the delegation over the next two days. On behalf of all members I extend to them a very warm welcome.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice105201052010520Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Defence.Government member interjecting—8I4Mr MARTIN—That's why the black.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Cunningham will come to his question.Honourable members interjecting—8I4Mr MARTIN—What can I say?DT4CREANMr Crean—How can he? They're picking on him.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—That's right. Picking on losers.8I4Mr MARTIN—What can I say?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Cunningham will come to his question.8I4Mr MARTIN—Next time; next year.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Two-time loser.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Cunningham will return to his question and the Prime Minister will allow him to do so.8I4Mr MARTIN—My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. Will the minister confirm that the government delayed making a critical approach to the United States government and in particular the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Henry Shelton, to request him to directly pressure General Wiranto to put a stop to the TNI-assisted militia violence and accept international peacekeepers? Is it not a fact that—according to media reports—General Shelton did not receive a formal approach from the Australian government until Wednesday, 8 September, a week and a half after the violence began to escalate? Minister, why did you delay?10520Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—The government has made a number of representations, both personally and by correspondence, to the American government and has had ongoing discussions on a very regular basis. In fact, I spoke to the Secretary of Defense on Saturday. All these matters have contributed to the very great success of the deployment in East Timor.1052010520Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. The government's new business tax system has been overwhelmingly supported by small business. Would you inform the House of the key benefits that will be received by the small business sector from this new tax system? Must the package be implemented in full if small business is to gain maximum benefit from these reforms?10520Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Dawson for her question. There is no doubt that we have to get on with these reforms and have them implemented as a package. There is also no doubt, as the member will well know, that there has been a very positive reaction from the small business community and they naturally enough want to see these reforms supported widely through the parliament. That is hardly a surprise to the member. She is very active on small business issues within her electorate. She regularly raises small business issues. Like members on this side, she has had a bit of experience of small business and knows that if our small business community does well then that is good for the country as a whole. It creates more jobs and provides more opportunities.The package provides a halving of the rate of capital gains tax. What a fantastic boon that is to the small business community. We are going to halve Labor's capital gains tax figure. There will be total exemption from capital gains tax for small business for those who have held active assets for 15 years or more and are retiring—a complete exemption. That is putting incentive back into being a person in small business. There will be substantial cuts in the company tax rates, to 30 per cent.Opposition member interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—On this side we all take credit for a great package. I do not mind saying that everything that comes into the cabinet gets the small business ruler put over it. When the Prime Minister asked one of his cabinet ministers to be the minister for small business, it was the first time we had had a small business minister in the cabinet. That means that you get good decisions for small business. That means jobs and investment, something that you on the other side were never able to produce. So we have encouragement for venture capital industries. That is great wherever they are throughout Australia. I was at a function in the ACT last week. They are working very hard on the IT industries. That is great for this region—again more jobs. We have a similar exemption for Australian widely held superannuation funds through a pool development fund—another positive.Another measure which is great for small business is that we are reducing red tape for small business. Red tape is the bane of the life of anybody running a small business. Its reduction is great because small business people want to spend time running their businesses instead of filling out red tape, and we are delivering on that commitment.I will give you another example, 75 per cent of small businesses will not have to worry about the annual stocktake. Again, that saves them time and saves them having to get the kids to come in on a weekend to help out with the stocktake. That is a real benefit to the small business community. Of course, we have kept a very good scheme for depreciation for small business.Wherever you might have been in the country in the last few days, Mr Speaker, you will have noticed that small business want this package. What they want from the Labor Party is for the Leader of the Opposition to finally have a policy. We want him to stand up for something, and the something we want him to stand up for is the policy we have for small business. He is probably harking back to Labor's last campaign on capital gains tax in the last election, when they wanted to increase capital gains tax. It might be a hard decision for him to agree with us to cut capital gains tax by half, but it would be in the interests of small business—and that means jobs.1052110521Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Did the minister see the statement in yesterday's Sunday Age by Dr Peter Carr that the minister advised a group of representatives of the Royal Australasian College of Radiologists that he was considering extending Medicare rebates to MRI machines under contract on the night of the 1998 budget? Does the minister recall that Dr Peter Carr declared a personal interest when the minister indicated his intention to the meeting? Did the minister leak the proposal to extend Medicare rebates to MRI units under contract at this meeting? Will the minister now release the minutes of the meetings where Dr Carr was present?10521Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for her question.Mr Crean interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—I was asked a similar series of questions—one in particular on 16 February—about the contents of the discussion of this meeting. At that time, I said of the college that:. . . in very general terms they put a point to us, but we did not tell them what we intended to do.That is absolutely correct. I have a letter—which I will table—from the Royal Australasian College of Radiologists dated 15 May, three days after the budget, in which Acting President Dr John Earwaker states:The agreement has been endorsed by the College Council with several reservations, which were communicated to you by the President, Professor Sage . . . at your meeting last week.Therefore, my statement in parliament is backed up by the letter three days after the budget. It was discussed in the most general of terms, and the college did put concerns to me. However, I have seen the allegations in yesterday's Sunday Age , and they are incorrect. I now table a statutory declaration, signed today, from a member of my department, Penelope Rogers, who attended that meeting. Amongst other things, it states:Some participants at the meeting tried to press the Minister for details, including issues around the supply side of the measure. The Minister made it clear he understood their interest in these issues but, as his Department had repeatedly advised the RACR, that was a decision for the Government and he was unable to disclose details of the measure.Further, I received an email—that I will also table—from my staff member at the meeting, who no longer works for me. It states:He—meaning the minister—agreed that details of any proposed restrictive measures would not be revealed until after the budget was announced, and at no stage during this meeting were the details of the restriction of MRI machines discussed. At no stage during the meeting was the mechanism for how the budget would be restricted divulged by the Minister.She finishes her email by saying:I will be seeing my solicitor tomorrow morning to put this into a stat dec.I will make that available to the House when it becomes available to me.So Dr Carr's comments are therefore incorrect. I also say that his comments that he had a conflict of interest are not correct. He did not make such a divulsion at the meeting. That is in the email from my staff member, and it is also my recollection. I would be deeply concerned if I knew that someone at the meeting had a potential conflict of interest. I was advised by the Health Insurance Commission just several minutes before coming into question time that, under this circumstance, they could advise me that Dr Peter Carr himself is under investigation by the Health Insurance Commission and his comments should be seen in that light.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—The minister has tabled a number of documents. Would he please table the minutes of that meeting.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga does not have the opportunity to speak unless she wishes to ask an additional question.1052210522Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Could the minister inform the House of his recent announcements and proposals for the wool industry? What has been the response to these announcements?10522Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the member for Wannon, who, amongst many other things, serves as chairman of the backbench government committee on the wool industry and certainly takes a very keen interest in wool industry issues. He, like all members of the government, is aware and concerned about the future of the wool industry, which has been going through very difficult times for some years now. The government commissioned the Wool Industry Future Directions Task Force, led by Ian McLachlan, which has made a number of recommendations about the future of the industry. Mr McLachlan acknowledged that about 80 per cent of what he had said in his report was made up of direct messages to growers so that they could make decisions about the future of their own wool growing businesses and the other 20 per cent involved industry restructures and would require some response from the government.Wool grower organisations have got together in a forum to talk about these issues, and they have made recommendations to me as to how the McLachlan report should be progressed. I am pleased to inform the House that last week I released an eight-point plan to deliver on the McLachlan report recommendations, and the industry has responded warmly to the proposals that we act quickly to determine growers' desires in this matter and to put in place an appropriate structure to service their needs in the future. There will be a grower ballot conducted on or about 25 February next year in which growers will have an opportunity to assess their requirements for the future and to make a decision about how much they are prepared to pay towards research and development, promotion and the other activities that are necessary to support the industry.A task force is being established to help prepare the questions for the ballot and to develop a business plan for the sort of services company that the industry may need to support its requirements in the future. I have also announced that I propose, subject to the outcome of the ballot, to lower the wool tax levy from four per cent to three per cent by 1 July 2000 and, if the ballot decides accordingly, there will be further reductions at the time that the new services corporation is established. So we are moving quickly to implement the McLachlan committee recommendations. Indeed, the timetable I propose is shorter than the task force recommended. We will also be giving the growers an early chance to indicate their desires in this matter so that there is no unnecessary expenditure on establishing structures which may not meet the growers' needs. This progress will be appreciated by growers. They will have an early opportunity now to decide on the future of their industry so that they are able to make decisions about their own businesses and the future of what has been arguably Australia's greatest industry.1052310523Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, given that you have used the parliament to say that Dr Carr was wrong, will you now table the minutes of your meetings with Dr Carr or do you intend using the example of Jeff Kennett by trying to hide the truth until it is forced from you?10523Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I would think that my answers to this question over seven months show that, in fact, we have been highly proper. We introduced a new technology that has been of enormous benefit to the public in a way that overall saved money to the Commonwealth budget, so we should be commended for it.As to the minutes of the meeting, it was an informal meeting late in the evening. I asked my department if they had kept minutes. They said to me today that they had not, which is why I went about this morning collecting statutory declarations, which have been tabled.1052310523Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, last Friday the Australian Industrial Relations Commission abolished the tally system for the meat industry, which will be of benefit to consumers, meat processors and beef producers in my electorate of Groom. Would you inform the House of the implications of this decision, and what does this demonstrate about the government's reform agenda and those that oppose these reforms?10523Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Groom for his question. The decision by the Industrial Relations Commission to effectively abolish tallies is a landmark decision for the entire beef industry and the meat processing industry. The practical consequence of that means more exports and more jobs, and that is fantastic news for rural and regional Australia, and it just demonstrates that, when it comes to significant reform, this government is on the job and we are doing things which are practical and worth while for rural and regional Australia. The decision does away with 43 pages of prescriptive and inefficient work practices in the federal meat industry processing award—Mr Bevis interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—The interjections just show you that the ALP, as usual, was backing the AMIEU and the ACTU, even though it was costing jobs and denying rural and regional Australia investment. It just again demonstrates that when it comes to looking after rural and regional Australia there is only one side of politics—Mr Bevis interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—You don't need a former secretary of the teachers union to be telling rural and regional Australia how to run a—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Brisbane and the minister will stop their across-the-chamber interjections at each other. The minister will respond to the question.WI4Mr REITH—The ACTU and the ALP are very disappointed at a decision which is great news for rural and regional Australia. The reason they are disappointed is that this is another example where the government's policy of award simplification is producing real benefits. It was only commonsense and good sense that the member for Dickson agreed with the government over its Workplace Relations Act to set up a framework of reform that would actually deliver real benefits to people in rural and regional Australia. The cattle council and the NFF said last week:Sanity prevails at last. Industrial Relations Commission sinks tallies in the meat processing industry.They went on to say:The Australian beef industry has been working towards this result for over a decade. We were not prepared to rest until this archaic, inefficient and impractical method for determining pay levels was removed from the award. We are delighted with the outcome.They went on to say:Removal of the tally system will allow much greater flexibility within the workplace, contribute to greater competitiveness for the meat processing sector and ultimately impact on the viability of processing establishments. A stronger, more financially secure processing sector delivers greater profitability for the entire beef-cattle industry.Instead of whingeing about the result, the Labor Party ought to acknowledge that this is a great win for rural and regional Australia and they ought to desist their ridiculous campaign against a process, namely award simplification, that is providing real benefits. This is just a great win. The government nominated meat processing as one of our key areas for reform. We have achieved a major breakthrough in a landmark decision and it is great news for jobs in the country.1052410524Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I congratulate the Kangaroos on their great win over the weekend.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition might like to use another occasion to do that, and come to his question.DT4Mr CREAN—My question is to the Acting Treasurer. I ask him whether he has seen yesterday's warning by John Ralph about the problem of individuals corporatising themselves:I've said to the government, you have the choice of either tackling it . . . or you do nothing about it and you say it's okay for everybody, and then I think it might have a cost to revenue of something like 3 billion dollars.Acting Treasurer, will you guarantee that the government will close off this $3 billion tax loophole?10524Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I did see those comments by John Ralph yesterday. I can indicate that clearly an important area of tax minimisation is where individual employees incorporate or where they are paid as contractors. It is a fundamental principle, I would have thought, of all tax systems—certainly of our tax system—that income that is derived from the personal exertion of an individual cannot be diverted to an interposed entity in order to reduce that individual's tax liability. It would be inequitable if some taxpayers could reduce their tax liability by using those interposed entities to divert income while ordinary wage and salary earners pay the correct amount of tax.Australia currently relies upon the general antiavoidance measures of part IV(A) of the tax act to combat those practices. What the Ralph review recommended was that all personal services income derived in an employee-like manner be taxed under the PAYE system. That in fact was recommendation No. 7.2. This would stop individuals from incorporating or being treated as contractors to reduce their tax liability. I understand that the Treasurer, at his press conference on releasing the Ralph report on business tax reform, indicated at that time that the government has given in-principle support to a measure which has been delayed for implementation until 1 July 2001. In other words, the government will not stand by and allow this to occur. Because of the need for further consultation with business and other interest groups, the Treasurer announced that the date of implementation for ensuring that this did not occur would be 1 July 2001.The honourable member indicated that there was a cost. The advice I have received is that the cumulative revenue cost of not undertaking recommendation 7.2 is estimated within the Ralph review to be about $2.5 billion over five years. That is up to 2004-05. So, yes, the government believes that part IV(A) at the present time covers this situation, but we will not stand by idly and allow tax avoidance or tax minimisation to occur in that way. That will be acted upon appropriately at a later point in time, and the legislation will show that.1052510525Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—My question is also addressed to the Acting Treasurer. Would the Acting Treasurer inform the House of any developments at the annual IMF-World Bank meetings currently under way in Washington? How is Australia assisting economic stability among the world's poorest countries?10525Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I am happy to respond to the honourable member for Makin by advising that the Treasurer and the Minister for Foreign Affairs today announced that Australia will make a new contribution to an initiative for the world's poorest nations so that they might escape the burden of debt. The Treasurer, as the Prime Minister announced earlier, is in Washington attending the annual meetings of the IMF and the World Bank and he has announced today that Australia will provide an extra $35 million to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative. This in fact will more than double our existing pledge. This initiative is a multilateral plan to provide debt relief to the world's poorest countries, provided they are pursuing IMF and World Bank supported reform programs. The additional funding is aimed at providing these countries with faster, deeper and wider debt relief to ensure that it more directly contributes to poverty reduction.The world's developed economies have a historic opportunity to help some of the poorest nations in the world to escape from crippling debt burdens. Writing off unpayable debt will free resources for poverty alleviation and will help these countries on the path to economic growth, which ultimately is in Australia's best interest. Of course, debt relief should not be at the expense of broader efforts to reduce poverty in developing countries. After all, lasting reduction in debt and poverty requires nations to adopt policies and to generate sustained economic growth.It is worth remembering that Australia is in a position to fulfil its regional and international obligations only because this government is managing the economy well and running responsible monetary and fiscal policies. If we were still running budget deficits, we would not be able to help our neighbours through means such as the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative. That would be bad for our less developed neighbours and, ultimately, that would be bad for Australia.1052510525Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Acting Treasurer. Can he confirm that no funding has been allocated to the major projects scheme, which replaces the depreciation allowance? And if your major projects scheme is completely unfunded, how do you propose to pay for it?10525Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I would have thought that the honourable member would have taken note of the Treasurer's statement in regard to major projects. I can recollect that the major projects scheme, in terms of support from this government, started from a report which the Prime Minister released at the beginning of the second week of December in 1997 under the then minister for business's initiative, Investing For Growth. A number of announcements have been made in the interim period where there has been a need to address what is good in a very major way for investment in Australia and for the jobs that flow from that investment. The government has been prepared to stand by those initiatives. The Treasurer, of course, recognised that, if there were a reduction in accelerated depreciation, that may have some impact on similar sorts of projects in the future.The program that was announced by the Prime Minister in 1997 has had funding; it is in the budget. As I said, a number of announcements have already been made, and that has been dealt with, from time to time, with initiatives that have come in. The initiatives to date have come through the Mansfield committee. Mr Mansfield, as I am sure all honourable members know, has played a very major role—and, dare I say it, a very significant role—in cutting through what might be described as red tape, in cutting to the chase and recognising what business wants and in putting forward what is good for Australia. The recommendations and suggestions that have been made have been taken up by the government.It is not the intention of this government to allow such projects to lapse in the future, and that is what the Treasurer has announced. As I have indicated, there is funding currently in the budget for similar projects. As and when such projects are forthcoming, rest assured that this government, in a sound and responsible manner—as it has operated its accounts to date—will deal with such projects as it has dealt with them in the past.1052610526Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of the arrangements being put in place for mail to be sent to and from our service men and women in East Timor?10526Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I thank the member for Riverina for her question. She has a lot of interest in this subject, not the least because she has two very important Defence bases in her electorate—the home of the soldier at Kapooka and Forest Hill at Wagga Wagga. I am sure that many members of the House are concerned as to how mail will be delivered to our troops in East Timor and how mail will get back from East Timor to Australia. Historically, it has always been an important link with loved ones back home, but mail always is that link to family and friends back home, and that has been the case with every deployment that Australia has been involved in.I am delighted to be able to announce that Defence will be paying the cost of personal mail sent both to and from our service men and women in East Timor. This will include letters as well as packages with the normal rules applying in terms of those sizes. Defence are in discussion with Australia Post in relation to the establishment of a freepost system, and that will be in place as soon as Australia Post can logistically put that in place. Of course, they will be sending the account for that postage to the Department of Defence.For the benefit of the members in the House, the mail should be addressed to the individual soldier, and their serial number or their rank is also important, if you have it. It should be sent to:Op StabiliseArmed Forces Post Office 5International Mail CentreSydney NSW 2890I give you those details because I think it is important that all members share the information as quickly as possible because it is important that we support both the members in East Timor and the family members—and I have met a few over the last few days—who are now well aware that their spouses are in East Timor. We should give them every support we can to ensure that they can maintain their links with family, friends and loved ones.1052610526O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—My question is to the Minister for Finance and Administration. Can the Acting Treasurer confirm that, under the government's business tax changes, family farms held as trusts will be taxed in the same way as companies?10527Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The Treasurer, as I have indicated on a number of occasions this afternoon, has released an enormous amount of information relating to business taxation reform. One of the proposals of the government in that reform is to get commonality and consistency with business entities to ensure that there is uniformity of taxation.The honourable member's question related to farms the title of which, I presume, is held by a trust. The honourable member may have been getting at the business of farming and whether that was operated by a trust. That was certainly my interpretation of that particular question. I can only say again that it is the government's intention to ensure that there is uniformity of business entity taxation, and that very much is what the reforms that were adopted by the government in the announcements made by the Treasurer last week actually get to.1052710527Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, would you inform the House of the government's plans to further build the social coalition with the business community, individuals and the non-government sector in providing better and more productive pathways for young Australians, particularly those young Australians who are disadvantaged and at risk?10527Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Macquarie for his question, and I want to acknowledge the great interest that he has in the government's programs to help young people. Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced the membership of the government's Youth Pathways Action Plan Task Force. This task force underscores the very substantial commitment by this government to making sure that every young Australian has a pathway from school to employment and from adolescence to adulthood.The Youth Pathways Action Plan Task Force will be chaired by Captain David Eldridge of the Salvation Army, who, as we know, did such a magnificent job as chair of the Prime Minister's youth homelessness task force. The members of the task force have been selected from a broad cross-section of the community representing business, government, academia, non-government and community based groups.The government has done a great deal already to build pathways for young people—from establishing for the first time an effective literacy strategy for young people in the early years of schooling, through rebuilding the apprenticeship system through New Apprenticeships, through the promotion of school industry programs and vocational education in the senior years of schooling and through programs such as the Jobs Pathway Program, Work for the Dole and mutual obligation programs. No-one can doubt the determination of this government to give every young person in this country the opportunities that they deserve. It is a matter of satisfaction to us that we are now seeing that teenage full-time unemployment is at historically low levels. This reflects the effectiveness of the government's programs in many areas, including the very strong stand we have taken in relation to junior wage rates.But more needs to be done. As we know there is a core of perhaps some 30,000 young people who are coming out of school with inadequate literacy and numeracy standards who are unable to get employment and who are experiencing very long-term unemployment at the present time. These young people need to have a proper pathway through school, and very often their problems need to be dealt with at a very early stage. One of the major objectives of the Youth Pathways Action Plan Task Force will be to advise the government on initiatives that involve early intervention to make sure that this group ceases to come out of school only to fall into the problem of longer term unemployment.The task force will strengthen existing pathways for young people. It will advise the government on improving early assistance to young people at risk. It will support families and communities to help young people and expand economic and social opportunities for our youth. We look forward to this task force to map out new approaches to tackling disad vantage and social problems. It is a measure of the commitment of this government that the Prime Minister has announced this very significant initiative at this time, given what this government has in place, because we are determined that every young person in this country will benefit from the government's concern for young people.1052810528Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Acting Treasurer. Is the chair of the Australian Stock Exchange correct in saying that John Ralph used work financed by the ASX to recommend a halving of the capital gains tax because Treasury would not pay for independent advice? Acting Treasurer, what analysis has Treasury done of the ASX material, and will you release it?10528Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The answer to the first question asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is no. The ASX has conducted a study on capital gains tax options for Australia. That study was undertaken by one Alan Reynolds, a senior fellow and director of economic research at the Hudson Institute. The study was funded by the ASX. It was an ASX study. It was not the Treasury's nor was it the Ralph committee's study, and the ASX study did not delay any finalisation of the Ralph committee report, as was suggested, I noted on Saturday, by the Sydney Morning Herald . The Ralph committee considered advice from a number of sources, and in considering that advice it ultimately formulated the estimates that were contained in the Ralph report. So I repeat again: it was an ASX report, it was funded by the ASX and in fact it was only one of a number of studies which were taken into account by the Ralph committee in getting to its conclusions.DT4CREANMr Crean—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will recognise the deputy leader. I believe the minister has completed his answer, but the deputy leader has the call.DT4CREANMr Crean—Well, he answered the first part of the question. If he has concluded now, he has not answered the question as to what analysis the Treasury has done of the ASX study and whether he will release it. Is he going to answer that?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.1052810528Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—My question is to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. Has the Queensland government provided detailed information and analysis of its so-called South-East Queensland Regional Forest Agreement? Is it a fact that some 80 jobs from the Boral mills in Queensland, including at Cooroy in my electorate, will be lost under the Beattie plan? Can the minister say if the Queensland government announcement appears to meet the National Forest Policy Statement objectives for conservation and the maintenance of a sustainable timber industry?10528Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I thank the member for his constant contact with me. He has three sawmills in the town of Gympie alone and his concern is with the welfare of the people employed there and the small business owners. As of about ten days ago, the Queensland government made an announcement relative to its position on the regional forest agreement process. As I stand here today, we have not received from the Queensland government, through its officials or through any other advice, any detail relevant to that particular proposal other than what has been seen in press releases and things of that nature. However, I have now available to me the agreement that was signed between certain interested parties and Mr Beattie, and that does give me some information. Also, last Friday, after about a week of federal officials contacting their counterparts in the Queensland department and not even having their phone calls returned, the officials had a meeting which in fact delivered very little information whatsoever. The Queensland officials were not too keen on having a return visit from our officials tomorrow.However, a few points of information are worthy of note. Under the agreement signed between three Green activist parties, the timber board and the Premier, we have been able to get the following information. First, all native forest harvesting is to cease after 25 years. This proposal is not consistent with the National Forest Policy Statement, which, as one of its authors, I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would confirm.Second, native forest reserve areas are to be increased immediately by 425,000 hectares and approximately 100,000 hectares are to be retained as production forest for the next 25 years to meet the Queensland government's promise of no reduction in sawlogs to the remaining sawmills after the Queensland government buy-out of Boral over the next two years. My advice from more perceptive sawmillers is that the 100,000 hectares retained for harvesting contain limited species, are of low quality and include significant areas that have been recently harvested. Their location will require excessive additional road transport for many existing mills, including those in Gympie. The Queensland government is to plant 10 million hardwood tree seedlings in plantations over five years to substitute for the resource loss through the total closing of the native forest area.Opposition members interjecting—SJ4Mr TUCKEY—The hear, hears came a little quickly. Ten million trees sounds a lot, but it represents plantings of just 2,000 hectares per year and approximately 30 jobs for two months each year. So, 500,000 hectares of native forest are to be closed to logging and replaced by 10,000 hectares of plantations. The private sector in Western Australia alone is planting at ten times this rate annually. For whatever reason, the private sector has shown little interest in hardwood plantations in south-east Queensland. It could be, on advice I have received from foresters up there, that the trees when planted do not grow very well. Furthermore, normal plantation practice to produce sawlogs requires thinning over the life of the plantation, which will reduce the original 10 million trees to 2.5 million at maturity. That is not making any allowance for fire or pestilence that might attack those trees during their growing period. Whilst the period to harvest must be 20 to 25 years—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—This is ridiculous!SJ4Mr TUCKEY—Oh, is it? Queensland has yet to prove that it can grow local species that produce millable and marketable saw and hardwood timber in under 50 years. I will let these facts speak for themselves.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is clearly an abuse of question time. The minister is making a ministerial statement. The fact that he is about to make a mess of yet another state agreement is of interest to us, but we would rather debate him than just have to listen to a statement.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition has not indicated under which particular point of order he is drawing my attention to the minister's comments, but I would point out to him that the minister is responding to the question he was asked.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—The other area of concern is that when we look at the figures, we see that in fact 328,000 hectares of forest were estimated to produce 84,000 cubic metres of sawlog. But the Queensland government now says that it can get that quantity for two years, 60,000 cubic metres for nine years and then a lesser quantity for 15 years—out of a mere 100,000 hectares of native forest. Of course, the government has international commitments in this regard and it is not surprising that they want to harvest every tree over 40 centimetres in diameter in this process. There is a grave threat to the sustainable yield situation. Finally, this is fairly evident when one reads the agreement where, under clause 2.15, notwithstanding that the Queensland government says it will guarantee quotas and make them tradeable, it is also taking up a first option over any sawmill or quota that any company chooses or attempts to sell. That means there can be only one buyer in Queensland and, of course, when the government buys those quotas, all the workers will be sacked. That is where this real agreement made in heaven is coming from.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper . 1053010001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:105309245BV5 R36 7T4 8T4 83N 83Y XW4 XS4 83A FI4 83MAdams Dick MP; Albanese Anthony MP; Crosio Janice MP; Ferguson Laurie MP; Hall Jill MP; Hoare Kelly MP; Kernot Cheryl MP; Lawrence Carmen MP; Livermore Kirsten MP; Morris Allan MP; Plibersek Tanya MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain citizens all around Australia draws to the attention of the House that the people of East Timor have overwhelmingly voted to become an independent and sovereign nation and the Indonesian Government has failed to fulfil its responsibility to maintain security in East Timor during the period of transmission to independence.We therefore petition the House to require the Government and all responsible Ministers to:(a) Withdraw Australia's original de jure recognition of Indonesia's annexation of East Timor;(b) Sever Australia's remaining military ties with Indonesia;(c) Support calls for international institutions including the IMF and the World Bank to suspend all assistance to Indonesia;(d) Call upon Australia's regional neighbours to bring all possible pressure to bear on Indonesia at a bilateral and regional level including through the APEC forum; and(e) To act urgently to establish a peacekeeping force to end the military created anarchy that exists in East Timor and to protect the security of all citizens of East Timor.Mr AdamsBV5Mr Adams(from 47 citizens)Mr AlbaneseR36Mr Albanese(from 1,682 citizens)Mrs Crosio7T4Mrs Crosio(from 130 citizens)Mr Laurie Ferguson8T4Mr Laurie Ferguson(from 601 citizens)Ms Hall83NMs Hall(from 78 citizens)Ms Hoare83YMs Hoare(from 168 citizens)Ms KernotXW4Ms Kernot(from 348 citizens)Dr LawrenceXS4Dr Lawrence(from 781 citizens)Ms Livermore83AMs Livermore(from 925 citizens)Mr Allan MorrisFI4Mr Allan Morris(from 1,811 citizens)Ms Plibersek83MMs Plibersek(from 2,674 citizens)1053042WF6Danby Michael MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that the people of East Timor have overwhelmingly voted to become an independent and sovereign nation and the Indonesian Government has failed to fulfil its responsibility to maintain security in East Timor during the period of transmission to independence.We therefore petition the House to require the Government and all responsible Ministers to:(a) Withdraw Australia's original de jure recognition of Indonesia's annexation of East Timor;(b) Suspend Australia's remaining military ties with Indonesia;(c) Support calls for international institutions to suspend all financial assistance to Indonesia;(d) Advise the Indonesian Government to direct forthwith the Indonesian Army to disarm the pro-Jakarta militia in East Timor;(e) Advise the Indonesian Government to authorise forthwith the UN to dispatch a peacekeeping force to East TimorMr DanbyWF6Mr Danby(from 42 citizens)1053099KL6Andren Peter MPTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Government of AustraliaThe petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, draws attention to the House that there is widespread community support for the Australian Government to help ensure a safe and fair Consultation in East Timor in August 1999 by:supporting a UN sponsored peace enforcement mission to be sent to East Timor urging Indonesia to immediately disarm and disband paramilitary groups in East Timor. urging the Indonesian Armed Forces to conduct a staged withdrawal from East Timor.We also ask on the Australian Government to: withdraw recognition of Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor pending the completion of a free and fair UN supervised act of self-determination suspend military aid and training to the Indonesian Armed Forces suspend Australian aid, and lobby against further IMF funding to the Indonesian government, until it stops its military violence in East Timor.Mr AndrenKL6Mr Andren(from 99 citizens)1053060OT4Charles Bob MPTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion `That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.'We, therefore, the individual undersigned Members of St Paul's Anglican Church, Boronia, Victoria 3155, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray &c.Mr CharlesOT4Mr Charles(from 60 citizens)105312583NHall Jill MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the friendly and professional service provided by the staff of the Australian Tax Office and Child Support Agency in the provision of facilities to pay tax and child support payments at the Tax Office and the provision of a freely available face to face service to answer taxation and child support inquiries.We draw to the attention of the House the intention of the Australian Tax Office to cease providing these services in the Newcastle Tax Office.We request the House to ensure that the Tax Office's proposed cuts do not proceed and that all existing services to the community will be maintained.Ms Hall83NMs Hall(from 25 citizens)10531157483ZIrwin Julia MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the endorsement by Australia of NATO actions resulting in the death of innocent civilians and the destruction of the sovereign country of Yugoslavia.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House(1) Withdraw immediately Australia's endorsement and support for the NATO bombing campaign;(2) Call for an immediate end to the bombing. (3) Call for the management of the diplomatic and humanitarian effort in Yugoslavia to be taken over by the United Nations;(4) Call for the reaffirmation of national sovereignty in international law and the condemnation by the United Nations of breaches of international law;(5) Participate actively in the reconstruction of Yugoslavia and the humanitarian effort required to repair the damage to human life and property as a result of NATO's campaign.Mrs Irwin83ZMrs Irwin(from 1,574 citizens)10531375XW4Kernot Cheryl MPTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of electors of Dickson points out to the House our desire to see community pharmacists retain their unique position in Australia's health system.We trust and respect our local pharmacists and are opposed to any moves to allow supermarkets to compete against them. We believe that the community benefits from pharmacies being owned by pharmacists.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House heeds our wishes and allows our local pharmacy to continue to play a vital role in our health care.Ms KernotXW4Ms Kernot(from 375 citizens)1053131736J4Sciacca Con MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament:We the residents of Australia call upon the Commonwealth Parliament, without further delay, to direct the Department of Defence to convene a full public Open Board of Inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Senior Cadet Under Officer CLARE FRANCES STOKES at Bulimba Station in far north Queensland on the morning of 20 June 1997.Furthermore, we call upon the Commonwealth Parliament to guarantee this inquiry is fully resourced and supported by the Department of Defence and is free from political interference.We also call upon the Commonwealth Parliament to take whatsoever steps are necessary—including amendment of the Defence Act and other legislation—both to bring all bodies responsible for and/or incorporating cadets within Australia directly under the Department of Defence and to establish clearly the place of cadets within the operational chain of command.Your petitioners humbly pray that the House, with all urgency, will beseech the appropriate authorities of the Commonwealth Parliament to act in accordance with these requests.Mr Sciacca6J4Mr Sciacca(from 3,173 citizens)10532201384CThompson Cameron MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia, draws to the attention of the House:-(1) The outstanding 102-year contribution of the former Queensland Agricultural College (now the Gatton Campus of the University of Queensland) to the advancement of rural industries and communities across Australia; and(2) The significance of change in rural Australia and the need for higher learning and research with practical links to the real needs of primary producers, rural communities and technologies that impact on them.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House:Expresses concern that the University of Queensland has failed to provide the Gatton campus with resources sufficient to maintain its leading contribution to rural Queensland so that its capacity to assist rural communities has declined; andCalls on the Queensland University: (i) to relocate its faculty of Natural Resources, Agriculture and Veterinary Science principally to Gatton (ii) to re-establish a sustainable student body at the Gatton campus by guaranteeing a minimum quota of 3,000 places; and (iii) to endorse ventures such as the proposed Animal Health Institute and a Centre for Rural Innovation to promote post-graduate study and research at the Gatton Campus.Mr Cameron Thompson84CMr Cameron Thompson(from 2,013 citizens)Petitions received.Private Members' Business10532QI4PRICEMr Price—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order in accordance with standing order No. 132. Were there any ministerial responses? I could not hear whether the clerk read out any ministerial responses to petitions.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The clerk has indicated that there were no ministerial responses to petitions. Private Members' Business105321053215:10:0010532Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—I move:That the House:(1) expresses its concern about widening inequality in Australia;(2) notes the increasing evidence that the earliest years of childhood are vital in determining the life chances of young people;(3) recognises that early intervention in the form of parenting programs, home visiting and literacy and numeracy programs are valuable in improving the life chances of young people; and(4) acknowledges that the Commonwealth has an important role to play in the funding of early intervention programs.I sound the alarm that Australia is fracturing into two sets of communities and is becoming a divided society. From the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s, income inequality in Australia scarcely changed. That is evidenced in a report by Access Economics which, in part, says:Australia has easily the largest rise in market income inequality, due overwhelmingly to increased employee earnings inequality.It goes on to say:Australia had the largest impact from transfers and direct taxes and almost offset the large increase in earnings inequality, so overall inequality rose only slightly.That is, compared with other OECD countries. The report concludes:Australian inequality rises over the two decades . . . although the changes are small or negative in the second decade when the Labor Party was in power.The reason for that is that, under the accords, Labor exchanged improvements in the social wage on the one hand for wage moderation on the other. A vital aspect of those improvements in the social wage was the boost to payments to low income families with children, associated with Mr Hawke's much maligned child poverty pledge. Overall in the period, income inequality did not deteriorate.The latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics confirm that inequality under this government has widened significantly. A major cause of this is unemploy ment. I point out that, in 64 communities around Australia, unemployment is above 15 per cent. In more than half of those communities, unemployment in the last 12 months has risen against a backdrop of falling national unemployment. So there are already two sets of communities in Australia: affluent communities and disadvantaged communities.As Professor Bob Gregory and Boyd Hunter point out in their ground-breaking analysis of inequality, `one half of Australia does not know how the other half lives' and `the economic gap is widening'. Consider this: today, one in five children are growing up in a household where no-one is employed. One in three children are growing up in a household where there is no male employed—no male breadwinner, no male role model in the work force.Never has a good education been more important to a young person's life chances than it is today and than it will be in the next 20 years. A 15-year-old leaving school today without qualifications and without good literacy and numeracy skills is being condemned in the information age to a life of casual employment interspersed with prolonged periods of unemployment. This is not the future that we want for our young people. How do we arrest this widening inequality and rising disadvantage? An important part of the answer lies in early intervention. I noticed during question time that the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has discovered the term. The debate on early intervention has been led in this country by a number of people but most particularly by Wayne Swan, the shadow minister for family and community services. He has been out in front, as has the Labor Party, on this important issue of early intervention.New evidence has shown that the first year of life is vital to a child's brain development, and that is why new programs are being conceived and developed. Home visiting programs are being developed, where nurses visit mothers at risk before the baby is born. They give advice and offer to follow up with home visits. There are positive parenting programs, where advice is given to parents in at-risk households on nurturing their children, nutrition and early development of the learning skills which are so vital to the life prospects of young people.Moving from that precious and important first year, there is a preschool program for disadvantaged children so that they can adapt to a formal learning environment as they enter the school system. Then, in the first few years of the formal learning system, there are literacy and numeracy programs where children with learning difficulties are identified and then helped through reading recovery programs. The Queensland experience is very encouraging. It shows that more than 90 per cent of the children who are identified with learning difficulties through the year 2 diagnostic net are able, after a period of support through the reading recovery program, to read at the relevant age of attainment. These are important programs.There is strong overseas evidence of the success of early intervention programs. Three programs in the United States which I will mention are: Project Head Start, the High/Scope Perry Preschool Program and the Chicago Child-Parent Center and Expansion Program. There is another program, developed in Israel, called the Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters—HIPPY. This program is now being implemented in countries around the world, including in pilot programs here in Australia. Analysis of the performance of these programs shows that they have been successful in improving the educational attainment of disadvantaged children, they have been successful in improving the ultimate earning capacity of the children who go through them, and they have been successful in preventing a life of crime and drug abuse. This does not mean that every child who goes through these programs comes out a winner, but they have been proven to make a real difference to the life chances of young people.Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention in particular to the results of the Perry program. Those results show that the investment in young children under that program has returned to the public $7 for every $1 invested. So the moral of the story and the experience of these programs has been that it is a very important and wise investment for a nation to identify the children at risk—disadvantaged children—and to help them through programs such as the positive parenting program and home visiting programs and, in addition, to help them in those preschool years and then on into the literacy and numeracy programs.The Commonwealth government of Australia has a role in investing in the nation's young people. In particular, it has a role in investing in the future of children from disadvantaged communities. Yet the Treasurer of Australia, Mr Costello, has declared, `I'm an income tax cut man.' He is obsessed with cutting the top marginal rate of income tax. The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs must be the greatest punisher and straightener since Governor Bligh. He abolished the disadvantaged schools program and replaced it with a literacy and numeracy program. He threatens to withdraw funding from schools which do not meet his expectations. He threatens to withdraw funding from those disadvantaged schools which desperately need the funding unless they live up to his expectations.Only Labor is committed to early intervention. It is a very late discovery on the part of the government. Only Labor sees the wisdom of investing in young people living in disadvantaged communities. Only Labor is serious about lifting disadvantaged communities out of a life of despair and is committed to breaking that cycle of despair. The leadership of the Liberal Party does not know how the other half lives. Their children will never attend school with the children from disadvantaged Australia. Labor knows about disadvantage. If the disadvantaged children of Australia can hold on for another two years they will get a government that truly understands. They will get a government that truly cares. They will get a government that will support them in their aspiration for a fair go, a brighter future and a crack at the very best jobs the nation can offer.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?3J4SAWFORDMr Sawford—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:24:0010535Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—I rise as a member of the government with a deep affinity with working Australians and with the battlers to whom the member for Rankin was referring. My own origins have something of the battler about them. My grandfather was a blacksmith who was ultimately made redundant by the advent of the motor vehicle and spent most of the last decade of his life as an itinerant labourer, finding work wherever he might. My maternal grandfather was a farmer who ultimately left the land with virtually nothing. He now lives a very humble life, but nonetheless he worked hard throughout his life. We battled. My father was a high school drop-out. I have never belonged to the ranks of the capitalists. We have never owned a great deal. We have struggled to pay off the mortgage of the family home. Yet I inherited something very precious and valuable. What was handed down to me was a legacy of values. While I have been an imperfect exponent of those values, they have nonetheless stood me in good stead.It is true that there is inequality of income in Australia. But I do not necessarily associate inequality of outcomes with disadvantage. The Access Economics report on poverty in Australia, which the member for Rankin referred to, does note differences in distribution of income in Australia. It also notes that the percentage of Australians living in poverty fell in the decade from 1984 to 1994. It notes that the richest 30 per cent of the Australian population experienced the largest increase in income taxes of that percentile in any OECD country in the last 20 years.Our objective is not to create perfect equality, which is a concept which ought to be reserved to the province of mathematics and physics. Our objective is to create the sort of community in which people who aspire to improve their lives have the opportunity to do so. This government recognises that early intervention has an important role to play in that regard. The evidence in studies such as the High/Scope Perry Preschool Study, which the member for Rankin referred to, provide fairly compelling evidence about the effectiveness of early intervention.This government has shifted the ship of state towards intervention at an early age rather than the predominantly curative measures that were necessary under the former government precisely because its policies created so many of the problems which needed cure. In pure expenditure terms, this government is spending $1 billion a year to support families under the family tax initiative, $1.1 billion for child care in 1998-99, $280 million for the Staying at Home package for carers, $25.6 million for partnerships against domestic violence and over $40 million for the youth suicide prevention strategy and the National Council for the Prevention of Child Abuse.That is in broad social policy, but literacy and numeracy will be the field regarded as a crowning achieving of this government and, in particular, of the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp. His principal legacy is the focus on literacy and numeracy which he has brought to the Australian education system. It was his inspired individual leadership which in 1998 produced for the first time in Australian history a national agreement on literacy standards. This government in 1998 committed $84 million over three years precisely for the preventive literacy and numeracy work which was so absent in the former government.Likewise, in other fields of policy, this government is not just discovering early intervention; it has been a feature of our policy work since we came to government. For example, the Minister for Justice and Customs recently released a report titled Pathways to prevention: developmental and early intervention approaches to crime in australia, which outlines the work of 10,000 different community programs based around the concept of early intervention. So I have no difficulty whatsoever in defending the government's record in the area of early intervention, and suggest to members of the opposition that they are somewhat late starters in this field.I turn to the first paragraph of the member's motion which calls on the House to express its concern about widening inequality in Australia. I want to do something today which is a bit heretical, but I genuinely stand up and defend inequality. There is something rich and lovable in the Australian egalitarian instinct. While the American soul gravitates towards liberty as its touchstone, the Australian looks to fairness. Concepts of mateship and `a fair go' are rightly regarded as emblematic to the Australian idea. The origins of the phrase `fair go' can be traced, the historians tell us, to the game of two-up, played in the colonies as early as 1804. In two-up circles, the cry `fair go' was used to indicate that the rules of wagering had been satisfied and to enjoin that the coins should be spun properly. Our ethos involves an intolerance of social pretension, a healthy irreverence for authority, and a sacred belief that every man or woman is entitled to fair treatment before the law.That should not, however, be confused with the fatuous and disreputable doctrine of social justice. As the historian McIntyre pointed out, the Australian concepts of equity and a fair go mean something less than equality. Equality does not have a lot of horsepower, in my opinion, as an analytical or moral tool. Similarly, inequality per se should not be accepted without question as a symptom of moral or societal failure. In fact, I would argue that the presence of some measure of inequality of outcome is essential to the preservation of a just society, and in doing so I believe that that proposition cannot be opposed, except by a reduction in the human freedoms and the individual liberties which are also essential to the Australian identity.It is argued that there is something morally wrong in one person living well while his neighbour lives poorly. In my mind, the greater offence would be to force all Australians to live at the same material standard, regardless of their gifts, regardless of their industry, regardless of their contribution or their willingness to shoulder responsibility and accept risk. We live in an open, free, competitive society which creates and respects a space within which private citizens can make private decisions. It has been suggested by an American philosopher that civilisation is the progress of society towards privacy; the savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe; civilisation is the process of setting man free from man.On any Saturday morning most Australians enjoy a measure of civilised freedom. They can go to the office and do some overtime or they can go to the RSL club and play the pokies. They can put a little extra in their superannuation fund or they can buy another carton of fags. They can paint the house and work on plans for an extension or they can go down to the TAB and put a good bet on a tip at Randwick. I am not making any judgment about the moral quality of the choice. I simply observe that every human choice has consequences.The idea that inequality of itself is a moral problem is ghastly in its overtones. It relegates human beings to a state of powerlessness before their circumstances which, aside from being insulting and demeaning, is patently untrue. There is a statistical correlation between poverty and a range of negative life outcomes, such as poor health, illiteracy, unemployment and life prospects generally. It is not true that poverty determines those outcomes. In the 1998 BRW list of the top 20 rich Australians, seven of the top 20 were immigrants or sons of immigrants who came to Australia with nothing.Human beings are not automatons, undifferentiated by skill, by will, by talent or by virtue. One cannot compel industry. At the same time, we must take steps to ensure access to opportunity. This government is rightly focused on early intervention but, in the same way that Pauline Hanson is not the mother of all Australian children, the Commonwealth is not the father.15:30:0010536Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—It gives me great pleasure to support the motion moved by the member for Rankin, which in turn supports the most ignored, unacknowledged and undervalued group in our nation—our young people, particularly those aged five years to 12 years. When you listen to the member for Parramatta, you would think that a huge amount of money has been spent on education, training and research in this country. But there is one piece of data that cannot be denied. In 1996, when this government came to office, three per cent of the nation's proportion of GDP was spent on education, research and training. In 2001-02, it will be 2.4 per cent. That is a cut of 20 per cent in anybody's language.Some 11-plus years ago, when researching for my maiden speech in this place, I discovered to my dismay that there were precious few references in the Hansard to early intervention, or in fact any references to the five-year-old to 12-year-old age group. Perhaps I should not have been surprised because I already knew in my former life as a school principal how powerless was this age group and the parents and the teachers who supported them. A media study in the early 1990s by the Sydney Institute of Technology, I believe, pointed out that up to 96 per cent of media references to children were negative. To confirm to this House that no-one can name a national institution or group that effectively advocates for the five- to 12-year-old age group is an indictment in itself.As contributors to this situation, governments—federal and state—business, unions, welfare groups, religious groups, sectoral leadership in education, universities, TAFEs and senior secondary schools, public and private, stand condemned. It is sad to report that now, as in the past, few members in this House have taken the needs of young children seriously. Perhaps this reflects the short-term activity of the political process and the lack of long-term planning. Perhaps it also reflects an attitude that the needs of young children ought to be attended to by state governments.All that, however, fails to recognise that in a very short time young primary age students become senior secondary students, university students, TAFE students and entrants to the labour market. The non-attended problems of the primary years, which can be largely remedial, become intractable and very expensive problems of young adulthood. That is the real essence of the member's motion and for that reason he deserves the support of this House. As the member for Rankin has correctly pointed out, there is a widening inequality developing in Australia. This is not a recent phenomenon; it has been developing over the past 20 or 30 years. Sadly, few have noticed, as endemic and entrenched high unemployment has plagued the developed world and taken the front page of newspapers.During the 1970s, it was relatively common to hear that around 10 per cent of our children had severe literacy, numeracy and social problems in their primary schooling. During the 1980s, the figure was 20 per cent. Campaigns were mounted around Australia, largely by primary school principals in various states, to alert education authorities and governments to the growing problems facing young children in their schooling. With a combination of denial, white-anting and misrepresentation, the claims were largely denied and not acted upon. During the mid- to late-1990s, the percentage of children experiencing severe difficulties was climbing up to 30 per cent. This figure is often quoted, even by the minister.That merits the question: how did state governments and their education departments manage to keep this situation away from public awareness? It was relatively easy, unfortunately. At the same time as 30 per cent of children were being identified as having significant problems, another phenomenon was occurring. The more able of the primary aged population were doing better than they had ever done. In other words, while 30 per cent were doing very badly, another 30 per cent were doing extremely well. As almost all data produced by state education departments was averaged out, the trend of developments of the less and the more successful failed to be accurately identified. Although the overall quantitative data seemed similar, the qualitative analysis was conspicuous by its absence.The single most important problem facing the five- to 12-year-old age group is a lack of resources to do the schooling job properly. Governments, both federal and state, have unfortunately seriously underestimated the resource implications of schooling for the five- to 12-year-old age group. It is a resource question. Until that question is acknowledged, the educational achievements of our young people will be diminished.The allocation of the educational dollar in Australia is based on past traditions, privilege and vested interests. It is certainly not based on a sound educational rationale. In some circumstances, there can be sound reasons for differential funding, but current policies affecting primary aged children are short-sighted. Each and every one of them will eventually become a senior secondary, a TAFE student or a university student, and they will be in the labour market. If unsuccessful, they will become an expensive liability to our nation. (Time expired)15:39:0010537Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—The member for Rankin has moved a very important motion expressing concern about widening inequality. I am a little disappointed that both he and the member for Port Adelaide seem to have a problem with amnesia—a memory problem in that for 13 years their side of politics presided at the power base and were in a position to address this position. People listening in the gallery and those listening to the public broadcast need to be reminded of that. Despite that, I am still prepared to support a member of parliament who wants to raise an important issue for public debate. I share his concerns about widening disparity in the provision of opportunity and I support the many actions of the current government to address it.One of the points that has not yet been made by other speakers is what is an important ingredient in this issue; that is, the role of families. We need to find ways to invigorate families. Having come from a hardworking primary industry family, I am forever grateful that I was given an opportunity for educational pursuits and an opportunity to develop myself. The essential ingredient in that was the encouragement provided by good parents. I am eternally grateful for that and am often quoted as having said, `Thank God for good parents.'Sadly, in our modern society there are many additional pressures on families as the support base and nurturer of youngsters whom the member for Rankin is concerned about. Families need to be reinvigorated in terms of their energy and direction. The formative years are the important years. As the second point of the motion says, `the earliest years of childhood are vital in determining the life chances of young people'. That statement is very true and has my support. Raising chil dren is an ever more complex matter in today's society. Parents have to compete with the interruptions of television, with the projection into their lounge rooms of incidents that may not be mainstream for that family, raising questions and tensions in raising children.There is a wealth of evidence which suggests that a poor start in the early formative years leads to a high risk of malfunction in later years. There is absolutely no doubt that the inevitable problems that that creates for society are now becoming evident. That is why I think it is hypocritical for members of the opposition to be highlighting the work of the current government which has gone out of its way—with the work mentioned by the member for Parramatta—to deal with early intervention, particularly in regard to literacy.I was raised by a mum who considered it a great adventure to read from a very early age, and not just `John and Betty' but adventure novels and Mark Twain and stories about life which left an impression on me at an early age. I was an avid reader. With the competition of television, sport and everything else, I had enormous difficulty with my own children in encouraging them to pursue that particular adventure. I was always horrified that my children spent their study hours with the television on or the radio blaring. These are examples of just how competitive it is for parents to instil basic values in their children.We need to do a lot more in encouraging public debate with respect to the operation of families and not be discouraged by those who say that it is an old-fashioned concept. Through the ages it has been proved that good parenting is the best intervention of all. While I support the member's motion, I suggest he take a better look at recent history in the last decade and give a lot more support to the government's direction in literacy in schools.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.1053815:45:0010538Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—I move:That the House:(1) acknowledges the financial sacrifice made by parents, one of whom chooses to care for their children full-time, rather than return to paid employment;(2) recognises the social and community value of this full-time care, including the reduced burden on Government expenditure;(3) notes the social pressure on many of today's women with young children to remain in paid employment; and(4) welcomes the Government's ongoing commitment to provide real choice for parents by easing the financial pressure on Australian families by (a) continuing low interest rates, (b) the new, fairer tax system and (c) specifically, recognising the value of full-time care by more than doubling of the tax free threshold for single income families with a child under 5 years of age.In moving this motion, I want to say at the outset that I do not want it to be misconstrued as being critical of many Australian families where both parents work full time. I do not subscribe to the view that, if you talk about the virtues or values of one particular set of circumstances, then you are by inference having a go at everyone who does not fall into that circumstance. That is the sort of negative and counterproductive thinking that says we ought not to have school awards nights because they might make those who are not recognised feel bad.The fact is that every community, whether it be a school, workplace or society in general, has much to gain in rewarding and recognising both effort and achievement. We must have goals and ideas to strive towards while at the same time recognising that not everybody has the opportunity nor the ability to achieve the same goals. I will never be a professional tennis player nor win a US Open, for example, but I can applaud the achievements of Pat Rafter, and perhaps his success will inspire my grandchildren to strive to reach those ideals.But what concerns me is that as a society we have spent several years putting enormous store in the value of paid work and career achievements. We have viewed contribution to the market economy and upward mobility as the `US Open' of life. But we have failed to put anywhere near the same emphasis or importance on the personal and social values of parenting. Family life has been relegated to some sort of side game that can be enjoyable but has little real value. In my view, raising happy, well-adjusted children should be at the centre of what we define as success. The choice to care full time for one's own children, particularly when they are young, should be seen as a very valid and worthwhile option.For many years in this country we were unable to even have a rational debate on families and raising children. Political correctness, as defined by the academics and Labor's elites, dictated that choice for women when it came to their children meant ensuring there was a long day care centre on every corner. To suggest that full-time care of young children is important and worthy was considered akin to suggestions that women ought to be shackled to the kitchen sink and cut off from society.Fortunately, we have moved a little on from then. But we still have a way to go to fully acknowledge that, far from being cut off from society, women who choose to care full time for their children are part of the backbone of society. The report of the National Council for the International Year of the Family found that the monetary value of unpaid work carried out in Australian households, together with volunteer and community work, is estimated at between $151 billion and $163 billion each year. The report found that families, and particularly women in their work and care in their households and extended family systems, provided the social infrastructure on which formal economies depend. Consequently, family policy should not be conceptualised as social expenditure, and therefore as a drain on national budgets, but as a social investment.If we were to fully recognise that our market economy, and therefore all paid work, relies on unpaid work carried out in families, we may see a shift in the economic value we place on parenting, let alone its social importance. The motion I am moving today is aimed at recognising the social investment made by families where one partner does decide to care full time for their children. I believe this House should validate and applaud such a decision, realising that in many cases it is a decision which requires financial sacrifice.In seeking to provide real choice for women, we must address the imbalance between single and dual income families. As the Australian Family Association points out, since 1976 wages have increased by 135 per cent while income tax imposed on the single income family has increased by 435 per cent. Fortunately, the Howard government has provided special recognition for single income families, both in our first round of tax cuts effective from 1 January 1997 and the new tax system to be implemented on 1 July next year. In our first round of tax cuts we increased the tax-free threshold by $2,500 for single income families. While this was welcomed, it was only a very modest gesture of recognition of the value of parents who choose to care for their children full time.The new tax system goes further by more than doubling the tax-free threshold for single income families to $13,000. Many members will recall that both these measures have drawn criticism from social commentators, academics and the Labor Party, many making the ridiculous claim that these modest gestures would somehow force women out of the work force. What many people fail to recognise is that most Australian women do not consider a career in the paid work force as being far superior to caring for their young children at home.A Brotherhood of St Laurence study a few years ago found there was a gap between the more highly educated sections of the community who view work outside the home as superior to the task of full-time mothering and the majority of women who are quite happy to stay at home and look after young children. The problem is that the perceived superiority of paid work is a message that seems to pervade a great deal of our mass media.I was reminded of this the other night when I was watching A Current Affair. There was a story on a Queensland woman who had written and published a highly successful book entitled How to pay off your mortgage in five years by someone who did it in three. As they talked about all the strategies she had developed, the reporter asked incredulously, `How does a countrywoman, a wife and a mother come up with something like this?' as if to imply a diminution of ability and intelligence with each of these nouns—countrywoman, wife and mother. I think that most women have experienced in some form or another the prejudiced view that unfortunately still exists that the decision to have their children is not a particularly intelligent one, that somehow our ability to think rationally and intelligently and to cope with the pressure is decreased after we have given birth, when in fact the opposite is often the case.As columnist Miranda Devine put it in a recent column she wrote, `Children are viewed as an unprofessional burden.' This is the issue of perception that all women, whether caring for their children full time or returning to paid employment, are faced with.The recent report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission on pregnancy and work, Pregnant and productive, outlined some of the ridiculous and outdated prejudices that still exist in the workplace. I will seek to discuss these in detail in a later debate in this House.The third part of the motion acknowledges that, despite the prejudices, there is a great deal of social pressure on today's women to remain in paid work. This is especially the case for professional women, and with ever increasing numbers of young women quite rightly pursuing further education and expanded career opportunities, this is certain to become a more significant issue. For many professional women, a baby is seen as something to fit in around quiet periods at work and to be placed in care at six weeks so as not to cause too much of a blip in their professional development.In my view, this is a sad ordering of priorities—not just sad for the child involved but also for the mother. When as a society we convey the message that if you are educated and if you are to be a productive member of society then motherhood is something best outsourced to a so-called professional, we are fundamentally undermining the self-worth of many women and robbing them of an incredible opportunity for fulfilment. This approach denies the indisputable benefits to both mother and baby of time spent together in early childhood, not to mention the flow-on benefits of this unpaid endeavour to the family unit and the community.Why is it that a woman who chooses to work at a day care centre and care for other people's children is seen to have an important job contributing to society but a woman who chooses to care for her own children full time in her house is not viewed in the same way? In fact, in many circles the latter is almost frowned upon. It is a sad fact that even to raise the issue of full-time motherhood as a legitimate and worthwhile pursuit for young women—as the Victorian Premier did recently—is to invite the scorn and derision of many elites.As I said at the outset, this motion is not about being critical of women who choose to work full-time. It is about recognising all options as legitimate choices. The fact is that so many women who entered the labour market under the Labor government did so because they had to for economic reasons, not by choice. This motion is about putting parenting and the huge range of skills that go with it at the centre court of public and social life. I am not suggesting for one moment that motherhood alone brings complete contentment and fulfilment for all women. But I do believe that our families and therefore our communities will be made stronger when young women realistically view the option of caring full time for their children as a valid and worthwhile pursuit and when all women, with professional careers or otherwise, are able to make that choice without enormous financial and social penalty.That will taken some shift in public attitudes and practices. But I am proud to be part of a government which has made advances in recognising the value of one-income families and ensuring that Australian families have more of a choice when it comes to the care of their children.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! Is the motion seconded?VK6VALEMrs Vale—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:54:0010541Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—I commend the member for Forde, Kay Elson, for putting forward this private member's motion regarding the care of children. I know that the honourable member has a long and abiding interest in the welfare of children. I also congratulate my colleague the member for Rankin on his private member's motion which the House just dealt with—again regarding children and their nurturing and development. Earlier this year, I also raised the matter of the times of sitting hours and the adverse effects it can have on members' health and their families. I remind members that the member for Rankin supported and seconded my motion on that occasion. The issue of family responsibilities and caring for children is no longer an issue only for women. It is an issue for all of us and particularly for those of us with young children.I sometimes become frustrated when I receive correspondence and questionnaires from PhD students and others studying women in politics. I realise that there are many barriers in the way of men and women becoming involved in politics and being elected to a full-time position of representation. One is how we balance our electorate and family responsibilities. There are many occasions when I worry about my children. I worry about my husband Reg's responsibilities and become concerned that I am not around for my children as much as other parents are. However, I know that these moments do not belong solely to working mums or politician mums. I know that my male colleagues have similar worries. It is a concern for all of us with young children. It is also a concern for those who are planning parenting in the future.As politicians become younger and come from more diverse backgrounds, there will be many family questions which will face us—the same issues which face many of our constituents in their working lives. It is pleasing that members take this time to reflect on families and the valuable contributions made by individual members of families. But it is a national disgrace that parliamentarians and the electorate must rely on the time allotted in this place for private members business for debate and discussion of such important issues as family responsibilities.At the outset, I wish to say that I support the tone of this motion. It is an acknowledgment of the financial sacrifices made by parents when one of them is caring for their child or children full time. It formally recognises the invaluable contribution made by these parents, carers and guardians to the social infrastructure of family and friends. My situation, I am thankful to say, is one of choice. I have two beautiful children, Naomi who is 11 and Bobby who is nine years old. I also have a wonderful partner, Reg, who provides the full-time care for our children. We made this choice as a family quite a few years ago. We were able to make the choice because of our personal situation. Prior to this particular decision, though, we had made the choice when the children were born that we would both continue our full-time careers. Both Naomi and Bobby participated in long day care programs until well after their formal schooling had commenced.This was the time when I was first starting out in my public sector career. We as a family were very well supported in our decision by the assistance offered to working families by the previous Labor government—I am referring to the late 1980s and early 1990s. As workers, Reg and I had the protection of our unions and our awards, which allowed for family responsibilities. We also had the assistance from the government which reduced our child-care costs and thus allowed us to be able to make these decisions affecting our family situation. We were afforded a real and proper choice, without having any options or avenues or choices eliminated due to financial considerations.The fulfilment of our family responsibilities must involve realistic and affordable choice. When we are taking these decisions—and none of us take them lightly—we dwell on many considerations—personal, financial and professional. We accept well-meaning advice from governments, friends and other family members, but in the end it must be our choice and the direction that we as parents want to go as a family. The choices themselves are many. Do we or do we not have children? Do we have them now or do we have them later? Do we give up work or careers to care full time for children? Who gives up—mum or dad—or do we share the full-time care? Do we both continue our work and careers and have some of the care of our children provided by someone else? Will that carer be a family member or a professional? Will it be long-term, short-term, long day or short day care? Will it be provided in another person's home, our own home or a more structured setting such as a centre or a preschool?As I have indicated, I support the tone of this private member's motion, but I must take issue with some of the more specific areas the motion deals with. For example, part (3) of the motion calls on the House to note the social pressure on many of today's women with young children to remain in the work force. I must really question what the honourable member has asserted here today. If it means that too many friends, colleagues or acquaintances condemn her for the decision she has taken, then I must protest. I am a proud pro-choice member of parliament. As long as the decision to remain working, or not to remain working, after the birth of children has been made after consideration of the real choices on offer, then I applaud those parents and guardians who take such a decision. I also applaud them if they are male. If the male or female parent chooses to stay at home and care full time for a child or children, then that is great. However, it must have been a real choice. I am afraid that choice has been diminished. There are fewer avenues for directions for families to take these days than there were when Reg and I first made our decision about child-care arrangements.Our children are our most valuable resource. Governments must be prepared and willing to invest in the children who will be providing the future leadership of our country. These investments include education, social support infrastructures, and child-care and child support arrangements.Just one of the many radical social reforms which was embarked upon by the Whitlam government in the early 1970s was that of providing Commonwealth funding for child-care arrangements. The Child Care Act 1972 provided funding for non-profit organisations to operate centre based day care facilities for the children of working and sick parents. In 1974, child-care assistance was extended to all children—not just the poor—and was also extended to include preschools.The next Labor government under Bob Hawke saw a further major extension of Commonwealth provided funding for child care, which allowed for over 6,000 extra places to be established under the system. The 1980s also saw the standardisation of fee relief for children in centre based child-care centres. It was due to this child-care assistance that Reg and I were able to make the choice of child care for Naomi and Bobby.Throughout the 1980s and in the early l990s, Commonwealth assistance under Labor governments continued to grow and expand. The type of assistance and the methods by which it was provided, either via fee relief based on income or subsidies to centres, allowed more flexibility in the choice of child-care arrangements. It is also relevant and prudent to note that it was during this period that this new Parliament House was completed with no physical allowance made for child-care facilities. It is a building which houses around 3,500 people—a number which is greatly expanded when parliament is sitting.The coalition government following its election in 1996 was to be congratulated for the introduction of the family tax initiative. The introduction of this initiative, if it had been coupled with the maintenance of existing child-care assistance, would have allowed for even greater flexibility and choices for families. However, what this government saw fit to do was to give with one hand and take away with the other. While the Treasurer and the Prime Minister were espousing their family generous policies, they were ripping away the very planks which have underpinned Australia's child-care industry for the past 20-odd years.In the first three budgets delivered by Treasurer Costello over $937 million was slashed from child-care funding. This withdrawal of funds for child care has resulted in parents being denied the choice they have had over the past 20 years, and there have been substantial indications that there have been corresponding increases in child-care fees at long day care centres across the country. It is important to note that, as demand for child care declines, many people, particularly women, are being forced from the work force so that they can care for their children. These are not choice based decisions; they are decisions based purely on financial considerations. Many women are being kept from either maintaining their jobs or entering the work force. This adds to the more than 293,000 women who wanted to work at the time of the cuts but could not look for work because they could not find adequate child care. (Time expired)16:04:0010543Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—Of the thousands of institutions that support society, the two most important are the family and government. When a government falls and is replaced by anarchy, all the institutions that depend upon government fall also, but the family prevails. This government understands the importance of families. It is committed to restoring what the locust years of ALP governments since 1972 have taken from them. Governments the world over look at the world through a prism of a top-down perspective, but families look through a prism that sees the world from the bottom up. Where governments and policy makers see the effect of policies upon the life of a nation, families see the consequences on the lives of ordinary people. In this way, families and government complement each other, but it is the family that is the most basic building block upon which all other social forms rest. This fact is recognised in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which states:The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state.The family unit is the most cost-effective deliverer of primary welfare services. In purely economic terms, if this were to be added to the GDP, it would increase by about 30 per cent. But the benefits are not just limited to welfare. The behaviour and values learned in a functional family not only constrain and humanise the brutal side of a highly organised, contemporary society but also enhance attitudes conducive to economic progress, as they have throughout the millennia.When families break down, together they cost the Australian economy at least $3 billion each year, and when all the indirect costs are included the figure is possibly doubled. This leads to the conclusion that the family does not depend upon the government but that the government depends upon the family.During the years of ALP governments, a coalition of groups unleashed a war against the family. They tried to replace families with buckets of dollars for alternative structures and intervention programs. As a result, families came under siege, with a consequent rising tide of suicides, marriage breakdowns, youth homelessness, drug addiction, crime, teenage pregnancies and welfare dependency that we are still struggling with today.This government has ordered a cease-fire on families. It has begun the reconstruction of functional healthy families as the foundational unit of Australian life. A good start has been made with implementing the recommendations of the parliamentary report To have and to hold: Strategies to strengthen marriage and relationships. Recently the government has acted to protect children from the harm caused by ready access to telephone sex lines and pornography on the Internet.Next to benefit from this government are young mothers. They no longer have to feel guilty or be apologetic if they do not return to work or choose instead to stay at home to care for their children. This government recognises that by doing so they are doing themselves, their children, their families and our society a big favour. In effect, this motion says, `Hooray for young mums who stay at home.' It says to young families, `Help is on the way.' It says to these mothers, `What you are doing has a monetary value and the government is going to reward you.' To ease the financial pressure, the government is more than doubling the tax-free threshold for single income families with a child under the age of five years.Two-and-a-half thousand years ago a prophet wrote, `Walk on the ancient paths and all will go well with you.' I am happy to say that Australia is leaving behind 30 foolish years of undermining the family. It is about to enter a new millennium, travelling again the ancient path of valuing traditional family life, and future generations will be better off for doing so. I commend the motion to the House.16:09:0010544Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—I congratulate the member for Forde for raising these issues. Much of the member for Forde's speech certainly was something that we as members of parliament are all concerned about. We certainly do want parents and young women to feel that they can make a choice to stay at home should they want to do so. Unfortunately, when we read further into the motion and listen to the contribution that has just been made by the member for Hughes, we would be forgiven for thinking that the world is very black and white on these issues and that Liberal and coalition governments have been caring, nurturing, loving governments always for women whatever their choices might be and that the Labor Party in contrast are the equivalent of the baby snatchers or something from Aliens . Really, our world is not so simple.I am sure that all members in this House would agree that the ideal situation for young, or older, women making a choice to have a family is that they are able to make that choice in a genuine way, that people who choose to stay at home to be primary care givers are free from any social approbation for doing that and that, similarly, women who choose to go to work are free from criticisms that are often made of women who choose to go to work. In many circumstances, women have no choice but to go to work to improve their family incomes.I would like to look at this issue in some detail because both of the members opposite have made quite a deal of this government's reforms of the family allowances system making it easier for women to make a true choice to stay at home. As the member for Charlton briefly referred to before her time expired, that may have been the case if the government was not giving with one hand and taking away with another. I would like to use a case study of a low income family. There are many of these low income families in my electorate. About 40 per cent of the families that live in my electorate survive on a gross total family income of less than $500 a week. I think all in this House would agree that this is a very low income.The average income for a low income male is a gross income of $397 per week. There are many factory workers in my electorate who would earn that income. That is about $20,000 per annum. If the mother chooses to stay at home and there is a single income, then in these circumstances they do receive some family allowance. That total income, with the family allowance, totals only around $28,000 per annum. $28,000 per annum for a family with a number of young children is a very small amount of money, and many families decide that the best way for them to care for their children may not be to stay home full time with their child but to seek to earn a higher income so that their children's educational opportunities might be better and the clothes and food and all the basic requirements that a family needs might be provided for in a better way. A mother in this situation will probably earn around $8 or $9 an hour. That is the average hourly rate for low income women. Because of the changes to the child-care arrangements, if a mother increases her working hours from zero to four hours, the family's disposable income increases by about $21. When she increases her hours further from five hours to 35 hours a week, the family is only $12 a week better off. This means that she is, effectively, working for 40c an hour.The government recognises, and in many other areas is very keen to tell the Labor Party about, the incentives they would like to create for people to go to work. Those disincentives for families who do seek to improve their lot by earning a higher income should be recognised. Women need to be able to truly make a choice with their partners about what is in the best interests of their children. For some that will be to have their children in full-time care and to work full time. For others it will be a combination of work and care at home, and for others it will be full-time care. As women members of parliament, we all want to be seen to support people making a decision to take either of those options and we certainly do not want to make judgments in that way. I do urge, however, the government to listen to some of the comments that have been made in this debate and to truly provide incentives for people to make either choice and not to try to socially engineer, one way or the other, people to stay at home or go to work. It is a vital issue for us moving into the next millennium and something that requires much more work and hopefully much further debate.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Grievance Debate10545Question proposed:That grievances be noted.1054516:14:0010545Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—Earlier this month the Productivity Commission published a paper on privatisation by two specialists in the field: Professor Stephen King of Melbourne University and Dr Rohan Pitchford of the Australian National University. The two gentlemen effectively belled the cat on privatisation in this country—indeed, the privatisation of public assets by governments in general. These are just some of the comments made by the two academics:Privatisation can create a new range of government bureaucracy and control that exceeds any burden under public ownership.It is simply stated that public ownership is less efficient than private ownership. But there is little analysis of the source of this efficiency or any potential benefits that public ownership may create which could offset this inefficiency.They also found that:Much of the debate on privatisation involves rhetoric rather than research. When private and public sector managers have similar incentives and objectives, performance differences are less obvious.The gentlemen said that governments were forced to intervene more regularly and introduce more regulations to control privatised public assets as competition had failed to protect consumers. They concluded in their investigation that:If it is difficult to regulate a privatised firm and this firm can engage in undesirable practices, then public ownership, possibly with an alternative level of private sector involvement, may be preferred.Governments in this country—both at state and federal levels and of both political persuasions—have been guilty in the past of rushing headlong into privatisation for the sake of it. Common thought had been—and still is, I might add—that public ownership was an inefficient anachronism while privatisation meant saying goodbye to suffocating government regulations and outmoded business practices and really saying hello to increased productivity and efficiency.But, if you take a closer look, you will see the figures do not always tell the same story. As the Sydney Morning Herald's Ross Gittins wrote about the sale of Telstra recently:Selling a profitable asset such as Telstra may reduce net debt, but it does nothing to increase the Government's net worth. And it may or may not improve the Government's future net income flow.An article on this subject in the Australian Financial Review reached a similar conclusion:Privatisation is not a cure for human fallibility, and . . . assumptions about the inherent superiority of the private sector are untenable.Most ordinary Australians would find themselves agreeing with Ross Gittins and the Productivity Commission's King and Pitchford with regard to their views on privatisation. They would agree not through any academic or high-minded analysis of the economic problems associated with privatisation but by really basing their opinions on plain commonsense.They know that, in order for some services to be delivered fairly and effectively, the government must retain chief control, if not full control, of the particular public asset. They know what can happen when public assets become the victims of ill-considered privatisation. They know because they are the ones that are often on the receiving end of poor service and higher prices when privatisation in this country goes wrong.They know that some public assets and some government services should be considered sacrosanct when it comes to private sale. For example, while the sale of Telstra may have sent a minority of Australians racing off to find their chequebooks, the majority of Australians are still against the full sale of the telecommunications network. Most Australians want the government to retain majority ownership of this utility while there is still a chance to do so. Most Australians recognise that Telstra performs essential services for all Australians. For the foreseeable future at least it dominates massively the telecommunications industry in this country. Why shouldn't it continue to make money for all Australians? Why should it make money for just those shareholders lucky enough to have the finances or the wherewithal to invest in it?Scratch most ordinary voters living in this country and you would find that they could tell governments exactly what they see as the problems associated with privatisation run amok. In fact, many of them have already had a go at telling governments just that. Recently we saw the electors in Tasmania and in New South Wales deliver sound drubbings to parties that had gone to the polls with policies heavily reliant on privatising dearly held public assets. The Victorian government, headed by Jeff Kennett—possibly the arch-proponent of privatisation in this country—was brought to the edge of defeat partly because of the public's antagonism towards his privatisation-gone-mad style of government. The same can be said about John Olsen in South Australia. It was primarily because of his government's decision to privatise South Australia's power supply that Labor was able to come within a whisker of retaking the treasury bench in the last state election.People do not like governments simply selling public assets in order to raise money for their own coffers. They need to be con vinced of the necessity of such action. They need to be convinced, on a case by case basis, that privatisation is necessary and makes sound economic sense. Of course, privatisation can be beneficial; it can make economic sense. None of us could imagine living in the old days when governments owned butcher shops or even ran liquor stores. There are some areas of private enterprise where governments plainly have no business, but when it comes to public utilities such as Telstra, state and territory power supplies and Australia Post the public quite plainly want them to remain in their hands—not just the government's hands, their hands.Australians deserve the right not to be treated like mushrooms when it comes to privatising and have governments tell them that they know what is best for their assets—because quite simply they do not. I believe and I reiterate that Telstra is a case in point. Adding weight to the argument put forward by King and Pitchford, Telstra has around five separate bodies currently involved in its regulation, the number of which is directly linked to the government's privatisation process.Another problem with privatisation is the growing levels of secrecy that have sprung up and now surround the management of formerly transparent public assets. The Labor Party has been trying for over three years to get the Crown Casino tender documents from the Kennett government under freedom of information laws; it has been denied them at every turn. In South Australia, contracts setting out the services to be provided by Group 4 Correction Services, a private prison operator in that state, also detail a prisoner's rights. But the same contracts contain a clause that denies third parties—you and I, the public—other than the government and the private operator from seeing any of these details. How can a prisoner know of his or her rights if he or she is not allowed to see the contract that details their rights in the first place?Governments in this country have rushed so quickly into privatising public assets that Australia has now reached a stage where it is one of the largest privatisers in the world. Indeed, in the six months to 30 June this year, Australia was the largest privatiser, with $7.5 billion worth of announced privatisations—15.4 per cent of the world's announced privatisations in that period. This arguably dubious honour came thanks to the Victorian government's sale of its gas, electricity and pipeline interests.One of the most insightful observations about privatisation comes from the Canadian theorist and author John Ralston Saul in a recent lecture here in Australia. He said that privatisation essentially allowed:. . . extremely lazy and not very imaginative people to get a hold of fully developed utilities which don't require any risk or imagination and they're able to sit there and basically clip their coupons as you flush your toilets.By moving things like water out of government into the private sector you're bleeding real investment capital out of the private sector, you're rewarding laziness, and you're rewarding these managers who go about in capitalist drag.Well said, Mr Ralston Saul. Australia's headlong rush towards privatisation betrays a lack of serious thought among our leaders about how to solve the efficiency and productivity problems that do exist within our public utilities. That is what we are elected to do—to come up with solutions to these problems, not sell off the family silver willy-nilly. I am sure most members of the public would agree with me. If some members of the House examined their consciences, they too would stand up and agree with me.The Prime Minister's vision of a shareholder's democracy based upon the privatisation of public assets actually belittles the democratic process. As Ralston Saul said in that same lecture, leading a democratic society by economics—by self-interest—demotes the citizen and our civilisation to little more than a decoration. While there remain in this country assets still owned by the public, we need to work harder and think more clearly about privatisation before it is too late. We will soon have nothing left to sell.1054716:24:0010547May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—As we move into the next millennium, it is vital that we as a government and the entire Australian business community continue to work together in partnership to address the unemployment situation. The unemployment rate averaged over 9.9 per cent during Labor's last year in office. Under the coalition government, unemployment is currently at the lowest level it has been since 1990. Today I rise to urge employers across Australia to access a virtually untapped market and improve employment opportunities for people with disabilities.More than 3.5 million people in Australia today have a physical, intellectual or some other form of disability. While 76 per cent of the general population are participating in the work force, only 46 per cent of people with disabilities are in employment. This equates to a staggering 1.5 million people who are not participating in the labour market. As a government we need to take the initiative by encouraging employers to train and employ staff with disabilities.Researchers at Deakin University have identified that employment options for people with a disability have increased in recent years, and the attitudes of employers have changed. As researchers Kaye Smith and Dr Joe Graffam say, employing people with a disability is no longer an issue of goodwill; it is an issue of basic rights and good business sense. To this end, employers are now recognising that there are advantages to accommodating a wide range of people in the workplace. But the researchers say many myths about employing a person with a disability still remain. There is still the perception that, if you employ a person who has a disability, you are going to have a less than efficient employee. However, research shows nothing is further from the truth if the person with the disability is well matched to a job.The Deakin University researchers are in the process of finalising a Commonwealth funded project entitled `Making it Work—Employer Outcomes When Employing a Person With a Disability'. The project involves surveys and interviews with 650 employers from all industries across Australia. Each employer interviewed employs at least one person with a disability. The overwhelming message from employers is that, in terms of organisational performance, employers are benefiting tremendously from employing persons with disabilities.One of the messages that has come through loud and clear is that employers are aware of the need for ongoing support. Across Australia, hundreds of agencies are providing such support. Within my electorate one such organisation, On-Q Human Resources, not only recruits and trains employees with disabilities but provides ongoing support in the workplace. On-Q Human Resources, one of the oldest and largest agencies of its type in this country, is currently supporting 250 people within the Gold Coast and Northern Rivers region, half of whom are based on the Gold Coast. The organisation has an 80 per cent retention rate within 12 months of finding a job for a person with a disability. The average retention rate in the labour force across the board is reportedly 40 to 60 per cent. The organisation provides as much support as is required for as long as it is required for both employee and employer. As Deakin University researcher Dr Joe Graffam says, such specialist employment organisations see their role as being an educator, providing commitment and advice to the employer as well as training within the organisation.People with disabilities are participating successfully at all levels in a wide range of occupations and industries, generating value to the Australian economy. International and Australian research has shown repeatedly that people with disabilities are just as productive and as safe and reliable as able-bodied workers. Research indicates that employees with a disability have average or better than average attendance records, job retention rates, safety records and productivity rates when compared with employees without a disability. In addition, most employees with a disability do not require job redesign or adjustments in the workplace. Eighty per cent of adjustments or job changes that are required are simple, cost nothing or cost less than $500 and frequently benefit all employees.According to a report on employment of people with disabilities by the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, which was tabled in 1992, many disabilities pose practically no limitation at all on the ability to perform a large variety of work tasks. In other cases, a very small and inexpensive adjustment in the work environment can render many jobs suitable to people having a large range of disabilities.It makes economic and social sense to employ people with a disability. The Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Jocelyn Newman, said in a press release last month that it is estimated that improved access to facilities and the work force would add $6 billion to the country's gross domestic product. The potential market for people with disabilities is enormous. The government is doing the right thing by launching the gold medal disability access strategy to extend recognition of access issues into key areas of business development. This strategy stresses three key messages for business. Firstly, people with disabilities are a major untapped market. The purchasing power of this market will continue to grow. Secondly, businesses which respond to the needs of people with disabilities will increase business opportunities and market share. Thirdly, the advantages associated with improving access in the target areas will have subsequent beneficial effects for the whole community.I commend the Howard government's approach to extensively publicising these messages in an attempt to better educate the public on the advantages of employing people with disabilities. Under the banner of the gold medal disability access strategy, the government will hold symposiums across Australia. The strategy will culminate with the Prime Minister's gold medal access awards in June next year. The Department of Family and Community Services helps employers who provide jobs for workers with disabilities through wage subsidies, supported wages, workplace modifications, help with organisational change, training and injury management. The Commonwealth government currently funds more than 440 organisations through 880 outlets to provide employer assistance for people with disabilities. These disability service providers help employers by placing workers with disabilities in suitable jobs. They also give advice on getting workers started, workplace modifications and training.I commend the Gold Coast City Council, one of the largest employers on the Gold Coast, for taking a lead in employing persons with a disability. While the council actively promotes and employs persons with disabilities through its day-to-day human resource activities, in addition the local authority has recently packaged a program to employ more disabled persons on traineeships. Under the Queensland government's Breaking the Unemployment Cycle, the council has committed to taking on its biggest trainee intake to date, employing 35 people. Of this total, five will be persons with disabilities. The recruits will be employed on a 12-month traineeship in various sections of the council, after which time their performance will be reviewed and the possibility of re-employment assessed.Australian employers should take pride in breaking down barriers for people with disabilities by improving opportunities in the labour force. I strongly urge and openly take any opportunity to encourage employers to incorporate into their work force people with disabilities. Such action not only makes good business sense but is also supportive of the Australian ethos to give the next person a go. All Australians have the right to participate as fully as possible in society. People with disabilities have the right to access premises. People with disabilities have the right to achieve their potential in the labour force. Providing access to such opportunities is good for business and good for Australia.1054916:33:0010549Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I rise this afternoon to talk in this grievance debate about a matter of major importance to the Australian community. It is an issue that was canvassed widely by the Leader of the Opposition in his recent address to the Hawke Institute at the University of South Australia on `Nation building: towards an Australian population policy'. The matter goes to the need for the Australian community to do more about the need to balance family and work responsibilities. The issue at stake relates to how we balance workers' desires to spend more time with their families against the increasing backdrop of employer demands for flexibility at work.Some changes of recent decades have made this situation easier to deal with. For example, the expansion in part-time employment opportunities has made it easier for many Australians to combine work and family life. Surveys suggest that this group of part-time workers is among the most satisfied in the labour market. Against this, we have observed more people working part time but wanting to work full time, and more people working full time but excessively long hours. I suppose it is fair to say that in some instances, in some sectors of the Australian community in some regions and suburbs, we actually have a debate going on among some people on the basis of some actually desiring to work longer hours whilst alternatively some desire to work fewer hours. It is about how we bring that balance back in respect of the number of hours and jobs held in a particular household.While some are choosing to work longer hours, many are being forced to work unpaid overtime, and many would prefer to be spending more time with their families. A notable feature is that those who choose to work longer hours express high work satisfaction but low life satisfaction. As we can see from this, there is a price being paid somewhere along the line.It is also fair to say from international experience that elsewhere in the world there is a lively debate not just about how we can encourage genuine choice between work, family and study but also about how we develop creative combinations of work, family and study. I think we are going to find, as we make further progress on the employment front, that we as a community—as was developed by the Leader of the Opposition in his Hawke Institute speech—are going to have to develop more ways to make it easier for families to facilitate flexible choices about combinations of work, study and family not just on one occasion but on a variety of occasions throughout a working person's life.For that reason, in Australia we have seen a number of bodies pursue this issue vigo rously. Contributions from the ACTU, welfare groups, the Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training, churches, the Australia Institute and the Social Policy Research Centre have all sought to increase the public profile of this issue. I personally welcome all those contributions, because it is a complex debate and we actually need to ensure that it is an informed debate.The importance of this issue to organisations such as those and in the minds of Australians at large, is clear. Survey after survey suggests that people want more time with their families. It is unfortunate that the Howard government has not responded in a positive way to this desire. A critical part of the work and family issue must therefore be skills. A reality of the modern economy is that those with skills are being rewarded more than ever and that those without skills are finding it increasingly difficult to keep up. I can only venture to suggest that that very issue is going to worsen in the foreseeable future. The truth is that those with skills are going to get the best jobs and have the best capacity throughout their working lives to actually adjust to the different demands in different job sectors. More than ever there is a need, therefore, to ensure that all Australians are employable.I suppose that is really the crux of the debate that has to occur in the Australian community in the foreseeable future. In essence, one's sense of security in life is not going to be related to whether or not an employer can give an undertaking to give you employment for a particular period but, more importantly, your capacity to actually obtain training from employment that guarantees that, over time, you are potentially employable across a range of occupations and a range of industries. The issue of employability will be the real debate when it comes to the question of security in one's working life. It is in this context that this government has slashed funding for education, training and labour market assistance. The fact that those without skills and adaptability have fallen further and further behind is a direct reflection of this government's apathy. It reflects not only on the lack of commitment from the point of view of the Howard government to the issue of security and employment but also, sadly, on their desire, or lack of desire, to actually give some assistance to enable workers to properly balance their work and family responsibilities throughout their working lives.I therefore want to raise a few issues that arise in this context before they affect our lives in a manner that we cannot control. Developments in new technology give rise to both challenges and opportunities. On the one hand, workers can take the office everywhere; that should mean more opportunity to work from home and, in turn, should open the door to an improved work and family balance. On the other hand, it also carries dangers: pagers, email, laptops and mobile phones make work even more pervasive—the virtual office never closes, even when we are at home. We need to be conscious of the need to ensure that workers use technology, not that technology uses workers.It is also important that we accommodate the growing diversity of experiences within family life. The relative decline of the traditional family and increasing reliance on informal care provided by older relatives and friends poses significant policy challenges. I note here the international praise recently forthcoming in relation to the effectiveness of the welfare system that Labor built over 13 years in government. It is against that international support for our effectiveness that we will view contributions by the government this week with respect to changes and so-called reform in the welfare system, to be announced on Wednesday by the minister.I also note that men are playing a greater role in domestic responsibilities—and that has not gone far enough, I venture to suggest—and things are clearly moving in the right direction. Labor holds the view that men and women should share equally in such responsibilities. Financial incentives are obviously important in making choices, and Labor recognised this at the last election. The working family tax credit and our approach to child care actually would have made that easier. However, it is not just about incentives that allow for combinations of work and family. It is also about providing the assistance needed to give carers, both men and women, the skills they need to make effective choices. It is about capabilities as well as choices. The Howard government's approach to work and family has fundamentally neglected the concern for skills. They slash expenditures on education, training and labour market assistance and then wonder why people choose not to enter the labour market. That is also reflected in the fall in the participation rate of almost one per cent since the election of March 1996.The situation is actually worse than it appears because not only has the government slashed the assistance that sought to increase individual employability, it has also neglected the family and community support systems that people rely on. I believe we must improve our thinking about how we deal with economic and social change as individuals, as communities and as government. In a civilised society we simply cannot leave people behind, as we have observed in the past 3½ years. If we do not want left behind kids in left behind families in left behind communities, it is clear that we simply must do more.I raise these issues this afternoon because not only are they of fundamental importance to the future of Australia but I think they should also be on the table in the lead-up to the statement this week by Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. I note already from media reports suggestions that the government may reduce assistance to families, which is currently available for children up to the age of 16 back to the age of 12. I merely suggest, in pointing to these media reports, that the government should heed the issues I have raised this afternoon if it is genuinely concerned about looking after families, especially our young people, and ensuring that we give all the assistance necessary to provide for proper choice in the working environment for members of families whilst at the same time ensuring that we make it easier for Australians to raise their kids. It is about improved choice and flexibility in balancing work and family responsibilities. It is not, as has been the case with this government, about reducing choice and reducing opportunities for all members of Australian society to actually participate in a balanced way. It is about ensuring that work and family responsibilities are shared equitably whilst at the same time ensuring that we give all in the Australian community the training and skills necessary to guarantee their employability and to provide for proper choice in the labour market. (Time expired)1055116:43:0010551Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—I rise this afternoon in this grievance debate to again highlight some of the issues, if not challenges, facing regional Australia. Regional Australia, as we all know, has seen a massive depopulation, particularly in rural areas. These changes are bringing about their own special problems and bringing into the minds of regional Australians question marks about their role in the future of this nation.A lot of this depopulation has come about through massive changes in rural industry and in the way rural industry looks towards its local communities and townships for support. Because of mechanisation, one man or one woman can manage a property many times larger than they would have been able to manage a mere decade or so ago, and this has also caused massive depopulation. Looking at my own childhood, the property that my father and my neighbour owned was worked by up to six men—in those days it was men. When I was actively farming that country, it was looked after by one person and perhaps an occasional casual assistant. The effect of that is that people have moved out of the bush and out of the regions.The tenuous existence that many people in regional communities faced was accentuated by the continuing decline in the value in real terms of rural commodities. Rural commodities such as grain, beef and wool have each gone through their own particular slumps and, from time to time, revivals, but the reality is that each time the price goes down it never really returns to the levels that we have seen.Grain sorghum, for instance, has been quoted for December delivery for a price less than I received when I was farming in 1991. In fact, it is trading at a price less than it traded for a decade earlier—or, in fact, a decade earlier than that. That is to say that, in cash terms, grain sorghum, a major commodity in my region, is trading at values that we saw in the early to mid-1970s.These sorts of declines in commodity prices have been reflected right across the board, and I think it would be unrealistic to expect that they are going to bounce back to a level where we will see rural industry being able to repopulate the bush and regional Australia. We have to find other ways to keep people in the regions, and we have to find other ways to offer people who seek to live in regional Australia the opportunity to fulfil that desire.If we are going to have people in the regions, there are a few basic areas that we need to concentrate on. The thing that causes people to leave the regions is, of course, jobs, but it is also a lack of infrastructure and a lack of services and facilities. By services and facilities, I mean things like health, education and even entertainment. We need to promote opportunities in regional Australia which will see industries re-establish there—industries that need space, industries that need to escape the urban encroachment, and industries that are not disadvantaged by being 100, 200, 300 or even 1,000 kilometres from a capital city. Those sorts of industries exist now; the question is: how do we get them to come into regional Australia?Obviously, the cornerstone of any redevelopment or repopulation of regional Australia will be the provision of adequate infrastructure. That infrastructure, particularly in the areas of communication, roads and railways, is fundamental for business expansion. We have seen the communication area in the last four to five years taken over, to a large extent, by commercial interests, and I for one have no fear about regional Australia having adequate telecommunications to ensure that businesses are competitive. It is almost weekly now—it used to be yearly—that a new option is put forward to allow people in regional Australia equal if not better access to communications and information. The advent of satellite mobile telephones and then of low earth orbiting satellite telephones, the introduction shortly of the CDMA network, and of course some great advancements in access to the Internet—via satellites but also through wireless communications, as is being promoted by Austar—will ensure that regional Australia has the telecommunications links that it needs to redevelop.What regional Australia does not have—and I must admit I have grave concerns about it ever having—is an adequate transport system. We have seen a marked decline in real spending on roads, and we have seen absolutely no spending, of any great note, on railways. The freight task in Australia in the next 20 years will double, yet we do not have the basic infrastructure to ensure that regional Australia is going to share in the work, employment and ancillary industries that will come about as a result of that. Really, all that regional Australia can look forward to out of that is that its existing overtaxed roadways are going to be pounded into dust. It is therefore important that we take a very clear and close look at the way government is investing in roads and railway lines—or should I say is not investing, and I do not single out any government; I think all governments have been guilty of this over the last two or three decades. We need to make sure that we do not get spooked by the relatively high cost of building roads and railways.I found interest in a paper presented recently by a visiting fellow to the Australian National University, Fred Argy, who raised some interesting positive comments about government investment in infrastructure. He talked about government's ability to enhance the competitive advantage of a region or a state and thereby attract new private industry into investment in that region. He also talked about the ability of an effective and efficient transport infrastructure to reduce the costs of businesses operating in the regions.For the past decade or so, the Economic Planning Advisory Commission has conducted reviews right across Australia and has found evidence that underinvestment is costing us opportunities. It has warned that one of the big problems facing the regions is the mainte nance of the roads and railway system we have already got.Government needs to take a businesslike approach to regional infrastructure and roads and to look at them both in terms of capital investment and recurring expenditure. Capital investment has the ability to repay the investment over time. Given the unique position in which government finds itself, in being able to tax those industries which establish themselves as a result of infrastructure investment, I think that we as a government really do need to re-appraise our assessment of investment in infrastructure such as roads and railways.It goes without saying that excellent infrastructure will lower the cost of production and produce a better and more competitive and productive work force which will create a comparative advantage which will allow new industries to establish in the regions and of course allow a faster diffusion of technology through the infrastructure. As a whole, infrastructure investment creates employment. If we look at the regions, that employment will only come through industries not directly associated with agriculture. If we look to new industries—whether it be something as successful already as tourism or something yet to be established in the regions such as high technology—then I think the regions can take advantage, providing the basic infrastructure is there.What we need to see is a commitment by government and by successive governments to repopulate the bush by making investments of a strategic nature in new roads and new railway lines to allow industries—which currently, almost out of habit, establish themselves in city centres—to move out to the regions of Australia to take advantage of the great resources that are there, including the population that exists there now, and participate in the transformation of regional Australia back to the once great part of Australia's economy it was.1055316:53:0010553Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—In November last year I raised the issue of how Telstra is holding a number of my constituents to ransom in the Perth suburb of Landsdale at its international satellite communications centre by using its influence to maintain a rural zoning in the developing urban area which surrounds the site. Why does it want to maintain a rural zoning, you may well ask. Simply because Telstra needs to protect the integrity of its operations at this site and to keep a buffer around its perimeter to ensure that no commercial or residential development occurs which may interfere with its functions.Those functions include acquisition and launch support for the European Space Agency scientific spacecraft and tracking and monitoring of the payloads during transfer orbit. That these functions are important is clearly spelt out in a letter signed by Mr Peter Fairclough, the Chief Executive Officer's representative in Western Australia, to some of my constituents last August. In this letter Mr Fairclough says:As was clearly pointed out, it is imperative the technical integrity of the earth station remains intact and to do so we are committed to ensuring the surrounding land remains zoned rural.In addition, I have a summary and part transcript of a submission made by BSD Consultants on behalf of Telstra to the city of Wanneroo, the relevant local authority. This submission relates to the city's new district planning scheme No. 2 and is dated 27 August 1999.In part, this Telstra submission proposes the introduction of a special control area within the new scheme over land surrounding the Perth International Telecommunication Centre to preclude zonings, development applications, structure plans and development guide plans which would introduce forms of development that would have an adverse impact on the future operations of the PITC facility. In its submission, consultants BSD said:BSD has been instructed by Telstra that, should council not finalise DPS No. 2 with changes to protect the Perth PITC facility, representations would be made directly to the Western Australian Planning Commission and or the Ministry for Planning to instead introduce a state planning policy, or similar control for land surrounding the PITC facility. This is because the facility is of both national and international significance and is a multi million dollar investment by the Australian government. If local council planning controls do not recognise PITC importance and therefore jeopardise its future operations then Telstra may have no option but to pursue the matter through state government channels.These residents of Landsdale fully recognise and support Telstra's need for a facility that is completely secure. Their problem is, however, that because Telstra require this buffer zone, the land these people have owned for years is now locked in a Telstra caused planning time warp. The natural progression for the zoning of this land is urban. While it remains rural and within this defacto buffer zone of Telstra's making, they are and will remain unable to recognise the full potential value of their land and be prevented from realising the investment of capital and labour that they have worked to put in over many years.The Hon. Richard Alston, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, was in Perth two weeks ago, and at my request was kind enough to meet a small delegation of my constituents and listen to their story. These constituents—Sir George Jefferson, CBE, Cath Colton and Graham Dunjay—presented a compelling argument and clearly outlined how Telstra was unfairly and unjustly treating residents in this area. They pointed out to the minister that, as adjacent landowners, they recognise the importance of the Telstra site to Australia. But they also pointed out that when they purchased their land in the mid 1970s there were no off- site requirements or restrictions. They were able to show that it was only through the upgrading of Telstra's site and the relocation of sensitive equipment from remote areas into a rapidly expanding metropolitan area that the need was created for a buffer zone, which Telstra has acquired on the cheap by bullying local and state governments into submission by keeping the zoning rural.They pointed out that, in 1988, the city of Wanneroo's draft rural strategy report suggested that the subject land be rezoned for residential development. In addition, the metropolitan regional scheme proposed residential use for that area. Indeed, in 1997, landowners lodged an application to rezone the land from rural to residential and the city of Wanneroo approved the application. In 1998, however, the Minister for Planning withheld consent to allow the application to go forward for advertising for public comment. He took this course of action after visiting the Telstra site and after discussions with Telstra officials. My constituents pointed out—and I intend to quote from part of the written submission they left with the minister—the following:Conversely however, had the Telstra site and the consequent need for a buffer not existed, it is logically concluded that on a regional scale, this area would have been designated for urban development.It is the contention of the landowners, that if in the event, Telstra's assessment was shown to be reasonable and Telstra requires to exercise control of this privately owned land in order to conduct its affairs satisfactorily it should:a) reduce its present and future activities on the Gnangara site to those which can be conducted within the confines of its present site, orb) like any other privately owned business, negotiate the purchase of that additional area which it now seeks to control, on terms satisfactory to those landowners, orc) negotiate with those landowners or their representatives to establish whatever mutually acceptable compromises may be possible.To do otherwise, and to attempt to coerce government departments to do anything which enables Telstra to avoid facing these choices is clearly immoral and highly questionable both for it, and for any others (at whatever level) involved in such manoeuvring, notwithstanding Telstra's current major position as an important link in Australian telecommunications. Today they are just a ratepayer, as we are, and just a competitor in the telecommunications market.Purely as a comment, we cannot help feeling that the choice of a site so close to a rapidly developing urban city and the concentration of this other work on it, was unwise and short sighted. The acceptance of the European Space Agency contract represented a major change in land usage, which should have received proper consideration and advice to landowners before proceeding. This neglect with the other actions probably caused the inadequacy of the site to conduct Telstra's business.Whatever is done now, in the light of the 1995 `Abassi report', will not probably see Telstra through for the next twenty years, and plans to relocate the operations to a really quiet location should be seriously considered. In conclusion we wish to emphasise that after years of prevarication we urgently need a fair and sensible solution. We are not a bunch of money grasping rogues, mostly ordinary hard working people who need protection for their future. We are willing to work with any who are genuinely prepared to attempt to find a fair solution for all.I again take the opportunity to thank the Hon. Richard Alston for his time, and advise that Sir George, Cath Colton and Graham Dunjay greatly appreciated the opportunity to meet and pursue their argument directly with him. I ask the minister to carefully consider the points they raised and to respond in a fair and reasonable manner. The minister currently has the power under the act to direct Telstra. I would urge him to direct Telstra to negotiate with these landowners. He should look over their shoulders to ensure that the negotiations are carried out in a manner which achieves a level of fairness for all.When I raised this issue in November last year during another debate, I quoted the Hon. George Cash, member for the north metropolitan region and now President of the Legislative Council in the Western Australian parliament. He was reported by a local newspaper on 21 September 1997 as saying:Telstra was using standover tactics and causing residents, who are either retired or near retirement, financial hardship.The newspaper article continues:Mr Cash said the failure by Telstra to formally acknowledge the need for a buffer zone and provide full information was sheer arrogance.`I am dismayed at the lack of planning which saw Telstra siting such a facility in what was clearly the path of urban growth', he said.Telstra have improved their attitude to some degree and are now saying to local residents that they are willing to `continue to meet to explore the land use options'. What Telstra do not say is that they are now prepared to pay their own way in the world and accept commercial, financial, responsibility for this buffer zone. Until they do, they will continue to bludge on the residents who live in this area. I hope the minister will take steps to rectify this situation. This bullying by one of Australia's major corporations needs to stop. (Time expired)1055517:03:0010555St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—I take this opportunity today to air my concerns and the concerns of the people in my electorate of New England over the crucial issue of access to Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport at Mascot for the regional airlines that provide services to and from country areas such as New England. I believe it is essential that country air services continue to have access to Kingsford Smith airport—and I intend to fight, along with my National Party colleagues in this parliament, to ensure that this access remains available. The Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Deputy Prime Minister and my colleague the Hon. John Anderson is leading the fight that I speak of. He knows the importance of maintaining this access for the people of regional and rural Australia.The regional airlines that service my electorate—Eastern Australia Airlines, Impulse Airlines and Hazelton Airlines—provide excellent services to and from Sydney with regular flights to and from the regional centres of Tamworth, Inverell, Armidale and Glen Innes. I commend them on their tremendous efforts in providing these essential and professional services for the people of New England. The management of our regional airlines recognise the importance of maintaining their access to Kingsford Smith. The other day I received a letter from Mr Andrew Drysdale, Chief Executive Officer of Hazelton Airlines, in response to a letter I sent to him asking his opinion on the possibility of relocating their services to Bankstown. I quote from the letter:We are extremely concerned and surprised, that such a proposal should be given any form of serious consideration. It flies in the face of any claims that Government holds concern for Rural Australia . . . I have taken a strong stance against such a proposal.I reiterate that this is also my stance. The letter continues:Regardless of how much money is spent on upgrading Bankstown and creating road links to Kingsford Smith airport (`KSA'), and despite marketing ploys such as renaming the airport, it will remain a second level facility. To deny the people of rural Australia access to KSA in favour of metropolitan and overseas travellers carries a political cost. You will know better than I the emotion this issue evokes in the country.I confirm that there is a great deal of strong feeling being shown in country areas such as New England over this issue, and I think the view of the airlines is now very clear. Let me put the crucial nature of this issue in even more perspective for you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As many in this House would know, I come from the small country town of Guyra in the centre of the northern New South Wales country electorate of New England. We have no public transport system in my home town. I assume that under the current system it is considered `not viable' to provide us with subsidised buses, trains and trams to get us to work and into the larger towns when needed. Many people who live in small towns in my electorate work in the surrounding larger towns and regional cities. This means that in some cases people travel hundreds of kilometres to work and back, or to the local airport and back.Do not get me wrong, Madam Deputy Speaker: most of us are prepared, and indeed are very happy, to pay this price and spend time travelling as it seems a small price to pay for the country lifestyle and the benefits that come with living in a small country town—the clean fresh air, the close-knit friendly community, competitive housing and a safe environment. However, we are not prepared to take on the chin any attempt to cut us off and prevent us from using our state capital's main airport in order that our international friends or our city counterparts from other states can have better access to the services that Sydney has to offer—and I do not just mean the airport.Remember, Sydney is the capital city for all of us who live in New South Wales. To deny access to the Kingsford Smith airport for country people would be to deny us efficient access to such essential city based services as specific business services, specialist doctors and medical institutions, not to mention family and friends, theatres, national museums, landmarks, meeting places and all those other things that our metropolitan cousins take for granted. And what about those who fly to regional New South Wales to conduct their business or medical practice? Would they maintain the contact that they have now? I doubt it. However, we need those people and we need them badly. That would be a massive step backwards for country people. We are not second-class citizens and I for one will fight to keep our access to Kingsford Smith airport.Many constituents have visited my office or written to me to express their opposition to any transfer of services from Mascot. One constituent's letter expresses very plainly the particular difficulties that would be faced by disabled people should there be a relocation of country services from KSA. The letter states:I am a paraplegic, wheelchair bound, and when I travel I must carry a great deal of extra luggage and equipment . . . It is difficult enough to have to transfer aircraft at Mascot, although the airlines are now well equipped to handle wheelchair passengers with special machines to lift them in and out of the aircraft and special assistance in getting from one aircraft to the other. It would be a nightmare—Let me repeat that. She said:It would be a nightmare if somehow I had to transfer from Bankstown to Mascot between flights, so much so that I might have to restrict considerably the amount of air travel I undertake or even travel by road instead.It would affect all of us who choose to live in regional New South Wales.I move on now to the possible implications of any movement of regional air services from Mascot as it relates particularly to regional tourism. In my electorate there are many organisations making the most of the current boom in tourism in Australia. These include regional tourism organisations, motels, bed and breakfasts and farm stays, among others. Places of great interest to tourists in New England include many regional and rural tourist attractions, national parks and other such places of immeasurable interest, particularly to overseas travellers.The relocation of regional air services out of the middle of Sydney would make it inconvenient for travellers flying into Sydney with the intention of visiting one of New England's regional tourist attractions or staying at one of our regional guesthouses. Sydney is, after all, the gateway to country New South Wales. I believe any transfer of these services could make this type of travel so inconvenient as to deter international tourists from visiting rural and regional areas, significantly and negatively affecting the regional tourism industry that the people of country Australia have worked so hard to build up over many years. I am sure you would agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it would be grossly unfair to deny country people of their livelihoods as a sacrifice to city dweller convenience.I feel I must comment on the debate that has occurred on this same issue in the New South Wales state parliament over the past week. I find it interesting to read the New South Wales Legislative Assembly Hansard for 21 September, which contains a motion moved by the Labor Party demanding, in part:. . . the Federal Government abandon its $500 million proposal to transform Bankstown airport into a major regional air traffic facility.I know of no such proposal put forward by this government. I assume that the motion moved in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly referred to a recommendation contained in a report by the Tourism Task Force, headed by Mr Chris Brown, son of the former Labor tourism minister John Brown, entitled `Securing Sydney aviation access for New South Wales regional communities,' prepared for them by the Western Research Institute in August this year. The Tourism Task Force has no connection with the federal government. It is in fact a consultancy and lobby group, representing the interests that want regional airlines shifted out of Kingsford Smith. It should be treated with the contempt it deserves.In concluding, I wish to mention two points. In country New South Wales people are changing the way they do business. They are accepting the challenges that are in front of them and will progress their businesses to expand. If regional airlines cannot access Kingsford Smith airport, the growth of country businesses will be impeded and country people will feel that they have been treated as second-class citizens. Finally, we need to decide whether there should be country towns and cities spread across this continent. If we do, then it is up to governments to demonstrate that by ensuring fair and equitable access to all our capital cities by regional airlines servicing country people.1055717:13:0010557Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—I have a grievance with this government about the latest and stupid idea relating to Work for the Dole. An article by Ian McPhedran in the Hobart Mercury last Thursday is cause for great concern. The article indicated that secret preliminary studies were under way to include military training as part of the Work for the Dole scheme. This was followed up by another assertion by the Prime Minister that he was considering reintroducing conscription. While the federal sources cited in the article were quick to point out that the proposed military training would be strictly voluntary, the very nature of the Work for the Dole scheme casts doubt on this assertion. While the scheme, even leaving aside any suggestion of military training, is nominally a voluntary one, failure to participate in the scheme can be seen by Centrelink as a failure of an unemployed person's willingness to meet their mutual obligations and can result in the loss of income security payments.The terrible situation that has developed in East Timor has required a military commitment from Australia. There should be no doubt that the Defence Force personnel who are undertaking this commitment are committed and willing professionals. They have chosen the Defence Force as a career and are employing their professional skills during the current deployment. They would neither welcome nor desire that their effort be backed up by the training of young unemployed people in the military arts and sciences.In recent days, the defence forces, along with the Leader of the Opposition, have been clear that any concept of national service be not seen as the solution to the possible problem of reinforcing our current deployment in East Timor. The suggestion that young unemployed people be part of the solution to this problem is nothing short of immoral.The current problem we are facing with the lack of reserves has clearly not been thought through properly by the Howard government. The Labor government's Ready Reserve Scheme, which would have ensured that sufficient reservists could be rapidly deployed in times of need, was axed by the Howard government. The Minister for Industrial Relations was adamant that the protection of leave for Defence Force reserve training would not be part of the ever narrowing proposed employment award structure. This simply means that employees keen to be part of the reserve forces cannot undertake their training needs for the year and expect to have a job at the end of it.Employers who in the past have been asked to assist towards the development of an up-to-date reserve force by allowing employees time off for their training have been let off this commitment without anything else being put in place. This will obviously lead to a further run-down of reservist numbers. Few people in full-time employment would be willing to risk their jobs to undertake training for the forces.In the past few weeks, a number of representatives from my constituency have been extremely concerned about the merest suggestion of the reinforcement of any form of conscription. These constituents all fully understand the unfortunate need for Australia's military involvement in East Timor. In many cases, they are veterans themselves who have willingly served their country in times of need. They are horrified at the thought of young unemployed people being earmarked for possible military service simply because of the mistakes that have been made in maintaining our defence readiness.These views have been amply echoed by the leaders of our defence forces, who were quick to put down this idea. Admiral Barrie has been quoted through most of the major media as rejecting calls for enforced enlistment regardless of what program it might occur under. The suggestion that military training might be a viable way for unemployed people to improve their lot is seen almost universally as the thin edge of the wedge. Today we have a general hint that military training might be a good idea and tomorrow the concept of conscription will be fully on the agenda.We must ask if these rumblings of conscription and military training for the unemployed are motivated by our defence needs or are yet another excuse to blame the victim for the problem of unemployment that will not go away. Obviously something has to be done with the defence forces if Australia is to continue to play a role in international peacekeeping and in defending our nation. I believe we should be ensuring that the reservists play a central role in the ongoing development of those forces.We also need to ensure that there are regular intakes of young recruits from each state. As part of that, I am still angry at the way that Tasmania is now treated. We no longer have offices of recruitment. They have been axed along with many other services by this government. If our young people wish to have a career in the Army, Navy or Air Force, they have to contact Victoria. There is now nowhere in this state where they can go and have a chat about their options. All their training has to be done on the mainland. This is time consuming and expensive not only for them but also for the forces.A whole series of decisions made by this government has led to less opportunity and less readiness to deal with emergencies, be they in this country and/or outside our boundaries. I am becoming more and more concerned that Mr Howard seems to want to move Australia away from the relationships with the region in which we are situated. This is just madness. Economically, socially and politically, we are a part of this region. Our biggest trade areas are currently within our region, and the expanding markets are nearby. Much of our regional tourism is related by the two-way traffic in this region. Australians are still travelling to Bali even now.We can play a good role in developing human rights here too as long as we do not play the imperialist and we keep the dialogue open. The Prime Minister's view now places too much stress on our links outside the region rather than our independent role within the region. We must continue to remember that, although we have had the terrible atroci ties and the charged atmosphere in East Timor, there are people in Indonesia who have suffered and are still suffering through their efforts to throw off the military in their country. An East Timorese speaking at the East Timor rally in Hobart, Abel Guterres, was at pains to point out that we should not forget those Indonesians who are also suffering at the hands of the military. There are thousands of poor who have little food, no shelter or any quality of life. It is our role to assist our neighbour's transformation to a more democratic way by helping its leaders come through those changes and receive support and understanding from others around the region. We are no better than them.It is far better for our young people to go to study in each other's countries than to bear arms against each other. The sooner the peacekeeping force can become that the better; those who wish to make a career in the forces can learn that defence is not about bearing arms but bearing the right words and extending the hand of friendship. In those terms, the Australian Defence Force work in Bougainville has been a very great success. This government does not appear to have any ideas beyond the immediate. It appears to have little understanding of what is happening in Indonesia. Using the unemployed to make up the Defence Force strikes me as desperate tactics, not a sensible decision to assist the nation.1055917:23:0010559Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—Approximately 80 per cent of our nation's trout is produced in my electorate. I rise to speak in this debate on behalf of the people who have been prepared to invest millions of dollars in establishing fish farms and in the equipment necessary to both hot and cold smoke their fish, and to develop overseas markets. They can guarantee that the product that they have produced is without a doubt the cleanest and greenest product of its kind in the world and they earn in excess of $1 billion in both the domestic and export markets.I also rise to speak on behalf of the thousands of recreational fishing men and women who use the waters of the Goulburn and Lake Eildon and contribute to the more than $3 billion earned from recreational fishing. I am speaking on their behalf because they are outraged that the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service, AQIS, has released its recommendation on the import of salmonids from Canada and New Zealand that, in a nutshell, allows a product to be imported from an environment where 24 diseases have been identified into an environment that has not one of those diseases and has a status that very few other countries have—that is, disease free.It is because we have that disease-free status in both our marine and freshwater fisheries that we get a premium price for our exports and that recreational fishermen come from all over the world to fish our waters. There has been much criticism of AQIS since it released its decision, and I believe rightly so. AQIS claims that under the rules of the WTO it had no other choice. Further, it claims that we have the most conservative quarantine standards. Let us examine these claims.Firstly, let us look at our responsibilities as a member of WTO. The ground rules of WTO lie in the basic GATT principles which require:. . . that quarantine measures should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail and should not go beyond what was necessary to protect human, animal or plant life and health.These basic rights were further guaranteed when the WTO was formed in January 1994 with the establishment of the SPS agreement, which spells out the rights and obligations of member countries. Included in those is the right to protect the health of fish. In order to ensure that member countries do not use the SPS agreement as a trade barrier, article 2.1 states that measures to protect the health of species must be based on scientific principles. However, the key to working within the rules of the WTO and SPS lies in article 2.3, which clearly states that members must ensure that SPS measures do not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate between members where identical or similar conditions prevail. As AQIS itself states:One of the rights under the SPS Agreement is that the choice of how much quarantine risk a country is prepared to accept is a matter of national sovereignty. A member country has a sovereign right to determine its ALOP, ie its appropriate level of protection.AQIS states:It is not open to a member to take varying approaches to the acceptance of risk in that a member cannot take a very conservative approach to risk in relation to the entry of one commodity and be willing to accept a much higher level of risk for another commodity.One must ask, then: why does AQIS impose strict quarantine measures on, for example, chicken meat that has the potential to cause disease but not apply the same standard to fish that is sourced from countries with 24 known diseases that could cause the demise of our aquaculture? AQIS seems to base its inconsistent position on the difference of its definition or interpretation of probable risk versus possible risk. It must be noted, however, that AQIS has made its decision before firm guidelines have been developed by the SPS committee to assist WTO members in the implementation of their obligations in regard to consistency in risk management.In dealing with risk assessment, this brings me to AQIS's claim against our aquaculture industry that they want a zero risk level. This is not so. But they want AQIS to abide by articles 5.2 and 5.3 of the SPS agreement, and in particular 5.2, which states:Members shall take into account as relevant economic factors: the potential damage in terms of loss of production or sales in the event of the entry, establishment or spread of a pest or disease; the costs of control or eradication in the territory of the importing Member; and the relative cost-effectiveness of alternative approaches to limiting risks.Let us examine some facts about the risk of these diseases and, because we have none of these diseases, we have to look at overseas experience. In 1977, New Brunswick was struck by infectious salmon anaemia or ISA, previously known only in Norway. Since then the disease has spread to Nova Scotia and Maine. Many millions of fish have been slaughtered and millions of dollars of government assistance have failed to stop the disease. Similarly in Scotland, disease has all but destroyed the salmon industry. Once again, destruction of fish has failed to prevent the disease spreading to the Shetlands. In the 1950s, whirling disease reached the USA via imported fillets from Denmark. Many of the US trout fishing rivers have been decimated and now Canadian rivers are threatened.It is significant that, in many of the 24 diseases prevalent in overseas countries, the cause is not known, the method of transmission is not known, treatment is uncertain and there are no known cures. However, it is known that we do not have any of these diseases. In a world crying out for clean, green produce and prepared to pay a premium price for it, one would think that AQIS would be arguing for a strong ALOP—as it is entitled to under the WTO rules. In fact, we must ask the question: why has AQIS walked away from its initial risk assessment in 1996 that concluded that to allow the imports of salmon was too dangerous?I want specifically to refer to the danger to freshwater trout farms. AQIS has acknowledged that freshwater trout farms are the most vulnerable to disease but, in its risk assessment, concentrates on the risk of disease to the marine environment. I want to record that, when AQIS released its draft IRA on the Internet on 12 July, there was no mention of the impact of waste disposal from processing the imported product into the freshwater environment. It was only after AQIS was contacted by the Victorian company Goulburn River Trout Australia that, later that day, the draft report suddenly contained a reference to the impact on the freshwater environment. For the record, I will table these two excerpts from the report.Further, the lack of knowledge and lack of scientific rigour by AQIS is perhaps best illustrated by their comment on whirling disease on page 70 of the report where they say that `T tubifex (the host for whirling disease) occurs uncommonly in Australia.' It further states that for whirling disease to occur infected material would have to be discarded into an aquatic environment containing T tubifex. Obviously, AQIS were unaware that T tubifex is present in significant numbers on all trout farms. However, my question is: why didn't AQIS know this when they released their report? In releasing their new position, AQIS have not released the analysis or comment by their 14-member panel of scientific experts for consultation or scrutiny. Industry is entitled to know what new scientific review was used by AQIS and what caused them to change their risk assessment.On behalf of the people I represent, I want answers to the following questions. What is AQIS's definition of an appropriate level of protection, ALOP, in relation to salmonids, given the evidence we have of the prevalence of those 24 known diseases in overseas countries that we do not have? Are fish disease surveillance and identification laws compulsory in Canada? Why was the importance of freshwater disease spread given such low priority? If whirling disease were established here, could it be controlled or eradicated? Have AQIS taken into account treatment of diseases in an Australian environment, and where is the scientific evidence to back up their claims, especially in light of our warmer water temperatures? If we have a furunculosis outbreak, can we deal with it? Do we have the means to detect these diseases? If these diseases enter Australia, what plans do we have to deal with such a problem?It is the belief of the aquaculture industry that AQIS do not have the means to test for these diseases and would have to send samples overseas for diagnostic confirmation. I am sure we all remember how long it took for a correct scientific analysis of fireblight and the disruption caused to industry. Most importantly, why do AQIS have their representative, Ms Vanessa Findlay, travelling in the USA and Canada speaking to American experts on whirling disease like Dr Beth MacConnell and providing her with a new draft report that our Australian industry has not seen? Where is the transparent consultation that AQIS are meant to be involved in in developing risk assessment. If AQIS have changed their risk assessment again, that answers many of the concerns of industry that I have raised. Why haven't they made this known to industry? In summary, Australia has the right to set its ALOP—not based on zero risk—where we choose, contrary to claims by AQIS that we have no choice. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—I believe the honourable member for McEwen wishes to table certain documents. Is leave granted?Leave granted.Committees10561105611056110561Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—I present the report of the Committee of Privileges concerning an application for the publication of a response to a reference made in the House of Representatives, September 1999, together with the minutes of the proceedings.Bills10561r793Billsr792Billsr797BillsBills10561Debate resumed from 30 March, on motion by Dr Kemp:That the bill be now read a second time.17:34:0010561Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—Let me say on behalf of the opposition that we will be supporting the government's amendments to the Public Service and Parliamentary Service bills and will be supporting the bills as amended. We welcome the progress this represents in our negotiations with the government on the future shape of the Commonwealth Public Service. There are still some important issues to be resolved through the negotiation of draft regulations, but we are confident that the bills as amended will provide a sound and much improved framework for the Public Service and Parliamentary Service for many years to come.The opposition has always supported the simplification and modernisation of the Public Service Act, which dates back to 1922 and which, over the years, has become impossibly complex and cumbersome. It was the Labor government which set in train the process of simplification by commissioning a review of the act by Ron McLeod, who was then a deputy secretary in the Department of Defence. Many of the issues identified and the recommendations made in the McLeod report, which was completed in December 1994, are reflected in the bills which are now before us and in the amendments which we have negotiated with the government. It is appropriate that, in debating this package, we recognise Ron McLeod's important contribution to the modernisation of the legislative framework of the Public Service.This is the third attempt by the government to get its Public Service Bill through the parliament. On the two previous occasions—in November 1997 and in March-April 1998—it suited the government politically to ignore the merit of the 52 amendments which the Senate made to its bill. The government was then more interested in establishing a double dissolution trigger than in making the necessary changes to achieve passage of its legislation. The opposition, with the support of the minor parties in the Senate, had made it clear that it had some very serious concerns about the government's bill. We also made it clear that we shared many of the government's objectives and were prepared to pass the bill, provided our concerns were accommodated.The Public Service is one of the key institutions of our system of government. It serves governments of either political persuasion—conservative or Labor—with equal professionalism and dedication. We have consistently argued that it is incumbent on any government which sets about radically transforming such an institution to at least consult with the alternative government about its plans. No such consultation occurred on the two previous occasions the government's Public Service Bill was presented to parliament. We therefore made our views on the bill clear through the amendments we moved in the Senate. Most of our concerns were shared by the Democrats and Senator Harradine, with the consequence that 52 amendments were successful and the government chose to lay the bill aside.The government reintroduced its bill in March this year. But on this occasion it rejected the `all or nothing' approach and sought negotiations with the opposition in an effort to satisfy our concerns and ensure passage of the bill. We welcomed that changed approach, and we appreciate the spirit in which the government has conducted the negotiations. They have been lengthy and complex. They have not yet concluded and there are some important outstanding issues. But already they have resulted in a much improved piece of legislation which will provide an appropriate legislative basis for the Public Service under governments of either political persuasion.What were our concerns with the government's original bill? Our assessment of the bill, in the form in which it is now before us—unamended—was that it would have led to a Public Service which was too susceptible to pressures from the government of the day and less willing to offer critical advice. If implemented unchanged, the bill's provisions would have undermined the independence, professionalism and efficiency of the Public Service. We concluded this was not a Public Service Australians would want and it was certainly not a Public Service a Labor government would want. The bill went too far in enhancing the powers of Public Service agency heads and converting their agencies into independent entities with separate procedures and employment conditions. It did not go far enough in protecting the independence and professionalism of the Public Service and the working conditions of public servants.The bill would have placed Public Service agency heads on a similar footing to private sector employers. They would have been able to negotiate cosy deals on salaries and conditions with their ministers, free from public scrutiny, determine the salary and conditions of their employees and hire and fire as they pleased. While the bill proscribed patronage and favouritism, its provisions would actually have encouraged them. What else could be expected from a system which facilitated political appointments at the top with the lure of special deals, which made the Senior Executive Service dependent on patronage for survival, which made public servants heavily dependent on their bosses for their salary and working conditions and which, at the same time, restricted their rights of appeal?The government's bill would have taken devolution of powers to individual departments and agencies to unacceptable levels. It simply would not make sense for agencies to be reinventing the wheel in areas of commonality, such as application of the values and code of conduct—procedures for dealing with breaches and for engagement and termination of SES employees.The amendments we moved in the Senate attempted to remedy these defects. These are the amendments which have formed the basis of our negotiations with the government. As a consequence of those negotiations, the government will today be moving some 60 amendments to its own bill. As is the way with negotiations, we have not achieved everything we desired, but we are satisfied with the progress we have made. We believe the government has made very important concessions which will be of great benefit to the Public Service and to the quality of our system of government.In relation to the powers of secretaries, the amendments to be moved by the government insert a clause setting out the responsibilities of secretaries, including assisting the minister to fulfil his or her accountability obligations to parliament, and prohibit secret deals on salary and conditions by requiring ministers to seek advice from the Remuneration Tribunal and by requiring determinations on remuneration to be open to public scrutiny. They make secretaries subject to sanctions for breaches of the code of conduct in the same way as employees and prevent secretaries from making determinations which could reduce benefits to employees under an award, certified agreement or AWA.The independence of SES employees will be enhanced by requiring the Public Service Commissioner to certify that termination is in accordance with the published procedures and in the best interests of the APS and by allow ing them access to the unfair dismissal provisions of the Workplace Relations Act.The government has agreed to maintain the office of Merit Protection Commissioner and provide it with the functions, powers and protections which are necessary for the commissioner to be independent and effective. These powers will be provided through the act and regulations. There are amendments which redress the excessive devolution of powers to individual agencies by requiring the Public Service Commissioner to issue directions on all of the values, breaches of the code of conduct and engagement and termination of SES employees. Other amendments will ensure that executive agencies which may be established under the act are accountable to the government, the parliament and the public in the same way as departments.Many of the amendments which we have negotiated with the government are designed to protect the interests of those who constitute the Public Service—the APS employees. There will be a fair system of review of employment decisions. Additional values will be included. These will ensure that the APS remains a career service and that employees are consulted and encouraged to have input on matters that affect their workplace. Ongoing employment will continue to be the norm and conditions of employment will not be subject to change, outside limited exceptional circumstances, other than by negotiation and agreement through an award, certified agreement or AWA.In relation to the provisions concerning termination of secretaries, there have been important developments in case law since the bill was drafted and last debated. I refer to the judgments of the Federal Court in relation to the actions taken by Mr Paul Barratt, the former Secretary to the Department of Defence. The court upheld Mr Barratt's complaint that he had been denied procedural fairness in the manner in which the government had sacked him. The court ruled that Mr Barratt was entitled to be informed of the government's reasons for dispensing with his services and that he was also entitled to an opportunity to respond.The opposition had initially proposed a different method of affording secretaries who were being terminated a greater degree of procedural fairness. We had proposed that a report to the Prime Minister on the termination of a secretary be signed not only by the Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet but also by the Public Service Commissioner as well. In the earlier Senate debate, we attempted to amend the bill to this end, but we were not successful. In the interim, the Federal Court has set out very specific requirements for procedural fairness in the case of termination of secretaries. We pressed the government in our negotiations on this issue to reflect the outcome of the Barratt case in its bill. We consider the inclusion of the reference to that judgment in clause 59(1) constitutes adequate acknowledgment of that case and the obligations it places on governments.As to the matters which are still outstanding, there are three: the details of the processes to be followed for review of employment decisions, the handling of the machinery of government changes and the circumstances in which Australian Public Service employees can be employed on a non-ongoing basis. We have reached agreement with the government on the basic structure of the new processes which will apply to the review of employment decisions. The current system of tripartite committees will continue to be used for appeals against promotional decisions. The recommendations of these committees will continue to be binding on agency heads.Appeals against other employment decisions will be considered in the first instance by the relevant agency head. If the matter is not resolved satisfactorily, the appellant may take it to the Merit Protection Commissioner. The commissioner's recommendations in these matters will not be binding on the agency head, but if the commissioner is not satisfied with the action taken by the agency head this can be reported to the agency minister, the Prime Minister or the parliament. The precise details of these processes are still to be finalised in the form of regulations.Machinery of government changes pose increasingly difficult challenges for govern ments in the brave new world of the Howard government's industrial relations. With agency bargaining and the increasing use of Australian workplace agreements, AWAs, the standard Public Service classification structures and conditions of employment are disappearing. As a consequence, if a group of employees is moved from one agency to another as a result of a machinery of government change, it is more likely than not that in their new workplace they will have different employment conditions from their colleagues.We have been concerned to ensure that machinery of government changes cannot be used as a means of reducing the remuneration, or other conditions of employment, of employees who are affected by these administrative changes. We have made some progress in this direction, as evidenced by the amendment which the government will be moving to clause 72 of the bill. But the detailed handling of these situations is still to be finalised in the draft regulations.The final outstanding matter in our negotiations with the government—and the most difficult and important one—is the drafting of regulations concerning the engagement of Australian Public Service employees. The government has accepted ongoing employment as the norm and has agreed to specify in the bill the categories of employment which will be available in the APS. The circumstances in which persons may be engaged on a temporary or casual basis are to be set out in regulations. We attach great importance to getting this right. We will not be party to the casualisation of the Public Service, nor to arrangements which will constitute open slather for the hiring of employees on a temporary basis. The government's current proposal, to allow temporary employment for periods up to six years, is unacceptable. We consider this would be seriously detrimental to the professionalism and the morale of the Public Service.The regulations concerning machinery of government changes and categories of employment take us into the realm of complex industrial matters—matters which are of vital concern to the public sector unions, in particular the CPSU. We have kept the CPSU informed of the progress of our negotiations with the government and have made every effort to reflect their concerns in those negotiations. We are pleased that the government has agreed to involve them directly in the process of finalising these two sets of regulations.As I indicated in commencing my remarks, the opposition will be supporting the amendments to be moved by the government and we will be supporting the bill as amended, together with its accompanying consequential amendment bill. However, given the importance of the three issues which remain to be resolved through the drafting of regulations, our support for the third reading of the bills in the Senate will be contingent on our satisfaction with those regulations.We are also dealing today with the Parliamentary Service Bill 1999 . We are pleased that the Presiding Officers have agreed to amendments to the bill which reflect the outcome of our negotiations with the government on the amendments to the Public Service Bill. We will be supporting those amendments and the bill itself, but again our position on the third reading of this bill in the Senate will be contingent on our satisfaction with the determinations which will detail the processes to be followed for review of employment decisions under clause 32 and the circumstances in which employees can be employed on a non-ongoing basis.We are discussing with the parliamentary administration some additional amendments to the Parliamentary Service Bill which reflect those that we moved in the Senate on the last occasion that it was debated. We hope these discussions will reach a satisfactory conclusion prior to the Senate debate. Once again, on behalf of the opposition I express our thanks for the cooperative approach adopted by the government in its negotiations. We trust that will continue to enable the outstanding matters with regulations to be dealt with expeditiously.17:50:0010565Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—In introducing my remarks by way of some kind of contribution to the consideration of the Public Service and Parliamentary Service bills and amendments—and it is most pleasing that both the major parties are now in agreement—I would like to return to some comments that were made by the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, the member for Goldstein, shortly after his appointment to that position when he spoke to the IPAA National Conference entitled `Public administration in the new democratic state'. The minister outlined his vision of the Public Service for the new millennium.The minister said that he saw four contextual dimensions within which the new Public Service should function. The first was increasing social and economic globalisation, the second was an enhanced rate of the speed and scale of change, the third was higher educational attainment and the fourth was what the minister described as `the further advance of the human spirit'. The latter dimension consisted of `a growing demand for more recognition of equal dignity and equal opportunities for all and increasing resistance to closed positions of privilege'. The operational imperatives of the dimensions were more sophisticated public demands for flexibility, quality, ideas and accountability. The minister set out at that time his vision that meeting these challenges requires intellectual and creative capital rather than the capacity to make and follow rules.How true it is that Australia's Public Service and Australia's public servants work and serve the Australian public and the governments that it elects in an environment and a world that is vastly different from what it was when the Public Service Act was passed in 1922. Judith Homeshaw from the University of Tasmania, in the Australian Journal of Public Administration in September 1998, said:The original Public Service Act 1922 started out as a 52-page, 102-clause document designed for a simpler age when the Commonwealth government had far fewer responsibilities vis a vis the states, and notions of social justice extended about as far as the family wage provisions in Higgins' Harvester decision. Australia was largely Anglo-Celtic and women did not count in the public service because they did not work as efficiently as men. The first Public Service Board report said that this was because of the: `sapping of the vitality of unmarried young women at an earlier age in life'. However, legislative simplicity and brevity can also mean vulnerability and discrimination.This bill and the amendments to it very much serve not only the interests of efficiency, fairness and equity and the other four principles that were set out by the minister shortly after his appointment but also serve the interests of those Australians whom the Public Service ultimately serves.One of the thematic criticisms of the government in trying to undertake Public Service reforms since its election in March 1996 has been that the government's reforms have resulted in fewer people being employed in Australia's Public Service. A couple of points need to be made in response to that. The first is that any organisation, certainly any business, can spend only what it earns and, except in some circumstances for governments in deficit budgeting, should actually spend less than it is earning.It was imperative for Australia, in consolidating the finances of our country, apart from bringing a sense of economic and administrative efficiency to the Public Service, to actually employ the number of public servants appropriate to the needs of the Australian government. Judith Homeshaw also said:When machinery of government reforms were instigated in 1987—that of course was when Bob Hawke was the Prime Minister of Australia—the APS had 177,742 staff employed under the Public Service Act. In June 1997 there were 133,602—a fall of 25 per cent. The Australian Public Service Statistics Report for 1997 argues that the fall is only 8 per cent in real terms, given the changing coverage of the Act over the 10 years, but this changing coverage is in itself significant.This was attributed to corporatisation, the establishment of stand-alone government agencies and the shift to other modes of service and advice delivery such as contracting, employing consultants and, more recently, the creation of cross-portfolio service centres throughout the country.The single most important public administration event of 1997 was the introduction to the federal parliament of the Public Service Bill 1997. It is interesting when you go to the rationale for those reforms, which of course I strongly support, and you compare those with the rationale for the reforms put up by the Hawke government in 1987: they are essentially transposable. There has been a bit of a change here today in debating this bill and these amendments. It is a pity that whoever is in opposition feels that, at times, they need to criticise, if not denigrate, what the government of the day is trying to do in relation to the Public Service when in government both sides essentially realise that, fundamentally, the same policy objectives need to be set and achieved.The Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Bill 1999 repeals the Public Service Act 1922 and the Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act 1984. Given the remarks I made about the Public Service Act 1922, you will wonder why it was not done earlier. It forms part of a package of two bills, one proposed bill and an act, and represents another instalment in the government's program to further allow for maximising performance in the Public Service.There are three essential provisions of the bill. The first are transitional provisions, which cover three broad areas. The first comprises conversion arrangements for those who work in the Australian Public Service, removing the term `officers' and creating a single employment category. This has the effect of giving Public Service staff employees and corresponding agencies the corresponding classifications.The second of the transitional provisions relates to first tier and second tier mobility rights under the Public Service Act 1922. This is a significant transitional arrangement, covering the rights of return of staff who have left the Public Service to enable them to take up non-Public Service Commonwealth employment under the complex provisions of part IV of the old act. The new bill will not contain mobility provisions, but those public servants who have part IV mobility rights of return to the Public Service will retain them for three years. That will be covered by regulations. In March last year, Public Service regulations were amended to delete most non-Public Service and Commonwealth agencies and statutory officers from part IV provisions in any case.When you look at what is going on around the country—and I certainly know, Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, it is the case in your electorate of Franklin—and when you see the kinds of changes that are being wrought in our society and the problems that businesses and their employees have had over the last 15 years, you can see how anachronistic some things are in the Public Service Act. Those things are being dealt with by this bill and in these amendments. A detailed exposition of the mobility provisions is set out in the explanatory memorandum. But the essential features are the first and second tier arrangements, and they are actually worth having a look at. Division 2, part IV of the 1922 act deals with first tier employees. These are Public Service employees who have taken up employment with a statutory authority but who have retained the right to return to the Public Service at any time they please. Such officers are generally deemed to be on leave from the Public Service, but time spent with the non-Public Service authority by such employees counts as service in the Public Service.Division 3 of part IV of the Public Service Act 1922 deals with second tier employees. This division applies to Public Service officers who are covered by part IV of the Public Service Act and who choose to remain, at the end of an initial three-year period with an authority, in the employment of that authority or another body. Officers covered by the second tier arrangements can apply for promotion or transfer to Public Service vacancies and exercise promotion appeal rights as if they were still Public Service officers. They also have certain rights of re-entry to the Public Service in cases where they have been or are about to be displaced from employment by their current non-Public Service employer. Whilst trying to encourage professional, educational, academic and career development amongst public servants is very important, one has to wonder in this day and age whether those sorts of provisions ought to remain other than at the discretion of agency heads. For that reason amongst others, I am pleased that this bill deals with the issue.Staff of the Public Service who now go back to work from a Commonwealth authority, or who take up a statutory office, no longer have a right of return under part IV of the act. Public servants will instead be required to obtain leave without pay from their Public Service employer or to resign from the Public Service. Leave without pay would be requested from Public Service agency heads. I must say that I have the greatest admiration for most of the public servants with whom I have worked, not only in my current life but in my previous one, despite some of the criticisms that are made throughout the country of public servants by people who think they are underworked and overpaid.Dealing with some of these part IV mobility issues is long overdue. The term `sheltered workshop' sprang to mind when I read about this. I had some experience with it in my previous life in that, occasionally, very good people were seconded from the Public Service to work with the Australian Medical Association on some of our industrial issues, but I wondered whether it was an appropriate way in a modern society to conduct employment arrangements in such a large work force.There is a third transitional issue. It is important to provide for the continuation of processes that are already under way. Action may have already been commenced under the Public Service Act 1922 or the Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act 1984 which will not be completed by the time the new Public Service Act is proclaimed. Changes to these acts will be dealt with in regulation.Embedded in this legislation are various amendments to the Remuneration and Allowances Act 1990, the most significant of which is possibly item 756, which includes amendments to subclauses 1(2) and 1(3) of schedule 3. Subclause 1(2) currently provides that the annual salary of members of parliament be equal to the minimum annual salary payable to Australian Public Service officers at the SES Band 2 level. As these are now set by individual workplace agreements, there is essentially no longer a minimum annual rate of salary payable in respect of that classification. It is further accentuated under clause 24 of the Public Service Bill by the formal provision of the determination of salary setting arrangements for SES and non-SES employees to the agency level.Some of my colleagues will possibly say, `That Nelson again! He's a fool. Fancy talking about these sorts of things in relation to the bill,' but it is important that I take the same attitude to discussing remuneration issues for members of parliament that I did when trying to defend the professional interests of the medical profession. We need to discuss these things openly. It has been of some concern to me that, for up to a couple of years now, there has not been any formal mechanism linking federal parliamentarians' salary arrangements to any kind of indexation mechanism. At some point further down the line, this could create significant problems for anyone who tries to address it. It is to the credit of the government, and I understand it is supported by the opposition, that at least some kind of mechanism is being put in place.In terms of workplace agreements, I would be very happy to be on one myself. I think that the whole system by which members of parliament are paid requires significant review—and I realise that by even talking about this I am probably making yet another career limiting move. Going back to some comments I have made publicly in the past, I do wonder whether it would be preferable if members of parliament were paid from a global budget, not a budget from which we run our offices but one from which we receive a global amount of money to pay our accommodation in Canberra—if you wanted to stay in a caravan or the Hyatt, that is your business—and from which we buy our wreaths, raffle tickets and all the other things that we do. We should pay into a superannuation fund like everybody else and it should be one into which no-one backs a tip truck loaded with someone else's money. The amount of money we are paid should be varied according to the sorts of electorates we represent—for example, I doubt that my total package as a member representing an inner suburban Sydney metropolitan electorate would be the same as my friend and colleague the member for Kalgoorlie.These are the kinds of issues that we ought to be discussing. I realise that they are tangential to this bill, but one of the reasons why there is an increasing sense of alienation from institutions in our country is that we seem too often to want to run away from debating the real issues. Evidence of this is the debate about whether or not we ought to be a republic, when the real issue for Australians is: how best can we govern ourselves in a federation in a world that is vastly different from what it was 100 years ago? The sorts of things we ought to be looking at earnestly as a nation are state-Commonwealth relations, the length of terms that are served by federal governments in particular, the number of politicians we have in our country—federal, state and local—and the way in which we remunerate those people. Coming back to the bill, I think it is a sensible move to at least have some kind of indexation linked to parliamentarians' remuneration; to do otherwise might create many more problems.What this bill includes as the amendments under item 756 is the linking of the annual salary of MPs to the `minimum executive office salary'. The minimum executive office salary will be either the minimum annual rate of salary payable at the SES band 2 or, where the principal executive classification is prescribed by the regulations, the minimum annual rate of salary applicable to that classification. The other interesting amendments are those to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973. Subsection 5(2)(a) proposes that the Remuneration Tribunal will, in addition to its current functions:. determine a classification structure for principal executive offices. provide advice to the relevant employing bodies in relation to terms and conditions on which principal executive offices are to be held.However, remuneration, allowances, terms and conditions for a principal executive office may be determined by the relevant employing body under section 12C. Under these changes, an employing body will first request the assistance of the Remuneration Tribunal if it wishes to determine terms and conditions for a principal executive office classification that will be consistent with the classification structure determined by the tribunal under subsection 5(2)(a). Whilst that is fairly legalistic jargon in terms of legislative drafting, it actually means that we will have a much more efficient, logical and sensible system.So, I commend the bill and the amendments to the House. I also hope that at some time in the future the parliament will have the maturity to start to address the issues of politicians' remuneration in some meaningful way. It is interesting that one of the aid organisations asked me if I was prepared to donate my last hour's pay of the century to a very worthy charitable cause for children. I wrote to them and I said that I would in fact do better than that and would donate six hours because, when you sit down and work out your hourly rate, it is about $4. I realise that, by community standards, as members of parliament we have no reason to complain at all, but I think it is a two-way street. People need to appreciate the extent of work that is put in by members of parliament. At least there is an indexation mechanism here. Hopefully, at some point, we will discuss what I consider to be the real issues.18:10:0010569Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—The Public Service Bill 1999 and the Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Bill 1999 presented here today represent the culmination of much effort by the trade union movement, particularly the Community and Public Sector Union, in making it possible for the opposition to support these bills in principle today. Agreement has been reached on some 60 amendments to the bills, with nearly half of the 78 clauses being amended since the bills were last in this House. Three key issues, however, remain unanswered and these constitute the basis of my concerns: (1) types of employment—that is, the government has been extremely inflexible in the engagement of `specified term' employees; (2) machinery of government (MOG) changes—the government does not want to provide for the full transmission of existing conditions as a result of MOG changes; and (3) reviews/appeals—agreement has been reached that binding promotion appeals will be retained with a three-member review committee hearing the appeal. However, there will not be designated union nominees on the committees. All other applications for review of action will only result in a recommendation to the agency head, with the Merit Protection Commissioner being able to report to the Prime Minister and parliament should he/she not be satisfied with the response to the recommendation.It was only 10 months ago that I delivered my maiden speech in this House, on 12 November 1998. In that speech I noted, inter alia, as follows:Since 1995 I have watched the APS being torn apart. This has resulted in absolute job losses in the public sector. At a local level in Lowe I have already had, in response to the savage cuts to Centrelink, a deputation from the CPSU . . . The Public Service is . . . the interface between the government and the governed. It provides services fairly, honestly, without discrimination and with great efficiency, remaining always accountable to the elected government of the day. The service is independent of the whims and fancies of individual politicians as it is required to act always in accordance with the law . . . It seems to me that the government is seeking to destroy the effect of interface between the government and the governed.That is what I said nearly 12 months ago. There can be no greater affront to the rule of law than the systematic undermining of the rules of natural justice. These include the bias rule, the right to be heard and the probative evidence rule. Let us look at what these bills mean. Let us count the cost to Australia as a so-called democracy and judge the social implications of these bills in light of the operation of our democratic processes.These bills represent potentially a blatant attack on the operation of natural justice in Australia. There is no comparison with or precedent for this level of attack on the operation of natural justice. We see here the systematic dismantling of the Australian Public Service (APS). We see far more than a decimation of the APS in both its role and its physical numbers. We see a public service that the Prime Minister himself declared in the media in January this year as needing to be more politically sensitive. In this one statement, the Prime Minister demonstrated his understanding of responsible government.It is timely to remind ourselves of what responsible government means. Responsible government is not a function of how receptive the Public Service is to its contractual masters, the Federal Government Inc. Rather, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, the Constitution, prescribes in section 64:After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office for a longer period than three months unless he becomes a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.I feel compelled to remind the Prime Minister why this section exists in the Constitution. It exists because the Federal Executive Council must be responsible to the public. Political responsibility does not mean the Public Service is at the whim of elements of the legislature. I give the Prime Minister credit for pulling this swiftie. It is clever, but not clever enough. What the Prime Minister is doing is immoral. The Public Service is the port of entry between the Federal Executive Council and the public. Public participation depends on a public service that is impartial, indifferent to the outcome of parliamentary decision making, probative in its fact gathering in the presentation of advice to the Federal Executive Council and which affords every citizen equal right to be heard on matters of the public interest.That is natural justice. That is the rule of law. The public service in our Westminster system must possess the following attributes: (1) it must be impartial; (2) it must be unencumbered by sectional or vested interests; and (3) it must be insulated and protected against the threat of reprisals for giving advice that runs contrary to other private interests that may bias or otherwise infiltrate particular political parties within our parliamentary structure.I note here that the political parties are not accommodated in our current constitutional structure; at least, there is no formal recognition of political parties in our Constitution. This has had the unfortunate effect of enmeshing both the federal executive function and sectional vested interests into one and the same body.In these particular circumstances, we see the big end of town, corporate entities, acting as players in the Federal Executive Council, represented by the Liberal-National Party coalition. Therefore, when the Prime Minister speaks of a public service that is more politically sensitive, he is really saying `a public service that is more sensitive to the vested interests that contaminate and bias Liberal-National coalition policy'.By comparison, the correct role of the Public Service is to accurately represent the public interest in an impartial and unbiased way. The Public Service must present the needs and concerns of the public in the various community consultations from those little republics that constitute the factor inputs that form the fabric of policy formulation. The Public Service is where those little republics—that great battery of social institutions such as trade unions, churches, lobby groups, professional organisations, community and welfare groups, et cetera—may freely present their case and state their claim and thus work collaboratively in the formulation of public policy. Instead, the Prime Minister's political sensitivity means that we will redirect sensitivity away from the general public and in favour of the sectional and vested interests of those who have infiltrated the Federal Executive Council through the political party operatives of this federal government.How do these bills achieve the quantum shift in responsibility away from the public interest and in favour of the Prime Minister's so-called national interest—an oft quoted term which really translates into vested interests of big business? Let us examine what these bills actually mean in this context. First, the bills will further decimate the Public Service employment base. When this government took office in 1996, there were 350,200 employees in the Commonwealth public sector. As at 30 June 1998, the number of employees has fallen to 248,300, a decrease of 30 per cent. During the 1997-98 financial year, the number of staff employed under the Public Service Act decreased by 13,065. That is more than 10 per cent in one year.The impact of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 on the Public Service Act needs to be read in the context of the overriding ethic of the federal government. In particular, the Workplace Relations Regulations 1996 allow APS employees to override prescribed provisions of the Public Service Act relating the `hire and fire' powers in their certified agreements and Australian Workplace Agreements. Similarly, certified agreements and AWAs may be used to exclude the operation of determinations made under section 82AD of the Public Service Act. Also, a new direction issued by the Public Service Commission in February 1998 places responsibility on departments and agencies to develop procedures for managing poor performance by their employees and inserting these into certified agreements and AWAs.What we are witnessing is the conspicuous shift from a regime of public responsibility to the privatisation of the public sector. We have witnessed more than just a system of greater political sensitivity and degradation of the public sector to being lackeys. The duty relationship between employer and employee has consumed and dominated the other duties of the Public Service, namely its duty to the public and its duty to policy. This is administrative reductionism at its worst. That is, the duty relationship between Government Incorporated and its employees is given greater weight than the duty between citizen and government through their public service.The nature of the workplace amendments, including these bills, has fundamentally altered the duty relationship, damaging and perhaps destroying it. Gone are the days of impartial, disinterested advice from the Public Service. The Public Service is very interested in the advice it gives its pseudo political masters. I say `pseudo' because it is patently clear that the government has forgotten its right to employ these staff, and the moneys it derives from the taxes which go to pay the salaries of the APS are only mediate rights. The immediate right of the existence of the APS, its governance and the policies that underpin its existence, including this parlia ment—every one of us privileged to participate in this great democratic institution called parliament—are delegated to us by the will of the people.We are not here as of right. There is no divine right to rule. None of us is born to rule. However, this government has taken upon itself an omnipotent attribute, thinking itself beyond public mandate in bestowing powers unto itself whilst at the same time undermining the immediate rights of the citizen. I need not remind this parliament that it is here purely by virtue of its popular mandate. The APS employees are now in fear of wide-ranging powers to hire and fire and of making decisions that the Federal Executive Council may feel do not reflect this newspeak political sensitivity. Extensive powers are given to departmental secretaries and agency heads in relation to the management of staff, especially in respect of recruitment of staff and managing efficiency and underperformance.This may sound intuitively appealing to some. Images of bludging public servants, who cannot be sacked, living with their snouts deeply bedded in the trough whilst doing very little, are not uncommon in Australia. In reality, the prospect of bureaucratic excesses is even more likely with public servants being retained depending on their loyalty as lackeys to the political system of the day. The Oxford Dictionary defines `lackey' as `a servile political follower'. That is what I believe the Prime Minister wishes to make the Public Service: a group of lackeys to the vested interests that govern them—a new baronage of elites who rule rather than serve.Are departmental heads elected? No, they are appointed by their political masters. Who oversees the day-to-day management of these departmental heads? No-one. Whistleblowers are routinely dispensed with, often brutally. Even though there are supposed to be provisions in the amended Public Service Regulations in respect of protection for whistleblowers who allege breaches of the code of conduct, there will be no such protection for conduct prior to 15 March 1999 for non-code related allegations of breaches.I refer to clause 16 of the Public Service Bill 1999, which prohibits `a person performing functions in or for an Agency' from victimising, or discriminating against, an APS employee because the latter has reported an alleged breach of the code of conduct to the Public Service Commissioner, the agency head or authorised persons. This clause is inserted in an attempt to afford some protection for whistleblowers. Whilst I appreciate this, I note the classification of such action to include what should be the day-to-day function of a public servant. That is, it is part of the public servant's duty to society to report anomalies in the operation of public responsibilities.This is the very reason why public servants enjoyed some immunity from easy dismissal. Employment in the Public Service is fundamentally different from employment in private enterprise. Private enterprise is private because the duty is contractual in nature. The parties involved include the employer, customers and sometimes shareholders and creditors. The duty relationship in public life is very different. The public servant's whole existence is there by virtue of public policy, public interest and public necessity. The public servant's role is to assist in a national perspective in the performance of functions which individual citizens of Australia could not possibly perform alone or even in syndicate. The public servant's power is delegated from a representative of the people in the guise of parliament, which in turn is given immediate rights to govern by the general public.The whistleblower provisions are very sinister. For one thing, inquiries into reports made by public interest whistleblowers under clause 16 are to be conducted by a Public Service commissioner. Second, the subject matter which is protected by immunity is very narrow. Public servants may still be victimised in any number of ways which do not trammel the new legislation. To put it bluntly, the new provisions do not provide adequate security in substitution for what the public servant has lost by losing their job security. It is not a fair swap. It is reductionist. It is a severe legal and statutory diminution of the standing of the Public Service—a step down from the status public servants held prior to these reductionist bills.Whether it is whistleblowers or the establishment of the Merit Protection Commissioner, the thread of reductionism prevails. It is the reduction of the duty relationship down to a mere contract that lies at the heart of the defect in the ethics being applied. Employment in the Public Service, like marriage, is not a mere contract; it is much more. It is more than merely contractual because it involves duty relationships that transcend the mere performance of consideration within the confines of a contract for services agreement. If that is all that it is, then we as a government should shut up shop as parliamentarians right now and enter private enterprise—after all, it is the same argument. To say the APS should be privatised is synonymous with saying there is no justification for a public sector. If the only distinguishing feature between public and private is who pays the bills, then there is really no need for a public sector at all. We may as well dispense with taxes altogether, farm out defence to private enterprise and simply eliminate sovereignty as a concept.This may sound foreign to many of us here today, but these are the logical consequences of such policy. Either we rediscover our public interest role and give the Public Service the autonomy it must have in a functional Westminster system or face a world where we cease to exist as a sovereign people driven by policies of an ostensibly privative nature. We stand to become a world driven by ratification of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, agreeing to further so-called globalisation without adequately accommodating our immediate policy needs to protect those higher values such as the rule of law and universalism.One look at the economic catastrophe called Victoria proves my point on where we are headed when we take privatisation of a public service to its logical end. Famous Liberal Party identity, Jeff Kennett, may deep down in his ego appreciate the strength of these words. Look at the effect of privatisation in the state of Victoria. Look at the reaction at the polling booths in Victoria—11 seats, mostly rural Victorians, flogged Kennett; a flogging well-earned and well-deserved. They told him to service their needs—the basics of what government means; that is, education, health, social services, financial accountability and auditing, law and order, roads, sewerage, electricity and transport. Victoria privatised the lot. Kennett sold the lot. Kennett dismembered the state public service. Superdepartments were formed. Everything where a slick deal and a fast buck could be made in place of providing Victorians with a service—a public service—seems to have been either sold or privatised, even planning powers, with certifiers taking the place of the local government authority, and the very ordinance powers themselves being meted out to private enterprise.The Victorian election was a catastrophe for the Liberal Party. What the Liberal Party did to cash up in the wake of their even more catastrophic economic mismanagement during the 1980s was even more stupid than their overcapitalisation in the land market. The various building societies—and the Bank of Melbourne itself—that went bust rocked the state of Victoria. Then came Jeff Kennett's fire sale of the Victorian Public Service.Messrs Howard and Costello can run but they cannot hide. They are equally deluded by the false economies of federal government asset sales. As in East Timor, I look across the charred landscape—a scorched earth policy of public sector cuts in many areas affecting my electorate of Lowe. For example, Medicare, Centrelink, the Australian Taxation Office, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Australia Post. Even the Australian Electoral Commission's office in Strathfield is not safe. I understand the government wants to co-locate it and other AEC divisional offices in the city.Does this government really believe that the public can ignore these events? Does this government really believe that a Telstra dividend or a notional budget surplus will compensate the shoe leather cost for pensioners, the unemployed, those with disabilities, those who need letterboxes and those waiting forever in bank queues, or make them forget what Mr Howard has done? This government is facing the same fate as its Victorian colleagues—a catastrophic electoral backlash. No government is safe anymore. Mere budget surpluses do not win elections. The voting public will not forget the destruction of its Public Service. Through the demise of the APS, the public's voice is being forcibly silenced. The ports of entry to public participation are being forcibly closed.Administratively, it is the timing of the bills and the repercussions if the bills were not accepted that have resulted in the opposition's giving in-principle agreement to these bills; that is, if the opposition did not support these bills, more harm than good would flow from them. To this extent, the opposition proposed only 71 amendments to the bills—a modest number when compared with the effect these bills will have on the future governance of Australia. It would be too complex to go into any detail with these 71 amendments, each of which have already been extensively discussed by my parliamentary colleagues in the Senate. This consultation has in itself resulted in the abovementioned amendments which have, I understand, been accommodated in the body of the substantive bills and therefore address the concerns therein.However, I additionally wish to note the extensive contribution of the trade unions, especially the Commonwealth Public Sector Union, the Australian Metal Workers Union, the Australian Liquor Trades, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union and the National Union of Workers. These trade unions have played a major role in formulating the outstanding regulations dealing with complex industrial matters that these bills raise.The 71 amendments are essential for the opposition's support for these bills. It will never be said that this opposition was obstructionist in its perspective. On the other hand, we cannot allow the unbridled collapse of duty relationships. No matter what the outcome of these bills, the effect on the public interest remains the same. It is one thing to vote on the operational efficiency of a bill versus its hidden costs. We may pass an efficient bill but have made for a collapse of governance. We now place our trust in the government to honour its commitments. (Time expired)Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.20:00:0010574Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—The Public Service Bill 1999 , the Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Bill 1999 and the Parliamentary Service Bill 1999 were introduced into the House on 29 October 1997, amended by the Senate in November 1997, reintroduced in March 1998 and again amended to the dissatisfaction of the House. The original legislation was laid aside by the government in April 1998 and reintroduced to the House of Representatives on 30 March 1999 in its current form. The effect of the legislation is to replace the existing employment framework governing employees of the Australian Public Service. Such staff are presently subject to the Public Service Act 1922. Similarly, the parliament's employees are addressed in the Parliamentary Service Bill.I had the pleasure of speaking to this bill when it first came before the House of Representatives in 1997. Since that time the original legislation has been twice mangled by the Senate and twice those amendments have been rejected by this House. The legislation has returned in the form of these bills and I sincerely hope that finally we might be able to achieve the outcome that best benefits the Commonwealth government, its employees and the people those employees serve. That outcome is the one that will arise from the passage of these bills without the death by a thousand amendments suffered by the previous bills.In addressing the parliament on this matter two years ago, I made the point of reflecting on the importance of integrity and respect for the Australian Public Service. In a society that is at times wary of the intentions and actions of governments of all persuasions, in fact is wary—not without cause—of the state as an institution, it is crucial that those who implement and advise upon government policy exhibit the professional standards that are the hallmark of the Australian Public Service at its finest. Even a hint of corruption or malpractice within the public sector reflects not only on all of us but also on our country at large. We can be immensely proud in this country that we have had very limited examples of that kind of malpractice. Integrity is something that is accepted as being very much a part of the Australian public sector. In the past we have not always recognised the importance of that fact, not simply because a country is well served by an honest and respected public service but also because such an asset is fundamental to this country's continued success, socially and economically.In recent months we have all had cause to reflect on the success of this nation and its economy in avoiding the pitfalls produced by the crisis that lately enveloped the economies of Asia and many other developing regions. Undoubtedly the masterful economic policies of the Treasurer and of this government, especially the steadfast commitment to overcoming budget deficits and public debt, has let Australia not only ride out the storm but also surf the wave of global economic turmoil.Longer term factors have also played a part in this success. It has already been remarked upon by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer that the application of liberal economic policy and the repudiation of socialist solutions to socialist problems by the Labor governments of the 1980s—with the full and open support of the coalition in opposition—set the scene for a strong and competitive Australia to enter the new century with hope and optimism. It seems a long time ago that a Singaporean Prime Minister might have had cause to suggest that Australians were the `white trash of Asia'.In all their ruminations on this success, a number of the most insightful analysts have focused their attention on the differences in law, public administration, freedom of information and justice between Australia and many nations now beset by downturn and pessimism. Essentially, the strong historical commitment to honest and impartial law making in this country has created an environment in which innovation, open dealings and trade can flourish, not without instances of difficulty but without systemic problems. Systems of governance that once seemed enticing now seem a lot less attractive than those which we enjoy. The important reforms to public administration before this House strengthen this commitment and address some of those instances of difficulty.The Public Service Act 1922 is now 77 years old. In those 77 years it has been amended more than 100 times. Its capacity to guide an effective Australian public service, serving the Australian public and national development, in its current form, is now in question. The act, as it presently stands, sets in legislative concrete values and practices that are historical rather than effective. For this reason, public servants themselves have sought in recent years to create workplace environments that can best serve the public rather than the act. As I noted in 1997, in a legislatively hamstrung environment, innovation is neglected and flexibility denied.These reforms to the public sector are part of the government's broader micro-economic reform agenda and ought to have the support of both sides in this House and in the other place. The opposition ought to disregard their previous stance on these bills and consider the real need for reform. After all, members of previous Labor administrations did consider the kinds of reforms being debated here today. They rightly understood that the Public Service ought to serve the public as its goal rather than serve the act. Labor held the reviews and conducted the negotiations. However, Labor's allegiance to the Public Service unions outweighed the rights of taxpayers, the nation's economic health and, it should be noted, the actual interests of Australia's public servants. In 1997, I suggested to the House that the good intentions of ex-ministers such as the Hon. Gary Johns were wasted in such an environment. Unfortunately, I have not had sufficient cause to re-evaluate that judgment.Some reforms have already been achieved through administrative means. For instance, agency heads now have greater authority and flexibility with which to manage staff. New Public Service values and a code of conduct have been set out in regulation. Public accountability has been strengthened and protection for whistleblowers has been introduced. It is noteworthy that the Senate has not sought to overturn those amendments that were achieved through the amendment of the present act. If only that interest in reform can be translated into the acceptance and support of this legislation before us today.Other speakers from the government both today and at previous incarnations of this bill have laid out in detail the measures contained in these three bills. As such, I shall not repeat those comments. I note simply that the legislation addresses a number of pressing issues which have not been amenable to simplification and improvement through administrative means, such as giving employment powers direct to agency heads; grounding in parliament derived law a secure framework for APS values, conduct and whistleblowers protection; removing inflexible employment categories; and removing compulsory age 65 retirement. Further, the reforms contained in this legislation move the Public Service away from central control towards the kind of management that best serves employees and clients. In the broadest context, the word `clients' means the Australian people.Before closing, I will address an issue which seems to me to be worth further examination by the government. This issue was brought to my attention by Ross MacGregor in a recent Quadrant article. The bill strives to further entrench the value of merit in staffing decisions. For instance, it specifically seeks to ensure that appointments within the APS are not subject to political patronage. My concerns relate to section 10(1)(b), which outlines the values of the service, and states:10 APS Values(1) The APS Values are as follows:. . . . . . . . . (b) the APS is a public service in which employment decisions are based on merit.I repeat, `employment decisions are based on merit'. That would certainly be a value respected by all Australians, but questions of merit and public employment are inevitably tainted by the triumph of political correctness in the 1980s and the 1990s. MacGregor catalogues in his article the various means by which merit has been undermined by notions of proportionism in hiring and special notions of disadvantage.Section 10(2) of the bill deems a decision to be based on merit if it is based primarily on assessment of suitability and qualifications with regard to the position in question. As secondary factors are not apparently defined, this does suggest that merit is only one factor in consideration. Section 11 may also give the Public Service Commissioner the power to further override the merit principle in favour of the various categories of `victimhood' that were so prevalent under the previous government. I hope that this will not see a return to the bad old days of political correctness at the expense of the taxpayer and the public. I commend the bill to the House.20:11:0010576Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—One thing that we on this side of the House are always a little sceptical of is the government when it comes to industrial relations, but it appears that on this occasion the government is going to include a number of amendments which are welcomed by the opposition. This government has been consistent in its attack on workers' conditions and job security. In every piece of legislation, every word it utters in relation to workplace reform signals an attack on workers. So you can understand our scepticism in relation to the public service and parliamentary service legislation and also to the history of this legislation, and the previous attempts by the government in relation to public sector reform add to that scepticism.Workplace reform in the maritime industry signalled an attack on workers in that industry. It led to sackings and secret deals between the employers and government at the expense of workers. It led to a situation where workers were under siege and to great division within that work force. These are some of the reasons that we worry about this government's reform agenda. Generally speaking, reform does not mean reform for all parties; it means reform for one specific sector, and that is usually the employer. In this case, that employer is the Commonwealth of Australia and I believe that the onus on the government to ensure that those reforms take the workers with them is greater than in any other area.If the government's success in workplace reform is evaluated on its ability to create division, then it seems to have an overabundance of ability to attack workers. That evaluation would show that it has been quite successful to date because there has been an erosion of working conditions and security for workers here in Australia.The Howard government advocates the need for micro-economic reform, the removal of red tape, workplace flexibility and the encouragement of a direct relationship between employers and workers. There are a lot of those things that we on this side of the House can see will benefit Australia, both the government and workers. But as so often under this government, micro-economic reforms and a change in direction signal an attack on workers. When the Howard government's workplace reforms have been introduced, they have shown that workplace flexibility means a loss of working conditions for workers. Workplace flexibility means that under the Howard government you can no longer assume you will go to work and be certain that you will have a job when you come home. Howard government flexibility changes on a daily basis. You do not have the security of knowing that your job and conditions are going to be maintained.It is all about creating a situation where the workers are basically in their jobs at the whim of the employer. The reduction of red tape could mean that it makes it easier for businesses to operate and that it makes a better and more efficient Public Service. However, it can also mean that it is easier to sack workers. That is what worries me. We do not want a situation in this country where workers in our Public Service can go to work one day and be given a letter that says, `Sorry, your job doesn't exist any longer.'The move to a direct relationship between employers and workers is one way of getting rid of unions. It makes sure that the unions do not play a part in negotiations. What does this mean? It means it will lead to a reduction in wages for workers, poorer conditions and longer working hours. It seems to be a bit of a one-way street, one that is about protecting the employer—in this case, the Commonwealth—against the worker.The Howard government sought to impose its 1950s reactionary type reforms on the Public Service on two previous occasions, but it failed to ram its legislation through the parliament. On the two previous occasions, the legislation was so anti-worker, so anti the employees—the fine public servants we have here in Australia—that it was rejected by the Senate and could have acted as a trigger for a double dissolution in the previous parliament.In Australia, we have a highly skilled, professional, hardworking, independent, non-partisan Public Service. That is what we want to keep. They are valued employees of the Commonwealth and we should recognise it. After the Victorian elections, Jeff Kennett gave credit to his strong public service in that state. I put it to the government that we have an even stronger, better, more qualified Public Service here in the Commonwealth. We should appreciate it and make our workers feel valued.We get the best graduates. There is a highly competitive system in place whereby the most highly educated, the highest performing graduates, are offered positions in the Public Service. To even obtain a position as a base grade clerk in the Public Service you have to perform at a very high level. Those positions are highly competitive. If we are to continue attracting highly qualified, high calibre people to the Public Service we need a public service where there is security of employment and where our workers in the Public Service retain good wages and conditions.Why would a government attack its strength? The engine room of the government is its public service. If the country is to thrive and the government is to succeed, we need a strong public service from the base grade clerks to the SES. I am extremely worried that this government is not showing that concern and does not place that value on our Public Service. This government has a hatred of anything public, which leads to its obsession with selling off government assets and contracting out public sector services. This erodes and runs down our Public Service and leads to poorer conditions for those left behind in the Public Service.The partial sale of Telstra is, once again, an erosion of our public sector. The CES has been replaced with Employment National. There has been the contracting out of the case management functions and other services previously provided by our Commonwealth Employment Service. What does this mean? There are fewer people employed in the public sector, there are fewer career options and, at the same time, the people of Australia are not getting the same service.We are finding a similar situation in Centrelink, where the staff have been cut. The Public Service staff employed in Centrelink are being asked to do more work over longer hours under extreme stress and pressure. What is the government doing? It is looking at attacking their conditions. That is the way that the public sector has seen these two previous bills. Although I am pleased with the changes that have taken place in the negotiations over the last five or six months, they have been slow in coming.The contracting out of government services is leading to a decline in services to the public of Australia and lessening the ability of the government to monitor those services that have been contracted out. This leads to an erosion of quality and the inability to assess whether that quality still exists. When public servants deliver a service, they deliver it directly and are directly accountable. There is a loss of accountability with contracted out services. Few cost-benefit analyses have been done in this country. We cannot look at contracted out services and really determine whether we are getting value for money. We are told that we cannot be informed about what is happening simply because it is all commercial-in-confidence.This government believes that private is better. Because of that, it has undermined the Public Service. The government has an ideological commitment to its philosophy of privatisation. It believes that private sector employees are better than public sector employees. I have already mentioned the quality of people who go into the Public Service, be they graduates, people at the base grade level or those with high professional qualifications. The government believes that they should become more like their private counterparts and that this will be achieved by changing conditions. It believes that flexibility, which means less security, will attract the kinds of people who are attracted to the private sector.I have news for the government. If it wants to maintain the quality Public Service that we have, that is not the way to go about it. I worked in the Public Service myself at one stage. I had the option to transfer to the private sector. Believe me, the benefits were much greater—higher wage, car and all the trimmings that go with it. But I was committed to what the Public Service is about: providing a quality service to the public and being accountable to the public. I believe that that is what most public servants are about. I have yet to come across any public servants that are not committed to providing the service to the people of Australia.As I mentioned, this is the government's third attempt to have legislation enacted to change the employment conditions in the Commonwealth Public Service. The first two bills were amended in the Senate—and they were potential triggers for a double dissolution. But they were rejected because the amendments were unacceptable to the government. They were not prepared to discuss it; they were not prepared to compromise. They were not prepared to adopt a bipartisan approach to getting the legislation through the parliament. They have the opinion that the boss set the agenda and, as they were the boss, they were saying what was going to happen—if the rest of the parliament did not come in line with them, `Well, bad luck!' This time it is different. Because it has been different and there has been consultation, the result is an improved bill—52 amendments with nearly 78 clauses being amended. That shows the value of consultation.The history of Public Service reform and this legislation within Australia is quite lengthy. It started in 1994 when the ALP government established the review of the Public Service Act. They involved the CPSU at that time. There were a series of reports—the McLeod review was tabled in December 1994—and the Public Service went through a series of reviews and processes. In 1996, the coalition was elected and in November of that year the Minister for Industrial Relations issued his discussion paper, Towards a best practice Australian Public Service. In May 1997, he issued a further document, Accountability in a devolved management framework. In June 1997, he introduced the Public Service Bill. In November 1997 the bill was introduced into the Senate and there were 52 amendments. Amendments inserted at that time included preserving the existing appeal rights of Australian public servants, providing for a genuine independent Merit Protection Commissioner, strengthening the merit principles and a number of other amendments to ensure the conditions of the workers in the Public Service. But on 5 December the government rejected it, and on 5 March 1998 the bill was reintroduced into the House of Representatives with no change. That demonstrated this government's inability at that time to consult, an inability to accept change and a desire to create conflict between the employees in the Public Service and itself.As I have already mentioned, the government has now agreed to the 52 amendments—and that is great. But some key issues still need addressing. The extreme flexibility in the engagement of specific term employees is a problem. In my time in the Public Service, a temporary employee was someone who was there for up to 12 months. This government is looking at making a person a temporary employee for up to six years. It is a real stretch of the imagination to imagine that somebody is still a temporary employee up to six years. If the workload is such that it requires a person to be kept on in a temporary position for six years, surely you can deem that that is now a permanent position. That is something that has to be looked at, and looked at very seriously, along with making sure that employees that move to a Commonwealth authority do not settle for fewer entitlements, a smaller wage and poorer conditions. They have to transfer across on the same conditions that they are under at the moment.It is very important to ensure that we have got the proper review and appeals system in place and that that system not be eroded. Once that happens, you start to lose the independence of the Public Service. It is so important that we have an independent Public Service. It is important for the government to be told things that they do not want to hear. It is important for the government to be given information on all issues and to be able to know that that information is going to be given to them in an impartial manner. It is not in the interests of either the government or Australia for the government to be told what they want to hear all the time. We need to be able to develop our ideas and to be able to consider other ideas and other positions.Under this government, there has been a ballooning in AWAs. There are in excess of 5,000 AWAs in the Commonwealth Public Service. It is all right if you are in a highly paid position in the Public Service. It is all right if you are in the SES and are in a position to negotiate on even terms. But if you are a base grade clerk you are not in the same bargaining position. The government must not use this legislation to disadvantage those workers in the work force who are in a less powerful position. And it must not be used to increase the number of casual employees by a further casualisation of the work force.This government does not have a reputation for respecting its employees. It is a government that views workers as its adversaries, to be taken on and beaten into submission. The boss's word is supreme and the boss sets the agenda. That is this government's approach to dealing with issues between workers and employers, and in this case the government is the employer. It is the government that is the boss and it is the public servants who are the employees. I think that is a concern. The Prime Minister, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and the government as a whole should recognise what Jeff Kennett recognised in Victoria: it is the quality and the dedication of loyal, hardworking public servants that spells success for the government. It is time that this government recognises the value of its Public Service and the valuable role it plays in Australia's future and in the government's micro-economic reform agenda. The government should recognise this and, accordingly, treat its Public Service with respect.20:31:0010579Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—The Public Service Bill 1999 proposes to replace the existing employment framework governing staff of the Australian Public Service, the APS, currently contained in the Public Service Act 1922. The Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Bill 1999 repeals the Public Service Act 1922, contains transitional provisions in relation to mobility rights of officers of the Australian Public Service under the Public Service Act 1922 and proposes amendments to other Commonwealth legislation to reflect its repeal.These bills propose significant changes to the legislative framework governing the employment of approximately 125,000 Australian public servants, many of whom work and/or reside in my electorate of Canberra. The Public Service Act 1922 prescribes in considerable detail conditions of employment of officers of the APS. These include provisions relating to the appointment, promotion and transfer of employees; provisions for the investigation of allegations of misconduct and associated disciplinary provisions; wide-ranging provisions relating to retirement; and provisions relating to mobility of officers between the APS and other Commonwealth employers. However, with the advent of agency level and individual bargaining in the APS, there is now considerable variation in levels of pay and other terms and conditions of employment across departments and agencies. The extent of variation will only increase with further rounds of bargaining.The history of this Public Service Bill is long and controversial. In fact, the present bill had its beginnings under the previous Labor government. In 1994, the Keating government announced a review of the Public Service Act 1922, headed by Mr Ron McLeod. The report of the review was presented in December 1994. In August 1995, the government an nounced its response to the McLeod review, accepting the majority of the report's 118 recommendations. I understand that legislation was prepared to give effect to the McLeod recommendations, but it was not introduced before the March 1996 federal election.Following the 1996 election, Minister Reith issued a discussion paper, Towards a best practice Australian Public Service. The discussion paper advocated the need for reform of the APS with the principal mechanism for so doing being the repeal of the Public Service Act 1922. Between December 1996 and February 1997, there was an extensive consultation program within the APS involving major interested parties about the issues raised in the discussion paper. In addition, the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee conducted a roundtable to consider the discussion paper.In May 1997, at the conclusion of this consultation process, the Public Service and Merit Protection Commission, the PSMPC, and the Department of Industrial Relations—as it then was—published The Public Service Act 1997: accountability in a devolved management framework, commonly known as the ADMF report. The ADMF report set out the proposed framework for a new public service act. The report proposed the removal of provisions prescribing conditions of employment of APS members with these to be governed by agreements under the Workplace Relations Act 1996, the repeal of the Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act 1984 and the consequent abolition of the Merit Protection Review Agency.In June 1997, the Public Service Bill 1997 and the Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Bill 1997 were introduced into the House of Representatives. After their second reading, both bills were referred to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit for inquiry and report. The JCPAA tabled its report in September 1997. In response to recommendations of the JCPAA, the government made some amendments to the bills. The Senate passed the bills with 52 non-government amendments in November 1997. In December, the House of Representatives indicated that it would not agree to the Senate's amendments and laid the bills aside. The government then determined that it would implement a number of the reforms proposed by the bill by administrative and other means. The government also indicated that it would use the provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 to secure further changes to the employment framework of the Australian Public Service.The relevant administrative changes are amendments to the Public Service Regulations made by the Public Service Regulations—these were made by the Governor-General on 18 February 1998 and commenced on 15 March 1998; amendments to the Public Service Regulations made by the Public Service Regulations Amendment—these regulations were made by the Governor-General on 18 March 1998 and commenced on 25 March 1998; new notifications, determinations, instructions and directions issued by the Public Service Commissioner under various provisions of the Public Service Act 1922; and the making of Determination 1998/5 by the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business, as it then was. Determination 1998/5, which commenced on 9 March 1998, consolidated conditions of employment contained in a wide range of previous determinations. Departments and agencies can override the terms of the determination by making certified agreements and Australian workplace agreements, AWAs, under the Workplace Relations Act.Specific changes included more extensive powers to departmental secretaries and agency heads in relation to the management of staff, particularly in the areas of recruitment of staff and the management of inefficiency and underperformance; amendments to the Public Service Regulations to introduce Australian Public Service values and a code of conduct applicable to APS staff; and amendments to the Public Service Regulations to provide a level of protection for whistleblowers who allege breaches of the code of conduct, provided that the conduct occurred after 15 March 1999.In March 1998 the government reintroduced the Public Service Bill 1997 and the Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Bill 1997 into the House of Representatives. The bills were passed by the House on 11 March 1997 and introduced into the Senate on 12 March 1998. Once again the bills were passed by the Senate, but with 95 amendments. On 1 April 1998 the government announced that it would reject the amendments in their entirety. The bills were laid aside on 6 April 1998 and thus became potential triggers for a double dissolution election. We do not need to be reminded of the many times we on this side were threatened with that very action during that time and the months following.Against that background we now arrive at the 1999 bill. The main provisions of the 1999 bill are essentially the same as those contained in the Public Service Bill 1997 and the Public Service Bill 1997 (No. 2). Clause 3 lists the objects of the act, which are to establish an apolitical public service that is efficient and effective in serving the government, the parliament and the Australian public; to provide a legal framework for the effective and fair employment, management and leadership of APS employees; and to establish the rights and obligations of APS employees.Clause 8 provides that the act has effect subject to the Workplace Relations Act 1996 except, however—and it is important to note—the bill proposes to exclude the operation of the termination of employment provisions of the Workplace Relations Act in the following circumstances: the termination of the appointment of an agency head, the termination of the employment of a Senior Executive Service employee and the machinery of government changes.Labor's concerns with the government's previous two attempts at legislating in this area have been that they have gone too far in the direction of enhancing the powers of Public Service agency heads and converting their agencies into independent entities with separate procedures and employment conditions. We have also been concerned that the legislation did not go far enough in protecting the independence and professionalism of the Public Service and the working conditions of public servants. Labor has consistently argued that the Public Service is one of the pillars of our system of government, that it is there to serve governments of either political persuasion and that it is incumbent on a government which is proposing profound reform of this institution to at least consult the alternative government. I am pleased that the government has determined to consult on these matters—at last—and it appears that these negotiations have been worth while because the government has agreed to accept our position in the vast majority of instances.There are, of course, still a few outstanding issues that must be resolved before Labor support is guaranteed. These include the system of appeals against employment decisions in the APS, the circumstances in which employees may be engaged for a specific term or for irregular or intermittent duties and the conditions of employment for APS employees who are affected by machinery of government changes.Over the past few short years we all—and I particularly in Canberra—have witnessed a sea change in government attitude towards the public sector. There is absolutely no doubt, and I have put this on the record many times, that my colleagues and I prefer to see the Australian Public Service maintain the uniqueness that it has had historically, and that is an incredibly high level of sophistication and professionalism, an undisputed level of ability to serve government of any persuasion at any time it is so called, and an absolute devotion, particularly from those in the decision making area, to do all of those things with full faith and value connected to them.I look forward to these outstanding issues that I have outlined being resolved and to the continuation of an independent and professional Public Service in Australia. It is something that this country has valued and we must be in a position to continue to value.20:41:0010581Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I too would like to speak on the Public Service Bill 1999 as well as the Parliamentary Service Bill 1999 . I would like to congratulate the clerks at the table for their usual impassive expressions, even though it might be argued that they are directly affected by this legislation.Like the Public Service Bill, this Parliamentary Service Bill 1999 has been before the House on two separate occasions, but on this occasion it will be enjoying the support of the opposition. There are a couple of things that I wanted to say about the legislation. Firstly, it is ironic that we have a new bit of parliamentary legislation to fashion a new Parliamentary Service for our employees but, unlike the Senate, this House cannot come to grips with setting up a staffing and appropriations committee so that there is some oversight of the exercise of responsibilities by the permanent head of the Department of the House of Representatives, the secretary of the department, and the Speaker. The Senate has for many years had a staffing and appropriations committee. I think presiding officers of both persuasions would indicate that, rather than being a hindrance to the presiding officer, the operations of the committee have been of great assistance, particularly when the presiding officers need to confront the Department of Finance and Administration or PM&C.I find it ironic, in an era that is demanding more accountability, more transparency of operations, that this House cannot form a staffing and appropriations committee. I think it is an absolutely ludicrous position that members of the House find themselves in, and I would argue that would be a small but important reform. If we are going to embrace this bit of legislation for those that work for us, it would be ridiculous not to have the mechanism to involve ordinary members of the parliament in an overseeing and advising role to the Presiding Officers and to the Clerk.This is not a Labor Party proposition; this was first proposed in the report of a committee chaired by Senator Jessop going back to the seventies. He always envisaged that with the establishment of a Senate staffing and appropriations committee there would be a House staffing and appropriations committee and that, when we were looking at the three other joint departments, we would be sitting together. I would urge all honourable members to again contemplate the wisdom of Senator Jessop in his report in the seventies. Surely we have had time to digest the sugges tion by now and to come up with a view about whether or not this is an appropriate thing for the House to do.I am very pleased that we are still providing for mobility between those that serve this House and the parliament and the rest of the Public Service. I think there is great utility and great value in having people broaden their experience outside of the parliament. I know that, for example, those departmental officers who come in and service committees get a great deal of benefit from it. But I also believe—and we have had some examples of this—that officers of this parliament going into Public Service departments for a time and gaining a degree of experience is quite worth while.I also hope, with the passage of this legislation, that we will be able to adopt a scheme that I have been very fond of, and that is enhancing the brain power of the parliamentary committees. In doing that, it would be offering short-term appointments to graduates so that we would have a graduate being appointed to a parliamentary committee for no longer than, say, 12 or 18 months, with the committee being able to utilise that graduate. In turn, the graduate would get the experience of working in the parliament, working for a parliamentary committee, being able to put that on their CV and of course applying for the job that they might ultimately aspire to.Mr Speaker, I sincerely hope that, with the passage of this legislation, you and the Clerk of the House might be able to sit down and see whether or not you now have the flexibility to provide such a category of service for our young graduates. I am sure that they would welcome the opportunity. I regret to say that, whereas going to a university and getting a degree once meant that you were automatically going to find a job, that is no longer the case. More than a third of graduates are unemployed in the April after they have graduated. So I am sure that there would be a lot of graduates that would be very keen to take up such a 12-month or 18-month appointment with a committee. It would not take a lot of money—they would not require a lot of money—and it just might help them get to the ultimate job that they are aspiring to.I want to say a few things about the Public Service Bill. One of the areas that this bill covers is the termination of permanent heads of or secretaries to departments. We have had a recent example of that, I regret to say, with Mr Paul Barratt, who was the permanent head of the Department of Defence. I have to put on the record that it appears to be a great tragedy that, at the time of the deployment of Australia's largest force for peacekeeping operations, a major preoccupation of the Minister for Defence was not with the evolving situation in Timor but rather with the dismissal of his permanent head. The Labor Party does not argue that, if there were a conflict between the minister and his permanent head, ultimately the permanent head would have to go. However, there is an issue of procedural fairness. This was adjudicated on by the Federal Court and it said that, notwithstanding the powers of termination, permanent heads were entitled to procedural fairness.It must be one of the great ironies in this particular case that Mr Barratt had received a bonus a few months before his sacking, presumably for exemplary conduct as a permanent head, not only fulfilling his responsibilities to the minister but working closely with the chief of the defence forces and providing the important leadership that these two people provide to one of the most important departments that we have in the federal sphere. Notwithstanding this bonus and notwithstanding the fact that the permanent head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Mr Moore-Wilton, adjudged that this was an exemplary officer, he was terminated. Again I have to say that it is a matter of extreme regret to me that, at a time when the situation in East Timor was unfolding, the preoccupation of the minister appeared to be the termination of his permanent head, not the situation in East Timor.It is on the record that the Minister for Defence was not having his phone calls returned by General Wiranto. That must have been a first in the administration of this particular portfolio. Given that situation, whatever rapport Mr Barratt must have built up within our region and within the Department of Defence in Indonesia, clearly he was not in a position, given the cloud he was under, to exercise the normal person to person contacts that Defence had so heavily built up both on the civilian side and on the uniform side.Mr Speaker, there are some other matters that I wish to respectfully bring to your attention. I suppose it is very fashionable to criticise the Public Service. As a former employee of the Post-Master General's Office and Telstra, one might say I have a vested interest in it. But I want to freely acknowledge, as a member of parliament, the great rapport I have had with public servants in my electorate—for example, Gail Permanoff at Centrelink. She is a great officer working under most difficult circumstances. She was with the former Department of Social Security and has been most helpful in getting an innovative employment program going in my electorate. I have a lot to do with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Overwhelmingly, I must report great help and great courtesy in all the matters that I have brought before them—and I do bring an awful lot before them. I can only be complementary in relation to the task they undertake.The role of the Public Service in a democracy is absolutely vital. They are professional people who are there to implement the wishes of their ministers and the legislation passed by the parliament, often in most difficult circumstances. Let me give you another example—the Child Support Agency. No-one has been more critical than I have of the performance of the Child Support Agency, but I must congratulate the Penrith office. We had a seminar in my electorate where they wanted to talk about the changes that the government had recently passed. I did not think that the changes went far enough but, in the spirit of wanting to reach out to their clients, I was more than delighted to accept the role of chairing the meeting and introducing the speakers.They had the forethought to have not only some officers from their own agency speak but also people from Legal Aid and from the Sydney City Mission to talk about budgeting. The whole exercise went very well. Child support, when it was under Treasury, could be said to have had an implementation role as far as policy was concerned, but the Department of Social Security, now the Department of Family and Community Services, had the policy. Now they are under that one department and hopefully that agency, because of their direct experience in dealing with clients, will have a much greater input into the policy area.It is absolutely vital that we encourage a Public Service that is professional, that is competent, that is efficient and that is prepared to give honest advice to the ministers of the day. It does not matter whether they are conservative ministers or Labor ministers, the advice should be impartial. Some might say that some of the trends that have been set in place are designed to militate against that. If that is the case, we have a serious problem. No institution should be immune from change or immune from adaptation or immune from accountability. I do not argue that. But I do argue for an impartial, apolitical, professional and efficient Public Service.There has been a great trend towards outsourcing. That has basically been a private enterprise led initiative. We are seeing a lot of it, and we are also seeing it in the Public Service. Like a lot of management fashions, I think that will actually come a circle, because in private enterprise ultimately enterprises will understand that they are losing some of the controls they require on the quality of service and the responsiveness to service. You can have agreements but I do not think you can get other organisations to implement with the same concern, care and passion in relation to customers that you yourself as an organisation would. I think you will see, as we move on in time, that gradually some of these functions are going to be drawn back into enterprises.There were a lot of other things I wanted to say about this bill. The salaries of members of parliament are involved in it. As you are aware, Mr Whitlam, when he was Prime Minister, instituted the Remuneration Tribu nal. The idea behind this was to take the politics out of MP salaries and to stop MPs from the shocking practice of voting on their own increases so that you have an open and transparent process where members were not directly involved in setting their own salaries.In the Labor government, the decision was taken to fix MP salaries to the lower salary range of level 2 in the Senior Executive Service. Because of changes that have occurred in Public Service pay, it is now not possible to identify that particular salary band and there has been absolutely no movement in it. Part of the process involved in this bill and the amendments that are about to be moved is that the Remuneration Tribunal is going to be asked to fix MP salaries on the basis of a principal executive officer's classification, which the Remuneration Tribunal deals with. Of course they deal with a whole range of other salaries for people like judges, conciliation commissioners, permanent heads and chairmen of boards of government organisations. It will be up to the Remuneration Tribunal to determine these.The opposition is very keen that there continues to be an openness and transparency in the setting of members' salaries. I particularly welcome that. I note that, notwithstanding the opposition's fundamental belief in the rectitude of what it is doing, whatever the Remuneration Tribunal decides will be criticised by a whole range of people, some of whom have been found to take money for giving good opinions of different organisations. I do not think they will be able to resist the temptation to criticise the Remuneration Tribunal. In our democracy, it is somewhat out of kilter when you have a minister—such as Minister Kemp, who is at the table—receiving less money than his permanent head. That is absolutely absurd in terms of the responsibilities. That is not to have a go at permanent heads but to say that I think this is a silly approach.In relation to parliamentary secretaries—and I note the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration is at the table—it is absurd that they take on their duties without any remuneration whatsoever. If those parliamentary secretaries happen to be a whip, a chief whip or a chairman of a committee, they take a drop in salary. Most states have followed the lead of the Commonwealth in utilising the position of junior minister—the parliamentary secretary's role. In my own state the remuneration of parliamentary secretaries is something like $15,000 a year. A Commonwealth parliamentary secretary receives nothing; a state parliamentary secretary receives about $15,000 per annum.I hope that the government will look at the situation of parliamentary secretaries. It is a bit too late for me, but justice is on their side. I sincerely hope that the government will look at the impediments to providing emoluments for parliamentary secretaries. I understand the arguments about section 44. At the very least, I would argue that parliamentary secretaries should get the same ministerial gold card entitlement that ministers do, but in any event there is a need for some salary justice. (Time expired)21:01:0010585Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I would like to take this opportunity to make some final comments on the Public Service Bill 1999 . First of all, I thank all members for their contribution to this debate. What we are achieving here today is a very good outcome. It is a very important and significant step forward in the reform of the Public Service. It is a good outcome for government, a good outcome for public servants and a good outcome for the Australian people.The Public Service Bill represents the biggest overhaul and reform of the Australian Public Service in more than 75 years. The bill as originally proposed was described by Alan Kohler as `one of the great pieces of government employee legislation—simple, clear and powerful.' The Public Service Bill will move the Australian Public Service away from the constraints of a lengthy and prescriptive act to a new framework where employment powers are held directly by agency heads. It reflects the contemporary realities of the Australian Public Service and will provide a sound basis for moving into the new millennium. It is less than one-fifth of the size of the old act. It has been totally rewritten in plain English, making it simpler and easier to follow.The bill creates much greater flexibility to respond to changing needs by replacing detailed prescription with principles. The bill provides a sound basis for the enterprise based approach of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 by giving agency heads full power to engage staff as well as the power, subject to the workplace relations framework, to determine their remuneration and terms and conditions of employment.The government's reforms aim to address the problems of overcentralisation, excessive prescription in the management and procedures of the workplace, inadequate focus on the customer and failure to manage to world's best standards. The government remains committed to an Australian Public Service which embraces the best practice in contemporary management and is able to benchmark its performance against other sectors both in Australia and overseas.The government, and indeed the Australian public, expects the APS to be a modern and efficient employer. We are therefore seeking reforms which enable APS agencies and their staff to develop the most appropriate arrangements for the management of each agency and, consequently, to contribute to a forward looking and high performing organisation.In the development of this bill, the government has sought reasonable compromise and bipartisan support. The government recognises that significant legislative reform is vital, so in the spirit of forging ahead with reforming the APS, we have continued to press for new legislation to replace the Public Service Act 1922. It was in this spirit that we talked to the opposition about ways to move forward. The government acknowledges that there has been some constructive consideration and negotiation on the issues, and that the ALP has not pressed many of its original amendments and has reconsidered others.The government would have much preferred the bill in its original form—for its brevity, its simplicity and its focus on principles. The amendments, while not significantly altering the substance of the original bill, contain in our view some unnecessary detail and prescription. The bottom line, however, is that at no point is the amended bill more restrictive than the present arrangements and it maintains or enhances the government's current position as an employer and manager. Importantly, the amendments to the bill have been agreed to by both the government and the opposition in the interests of progressing tangible change.The government has been prepared to accept amendments. We have not achieved everything we wanted. We would have preferred different practices in some areas. Nevertheless, we believe the bill in the form in which we expect it to be amended represents a significant step forward in the organisation of public administration in this country. I would like to say that the government has appreciated the approach taken by the opposition in discussions on the proposed content of the bill. I appreciate that this has been a difficult issue within the Labor Party, and the government recognises that. On previous occasions when the original bill was presented, it was made clear by the opposition that much of the bill's content was not negotiable. It would be fair to say that a bipartisan realisation has been reached that it is in the interests of government as a whole to achieve an employment framework that capitalises on the real potential of our public sector.I would like to acknowledge and thank a few people whose contributions have been instrumental in achieving today's outcome. I would first of all like to thank my opposite number in the opposition, Senator Faulkner, and his senior adviser, George Thompson. I would like to acknowledge also Dr Peter Shergold, as the then Public Service Commissioner and now Secretary to the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, who was involved from the development of the reform process and the Public Service Bill. I would like to acknowledge the work of the Public Service Commissioner, Helen Williams, and the Deputy Public Service Commissioner, Peter Kennedy, whose expert advice has been essential in reaching the agreements on the amendments that we now have. There have been many staff in the Public Service and Merit Protection Commission and the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business who have been involved in this legislation over a very long period of time, many from the beginning of the process some three years ago. I would particularly like to single out Jeff Lamond, who has been tireless in monitoring the development of the process and providing advice, and Kate Bosser who, again, has been associated with the process for a long time and whose expert advice has been greatly valued.I would like to thank my adviser on public service matters, Clayton Ford, who has been working on the bill now for some two years. I think that both Senator Faulkner and I would probably acknowledge that, without the assistance of people in our offices who have become really expert in this legislation, we would not have been able to bring this process to what I believe will be a successful completion. I want to also acknowledge the very real and significant achievements of the Australian Public Service in pursuing change and responding to the challenges offered by the new environment over the last couple of years. I know that that will continue with the implementation of the new act. Indeed, the very degree and speed of that responsiveness is a clear demonstration of the quality of the Public Service and its professionalism, and there will be a very positive reaction throughout the Public Service to the final passage of this legislation, which will provide clarity and a framework within which, I know, a great many in the Public Service are looking forward to working.The principal areas where amendments have been agreed include a number designed to enhance transparency and accountability. Any direction issued by the Prime Minister to agency heads must be published in the Commonwealth Gazette. Where the Merit Protection Commissioner is not satisfied with any agency's response to a report on a review, the Merit Protection Commissioner may report on the matter to the agency minister and either or both the Prime Minister or the presiding officers for presentation to the parliament. The amendments also deal with certain employment matters. An agency head will not be able to terminate the employment of a senior executive service employee unless the Public Service Commissioner has issued a certificate stating that all relevant requirements have been satisfied and the commissioner is of the opinion that the termination is in the public interest. For each remuneration determination made by the minister responsible in respect of salary for the Public Service Commissioner, Merit Protection Commissioner, secretary or head of an executive agency, the minister will be required to seek the advice of the Remuneration Tribunal and to take that advice into account. In addition, each determination made by the minister must be published in the Commonwealth Gazette.The government is well aware of the need to move the matter forward in order to achieve further progress in improving public administration. We have pursued negotiations because of the importance of achieving legislative reform in order to achieve essential change. This bill is a vast improvement on the 1922 legislation in terms of both content and language. For some time, the government has been critical of the current act's highly complex and technical language, which promotes a legalistic approach to managing people. The bill is altogether more accessible and understandable. It will provide a clear legal framework for an APS employment that achieves an optimal balance between improved accountability and devolved responsibility so as to maximise the efficiency and effectiveness of the APS. It will guide the Commonwealth system of public service into the next century and enable the APS to achieve its full potential.Significantly, the bill also articulates the distinctive character of Australia's public service and parliament's expectation of it in a way that is absent in the 1922 act. It sets out the fundamental values of the APS and enshrines and protects them through primary legislation. The bill clearly sets down the important values and culture the parliament wants in the Australian Public Service and the role, powers and accountability of agency heads and their relationship to ministers in a clear and public way. It is a clear statement to those within the APS and to the Australian people of the conduct that is expected of public servants and enhanced evaluation through significant new inquiry and reporting powers for the Public Service Commissioner.The bill explicitly acknowledges that the APS is to be apolitical, fulfilling its functions in an impartial, non-partisan and professional manner. For the first time, legislation will prevent ministers becoming involved in individual staffing decisions. Importantly, it provides for the APS to be openly accountable for its actions within the framework of ministerial responsibility to the government, the parliament and the Australian public. The government recognises that the evaluation of reform is crucial to maintaining and upgrading its effectiveness. Accordingly, there will be ongoing review of the operation of the new legislation, including its implementation, and where problems are identified these will be rectified through amendments.This Public Service Bill is a very important piece of legislation. It sets a firm foundation for a high performance APS. It provides the groundwork for the APS to achieve its full potential. The agreed package will allow for a dynamic and flexible public service, which is vital for good government and effective delivery of quality services to the public. We are all aware of the extent of the challenges, and I look forward to the achievement of the reform objectives for the benefit of all Australians.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10587Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.21:15:0010587Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos 1 to 52:(1) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 15), after paragraph (b), insert: (ba) to define the powers, functions and responsibilities of Agency Heads, the Public Service Commissioner and the Merit Protection Commissioner; and (2) Clause 7, page 4 (line 4) to page 6 (line 7), insert: AWA has the same meaning as in the Workplace Relations Act 1996 . award has the same meaning as in the Workplace Relations Act 1996 . category of APS employee means one of the following categories: (a) ongoing APS employees; (b) APS employees engaged for a specified term or for the duration of a specified task; (c) APS employees engaged for duties that are irregular or intermittent. certified agreement has the same meaning as in the Workplace Relations Act 1996 . non-ongoing APS employee means an APS employee who is not an ongoing APS employee. ongoing APS employee means a person engaged as an ongoing APS employee, as mentioned in paragraph 22(1A)(a). Presiding Officer means the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives.(3) Clause 7, page 5 (line 7), after "section 11", insert ", 15".(4) Clause 10, page 7 (lines 14 and 15), omit "the diverse backgrounds of APS employees", substitute "and utilises the diversity of the Australian community it serves".(5) Clause 10, page 7 (line 17), before "accountable", insert "openly".(6) Clause 10, page 7 (line 24), after "Australian public", add "and is sensitive to the diversity of the Australian public".(7) Clause 10, page 7 (lines 26 and 27), omit paragraph (i), substitute: (i) the APS establishes workplace relations that value communication, consultation, co-operation and input from employees on matters that affect their workplace;(8) Clause 10, page 7 (after line 31), at the end of subsection (1), add: (l) the APS promotes equity in employment; (m) the APS provides a reasonable opportunity to all eligible members of the community to apply for APS employment; (n) the APS is a career-based service to enhance the effectiveness and cohesion of Australia's democratic system of government; (o) the APS provides a fair system of review of decisions taken in respect of APS employees. (9) Clause 11, page 8 (lines 12 to 16), omit subsection (1), substitute:(1) The Commissioner must issue directions in writing in relation to each of the APS Values for the purpose of: (a) ensuring that the APS incorporates and upholds the APS Values; and (b) determining where necessary the scope or application of the APS Values.(10) Clause 14, page 10 (after line 5), at the end of the clause, add:(2) Statutory office holders are bound by the Code of Conduct in the same way as APS employees.(3) In this section: statutory office holder means a person who holds any office or appointment under an Act, being an office or appointment that is prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this definition.(11) Clause 15, page 10 (lines 6 to 24), omit the clause, substitute:15 Breaches of the Code of Conduct(1) An Agency Head may impose the following sanctions on an APS employee in the Agency who is found (under procedures established under subsection (3)) to have breached the Code of Conduct: (a) termination of employment; (b) reduction in classification; (c) re-assignment of duties; (d) reduction in salary; (e) deductions from salary, by way of fine; (f) a reprimand.(2) The regulations may prescribe limitations on the power of an Agency Head to impose sanctions under subsection (1).(3) An Agency Head must establish procedures for determining whether an APS employee in the Agency has breached the Code of Conduct. The procedures: (a) must comply with basic procedural requirements set out in Commissioner's Directions; and (b) must have due regard to procedural fairness; and (c) may be different for different categories of APS employees.(4) The Commissioner must issue directions in writing for the purposes of subsection (3).(5) An Agency Head must take reasonable steps to ensure that every APS employee in the Agency has ready access to the documents that set out the procedures referred to in subsection (3).(12) Clause 16, page 11 (after line 2), after paragraph (a), insert: (aa) the Merit Protection Commissioner or a person authorised for the purposes of this section by the Merit Protection Commissioner.(13) Clause 21, page 12 (after line 14), at the end of the clause, add:(2) A direction under subsection (1) must be published in the Gazette within 14 days after the direction is issued.(14) Clause 22, page 12 (after line 17), after subclause (1), insert:(1A) The engagement of an APS employee (including an engagement under section 72) must be: (a) as an ongoing APS employee; or (b) for a specified term or for the duration of a specified task; or (c) for duties that are irregular or intermittent.(1B) The usual basis for engagement is as an ongoing APS employee.(1C) The regulations may limit the circumstances in which persons may be engaged as mentioned in paragraph (1A)(b) or (c).(1D) An engagement for a specified term may be extended, subject to any limitations prescribed by the regulations.(15) Clause 23, page 13 (lines 9 to 11), omit "For this purpose, award has the same meaning as in the Workplace Relations Act 1996 .".(16) Clause 23, page 13 (after line 12), at the end of the clause, add:(4) An Agency Head cannot reduce the classification of an APS employee without the employee's consent, except in the following cases: (a) as a sanction under section 15; (b) in accordance with Commissioner's Directions made under section 36; (c) on the ground that the employee is excess to the requirements of the Agency at the higher classification; (d) on the ground that the employee lacks, or has lost, an essential qualification for performing duties at the higher classification; (e) on the ground of non-performance, or unsatisfactory performance, of duties at the higher classification; (f) on the ground that the employee is unable to perform duties at the higher classification because of physical or mental incapacity; (g) in other circumstances prescribed by the regulations.(5) If a relevant award, certified agreement or AWA contains procedures to be followed when reducing the classification, then a reduction is of no effect unless those procedures are followed.(17) Clause 24, page 13 (line 16), after "employees in the Agency.", insert "A determination is of no effect to the extent that it would reduce the benefit to an employee of any individual term or condition applicable to the employee under an award, certified agreement or AWA.".(18) Clause 24, page 13 (lines 22 to 24), omit "For this purpose, award and certified agreement have the same meanings as in the Workplace Relations Act 1996 .".(19) Clause 24, page 13 (line 29), omit "special circumstances", substitute "exceptional circumstances".(20) Clause 29, page 14 (line 26) to page 15 (line 2), omit subclauses (2) and (3), substitute:(2) For an ongoing APS employee, the notice must specify the ground or grounds that are relied on for the termination.(3) For an ongoing APS employee, the following are the only grounds for termination: (a) the employee is excess to the requirements of the Agency; (b) the employee lacks, or has lost, an essential qualification for performing his or her duties; (c) non-performance, or unsatisfactory performance, of duties; (d) inability to perform duties because of physical or mental incapacity; (e) failure to satisfactorily complete an entry-level training course; (f) failure to meet a condition imposed under subsection 22(2); (g) breach of the Code of Conduct; (h) any other ground prescribed by the regulations.(4) The regulations may prescribe grounds or procedures applicable to the termination of the engagement of non-ongoing APS employees. (5) Subsection (4) does not, by implication, limit the grounds for termination for a non-ongoing APS employee.(21) Clause 31, page 15 (after line 18), after subclause (2), insert:(2A) If an Agency Head receives any non-Commonwealth remuneration for performing duties as an Agency Head, then the Agency Minister may give a notice in writing to the Agency Head in relation to the whole, or a specified part, of the remuneration.(2B) The amount notified by the Agency Minister: (a) is taken to have been received by the Agency Head on behalf of the Commonwealth; and (b) may be recovered by the Commonwealth from the Agency Head as a debt in a court of competent jurisdiction.(22) Clause 33, page 16, (lines 4 to 17), omit the clause, substitute:33 Review of actions(1) An APS employee is entitled to review, in accordance with the regulations, of any APS action that relates to his or her APS employment. However, an APS employee is not entitled to review under this section of APS action that consists of the termination of the employee's employment.(2) The regulations may prescribe exceptions to the entitlement.Note: For example, the regulations might provide that there is not entitlement to review if the application for review is frivolous or vexatious.(3) Without limiting subsection (1), regulations made for the purposes of that subsection may provide for the powers available to the Merit Protection Commissioner, or any other person or body, when conducting a review under the regulations.(4) Regulations for the purposes of subsection (1): (a) may provide for an initial review to be conducted within the responsible Agency; and (b) may provide that applications for review of particular kinds of APS action are to be made directly to the Merit Protection Commissioner; and (c) must provide for an application for review to be referred to the Merit Protection Commissioner if the applicant is not satisfied with the outcome of an initial review within the responsible Agency; and (d) in the case of a review following an application or referral to the Merit Protection Commissioner, must provide for the review to be conducted by a person nominated by the Merit Protection Commissioner or by a 3 member committee constituted in accordance with the regulations.(5) A person or body that has conducted a review under this section may make recommendations in a report on the review but does not have power to make any binding decision as a result of the review, except as provided by the regulations.(6) If the Merit Protection Commissioner is not satisfied with the response to recommendations contained in a report on a review under this section, the Merit Protection Commissioner may, after consulting the Public Service Minister, give a report on the matter to the Agency Minister of the responsible Agency and to either or both of the following: (a) the Prime Minister; (b) the Presiding Officers, for presentation to the Parliament.(7) In this section: action includes a refusal or failure to act. APS action means action by a person in the capacity of an Agency Head or APS employee. responsible Agency , in relation to APS action, means the Agency in which the person who did the action was at the time of the action.(23) Clause 36, page 17 (line 19), at the end of the clause, add ", including engagement, promotion, redeployment, mobility and termination".(24) Clause 38, page 18 (lines 1 to 3), omit the clause, substitute:38 Commissioner's certificate required for termination of SES employmentAn Agency Head cannot terminate the employment of an SES employee unless the Commissioner has issued a certificate stating that: (a) all relevant requirements of Commissioner's Directions under section 36 have been satisfied in respect of the proposed termination; and (b) the Commissioner is of the opinion that the termination is in the public interest.(25) Clause 41, page 20 (line 14), after "incorporate", insert "and uphold". (26) Clause 41, page 20 (lines 25 and 26), omit paragraph (f), substitute: (f) to inquire into alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct by Agency Heads and to report to the appropriate authority on the results of such enquiries (including, where relevant, recommendations for sanctions);(27) Clause 41, page 21 (after line 8), at the end of the clause, add:(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(f), the appropriate authority for a report about an Agency Head is: (a) the Prime Minister, if the Agency Head is a Secretary; or (b) the Agency Minister, if the Agency Head is the Head of an Executive Agency; or (c) the Presiding Officers, if the Agency Head is the Head of a Statutory Agency that is prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph; or (d) the Agency Minister, if the Agency Head is the Head of a Statutory Agency that is not prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of paragraph (c).(28) Clause 44, page 22 (after line 16), at the end of the clause, add:(4) The report must be prepared in accordance with guidelines approved on behalf of the Parliament by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.(29) Clause 45, page 23 (line 4), after "Governor-General", insert "on a full-time basis".(30) Clause 46, page 23 (after line 10), at the end of the clause, add:(2) For each determination, the Agency Minister must seek the advice of the Remuneration Tribunal and take that advice into account.(3) Each determination must be published in the Gazette within 14 days after the determination is made.(31) Clause 50, page 25 (lines 10 to 13), omit the clause, substitute:50 Merit Protection Commissioner's functions(1) The Merit Protection Commissioner's functions include the following functions: (a) to inquire into reports made to the Merit Protection Commissioner (or to a person authorised by the Merit Protection Commissioner) as mentioned in section 16; (b) to inquire into alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct by the Commissioner and report to the Presiding Officers on the results of such enquiries (including, where relevant, recommendations for sanctions); (c) to inquire into an APS action, at the request of the Public Service Minister, and to report to the Public Service Minister on the results of the inquiry; (d) such functions as are prescribed by regulations made for the purposes of section 33; (e) such other functions as are prescribed by the regulations.(2) The following provisions apply in relation to an inquiry under paragraph (1)(c) (with references to the Auditor-General being replaced by references to the Merit Protection Commissioner): (a) sections 32, 33, 34 and 35 of the Auditor-General Act 1997 ; (b) any other provisions of the Auditor-General Act 1997 , or of regulations under that Act, that are relevant to the operation of section 32, 33, 34 or 35 of that Act.(3) The regulations may authorise the Merit Protection Commissioner to charge fees (on behalf of the Commonwealth) for the performance of functions prescribed under paragraph (1)(e).(4) In this section: action includes a refusal or failure to act. APS action means an action in relation to the employment of an APS employee, being an action by another APS employee or by an Agency Head.(32) Clause 51, page 25 (lines 14 to 20), omit the clause, substitute:51 Annual report(1) After the end of each financial year, the Merit Protection Commissioner must give a report to the Public Service Minister, for presentation to the Parliament, on the activities of the Merit Protection Commissioner during the year.(2) The report must be prepared in accordance with guidelines approved on behalf of the Parliament by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.(3) The report must be included in the Public Service Commissioner's report under subsection 44(2).(33) Clause 52, page 26 (line 6), after "Governor-General", insert "on a full-time basis".(34) Clause 53, page 26 (line 11), omit "Public Service Minister", substitute "Agency Minister".(35) Clause 53, page 26 (after line 11), at the end of the clause, add: (2) For each determination, the Agency Minister must seek the advice of the Remuneration Tribunal and take that advice into account.(3) Each determination must be published in the Gazette within 14 days after the determination is made.(36) Clause 57, page 28 (lines 13 to 15), omit the clause, substitute:57 Responsibilities of Secretaries(1) The Secretary of a Department, under the Agency Minister, is responsible for managing the Department and must advise the Agency Minister in matters relating to the Department.(2) The Secretary of a Department must assist the Agency Minister to fulfil the Agency Minister's accountability obligations to the Parliament to provide factual information, as required by the Parliament, in relation to the operation and administration of the Department.(37) Clause 58, page 29 (line 1), at the end of subclause (5), add "but is to be paid remuneration in respect of only one such office".(38) Clause 59, page 29 (after line 6), at the end of subclause (1), add:Note: In Barratt v Howard [1999] FCA 1132, the Federal Court of Australia described the basis on which requirements of procedural fairness applied to the termination of an appointment of Secretary under section 37 of the Public Service Act 1922 .(39) Clause 59, page 29 (lines 13 and 14), omit subclause (4).(40) Clause 61, page 29 (after line 23), at the end of the clause, add:(2) For each determination, the Prime Minister must seek the advice of the Remuneration Tribunal and take that advice into account.(3) Each determination must be published in the Gazette within 14 days after the determination is made.(41) Clause 63, page 30 (after line 14), at the end of the clause, add:(2) The report must be prepared in accordance with guidelines approved on behalf of the Parliament by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.(42) Clause 66, page 32 (lines 22 to 24), omit the clause, substitute:66 Responsibilities of Heads of Executive Agencies(1) The Head of an Executive Agency, under the Agency Minister, is responsible for managing the Agency. (2) The Head of an Executive Agency must assist the Agency Minister to fulfil the Agency Minister's accountability obligations to the Parliament to provide factual information, as required by the Parliament, in relation to the operation and administration of the Agency.(3) The Head of an Executive Agency is accountable to the government, the Parliament and the public in the same way as the Secretary of a Department.(43) Clause 67, page 33 (lines 6 to 8), omit subclause (5).(44) Clause 68, page 33 (after line 16), at the end of the clause, add:(2) For each determination, the Agency Minister must seek the advice of the Remuneration Tribunal and take that advice into account.(3) Each determination must be published in the Gazette within 14 days after the determination is made.(45) Clause 70, page 34 (after line 4), at the end of the clause, add:(2) The report must be prepared in accordance with guidelines approved on behalf of the Parliament by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.(46) Clause 72, page 36 (lines 1 and 2), omit subclause (3), substitute:(3) If an APS employee (the transferred employee ) becomes an employee of a Commonwealth authority under paragraph (1)(b), the employee is entitled to remuneration and other conditions of employment that are not less favourable than the terms and conditions to which the employee was entitled as an APS employee, immediately before ceasing to be an APS employee, under: (a) an award, certified agreement or AWA; or (b) a determination under this Act.(3A) Subsection (3) ceases to have effect on the next occasion when there is a relevant variation in remuneration and conditions in the Commonwealth authority. For this purpose, relevant variation means a variation that: (a) results from the making or variation of an award, certified agreement or AWA; and (b) applies to the transferred employee, or to a class of employees that includes the transferred employee.(3B) The regulations may prescribe arrangements for determining any variation of the remuneration and other conditions of employment applicable to: (a) APS employees who are moved to another Agency under paragraph (1)(a); and (b) persons who become APS employees under paragraph (1)(c).(47) Clause 76, page 38 (after line 28), at the end of the clause, add:Note: The Freedom of Information Act 1982 and the Privacy Act 1988 have rules about the disclosure of personal information.(48) Clause 78, page 39 (after line 27), after subclause (5), insert:(5A) The Merit Protection Commissioner may, in writing, delegate to an APS employee any of the Merit Protection Commissioner's powers or functions under this Act (other than this section).(49) Clause 78, page 39 (after line 30), after subclause (6), insert:(6A) An Agency Head cannot, under subsection (6), delegate powers or functions to an outsider without the prior written consent of the Commissioner. For this purpose, outsider means a person other than: (a) an APS employee; or (b) a person appointed to an office by the Governor-General, or by a Minister, under a law of the Commonwealth.(50) Clause 78, page 40 (line 2), after "subsection (5)", insert ", (5A)".(51) Clause 78, page 40 (line 12), after "subsection (5)", insert ", (5A)".(52) Clause 79, page 40 (lines 28 and 29), omit subclause (2), substitute:(2) Without limiting subsection (1), regulations may be made for, or in relation to, any of the following: (a) confidentiality of information obtained by persons performing, or assisting in the performance of, functions under section 33, paragraph 41(1)(c) or paragraph 50(a) or (c); (b) immunity from civil action in respect of acts or omissions of persons performing, or assisting in the performance of, functions under section 33, paragraph 41(1)(c) or paragraph 50(a) or (c); (c) prescribing penalties for offences against the regulations by way of fines of up to 10 penalty units.I will not expand further on these amendments, having discussed them in general terms in my concluding remarks in the second reading debate.21:15:0010593Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—I have listened to the great bulk of this debate; I have been in the chamber for a good part of it and have listened in my office. I think it has been a useful and constructive debate. I must note, though, the out of character contribution of the member for Grey, who indicated that he had spoken on this bill on two previous occasions. I think he took the speech from those earlier occasions out of the drawer and gave pretty much the same speech as he gave a couple of years ago when this bill was before this parliament and there had been no negotiations or discussions between the government and the opposition. That aside, as I indicated in my speech on the second reading, the bill, with these amendments, does enjoy the support of the opposition.I note that the speech writers for the minister have been hard at work putting the best face on the circumstances. A few moments ago, just before he moved 52 amendments, he characterised them as minor adjustments that did not in any way reflect the concerns that the Labor Party had previously had. Nonetheless, those 52 amendments do go a significant way towards addressing the concerns that the opposition has raised to the bill on previous occasions. They are the end result of some five months of negotiation between the opposition and the government, and they are based on some 75 amendments that we moved to the government's bills in the Senate back in 1997 and again last year. Fifty of those amendments were successful.The government amendments moved today satisfy our concerns with the government's original proposals. As I outlined earlier, these concerns were that the bill went too far in enhancing the powers of Public Service agency heads and converting their agencies into independent entities with separate procedures and employment conditions. It did not go far enough in protecting the independence and the professionalism of the Public Service and the working conditions of the public servants themselves.While the bill proscribed patronage and favouritism, its provisions would actually have encouraged it by facilitating political appointments at the top, with the lure of special deals, making the Senior Executive Service dependent on patronage for survival and making public servants heavily dependent on their bosses for their salary and working conditions while, at the same time, restricting their rights of appeal. The amendments moved by the minister address these concerns.In relation to the powers of secretaries, the amendments include a new clause setting out the responsibilities of secretaries, including assisting the minister to fulfil his or her accountability obligations to the parliament, a prohibition on secret deals on salary and conditions by requiring ministers to seek advice from the Remuneration Tribunal and requiring determinations on remuneration to be open to public scrutiny, and a protection against secretaries making determinations which would reduce benefits to employees under an award, certified agreement or AWA.These amendments enhance the independence of SES employees by requiring the Public Service Commissioner to certify that termination is in accordance with the published procedures and is in the best interests of the Australian Public Service, and by removing a provision which would have denied them access to the unfair dismissals provisions of the Workplace Relations Act.The amendments ensure the maintenance of the office of the Merit Protection Commissioner and provide it with the functions, powers and protections which are necessary for the commissioner to be independent and effective. Most importantly, there are many amendments which will serve to protect the interests of those who constitute the Public Service—the APS employees. There will be a fair system of review of employment decisions, important additional values will be included, ongoing employment will continue to be the norm, and conditions of employment will not be subject to change, outside limited exceptional circumstances, other than by negotiation and agreement through an award, a certified agreement or an AWA.We welcome the government's change of heart on these important issues, and we are pleased to support the amendments. I con clude by adding my personal comments, much in line with the contributions of members on both sides of the House, about the work that is done by the public servants of Australia in the various departments. In our constituencies, we deal regularly with a range of public servants, who provide a service to the community, to our own staff, and to us as members of parliament. I think it is fair to say that all members appreciate their cooperation, independence and good service. (Time expired)21:21:0010594Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I table the supplementary explanatory memorandum setting out the comments on the amendments.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.10594Bill (on motion by Dr Kemp)—by leave—read a third time.Bills10594r79210594Consideration resumed from 30 March, on motion by Dr Kemp:That the bill be now read a second time.21:22:0010594Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I do not propose to give a lengthy speech on the Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Bill 1999 . As members are aware, this is a bill that amends other pieces of legislation which are affected by the passage of the Public Service Bill 1999 . It affects some other matters that have been raised in the course of the debate, but I do not propose to make any further comment upon them.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.1059521:23:0010595Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos 1 to 9:(1) Clause 2, page 2 (lines 23 to 32), omit subclauses (3) to (7), substitute: (3) If: (a) an item (the amending item ) of a Schedule to this Act is expressed to amend another Act (the amended Act ); and (b) the whole of the amended Act is expressed to commence at one time; and (c) at the time when the Public Service Act 1999 commences, the amended Act: (i) has not yet been enacted; or (ii) has been enacted but has not yet commenced; then the amending item commences immediately after the commencement of the amended Act. (4) If: (a) an item (the amending item ) of a Schedule to this Act is expressed to amend, or to amend a part of, a section (the amended section ) of another Act; and (b) at the time when the Public Service Act 1999 commences, the amended section: (i) has not yet been enacted; or (ii) has been enacted but has not yet commenced; then the amending item commences immediately after the commencement of the amended section. (5) If: (a) an item (the amending item ) of a Schedule to this Act is expressed to amend, or to amend a part of, a specified subsection or definition (the amended provision ); and (b) at the time when the Public Service Act 1999 commences, the amended provision: (i) has not yet been enacted; or (ii) has been enacted but has not yet commenced; then the amending item commences immediately after the commencement of the amended provision. (6) If an item (the amending item ) of a Schedule to this Act is expressed to amend another Act, but that other Act is repealed at or before the commencing time, then the amending item never commences. (7) If the Employment and Training Amendment Act 1999 commences before the commencing time, then items 391, 392 and 393 of Schedule 1 to this Act never commence. If the Employment and Training Amendment Act 1999 commences at or after the commencing time, then items 394 and 395 of Schedule 1 to this Act never commence.(2) Clause 4, page 5 (line 26), omit "67", substitute "74".(3) Clause 4, page 6 (lines 19 and 20), omit the definition of second-tier person , substitute: second-tier person means: (a) a person to whom Division 3 of Part IV of the old Act applied immediately before the commencing time; or (b) a person who becomes a second-tier person under subsection 6(6) of this Act.(4) Clause 5, page 7 (after line 29), after subclause (2), insert:Merit Protection Commissioner (2A) At the commencing time, the person holding office as the Merit Protection Commissioner under the Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act 1984 becomes the Merit Protection Commissioner under the new Act, as if he or she had been appointed as the Merit Protection Commissioner under the new Act for a period equal to the unexpired part of his or her term under the Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act 1984 .(5) Clause 5, page 8 (line 9), before "APS employee", insert "ongoing".(6) Clause 5, page 8 (line 16), before "APS employee", insert "ongoing".(7) Clause 5, page 8 (line 31), before "APS employee", insert "ongoing".(8) Clause 6, page 10 (after line 8), at the end of the clause, add: (6) If the transitional period for a first-tier person ends at the end of the relevant period (as defined in subsection 87D(5) of the old Act), then the person becomes a second-tier person at the end of that relevant period. (9) Clause 9, page 10 (line 31), omit "first anniversary", substitute "third anniversary".I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum.21:24:0010596Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—As with the other aspects of the Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Bill 1999 , there have been discussions, and I simply indicate the support of the opposition to these amendments and the bill as amended.Amendments agreed to.Amendment (by Dr Kemp)—proposed:(10) Schedule 1, page 15 (line 1) to page 155 (line 11), omit the Schedule, substitute:Schedule 1—Repeals and amendmentsAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 19891 Subsection 35(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".2 Subsection 49(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".3 Subsection 55(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".4 Subsection 55(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Chief Executive Officer and the APS employees assisting the Chief Executive Officer together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Chief Executive Officer is the Head of that Statutory Agency.5 Subsection 77C(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".6 Subsection 77E(1) Omit "officers of the Australian Public Service who are members of the Senior Executive Service", substitute "SES employees".7 Subsection 124C(1) Omit "officers of the Australian Public Service who are members of the Senior Executive Service", substitute "SES employees".8 Subsection 124E(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , an", substitute "An".9 Subsection 127D(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".10 Subsection 143P(1) Omit "officers of the Australian Public Service who are members of the Senior Executive Service", substitute "SES employees".11 Subsection 143Z(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".12 Subsection 144K(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".13 Subsection 144R(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".14 Subsection 144R(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the TSRA General Manager and the APS employees assisting the TSRA General Manager together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the TSRA General Manager is the Head of that Statutory Agency.15 Subsection 144ZK(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".16 Subsection 144ZM(1) Omit "officers of the Australian Public Service who are members of the Senior Executive Service", substitute "SES employees".17 Subsection 192D(2) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".18 Subsection 200(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".19 Subsection 200(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the General Manager of Aboriginal Hostels Limited, and the APS employees assisting Aboriginal Hostels Limited, together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the General Manager of Aboriginal Hostels Limited is the Head of that Statutory Agency. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 198420 Subsection 30(2) Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 (the public servant )".21 Subsection 30(2) Omit "officer" (second and third occurring), substitute "public servant".Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 199922 Subsection 14(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".23 Subsection 16(1) Omit "officers of the Australian Public Service who are members of the Senior Executive Service", substitute "SES employees".24 Section 20 Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".25 Subsection 79(5) (paragraph (b) of the definition of authorised person ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 who is authorised in writing by the Attorney-General under this section.26 Subsection 80(2) Omit "a person who holds or performs the duties of a Senior Executive Service office under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "an SES employee or acting SES employee".Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 197627 Subsection 4(4) Omit "officers of the Australian Public Service", substitute "persons engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 197628 Paragraph 23E(3)(b) Omit "Permanent Head" (wherever occurring), substitute "Secretary".29 Paragraph 54C(2)(b) Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 (the public servant )".30 Subsection 54C(2) Omit "the officer" (wherever occurring), substitute "the public servant".31 Section 59 Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".ACIS Administration Act 199932 Subsection 115(1) Omit "an SES officer (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922 )", substitute "an SES employee".Acts Interpretation Act 190133 After section 17 Insert:17AA Definitions relating to the Australian Public Service In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears: acting SES employee has the same meaning as in the Public Service Act 1999 . APS employee has the same meaning as in the Public Service Act 1999 . SES employee has the same meaning as in the Public Service Act 1999 .34 Paragraph 19B(3)(a) Omit "the holder of which was, by virtue of section 25 of the Public Service Act 1922 , the Secretary of a Department", substitute "of Secretary of a Department within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ".35 Paragraph 19BA(3)(a) Omit "the holder of which is, by virtue of section 25 of the Public Service Act 1922 , the Secretary of a Department", substitute "of Secretary of a Department within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ".36 At the end of section 19C Add: (2) In this section: officer includes an APS employee.37 At the end of section 21 Add: (2) In this section: office includes a position occupied by an APS employee. officer includes an APS employee.38 At the end of section 25B Add: (3) In this section: office includes a position occupied by an APS employee.39 After subsection 33(2) Insert: (2AA) In subsection (2), office includes a position occupied by an APS employee.40 At the end of section 33A Add: (2) In this section: office includes a position occupied by an APS employee.Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 197541 Subsection 12(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".42 Subsection 24G(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".43 Subsection 24N(3) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".44 Subsection 24N(4) Omit "the Secretary of a Department of the Australian Public Service", substitute "an Agency Head within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ".45 Subsection 24N(4) Omit "the Department", substitute "the Agency".46 Section 24P Repeal the section, substitute:24P Statutory Agency etc. for purposes of Public Service Act For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Registrar and the APS employees assisting the Registrar together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Registrar is the Head of that Statutory Agency.47 Section 57 Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922-1975 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Administrative Arrangements Act 198748 Subsection 19(1) Omit all the words after "include, references", substitute "to an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the Department who is specified in the notice".49 Subsection 19(2) Omit all the words after "the specified", substitute "SES employee or acting SES employee". Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 197750 Paragraph (r) of Schedule 2 Omit "officers of the Australian Public Service", substitute "APS employees".51 Paragraph (s) of Schedule 2 Repeal the paragraph.52 Subparagraph (t)(ii) of Schedule 2 Omit "Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".53 Paragraph (w) of Schedule 2 Omit "Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 198654 Subsection 29(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".55 Subsection 29(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Director and the APS employees assisting the Director together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Director is the Head of that Statutory Agency.Aged Care Act 199756 Clause 1 of Schedule 1 (definition of officer ) Repeal the definition. Aged Care Income Testing Act 199757 Section 3 (definition of officer ) Repeal the definition.Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Act 199258 Paragraph 11(1)(e) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (e) a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ;59 Section 39 Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The". 60 Paragraph 46(1)(a) Omit "Departments of the Australian Public Service", substitute "Agencies (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )".61 Subsection 69F(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Agricultural and Veterinary Chemical Products (Collection of Interim Levy) Act 199462 Subsection 18(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Act 199563 Paragraph 10(3)(a) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (a) an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the Department; or64 Subsection 14(3) Omit "the holder of a Senior Executive Service office", substitute "an SES employee or acting SES employee".65 Subsection 17(2) Omit "the holder of a Senior Executive Service office", substitute "an SES employee or acting SES employee".66 Paragraph 18(3)(a) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (a) an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the Department; orAirline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Act 197267 Subparagraph 4(d)(i) Omit "officers employed in the Commonwealth Service", substitute "APS employees".68 Subparagraph 4(d)(ii) Omit "officers", substitute "APS employees".Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Act 197669 Subparagraph 5(d)(i) Omit "officers of the Australian Public Service", substitute "APS employees".70 Subparagraph 5(d)(ii) Omit "officers", substitute "APS employees".Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Act 197771 Subparagraph 5(d)(i) Omit "officers of the Australian Public Service", substitute "APS employees".72 Subparagraph 5(d)(ii) Omit "officers", substitute "APS employees".Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Act 197873 Subparagraph 5(d)(i) Omit "officers of the Australian Public Service", substitute "APS employees".74 Subparagraph 5(d)(ii) Omit "officers", substitute "APS employees".Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Act (No. 2) 197875 Subparagraph 6(e)(i) Omit "officers of the Australian Public Service", substitute "APS employees".76 Subparagraph 6(e)(ii) Omit "officers", substitute "APS employees".Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Act 198077 Subparagraph 5(e)(i) Omit "officers of the Australian Public Service", substitute "APS employees".78 Subparagraph 5(e)(ii) Omit "officers", substitute "APS employees".Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Act 198179 Subparagraph 5(e)(i) Omit "officers of the Australian Public Service", substitute "APS employees".80 Subparagraph 5(e)(ii) Omit "officers", substitute "APS employees".Airports Act 199681 Paragraph 244(1)(b) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) an SES employee or acting SES employee whether or not in the Department;82 Subsection 244(2) Repeal the subsection.83 Subsection 249(3) Omit "a person holding or performing the duties of a Senior Executive Service office", substitute "an SES employee or acting SES employee".84 Subsection 249(7) (definition of Senior Executive Service office ) Repeal the definition.Air Services Act 199585 Subsection 30(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".Albury-Wodonga Development Act 197386 Subsection 3(1) (definition of Australian Public Service ) Omit "service established under the Public Service Act 1922-1973 ", substitute "APS within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ".87 Paragraph 8(1)(e) Omit "for Departments", substitute "for Agencies (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )".88 Paragraph 8(1)(e) Omit "those Departments", substitute "those Agencies".89 Subsection 21(3) Omit "the Secretary of any Department of the Australian Public Service", substitute "an Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )".90 Subsection 21(3) Omit "the Department", substitute "the Agency".91 Section 22 Repeal the section.A New Tax System (Australian Business Number) Act 199992 Subparagraph 30(3)(c)(i) Repeal the subparagraph, substitute: (i) an Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ) for the purposes of legislation administered by the Agency Minister (within the meaning of that Act); or93 Subparagraph 30(3)(d)(i) Repeal the subparagraph, substitute: (i) an Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ) for the purposes of legislation administered by the Agency Minister (within the meaning of that Act); or94 Section 41 (paragraph (c) of the definition of government entity ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (c) an Executive Agency, or Statutory Agency, within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ; orA New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Act 199995 Subsection 19(1) Omit "an SES officer (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922 )", substitute "an SES employee".ANL Guarantee Act 199496 Subsection 5(1) Omit "an officer in the Senior Executive Service", substitute "a person who is an SES employee or acting SES employee". 97 Subsection 5(2) Omit "officer", substitute "person".Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Act 199898 Paragraph 29(1)(b) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (c) an SES employee, or acting SES employee, whether or not in the Department;99 Paragraph 29(3)(d) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (c) an SES employee, or acting SES employee, whether or not in the Department;Archives Act 1983100 Subsection 3(1) (definition of Director-General ) Omit "Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".101 Subsection 7(1) Omit "hold office under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "be a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".102 Section 9 Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".103 Paragraph 34(8)(a) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (a) the Secretary of a Department (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ); orAuditor-General Act 1997104 Subsection 40(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".105 After subsection 40(1) Insert: (1A) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Auditor-General and the APS employees assisting the Auditor-General together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Auditor-General is the Head of that Statutory Agency.106 Subclause 4(1) of Schedule 1 Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".Australia Council Act 1975107 Subsection 12(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".108 Subsection 16(5) Omit "employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".109 Subsection 19C(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".Australia-Japan Foundation Act 1976110 Section 20 Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922-1975 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act 1982111 Subsection 26(1) Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983112 Subsection 14A(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1975113 Subparagraph 6(5)(b)(i) Repeal the subparagraph, substitute: (i) an Agency within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ; or114 Subsection 16(1) Omit "appointed or employed under, or whose services are made available in accordance with arrangements made under, the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under, or whose services are made available in accordance with arrangements made under, the Public Service Act 1999 ".115 Subsection 16(3) Omit ", with the approval of the Public Service Board,".116 Subsections 16(4) and (5) Repeal the subsections, substitute: (4) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Statistician and the APS employees assisting the Statistician together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Statistician is the Head of that Statutory Agency. Australian Capital Territory Government Service (Consequential Provisions) Act 1994117 Subsection 3(1) (definition of unattached officer ) Repeal the definition.118 Sections 6 and 7 Repeal the sections.119 Subsection 8(1) After "where", insert "before the commencement of the Public Service Act 1999 ".120 Subsection 8(2) After "Secretary" (first occurring), insert "or Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )".121 Subsection 8(2) After "Secretary" (last occurring), insert "or Agency Head".122 Subsection 8(3) After "Secretary", insert "or Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )".123 Subsection 8(5) After "Secretary", insert "or Agency Head".124 Section 10 Omit "The Secretary of a Department of the Australian Public Service", substitute "An Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )".125 Paragraph 10(a) Omit "Department", substitute "Agency (within the meaning of that Act)".126 Paragraph 10(b) Omit "Secretary", substitute "Agency Head".127 Part 3 Repeal the Part.128 Section 24 Repeal the section.129 Subsection 25(1) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (1) This section applies to a person who is engaged under section 22 of the Public Service Act 1999 .130 Subsection 25(2) Repeal the subsection.131 Subsection 25(3) Omit "appointment to an office or as an unattached officer", substitute "engagement as an APS employee". 132 Subsections 25(3) and (4) Omit "Public Service Act", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".133 Subsection 25(4) Omit "appointment of a person to an office or as an unattached officer", substitute "engagement of a person as an APS employee".134 Subsection 25(4) Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "an APS employee".135 Subsection 25(5) Omit "appointment of a person to an office or as an unattached officer", substitute "engagement of a person as an APS employee".136 Subsection 25(5) Omit "clause 6 of the Australian Government Employment (Recreation Leave—Additional Payment) Award 1986", substitute "the APS General Employment Conditions Award 1995".137 Subsection 25(6) Omit "clause 6 of the Australian Government Employment (Recreation Leave—Additional Payment) Award 1986", substitute "the APS General Employment Conditions Award 1995".Note: The heading to section 25 is replaced by the heading "Leave entitlements ".138 Subparagraph 26(2)(a)(i) Omit "Public Service Act", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".139 Paragraph 26(2)(b) Omit "under a provision corresponding to section 6 of this Act".140 Paragraph 26(3)(b) After "Public Service Act 1922 ", insert "or the Public Service Act 1999 ".Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988141 Subsection 38(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".142 Subsection 47(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".143 Subsection 47(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Chief Executive and the APS employees assisting the Chief Executive together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Chief Executive is the Head of that Statutory Agency.Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Act 1982144 Paragraph 19(1)(c) Omit "office", substitute "position".145 Subsection 26(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".146 Subsection 30(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".147 Subsections 30(2) and (3) Repeal the subsections, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Director and the APS employees assisting the Director together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Director is the Head of that Statutory Agency.148 Subsection 31(1) Omit "the Secretary of a Department of the Australian Public Service", substitute "an Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )".149 Subsection 31(1) Omit "the Department", substitute "the Agency".Australian Communications Authority Act 1997150 Subsection 35(1) Omit "This subsection has effect subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 .".151 Subsection 40(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".152 Subsection 40(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Chairman and the APS employees assisting the Chairman together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Chairman is the Head of that Statutory Agency.Australia New Zealand Food Authority Act 1991153 Paragraph 38(a) Omit "the Secretary of a Department of the Australian Public Service", substitute "an Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )".154 Paragraphs 38(d) and (e) After "in those", insert "Agencies,".155 Paragraph 39(7)(a) Omit "the Secretary of a Department of the Australian Public Service", substitute "an Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )".156 Paragraph 39(7)(a) Omit "the Department", substitute "the Agency".157 Subsection 53(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".158 Subsection 53(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Chairperson and the APS employees assisting the Chairperson together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Chairperson is the Head of that Statutory Agency.Australian Federal Police Act 1979159 Subsection 21(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".160 After subsection 31(3) Insert: (3A) If subsection (1) or (3) would have caused the termination of a person's return rights at a particular time after the commencement of this subsection if the Public Service Act 1922 had not been repealed, then section 6 or 7 of the Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Act 1999 does not apply to the person after that time. (3B) The reference in subsection (3A) to the termination of a person's return rights is a reference to any of the following ceasing to apply to the person: (a) Part IV of the Public Service Act 1922 ; (b) Division 3 of Part IV of the Public Service Act 1922 ; (c) the Officers' Rights Declaration Act 1928 . Australian Film Commission Act 1975161 Subsection 18(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".Australian Film, Television and Radio School Act 1973162 Subsection 17(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".Australian Hearing Services Act 1991163 Subsection 8(10) (paragraph (a) of the definition of referred Commonwealth employee ) Omit "an officer or employee, within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".164 Subsection 8(10) (paragraph (a) of the definition of referred Commonwealth employee ) Omit "within the meaning of that Act".165 Paragraph 67(7)(a) Omit "the Secretary of a Department of the Australian Public Service", substitute "an Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )".166 Paragraph 67(7)(a) Omit "the Department", substitute "the Agency".167 Paragraph 68(a) Omit "the Secretary of a Department of the Australian Public Service", substitute "an Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )".168 Paragraphs 68(d) and (e) After "in those", insert "Agencies,".169 Paragraph 69(b) Omit "a person holding or performing the duties of a Senior Executive Service office", substitute "an SES employee or acting SES employee".Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975170 Subsection 3(1) (definition of Department ) Omit "a department of the Australian Public Service", substitute "an Agency (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )".171 Subsection 12(3) Omit "full-time officers or employees of the Australian Public Service", substitute "persons appointed or engaged on a full-time basis under the Public Service Act 1999 ". 172 Subsection 32(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922-1975 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".173 Section 33 Omit "Department of the Commonwealth Government", substitute "Agency (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )".174 Section 33 Omit "the Department", substitute "the Agency".Australian Industry Development Corporation Act 1970175 Section 29W Repeal the section.176 Subsection 34E(6) (paragraph (c) of the definition of associated person ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (c) a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ; or177 Paragraph 34X(1)(c) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (c) an SES employee or acting SES employee, whether or not in the Department of Finance;178 Subsection 34X(2) Repeal the subsection.179 Paragraph 37A(1)(c) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (c) an SES employee or acting SES employee, whether or not in the Department;180 Subsection 37A(2) Repeal the subsection.Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Act 1989181 Subsection 29(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".182 Subsection 29(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Principal and the APS employees assisting the Principal together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Principal is the Head of that Statutory Agency. 183 Section 45A Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Act 1987184 Subsection 11(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".185 Paragraph 19(1)(a) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".186 Subsection 19(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Director and the APS employees assisting the Director together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Director is the Head of that Statutory Agency.Australian Institute of Marine Science Act 1972187 Subsection 25(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".188 Section 34 Omit "Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".Australian Land Transport Development Act 1988189 Section 39 Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Act 1985190 Subsection 36(1) Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1996191 Subsection 19(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".Australian Maritime Safety Authority Act 1990192 Subsection 17(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".193 Subsection 51A(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The". 194 Paragraph 57(a) Omit ", or Associate Secretary,".195 Paragraph 57(b) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the Department.Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997196 Subsection 70(3) (definition of SES employee ) Repeal the definition.Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Repeals and Consequential Provisions) Act 1997197 Item 10 of Schedule 5 (definition of officer ) Repeal the definition, substitute: officer means a person in the Department who is engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 .198 Item 23 of Schedule 5 (definition of officer ) Repeal the definition, substitute: officer means a person in the Department who is engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 .Australian Meat and Live-stock (Quotas) Act 1990199 Section 8A Omit "an officer, within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922 , or to an APS employee, within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1997 ", substitute "a person engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Australian National Maritime Museum Act 1990200 Subsection 34(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".201 Subsection 40(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".202 Subsection 40(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Director and the APS employees assisting the Director together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Director is the Head of that Statutory Agency. 203 Subsection 41(1) Omit "the Secretary of a Department of the Australian Public Service", substitute "an Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )".204 Subsection 41(1) Omit "Department" (last occurring), substitute "Agency".Australian National Railways Commission Act 1983205 Subsection 67AZB(5) (paragraph (c) of the definition of associated person ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (c) a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ; or206 Paragraph 67AZV(1)(c) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (c) an SES employee or acting SES employee, whether or not in the Department of Finance;207 Subsection 67AZV(2) Repeal the subsection.Australian National Training Authority Act 1992208 Subsection 30(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".209 Paragraph 40A(1)(a) Omit "of a Department of the Australian Public Service or".210 After paragraph 40A(1)(a) Insert: (aa) a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 who is made available to the Authority to perform the duties of Chief Executive Officer; or211 Subsection 43(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".212 Subsection 45(4) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".213 Subsections 45(5), (6) and (7) Repeal the subsections, substitute: (5) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Chief Executive Officer and the APS employees assisting the Chief Executive Officer together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Chief Executive Officer is the Head of that Statutory Agency.214 Paragraph 46(1)(a) Omit "of Departments of the Australian Public Service, and".215 After paragraph 46(1)(a) Insert: (aa) persons appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 whose services are made available to the Authority in connection with the performance or exercise of any of its functions or powers; andAustralian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act 1987216 Subsection 21A(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".217 Subsection 24(2) Omit "the Secretary of any Department of the Australian Public Service", substitute "an Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )".218 Subsection 24(2) Omit "that Department", substitute "that Agency".219 Subsection 37J(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".220 Subsection 37P(2) Omit "the Secretary of any Department of the Australian Public Service", substitute "an Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )".221 Subsection 37P(2) Omit "that Department", substitute "that Agency".Australian Protective Service Act 1987222 Subsection 9(1) Omit "an officer or employee within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".223 Subsection 9(2) Omit "Secretary within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "Agency Head within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ".224 Paragraph 12(3)(c) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (c) a determination made under section 24 of the Public Service Act 1999 ;Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act 1998225 Subsection 9A(4) Omit "a person holding or performing the duties of a Senior Executive Service office in the Department", substitute "an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the Department".Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998226 Subsection 48(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".227 Subsections 58(1) and (2) Repeal the subsections, substitute: (1) The staff necessary to assist the CEO are to be persons engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 . (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the CEO and the APS employees assisting the CEO together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the CEO is the Head of that Statutory Agency.Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 1989 228 Subsection 113(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".229 Subsection 120(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".230 Subsection 120(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Commission and the APS employees assisting the Commission together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Chairperson of the Commission is the Head of that Statutory Agency.231 Subsection 120(3) Omit "Commission" (wherever occurring), substitute "Chairperson".232 Subsection 120(4) Omit "Commission", substitute "Chairperson". 233 Subsection 121(1) Omit "The Commission may", substitute "The Chairperson may".234 Subsection 121(2) Omit "Commission", substitute "Chairperson".235 Paragraph 122(a) Omit "Departments of the Australian Public Service", substitute "Agencies (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )".236 Paragraph 125(1)(a) Omit "employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".237 Subsection 156(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".238 Subsection 156(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Convenor and the APS employees assisting the Convenor together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Convenor is the Head of that Statutory Agency.239 Paragraph 158(a) Omit "Departments of the Australian Public Service", substitute "Agencies (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )".240 Subsection 180(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979241 Section 4 (paragraph (a) of the definition of authority of the Commonwealth ) Omit "a Department of the Public Service", substitute "an Agency within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ".242 Subsection 11(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".243 Subsection 24(3) (definition of Senior Executive Service office ) Repeal the definition.244 Subsection 24(3) (paragraph (a) of the definition of senior officer of the Organisation ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (a) equivalent to a position occupied by an SES employee; or245 Section 86 Omit "Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".246 Subsection 90(5) Repeal the subsection.247 Section 90A Repeal the section.Australian Space Council Act 1994248 Section 27 Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Australian Sports Commission Act 1989249 Subsection 14(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".250 Subsection 35(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".251 Subsection 41(3) Omit "the Secretary of any Department of the Australian Public Service", substitute "an Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )".252 Subsection 41(3) Omit "that Department", substitute "that Agency".Australian Sports Drug Agency Act 1990253 Subsection 33(3) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".254 Subsection 56(3) Omit "the Secretary of any Department of the Australian Public Service", substitute "an Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )".255 Subsection 56(3) Omit "Department" (second occurring), substitute "Agency".Australian Tourist Commission Act 1987256 Subsection 13(4) Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".257 Subsection 18(3) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A". 258 Subsection 36(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".Australian Trade Commission Act 1985259 Subsection 3(1) (definition of Australian authority ) Omit "a Department of the Australian Public Service", substitute "an Agency (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )".260 Subsection 57(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".261 Section 63 Repeal the section.Australian War Memorial Act 1980262 Subsection 23(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".263 Subsection 27(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".264 Subsections 27(2), (3) and (4) Repeal the subsections, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Director and the APS employees assisting the Director together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Director is the Head of that Statutory Agency.265 Subsection 28(1) Omit "the Secretary of a Department of the Australian Public Service", substitute "an Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )".Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980266 Subsection 39ZL(1) Omit "a Department of the Commonwealth", substitute "an Agency (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )".Australian Wool Research and Promotion Organisation Act 1993267 Subsection 4(1) (definition of designated group ) Repeal the definition, substitute: designated group means any of the following classes of persons: (a) members of the Aboriginal race of Australia or persons who are descend ants of indigenous inhabitants of the Torres Strait Islands; (b) persons who have migrated to Australia and whose first language is not English, and the children of such persons; (c) persons with a physical or mental disability.Bank Integration Act 1991268 Subsection 5(1) (subparagraph (b)(ii) of the definition of authorised person ) Repeal the subparagraph, substitute: (ii) an SES employee or acting SES employee;Bankruptcy Act 1966269 Subsection 31A(5) Omit "Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".Bounty (Books) Act 1986270 Subsection 32(1) Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Broadcasting Services Act 1992271 Subsection 165(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".272 Subsection 165(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Chairperson and the APS employees assisting the Chairperson together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Chairperson is the Head of that Statutory Agency.Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act 1994273 Paragraph 99(c) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (c) an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the Department;Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989274 Subparagraph 149(1)(c)(i) Repeal the subparagraph, substitute: (i) the Agency (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ) of which the Commissioner is the Agency Head (within the meaning of that Act); or 275 Subsection 150(1) (subparagraph (c)(i) of the definition of person to whom this section applies ) Repeal the subparagraph, substitute: (i) the Agency (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ) of which the Commissioner is the Agency Head (within the meaning of that Act); orChild Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988276 Subparagraph 15(1)(c)(i) Repeal the subparagraph, substitute: (i) the Agency (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ) of which the Commissioner is the Agency Head (within the meaning of that Act); or277 Subsection 16(1) (subparagraph (c)(i) of the definition of person to whom this section applies ) Repeal the subparagraph, substitute: (i) the Agency (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ) of which the Commissioner is the Agency Head (within the meaning of that Act); orChristmas Island Act 1958278 Paragraph 8G(7)(h) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (h) a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ;279 Subsection 17(1) Omit "Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".280 Subsection 17(3) Omit "Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".Civil Aviation Act 1988281 Subsection 37(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995282 Subsection 54(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".283 Subsection 54(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Director and the APS employees assisting the Director together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Director is the Head of that Statutory Agency.284 Subsection 59(2) Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".285 Subsection 61(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955286 Paragraph 8G(7)(h) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (h) a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ;287 Subsections 15A(1) and (3) Omit "Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997288 Subsection 23(2) Omit "an officer or employee within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Commonwealth Bank Sale Act 1995289 Subsection 20(5) (subparagraph (c)(i) of the definition of authorised person ) Repeal the subparagraph, substitute: (i) is an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the Department; andCommonwealth Electoral Act 1918290 Paragraph 6(5)(a) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (a) an office of Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ); or291 Subsection 23(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , an", substitute "An".292 Paragraph 29(1)(a) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (a) persons engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 (including such persons holding offices established by this Division); and293 Subsection 29(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Electoral Commissioner and the APS employees assisting the Electoral Commissioner together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Electoral Commissioner is the Head of that Statutory Agency.294 Subsection 35(3) Omit all the words after "Commission".295 Subsection 35(5) Repeal the subsection.296 Paragraph 60(3)(b) Omit "an officer", substitute "a person".297 Paragraph 60(3)(b) Omit "officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".298 Paragraph 60(3A)(d) Omit "officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".299 Paragraph 60(4)(b) Omit "an officer", substitute "a person".300 Subsection 91(1) (definition of Secretary of a Department ) Repeal the definition.301 Paragraph 91(11)(a) Omit "Secretary of a Department", substitute "Agency Head of an Agency (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )".302 Paragraph 193(2)(b) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ;303 Subsection 279B(1) Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".304 Subsection 279B(7) Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".305 Subsection 311A(4) (paragraph (c) of the definition of Commonwealth Department ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (c) an Agency (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ).306 Subsection 311A(4) (paragraph (b) of the definition of principal officer ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) in relation to an Agency—the Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ) of the Agency.Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973307 Subsection 10(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".308 Subsection 15(2) Omit "officers or employees employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "APS employees".Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911309 Paragraph 51H(2)(b) After "office", insert "or position".310 Paragraph 51K(1)(a) After "office", insert "or position".Commonwealth Legal Aid Act 1977311 Part IV Repeal the Part.Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Act 1961312 Subsection 19X(1) Omit "a person who holds, or performs the duties of, a Senior Executive Service office", substitute "an SES employee or acting SES employee".313 Subsection 19X(2) Repeal the subsection.Commonwealth Services Delivery Agency Act 1997314 Section 3 (paragraph (a) of the definition of principal officer ) Omit "Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".315 Subsection 35(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".316 Subsection 35(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Chief Executive Officer and the APS employees assisting the Chief Executive Officer together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Chief Executive Officer is the Head of that Statutory Agency.Commonwealth Superannuation Board Act 1999317 Subsection 23(10) (paragraph (c) of the definition of agency ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (c) an Executive Agency, or Statutory Agency, within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ; or318 Subsection 24(10) (paragraph (c) of the definition of agency ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (c) an Executive Agency, or Statutory Agency, within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ; orCommonwealth Vehicles (Registration and Exemption from Taxation) Act 1997319 Section 7 Repeal the section, substitute:7 Registrar (1) There is to be a position in the Department whose duties include the general control of the register. (2) The Registrar is the APS employee who is performing the duties of the position referred to in subsection (1).Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981320 Paragraph 41(1)(c) Omit "Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".321 Subsection 64(3) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Constitutional Convention (Election) Act 1997322 Paragraph 102(6)(a) Omit "officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "APS employee".323 Subsection 113(1) Omit "officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "APS employee".324 Subsection 113(7) Omit "officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "APS employee".Construction Industry Reform and Development Act 1992325 Subsection 38(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".Co-operative Farmers and Graziers Direct Meat Supply Limited (Loan Guarantee) Act 1978326 Paragraph 5(c) Omit "officers of the Australian Public Service", substitute "persons appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Copyright Act 1968327 Subsection 170(2) Omit "Public Service Act 1922-1968 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Act 1998328 Subsection 27A(2) Omit "officer or employee within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Act 1991329 Subsection 20(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".330 Section 26 Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".331 Paragraph 29(1)(c) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (c) an SES employee or acting SES employee.Crimes Act 1914332 Subsection 3(1) (paragraph (a) of the definition of Commonwealth officer ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (a) a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ;333 Subsection 16(1) (paragraph (b) of the definition of parole officer ) Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".334 Subsection 21F(3) Omit "officers of the Australian Public Service", substitute "persons appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".335 Subsection 56(2) (definition of eligible person ) Omit "a Senior Executive Service Officer in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "an SES employee in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade". 336 Section 85ZL (definition of Commonwealth Department ) Omit "a Department within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "an Agency within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ".337 Section 85ZL Insert: Secretary , in relation to a Commonwealth Department, means the Agency Head within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 .Crimes (Aviation) Act 1991338 Subsection 3(1) (paragraph (c) of the definition of authorised person ) Omit "a Senior Executive Service officer employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "an SES employee or acting SES employee".339 Subsection 3(1) (paragraph (d) of the definition of authorised person ) Omit "employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".340 Subparagraph 23(2)(c)(i) Omit "an officer of, or a person employed in, the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ,".Criminology Research Act 1971341 Subsection 19(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".CSL Sale Act 1993342 Subsection 44(3) (paragraph (b) of the definition of authorised person ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in that Department.343 Subsection 47(4) (paragraph (c) of the definition of authorised person ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (c) an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the Department, authorised by the Secretary, in writing, for the purposes of this section.Customs Act 1901344 Subsection 208DA(1) (definition of prescribed officer ) Repeal the definition, substitute: prescribed officer means an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the Attorney-General's Department. Customs Administration Act 1985345 Subsection 9(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".346 Subsection 15(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".347 Subsection 15(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the CEO and the APS employees assisting the CEO together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the CEO is the Head of that Statutory Agency.Dairy Produce Act 1986348 Paragraph 109C(b) Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".349 Clause 1 of the Schedule (definition of designated group ) Repeal the definition, substitute: designated group means any of the following classes of persons: (a) members of the Aboriginal race of Australia or persons who are descendants of indigenous inhabitants of the Torres Strait Islands; (b) persons who have migrated to Australia and whose first language is not English, and the children of such persons; (c) persons with a physical or mental disability.Debits Tax Administration Act 1982350 Subsection 3(1) (definition of officer ) Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Defence Act 1903351 Paragraph 58B(1A)(a) Omit "section 82D of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "section 24 of the Public Service Act 1999 ".352 Subsection 73A(1) Omit "or officer in the Australian Public Service who communicates to any person", substitute ", or person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 , who communicates to any other person". 353 Subsection 120B(16) (definition of paying officer ) Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".354 Subsection 123(2) Omit "officer within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "APS employee".355 Subparagraph 123(2)(a)(i) Omit "officer or employee within the meaning of that Act", substitute "APS employee".356 Subsection 124(1A) Omit "section 82D of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "section 24 of the Public Service Act 1999 ".Defence Force Discipline Act 1982357 Subsections 175(1) and (2) Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Defence Force Discipline Appeals Act 1955358 Subsection 19(4) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973359 Subsection 131(4) Omit "section 82D of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "section 24 of the Public Service Act 1999 ".Defence Housing Authority Act 1987360 Subsection 3(1) (definition of designated office in the Department ) Repeal the definition.361 Subsection 3(1) Insert: designated position in the Department means a position in the Department that: (a) is designated, in writing, by the Minister for the purposes of section 60; and (b) is occupied by an SES employee or acting SES employee.362 Paragraph 12(1)(c) Omit "an officer within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ". 363 Subparagraph 41(4)(e)(i) Omit "officers of the Australian Public Service", substitute "persons appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 and".364 Subparagraph 41(4)(e)(ii) Omit "officers of the Australian Public Service", substitute "those persons".365 Subsection 51(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".366 Paragraph 57(1)(a) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".367 Subsections 57(2) and (3) Repeal the subsections, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Managing Director and the APS employees assisting the Managing Director together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Managing Director is the Head of that Statutory Agency.368 Subsections 60(1) and (2) Omit "designated office", substitute "designated position".369 Subsection 60(4) Omit "designated office" (wherever occurring), substitute "designated position".Defence Service Homes Act 1918370 Subsection 23J(2) Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 (the public servant )".371 Subsection 23J(2) Omit "or officer" (wherever occurring), substitute "or public servant".Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952372 Section 4 (paragraph (a) of the definition of Commonwealth officer ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (a) a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ;Defence (Visiting Forces) Act 1963373 Subsection 28(1) Omit "an officer holding or performing the duties of a Senior Executive Service office", substitute "an SES employee, or acting SES employee,". Designs Act 1906374 Subsection 8A(1) Omit all the words after "any other Act", substitute "to a prescribed person engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 in the Designs Office".375 Subsection 8A(2) Repeal the subsection.Development Allowance Authority Act 1992376 Subsection 103(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".377 Subparagraph 107(3)(c)(ii) Omit "a person holding or performing the duties of a specified Senior Executive Service office", substitute "an SES employee or acting SES employee occupying a specified position".378 Section 108 Omit "a person holding or performing the duties of a Senior Executive Service office", substitute "an SES employee or acting SES employee".Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983379 Subsection 20(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".380 Subsection 27(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".381 Subsection 27(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Director and the APS employees assisting the Director together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Director is the Head of that Statutory Agency.382 Paragraph 31(1A)(b) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) an SES employee.Disability Discrimination Act 1992383 Subsection 4(1) (paragraph (a) of the definition of Commonwealth employee ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (a) is appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ;384 Subsection 4(1) (definition of Department ) Omit "has the same meaning as that expression has in the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "means an Agency within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ".385 Subsection 116(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".Disability Services Act 1986386 Subsection 25(1A) Omit "the Secretary of another Department", substitute "an Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )".387 Subsection 25(1B) Repeal the subsection.Education Legislation Amendment Act 1997388 Item 31 of Schedule 1 Repeal the item.Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration of Providers and Financial Regulation) Act 1991389 Section 17 Omit "officer of the Senior Executive Service", substitute "SES employee or acting SES employee".Employment, Education and Training Act 1988390 Subsection 17(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".391 Paragraph 32(3)(a) Omit "an officer or employee of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".392 Paragraphs 32(3)(b) and (c) Omit "an officer or employee", substitute "a person".393 Paragraph 32(3)(d) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (d) any person who from time to time occupies a particular position, or performs particular duties, as a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 .394 Subsection 32(3) Omit "an officer or employee of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".395 Subsection 32(3) Omit "such an officer or employee", substitute "such a person". 396 Subsection 32(3) Omit "an officer or employee of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".397 Subsection 35C(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".398 Subsection 55(2) Omit "an officer or employee of the Australian Public Service", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".399 Section 56 Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".400 Subsection 69(2) Omit "subsection 25(6) of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "section 63 of the Public Service Act 1999 ".Employment Services Act 1994401 Subsection 83(2) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , an", substitute "An".402 Subsection 98(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".403 Section 110 Repeal the section, substitute:110 Staff of ESRA (1) The staff required for the purposes of ESRA are to be persons engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 . (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the ESRA Chief Executive Officer and the APS employees assisting the ESRA Chief Executive Officer together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the ESRA Chief Executive Officer is the Head of that Statutory Agency.404 Subsection 111(2) (paragraph (a) of the definition of authority of the Commonwealth ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (a) an Agency within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ; orEndangered Species Protection Act 1992405 Subsection 4(1) (definition of Department ) Repeal the definition, substitute: Department means an Agency (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ).406 Subsection 4(1) (definition of Secretary ) Repeal the definition, substitute: Secretary means an Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ).Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978407 Section 8 Omit "appointed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".408 Section 26 Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".409 Paragraph 31(3)(a) Omit "Permanent Head" (wherever occurring), substitute "Secretary".410 Subsection 31(4) Omit "Permanent Head", substitute "Secretary".Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999411 Subsection 393(1) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (1) The Secretary may make arrangements with an Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ), or with an authority of the Commonwealth, for the performance or exercise of all or any of the functions or powers of wardens and rangers under this Act or the regulations by officers or employees in that Agency or authority, as the case may be.412 Subsection 393(4) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (4) The Director may make arrangements with an Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ), or with an authority of the Commonwealth, for the performance or exercise of all or any of the functions or powers of wardens and rangers under this Act or the regulations by officers or employees in that Agency or authority, as the case may be.Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Act 1987413 Subsection 3(1) (definition of authority ) Repeal the definition, substitute: authority means: (a) an incorporated or unincorporated body or authority established for a public purpose: (i) by an Act or by regulations made under an Act; or (ii) by or under a law of a Territory (other than a law of the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory); being a body whose staff consists of, or includes, persons who are not APS employees; or (b) a company or other body corporate incorporated under a law of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a Territory, being a company or body corporate in which the Commonwealth has a controlling interest; but does not include any of the following: (c) a relevant employer as defined in section 3 of the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986 ; (d) the Australian Dairy Corporation; (e) the Australian Wool Research and Promotion Organisation.414 Subsection 3(1) (definition of Board ) Repeal the definition.415 Subsection 3(1) (definition of designated group ) Repeal the definition, substitute: designated group means any of the following classes of persons: (a) members of the Aboriginal race of Australia or persons who are descendants of indigenous inhabitants of the Torres Strait Islands; (b) persons who have migrated to Australia and whose first language is not English, and the children of such persons; (c) persons with a physical or mental disability; (d) any other class of persons prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this definition.416 Section 8 Repeal the section.417 Paragraph 9(1)(b) Omit "or the Board, as the case may be,".418 Subsection 9(4) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (4) If: (a) a relevant authority is required by an Act other than this Act to prepare an annual report for presentation to the Parliament; and (b) the annual report is lodged with the responsible Minister within 3 months after the end of the period to which a program report relates; then the authority may, with the consent of the responsible Minister, include that program report in the annual report.419 Subsection 10(1) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (1) The responsible Minister may, by notice in writing to a relevant authority, require the authority to give the responsible Minister a special report within the time specified in the notice.420 Section 11 Repeal the section, substitute:11 Minister may make recommendations (1) After considering a report lodged by a relevant authority under this Part, the responsible Minister may make a recommendation in writing to the authority regarding the action to be taken by the authority to improve the effectiveness of its program. (2) If the authority does not concur in or adopt a recommendation made under subsection (1), the authority must, within a reasonable time, inform the responsible Minister in writing of the authority's reasons for not concurring in or adopting the recommendation.421 Subsection 12(1) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (1) The responsible Minister for a relevant authority may give general directions in writing to the authority about the performance of the authority's obligations under this Act.422 Sections 13 and 14 Repeal the sections.Evidence Act 1995423 Part 1 of the Dictionary at the end of the Act (paragraph (a) of the definition of Commonwealth agency) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (a) an Agency within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ; or424 Part 1 of the Dictionary at the end of the Act (paragraph (a) of the definition of Commonwealth entity ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (a) an Agency within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ; or425 Part 1 of the Dictionary at the end of the Act (paragraph (a) of the definition of Commonwealth record ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (a) an Agency within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ; or426 After clause 8 in Part 2 of the Dictionary Insert:8A References to offices etc. In this Act: (a) a reference to a person appointed or holding office under or because of an Australian law or a law of the Commonwealth includes a reference to an APS employee; and (b) in that context, a reference to an office is a reference to the position occupied by the APS employee concerned.Excise Tariff Act 1921427 Item 10 of the Schedule Omit "Department of the Australian Public Service", substitute "an Agency (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )".Family Law Act 1975428 Subsection 4(1) (paragraph (b) of the definition of welfare officer ) Omit "an officer or employee, within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922 ,", substitute "a person engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".429 Subsection 26JA(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".430 Subsection 37A(8) Omit "Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".431 Subsection 37B(1) Omit "Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".432 Subsection 37B(4) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (4) An Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ) cannot take action under section 15 of the Public Service Act 1999 against the Principal Registrar, a Registrar or a Deputy Registrar unless such action is requested by the Chief Judge. 433 Subsection 38G(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".434 Subsection 38N(4) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".435 Subsection 38N(5) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".436 Subsection 38N(6) Omit "the Secretary of a Department of the Australian Public Service", substitute "an Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )".437 Subsection 38N(8) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".438 Section 38Q Repeal the section, substitute:38Q Statutory Agency etc. for purposes of Public Service Act For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Chief Executive Officer and the APS employees assisting the Chief Executive Officer together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Chief Executive Officer is the Head of that Statutory Agency.439 Section 67H (subparagraphs (a)(i) and (ii) of the definition of appropriate authority ) Repeal the subparagraphs, substitute: (i) is an SES employee or acting SES employee; or (ii) holds an office or position that is at a level equivalent to that of an SES employee; or440 Subsection 114G(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".441 Subsection 114M(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".442 Subsection 114M(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Director and the APS employees assisting the Director together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Director is the Head of that Statutory Agency.443 Subsection 115(2) Omit "officers of the Australian Public Service or", substitute "persons appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 , officers".Federal Airports Corporation Act 1986444 Subsection 3(1) (paragraph (a) of the definition of authority of the Commonwealth ) Omit "or a Department of the Australian Public Service".445 Subsection 3(1) (after paragraph (a) of the definition of authority of the Commonwealth ) Insert: (aa) an Agency (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ); and446 Subsection 17(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".447 Subsection 61(3) Omit "the Secretary of a Department of the Australian Public Service", substitute "an Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )".448 Subsection 61(3) Omit "a Department" (second occurring), substitute "an Agency".449 Paragraphs 61(3)(a) and (b) Omit "Department", substitute "Agency".450 Paragraph 66(1)(b) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the Department;Federal Court of Australia Act 1976451 Subsection 18AI(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".452 Subsection 18G(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".453 Subsection 18N(4) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ". 454 Subsection 18N(5) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".455 Subsection 18N(6) Omit "the Secretary of a Department of the Australian Public Service", substitute "an Agency Head within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ".456 Subsection 18N(6) Omit "the Department", substitute "the Agency".457 Subsection 18N(8) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".458 Section 18Q Repeal the section, substitute:18Q Statutory Agency etc. for purposes of Public Service Act For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Registrar and the APS employees assisting the Registrar together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Registrar is the Head of that Statutory Agency.459 Subsection 35A(4) Omit "Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".460 Subsection 37F(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".Federal Magistrates Act 1999461 Subsection 99(1) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (1) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Chief Executive Officer and the APS employees assisting the Chief Executive Officer together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Chief Executive Officer is the Head of that Statutory Agency.462 Section 102 Repeal the section, substitute:102 Arrangements relating to Commonwealth staff The Chief Executive Officer may, on behalf of the Federal Magistrates Court, arrange with: (a) an Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ); or (b) an authority of the Commonwealth; for the services of officers or employees of the Agency or authority to be made available for the purposes of the Federal Magistrates Court.463 Section 103 Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".464 Subsection 106(1) Omit "Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".465 Subsection 108(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".466 Subsection 111(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".467 Subsection 114(2) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".468 Subclause 5(1) of Schedule 2 Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".Film Licensed Investment Company Act 1998469 Paragraph 44(b) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the Department;Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997470 Section 5 (paragraph (b) of the definition of Chief Executive ) Omit "Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988471 Subsection 3(1) (paragraph (c) of the definition of taxation officer ) Omit "an officer or employee of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 and".472 Subsection 36B(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The". 473 Subsection 40(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".474 Subsection 40(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Director and the APS employees assisting the Director together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Director is the Head of that Statutory Agency.Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Act 1998475 Subsection 2(18) Omit "Public Service Act 1998 " (wherever occurring), substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".476 Item 42 of Schedule 18 Omit "Public Service Act 1998 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".First Home Owners Act 1983477 Subsection 4(1) (definition of Secretary ) Repeal the definition.Fisheries Management Act 1991478 Subsection 137(4) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".479 Subsection 138(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Foreign Evidence Act 1994480 Subsection 26(3) (paragraph (a) of the definition of authorised officer ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (a) who is an SES employee or acting SES employee in the Attorney-General's Department; andForestry and Timber Bureau Act 1930481 Subsection 3(3) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (3) The Director-General and staff required for the purposes of this Act must be engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 .Freedom of Information Act 1982482 Division 1 of Part II of Schedule 2 (item relating to the National Health and Medical Research Council) Omit "officers, or employees, within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "persons appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Fringe Benefits Tax (Application to the Commonwealth) Act 1986483 Subsection 3(1) (paragraph (c) of the definition of Department ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (c) an Executive Agency or Statutory Agency (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ).Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986484 Subsection 136(1) (definition of officer ) Repeal the definition, substitute: officer means a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 .Governor-General Act 1974485 At the end of section 6 Add: (2) The Official Secretary, together with the staff employed under section 13, constitute the Office of Official Secretary to the Governor-General. (3) The function of the Office is to assist the Governor-General.486 Section 14 Repeal the section, substitute:14 Remuneration and other conditions of employees The remuneration and other conditions of employment of a person employed under section 13 are as determined by the Official Secretary.487 Section 16 Repeal the section.488 Section 17 Repeal the section.Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975489 Subsection 13(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".490 Subsection 40(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".491 Subsections 40(2) and (3) Repeal the subsections, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Chairperson and the APS employees assisting the Chairperson together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Chairperson is the Head of that Statutory Agency.492 Subsection 42(2) Omit "the Secretary of a Department of the Australian Public Service", substitute "an Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )".493 Subsection 42(2) Omit "Department" (last occurring), substitute "Agency".Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1989494 Paragraph 60(b) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the Department.Health Insurance Act 1973495 Subsection 106ZB(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , if", substitute "If".496 Section 106ZM Repeal the section, substitute:106ZM Staff (1) The staff necessary to assist the Director are to be persons engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 . (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Director and the APS employees assisting the Director together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Director is the Head of that Statutory Agency.497 Subsection 130(5B) (paragraph (b) of the definition of authorised officer ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) an APS employee in the Department.Health Insurance Commission Act 1973498 Subsection 3(1) (definition of Australian Public Service ) Omit "Public Service Act 1922-1973 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".499 Subsection 23(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".High Court of Australia Act 1979500 Subsection 22(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".501 Paragraph 25(3)(a) Omit "with the concurrence of the Public Service Board,".502 Subsection 26(6) Omit "the Secretary of a Department of the Australian Public Service", substitute "an Agency Head within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ".503 Subsection 26(6) Omit "the Department", substitute "the Agency".Horticultural Policy Council Act 1987504 Subsection 25(1) Omit "officers or employees of the Department", substitute "APS employees in the Department".Housing Assistance Act 1996505 After paragraph 8(2)(e) Insert: (ea) an Agency (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 );506 Paragraph 8(2)(f) Omit "the Commonwealth or".507 Section 13 Omit "an officer of, or person employed in, the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Housing Loans Insurance Corporation (Sale of Assets and Abolition) Act 1990508 Section 26 Omit "an officer of the Department of Finance who holds a Senior Executive Service office within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the Department of Finance".Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986509 Subsection 39(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".510 Subsection 43(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".511 Subsection 43(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Commission and the APS employees assisting the Commission together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Commission is the Head of that Statutory Agency.512 Subsection 46F(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".Immigration (Education) Act 1971513 Subsection 10(1) Omit "an officer of the Public Service of the Commonwealth", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Income Tax Assessment Act 1936514 Subsection 51AL(23) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (23) The Industry Secretary may, by writing, delegate any or all of his or her functions and powers under this section to a person in the Industry Department: (a) who is an SES employee or an acting SES employee; or (b) whose classification level appears in Group 7 or 8 of Schedule 1 to the Classification Rules under the Public Service Act 1999 ; or (c) who is acting in a position usually occupied by a person with a classification level of the kind mentioned in paragraph (b).515 Subsection 51AL(26) (definition of Senior Executive Service office ) Repeal the definition.516 Subsection 124K(1) (definition of Senior Executive Service office ) Repeal the definition, substitute: Senior Executive Service office means a position that is occupied by an SES employee or acting SES employee.517 Subsection 124ZADAA(1) Omit "a person holding or performing the duties of a Senior Executive Service office", substitute "an SES employee or acting SES employee".518 Subsection 124ZADAA(2) Repeal the subsection.519 Section 159UX Omit "a person holding or performing the duties of a Senior Executive Service office", substitute "an SES employee or acting SES employee".520 Section 159UX Omit "In this section Senior Executive Service office has the same meaning as in the Public Service Act 1922 .".Income Tax Assessment Act 1997521 Section 34-65 Repeal the section, substitute:34-65 Delegation of powers by Industry Secretary The *Industry Secretary may, by writing, delegate any or all of his or her functions and powers under this Division to a person in the Department of Industry, Science and Tourism: (a) who holds or performs the duties of a *Senior Executive Service office; or (b) whose classification level appears in Group 7 or 8 of Schedule 1 to the Classification Rules under the Public Service Act 1999 ; or (c) who is acting in a position usually occupied by a person with a classification level of the kind mentioned in paragraph (b).522 Section 396-105 Omit "a person holding or performing the duties of a Senior Executive Service office", substitute "an SES employee, or acting SES employee,".523 Subsection 995-1(1) (definition of Senior Executive Service office ) Repeal the definition, substitute: Senior Executive Service office means a position occupied by an SES employee or acting SES employee.Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act 1989524 Section 5 (definition of Department ) Repeal the definition, substitute: Department means an Agency within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 .525 Section 5 (definition of Secretary ) Repeal the definition, substitute: Secretary means an Agency Head within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 .526 Subsection 84(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ". 527 Subsection 84(2) Omit "section 78 of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "section 71 of the Public Service Act 1999 ".528 Subsection 94(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".529 Subsection 100(1) Omit "the Secretary of a Department", substitute "an Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )".530 Subsection 100(1) Omit "Department" (last occurring), substitute "Agency".531 Paragraph 104(c) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (c) an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the Department;532 Section 104A Repeal the section, substitute:104A Delegation by Director The Director may, by signed instrument, delegate to a person: (a) whose classification level appears in Group 7 or 8 of Schedule 1 to the Classification Rules under the Public Service Act 1999 ; or (b) who is acting in a position usually occupied by a person with a classification level of the kind mentioned in paragraph (a); all or any of the Director's functions or powers under this Act, other than those under subsection 14(4), 17(4) or 19(8) or (9), section 24 or 30A, subsection 37(2), section 38, 44, 50B, 60E or 60F or this section.Industry Research and Development Act 1986533 Paragraph 9(1)(b) After "office", insert "or position".534 Section 25 Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986535 Paragraph 18(6)(b) Omit "a Department", substitute "an Agency (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )". 536 Subsection 28(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".537 Subsection 32(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".538 Subsection 32(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Inspector-General and the APS employees assisting the Inspector-General together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Inspector-General is the Head of that Statutory Agency.International Air Services Commission Act 1992539 Subsection 44(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , if", substitute "If".International Transfer of Prisoners Act 1997540 Paragraph 53(b) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the Department.Judiciary Act 1903541 Subsection 55E(1) (subparagraph (b)(ii) of the definition of AGS lawyer ) Repeal the subparagraph, substitute: (ii) a person in the Attorney-General's Department who is engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 .542 Subsection 55E(5) Omit "as an officer or employee in the Attorney-General's Department", substitute "as a person in the Attorney-General's Department engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".543 Paragraph 55G(1)(a) Omit "an officer of, or employee in, the Attorney-General's Department", substitute "a person in the Attorney-General's Department engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Lands Acquisition Act 1989544 Paragraph 139(1)(a) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (a) a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ; orLegislative Instruments Act 1997545 Section 14 Omit "An officer of the Senior Executive Service", substitute "An SES employee".Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976546 Subsection 4(1) (paragraph (e) of the definition of approving authority ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (e) in any other case: (i) the chief executive officer of the employing agency (the original agency ) in which the person is employed, or in which the person was employed at the time of his or her ceasing to be an employee (whether by reason of death or otherwise); or (ii) if the original agency no longer exists—the chief executive officer (however described) of the replacement agency determined under subsection (1A).547 Subsection 4(1) Insert: chief executive officer , in relation to an employing agency, means: (a) if the employing agency is an Agency within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 —the Agency Head (within the meaning of that Act); or (b) in any other case—the person (however described) who is the chief executive officer of the employing agency.548 Subsection 4(1) Insert: employing agency means: (a) an Agency within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ; or (b) a public authority of the Commonwealth; or (c) a body covered by paragraph (6)(b); or (d) a company covered by paragraph (6)(c).549 Subsection 4(1) (definition of officer ) Repeal the definition.550 After subsection 4(1) Insert: (1A) If the employing agency (the original agency ) in which a person was employed at the time of his or her ceasing to be an employee no longer exists at a later time, then the replacement agency at that later time is: (a) the employing agency that is responsible for the matter to which the person's duties related, or mainly related, at the time of his or her ceasing to be an employee; or (b) if there is no employing agency that is responsible for that matter—the employing agency that is nominated in writing by the Secretary of the Department.551 Subsection 4(9) Repeal the subsection.552 Subsection 4(10) Omit "to whom the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act 1979 does not apply".553 Paragraph 4(10)(a) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (a) in the case of an employee who is an APS employee—the minimum that applies to the employee under section 30 of the Public Service Act 1999 ; or554 Sections 9 and 9A Repeal the sections, substitute:9 Delegation by approving authority (1) An approving authority may, in writing, delegate to another person any of the approving authority's powers or functions under this Act (other than this section). (2) A person (the first delegate ) to whom powers or functions are delegated under subsection (1) may, in writing, delegate any of those powers or functions to another person (the second delegate ). However, if the first delegate is subject to directions in relation to the exercise of a power or function delegated under this subsection, the first delegate must give corresponding directions to the second delegate. (3) A power or function that is exercised or performed by a person under a delegation under subsection (2) is taken, for the purposes of this Act, to have been exercised or performed by the approving authority. (4) A person exercising powers or functions under a delegation under this section must comply with any directions of the person who delegated the power or function. (5) In this section: approving authority does not include the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives. 555 Paragraph 12(3)(a) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (a) unless a chief executive officer, or the person who granted the leave, determined (otherwise than under this Act), either at the time of the grant or at a later time, that the period of absence be included in the person's period of service for the purpose of the granting of long service leave; orManagement and Investment Companies Act 1983556 Section 16 Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Maternity Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1973557 Subsection 3(1) Insert: Agency Head , in relation to an employee, means: (a) in the case of an employee in an Agency (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )—the Agency Head within the meaning of that Act; or (b) in the case of an employee in a prescribed authority—the chief executive officer (however described) of the prescribed authority.558 Subsection 3(1) (definition of Department of the Australian Public Service ) Repeal the definition.559 Subsection 3(1) (definition of Secretary ) Repeal the definition.560 Paragraph 5(1)(a) Omit "Public Service Act 1922-1973 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".561 Subsection 5A(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the application of this Act in relation to a person employed in a Parliamentary Department, the powers conferred on an Agency Head (other than the power of delegation conferred by section 11) are to be exercised, in substitution for the Agency Head, by the Head of the Parliamentary Department concerned.562 Subsection 6(4) Omit "or (4AB)". 563 Subsection 6(4AB) Repeal the subsection.564 Subsection 6(4B) Omit "or (4AB)".565 Subsection 6(4C) Omit "the Secretary to the Department", substitute "the Agency Head".566 Subsection 6(4F) Omit "the Secretary to the Department", substitute "the Agency Head".567 Subsection 7A(4) Omit "the Secretary to the Department", substitute "the Agency Head".568 Subsection 7A(4) Omit "wishes the Secretary", substitute "wishes the Agency Head".569 Subsection 7A(5) Omit "the Secretary to the Department", substitute "the Agency Head".570 Subsection 7A(5) Omit "subsection (4), the Secretary", substitute "subsection (4), the Agency Head".571 Subsection 7A(6) Omit "the Secretary to the Department", substitute "the Agency Head".572 Subsection 7A(6) Omit "or the Secretary", substitute "or the Agency Head".573 Section 8 Repeal the section, substitute:8 APS employees on maternity leave Clause 12 of Schedule 14 to the Workplace Relations Act 1996 applies to a female APS employee if: (a) the employee is absent from duty in accordance with section 6; and (b) the absence is after her confinement and without pay.574 Sections 11 and 12 Repeal the sections, substitute:11 Delegation by Agency Head (1) An Agency Head may, in writing, delegate to another person any of the Agency Head's powers or functions under this Act (other than this section). (2) A person (the first delegate ) to whom powers or functions are delegated under subsection (1) may, in writing, delegate any of those powers or functions to another person (the second delegate ). However, if the first delegate is subject to directions in relation to the exercise of a power or function delegated under this subsection, the first delegate must give corresponding directions to the second delegate. (3) A power or function that is exercised or performed by a person under a delegation under subsection (2) is taken, for the purposes of this Act, to have been exercised or performed by the Agency Head. (4) A person exercising powers or functions under a delegation under this section must comply with any directions of the person who delegated the power or function. (5) In this section: Agency Head does not include the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives.Meat Inspection Arrangements Act 1964575 Subsection 3(1) (definition of person employed by the Commonwealth ) Repeal the definition, substitute: person employed by the Commonwealth means a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 .Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984576 Section 3 (definition of Agency ) Repeal the definition.577 Section 3 (definition of Board ) Repeal the definition.578 Section 3 (definition of officer ) Repeal the definition, substitute: officer means a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act.579 Section 3 (definition of Public Service Act ) Omit "Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".580 Section 3 (definition of relevant public servant ) Repeal the definition.581 Subsections 5(1), (2) and (3) Omit "Board", substitute "Prime Minister".582 Section 10 Repeal the section.583 Section 11 Repeal the section.584 Subsection 14(1) Omit "subsection (2) and to".585 Subsection 14(1) Omit all the words after "are the same as", substitute "are to be ascertained in accordance with the agreement for the employment of the person".586 Subsection 14(1) Omit "in relation to an officer performing the duties of an office in the Australian Public Service", substitute "an APS employee".587 Subsection 14(2) Repeal the subsection.588 Sections 17 and 18 Repeal the sections.589 Subsection 21(1) Omit "subsection (2) and to".590 Subsection 21(1) Omit all the words after "are the same as", substitute "are to be ascertained in accordance with the agreement for the employment of the person".591 Subsection 21(1) Omit "in relation to an officer performing the duties of an office in the Australian Public Service", substitute "an APS employee".592 Subsection 21(2) Repeal the subsection.593 Section 24 Repeal the section.594 Section 25 Repeal the section.Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act 1984595 The whole of the Act Repeal the Act.Migration Act 1958596 Paragraph 143(1)(b) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in that Department.597 Section 275 (paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of official ) Repeal the paragraphs, substitute: (a) a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ; or598 Paragraph 364(1)(b) Omit "employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".599 Subsection 407(4) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ". 600 Subsection 408(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".601 Paragraph 428(1)(a) Omit "employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".602 Subsection 472(4) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".603 Subsection 473(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Migration Legislation Amendment (Migration Agents) Act 1997604 Subsection 2(3) Omit "Public Service Act 1997 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".605 Item 82 of Schedule 1 Omit "Public Service Act 1997 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989606 Paragraph 22(2)(b) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) is to be an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the Department.607 Subsection 25(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".608 Subsection 25(2) Omit "section 78 of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "section 71 of the Public Service Act 1999 ".National Crime Authority Act 1984609 Subsection 40(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".610 Subsection 47(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".611 Subsection 47(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Chairperson and the APS employees assisting the Chairperson together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Chairperson is the Head of that Statutory Agency.National Environment Protection Council Act 1994612 Subsection 43(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".613 Subsection 49(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".614 Subsections 49(2) and (3) Repeal the subsections, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the NEPC Executive Officer and the APS employees assisting the NEPC Executive Officer together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the NEPC Executive Officer is the Head of that Statutory Agency.615 Subsection 51(1) Omit "officers and employees of Departments of the Australian Public Service", substitute "persons engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".National Gallery Act 1975616 Subsection 28(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".National Health Act 1953617 Subsection 4(1) (paragraph (a) of the definition of Director ) Omit "Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".618 Subsection 82PEA(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".619 Subsection 82PL(2) Omit "the Secretary of a Department of the Australian Public Service", substitute "an Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )".620 Subsection 82PL(2) Omit "Department" (last occurring), substitute "Agency".621 Subsection 82PN(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The". 622 Subsection 82R(3) Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".623 Subsection 82X(1) Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".624 Subsection 82ZUD(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , if", substitute "If".625 Subsection 82ZUG(2) Omit "the Secretary of a Department of the Australian Public Service", substitute "an Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )".626 Subsection 82ZUG(2) Omit "Department" (last occurring), substitute "Agency".National Health and Medical Research Council Act 1992627 Subsection 22(1) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (1) The Secretary to the Council is an SES employee or acting SES employee who is designated for the purpose by the Secretary of the Department.628 Subsection 26(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".629 Subsection 45(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".630 Subsection 45(2) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".631 Paragraph 48(1)(a) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (a) an Agency Head within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ; or632 Paragraphs 48(1)(d), (e) and (f) After "of that", insert "Agency,".633 Paragraph 72(a) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".National Labour Consultative Council Act 1977634 Section 9 Omit all the words after "payable to", substitute "persons engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".635 Subsection 12(2) Omit all the words after "payable to", substitute "persons engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".National Library Act 1960636 Subparagraph 6(c)(ii) Omit "Departments and".637 At the end of paragraph 6(c) Add: (iv) the Agencies (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ); and638 Subsection 17(4) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (4) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Director-General and the APS employees assisting the Director-General together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Director-General is the Head of that Statutory Agency.639 Subsection 17(5) Omit "an officer employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "a person engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".640 Subsection 17(5) Omit "including his or her powers referred to in subsection (4) but".641 Subsection 17(6) Omit ", other than the powers referred to in subsection (4) of this section,".642 Subsection 17B(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".643 Section 18 Omit "employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".National Museum of Australia Act 1980644 Subsection 26(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".645 Subsection 30(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ". 646 Subsections 30(2), (3) and (4) Repeal the subsections, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Director and the APS employees assisting the Director together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Director is the Head of that Statutory Agency.647 Subsection 31(1) Omit "the Secretary of a Department of the Australian Public Service", substitute "an Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )".National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Act 1985648 Subsection 12(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".649 Subsection 32(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".650 Subsection 53(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".651 Subsection 53(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Chief Executive Officer and the APS employees assisting the Chief Executive Officer together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Chief Executive Officer is the Head of that Statutory Agency.652 Subsection 54(1) Omit "the Secretary of a Department of the Australian Public Service", substitute "an Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )".653 Subsection 54(1) Omit "Department" (last occurring), substitute "Agency".National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975654 Subsection 26(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The". 655 Subsection 34(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922-1974 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".656 Subsections 34(2) and (3) Repeal the subsections, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Director and the APS employees assisting the Director together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Director is the Head of that Statutory Agency.657 Subsection 36(2) Omit "the Secretary of a Department of the Australian Public Service", substitute "an Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )".658 Subsection 36(2) Omit "Department" (last occurring), substitute "Agency".National Roads Act 1974659 Subsection 15(1) Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".National Road Transport Commission Act 1991660 Subsection 29(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".661 Section 31 Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".662 Subsection 31(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Chief Executive Officer and the APS employees assisting the Chief Executive Officer together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Chief Executive Officer is the Head of that Statutory Agency.663 Paragraph 33(1)(a) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (a) persons engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 , and officers and employees of authorities of the Commonwealth, whose services are made available to the Commission in connection with the performance or exercise of any of its functions or powers; andNational Transmission Network Sale Act 1998664 Paragraph 23(1)(b) Omit "a person holding, or performing the duties of, a Senior Executive Service office", substitute "an SES employee or acting SES employee".Native Title Act 1993665 Subsection 102(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".666 Subsection 117(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".667 Subsection 130(3) Repeal the subsection, substitute: Employment etc. under Public Service Act (3) The Deputy Registrars and the staff of the Tribunal are to be persons engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 .668 Subsection 130(4) Omit "the Secretary of a Department of the Australian Public Service", substitute "an Agency Head within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ".669 Subsection 130(4) Omit "the Department", substitute "the Agency".670 Section 131 Repeal the section, substitute:131 Statutory Agency etc. for purposes of Public Service Act For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Registrar and the APS employees assisting the Registrar together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Registrar is the Head of that Statutory Agency.671 Subsection 183(7) Omit "Public Service Act 1997 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997672 Paragraph 45(1)(c) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (c) an SES employee or acting SES employee (whether or not in the Department);673 Paragraph 46(1)(b) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) an SES employee or acting SES employee (whether or not in the Department of Primary Industries and Energy);674 Section 54 (definition of Senior Executive Service office ) Repeal the definition.Natural Resources Management (Financial Assistance) Act 1992675 Subsection 4(1) (definition of officer ) Repeal the definition, substitute: officer means a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 .Naval Defence Act 1910676 Section 40 (definition of industrial award ) Repeal the definition, substitute: industrial award means an award within the meaning of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 .677 Section 42 Omit all the words after "the Navy".678 Subsection 42C(1) Omit "Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".679 Subsection 42C(2) Omit "Section 64 of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "Section 75 of the Public Service Act 1999 ".680 Subsection 42C(2) Omit "officer", substitute "APS employee".Norfolk Island Act 1979681 Paragraph 13(4)(a) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (a) is an APS employee; orNuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987682 Subsection 4(1) (paragraph (a) of the definition of Commonwealth officer ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (a) a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ; or683 Subsection 46(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".684 Section 55 Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act 1991685 Subsection 5(1) (paragraph (a) of the definition of Department ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (a) an Agency (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ); or686 Subsection 5(1) (paragraph (a) of the definition of Secretary ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (a) in the case of a Department to which paragraph (a) of the definition of Department applies—the Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ); or687 Section 51 Omit "section 78 of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "section 71 of the Public Service Act 1999 ".688 Subsection 80(1) Omit "employed under the Public Service Act 1922 , the purposes of Division 6 of Part III of that Act,", substitute "appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".689 Subsection 80(2) After "office", insert "or position".690 Subsection 80(2) Omit "Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993691 Subsection 106(3) Omit "section 78 of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "section 71 of the Public Service Act 1999 ".Office of National Assessments Act 1977692 Section 3 (paragraph (e) of the definition of prescribed Commonwealth officer ) Omit "Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".693 Paragraph 6(2)(d) Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".694 Paragraph 7(2)(a) Omit "an officer or officers of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person or persons appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".695 Subsection 13(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The". 696 Paragraph 17(1)(a) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".697 Subsections 17(2) and (3) Repeal the subsections, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Director-General and the APS employees assisting the Director-General together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Director-General is the Head of that Statutory Agency.698 Subsection 17(4) Omit "the Secretary of a Department", substitute "an Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 )".699 Subsection 17(4) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 in the Department", substitute "engaged under that Act in the Agency".Ombudsman Act 1976700 Subsection 3(1) (definition of Department ) Omit "Department of the Australian Public Service referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition of Department in subsection 7(1) of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "Department within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ".701 Subsection 3(1) (definition of Secretary ) Omit "Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".702 Paragraph 5(2)(g) After "office" (first and second occurring), insert "or position".703 Subsections 6(9), (10) and (11) Repeal the subsections, substitute: (9) If the Ombudsman forms the opinion: (a) that a complaint could have been made under the Public Service Act 1999 ; and (b) that the complaint could be more conveniently or effectively dealt with by the Public Service Commissioner; the Ombudsman may decide not to investigate the complaint, or not to investigate the complaint further, as the case may be, and to transfer the complaint to the Public Service Commissioner. (10) If the Ombudsman makes a decision under subsection (9), the Ombudsman must: (a) transfer the complaint to the Public Service Commissioner as soon as is reasonably practicable; and (b) give the Public Service Commissioner any information or documents relating to the complaint that are in the possession, or under the control, of the Ombudsman; and (c) as soon as is reasonably practicable, give the complainant written notice that the complaint has been transferred to the Public Service Commissioner.704 Subsection 25(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".705 Subsection 31(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".706 Subsections 31(2) and (3) Repeal the subsections, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Ombudsman and the APS employees assisting the Ombudsman together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Ombudsman is the Head of that Statutory Agency.Overseas Students (Refunds) Act 1990707 Section 3 (definition of officer ) Repeal the definition.708 Subsection 5(1) Omit "an officer of", substitute "an APS employee in".709 Paragraph 10(b) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the Department;Ozone Protection Act 1989710 Paragraph 49(1)(a) Omit "the Australian Public Service or any other", substitute "an".711 After paragraph 49(1)(a) Insert: (b) a person engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ; or712 Section 67A Omit "a person holding or performing the duties of a Senior Executive Service office", substitute "an SES employee or acting SES employee". Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948713 Subsection 21B(1) (paragraph (d) of the definition of holder of an office of profit under the Commonwealth ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (d) the holder of an office of Secretary within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ; orParliamentary Counsel Act 1970714 Subsection 7(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".715 Subsection 16(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".716 Subsections 16(2) and (3) Repeal the subsections, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the First Parliamentary Counsel and the APS employees assisting the First Parliamentary Counsel together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the First Parliamentary Counsel is the Head of that Statutory Agency.Patents Act 1990717 Section 200A Repeal the section, substitute:200A Designated Manager For the purposes of this Act, a person is the Designated Manager if the person occupies, or is acting in, a position that: (a) is usually occupied by an SES employee; and (b) has been declared by the Secretary to the Department, in writing, to be the position of Designated Manager.718 Schedule 1 (paragraph (a) of the definition of employee ) Omit "an officer or employee within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "a person engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".719 Schedule 1 (paragraph (b) of the definition of employee ) Omit "an officer or employee", substitute "a person".Petroleum Excise (Prices) Act 1987720 Subsection 4(2) Omit "an officer within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act 1987721 Section 2 (definition of officer ) Repeal the definition, substitute: officer means a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 .Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994722 Subsections 59(1) and (2) Omit "another officer of the Department within the Senior Executive Service", substitute "an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the Department".Pooled Development Funds Act 1992723 Section 68 Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Prawn Export Promotion Act 1995724 Paragraph 24(b) Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Prices Surveillance Act 1983725 Subsection 43(4) (at the end of paragraph (a) of the definition of prescribed person ) Add: (iv) appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ; orPrimary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991726 Paragraph 26(b) Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Privacy Act 1988727 Subsection 6(1) (paragraph (a) of the definition of Commonwealth officer ) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".728 Subsection 6(1) (definition of Department ) Repeal the definition, substitute: Department means an Agency within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 . 729 Subsection 6(1) (definition of Secretary ) Repeal the definition, substitute: Secretary means an Agency Head within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 .730 Subsection 22(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".731 Subsections 26A(1) and (2) Repeal the subsections, substitute: (1) The staff necessary to assist the Commissioner must be persons appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1999 . (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Commissioner and the APS employees assisting the Commissioner together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Commissioner is the Head of that Statutory Agency.732 Subsection 50(1) (definition of Merit Protection Act ) Repeal the definition.733 Subsection 50(1) (definition of Merit Protection Agency ) Repeal the definition.734 Paragraph 50(2)(b) Omit "Merit Protection Agency under section 47 of the Merit Protection Act", substitute "Public Service Commissioner under the Public Service Act 1999 ".735 Subsection 50(2) Omit "or the Merit Protection Agency" (wherever occurring), substitute "or the Public Service Commissioner".736 Paragraph 50(3)(b) Omit "Merit Protection Agency under section 47 of the Merit Protection Act", substitute "Public Service Commissioner under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Proceeds of Crime Act 1987737 Subsection 4(1) (definition of prescribed officer ) Repeal the definition, substitute: prescribed officer means an SES employee or acting SES employee in the Attorney-General's Department.Productivity Commission Act 1998738 Subsection 29(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A". 739 Subsection 44(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".740 Subsection 44(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Chair and the APS employees assisting the Chair together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Chair is the Head of that Statutory Agency.Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986741 Paragraph 24(1)(b) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the Department;Public Lending Right Act 1985742 Section 18 Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Public Service Act 1922743 The whole of the Act Repeal the Act.Qantas Sale Act 1992744 Subsection 11(1) Omit "a person who holds, or performs the duties of, a Senior Executive Service office", substitute "an SES employee or acting SES employee".745 Subsection 11(2) Repeal the subsection.746 Paragraphs 20(1)(d) and (e) Repeal the paragraphs, substitute: (e) the Public Service Act 1999 ;747 Subsection 31(3) (paragraph (b) of the definition of authorised person ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the Department who is authorised by the Secretary, in writing, for the purposes of this section.748 Subsection 40(4) (paragraph (c) of the definition of authorised person ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (c) an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the Department. Racial Discrimination Act 1975749 Subsection 32(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".Radiocommunications Act 1992750 Section 5 (paragraph (a) of the definition of Department ) Omit "a Department within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "an Agency within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ".751 Subsection 204(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".752 Subsection 248(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984753 Section 3 (subparagraph (b)(iii) of the definition of authorised witness ) Omit "in the Australian Public Service or".754 Section 3 (after subparagraph (b)(iii) of the definition of authorised witness ) Insert: (iiia) a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ; or755 Paragraph 11(4)(c) Omit "officers or employees within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".756 Subsection 95B(1) Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".757 Subsection 95B(7) Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Registration of Deaths Abroad Act 1984758 Subsection 5(2) Omit "an officer or employee within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".759 Subsection 6(1) Omit "an officer or employee within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ". 760 Paragraph 26(1)(a) Omit "an officer or employee within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Remuneration and Allowances Act 1990761 After section 8 Insert:8A Regulations The Governor-General may make regulations prescribing matters: (a) required or permitted by this Act to be prescribed; or (b) necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or giving effect to this Act.762 Clause 7 of Schedule 1 Omit "officers of the Australian Public Service", substitute "persons engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".763 Clause 5 of Schedule 2 Omit "officers of the Australian Public Service", substitute "persons engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".764 Subclauses 1(2) and (3) of Schedule 3 Repeal the subclauses, substitute: (2) The Members of Parliament annual salary is equal to: (a) the minimum annual rate of salary payable to an SES employee with a classification of SES Band 2; or (b) if the regulations prescribe a percentage (not more than 100%) of a reference salary—that percentage of the reference salary. (3) Before the Governor-General makes a regulation for the purposes of paragraph (2)(b), the Minister must consider advice from the Remuneration Tribunal about the proposed regulation. (4) In this clause: principal executive classification means a classification determined by the Remuneration Tribunal under subsection 5(2A) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 . reference salary means: (a) the annual salary applicable to an office under a determination of the Remuneration Tribunal; or (b) the annual salary identified (for the purposes of this clause) as the reference salary for a principal executive classification, in a determination of the Remuneration Tribunal under subsection 5(2A) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 .Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973765 Part II (heading) Repeal the heading, substitute:Part II—Remuneration etc. for certain offices and appointmentsDivision 1—Preliminary766 After section 3 Insert:Division 2—Determinations and reports by the Remuneration Tribunal767 Subsection 5(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) An additional function of the Tribunal is to provide advice to the Australian National University, the University of Canberra and the Australian Maritime College in relation to terms and conditions (including remuneration and allowances) on which executive education offices in those bodies are to be held. (2A) An additional function of the Tribunal is to: (a) determine a classification structure for principal executive offices; and (b) provide advice to the employing bodies for principal executive offices in relation to terms and conditions (including remuneration and allowances) on which principal executive offices are to be held. (2B) An additional function of the Tribunal is to provide advice, for the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 , in relation to terms and conditions (including remuneration and allowances) for the following offices: (a) the office of Public Service Commissioner; (b) the office of Merit Protection Commissioner; (c) offices of Secretary; (d) offices of Heads of Executive Agencies. (2C) An additional function of the Tribunal is to provide advice for the purposes of subclause 1(3) of Schedule 3 to the Remuneration and Allowances Act 1990 .768 Subsection 5(3) Omit "subsection (2)", substitute "this section". 769 Subsection 7(3) Omit "the holders of offices referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition of office of Secretary in subsection 7(1) of the Public Service Act 1922 and to".770 At the end of Part II Add:Division 3—Determinations by employing bodies for principal executive offices12C Terms and conditions determined by employing body (1) The employing body for a principal executive office may, in writing, determine the terms and conditions (including remuneration and allowances) applying to the office. (2) If an employing body proposes to determine terms and conditions that are not consistent with the classification structure determined by the Tribunal under subsection 5(2A), the employing body must first request the advice of the Tribunal. (3) If a determination is in force under this section for a principal executive office, the determination overrides any provision of another Act that provides for the terms and conditions applying to the principal executive office, unless that other provision refers to, and is expressed to override, this section.Repatriation Institutions (Transfer) Act 1992771 Subsection 3(1) (definition of employee ) Repeal the definition.772 Subsection 3(1) (definition of officer ) Repeal the definition.773 Subsection 3(1) (definition of the Service ) Repeal the definition, substitute: the Service means the APS within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 .774 Subsection 4(2) After "office" (wherever occurring), insert "or position".775 Paragraph 13(1)(b) After "office", insert "or position".776 Section 16 Omit all the words after "under", substitute "subsection 16(4) or 17(2) of the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976 in respect of resignation from the Service".777 Section 17 Repeal the section.Reserve Bank Act 1959778 Subsection 14(2) Omit "officers of the Bank or of the Australian Public Service", substitute "officials".779 Subsection 14(3) Omit "an officer of the Bank or of the Australian Public Service", substitute "an official".780 Subsection 14(4) Omit "an officer of the Bank or of the Australian Public Service", substitute "an official".781 Subsection 14(5) Omit "an officer of the Bank or of the Australian Public Service", substitute "an official".782 At the end of section 14 Add: (6) In this section: official means: (a) an officer of the Bank; or (b) a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 .Resource Assessment Commission Act 1989783 Subsection 49(1) Omit "and section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 ".Roads Grants Act 1974784 Subsection 15(1) Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Roads Grants Act 1980785 Subsection 38(1) Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Roads Grants Act 1981786 Subsection 33(1) Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Rural Adjustment Act 1992787 Section 20C Omit "an officer of the Department who holds or performs the duties of a Senior Executive Service office", substitute "an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the Department".788 Subsection 21A(2) Omit "an officer of the Department who holds or performs the duties of a Senior Executive Service office", substitute "an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the Department".Rural Adjustment Amendment Act 1999789 Subsection 2(2) Omit "Public Service Act 1998 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988790 Subsection 81(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".791 Subsection 86(2) Omit "an officer, within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922 , being the occupant for the time being of such office", substitute "an APS employee who is performing the duties of such position".792 Paragraph 88(1)(a) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".793 Subsection 88(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Chief Executive Officer and the APS employees assisting the Chief Executive Officer together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Chief Executive Officer is the Head of that Statutory Agency.794 Subsection 114A(2) (definition of Department ) Repeal the definition, substitute: Department means an Agency (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ).795 Subsection 114A(2) (definition of Secretary ) Repeal the definition, substitute: Secretary means an Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ).Science and Industry Research Act 1949796 Subsection 10C(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992797 Subsection 125(1) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (1) The Authority may, by resolution, delegate all or any of its powers or functions to a person in the Department: (a) who is an SES employee or acting SES employee; or (b) whose classification level appears in Group 7 or 8 of Schedule 1 to the Classification Rules under the Public Service Act 1999 ; or (c) who is acting in a position usually occupied by a person with a classification level of the kind mentioned in paragraph (b).Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Levy Collection Act 1992798 Section 11 Repeal the section, substitute:11 Appointment of authorised persons The Secretary may, in writing, appoint a person in the Department: (a) who is an SES employee or acting SES employee; or (b) whose classification level appears in Group 7 or 8 of Schedule 1 to the Classification Rules under the Public Service Act 1999 ; or (c) who is acting in a position usually occupied by a person with a classification level of the kind mentioned in paragraph (b); to be an authorised person for the purposes of a specified provision of this Act.799 Subsection 15(1) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (1) The Secretary may, in writing, delegate all or any of his or her powers or functions under this Act (other than powers under section 11) to a person in the Department: (a) who is an SES employee or acting SES employee; or (b) whose classification level appears in Group 7 or 8 of Schedule 1 to the Classification Rules under the Public Service Act 1999 ; or (c) who is acting in a position usually occupied by a person with a classification level of the kind mentioned in paragraph (b).Sea Installations Act 1987800 Paragraph 74(1)(c) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (c) a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ; orSex Discrimination Act 1984801 Subsection 4(1) (paragraph (a) of the definition of Commonwealth employee ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (a) is appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ;802 Subsection 4(1) (definition of Department ) Omit "has the same meaning as that expression has in the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "means an Agency within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ".803 Subsection 99(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".Shipping Registration Act 1981804 Subsection 3(1) (definition of employee ) Repeal the definition.805 Subsection 52(1) Omit "an officer of or employee in the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".806 Subsection 53(1) Omit "an officer of or employee in the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Ships (Capital Grants) Act 1987807 Subsection 36(1) Omit "a person holding or performing the duties of a Senior Executive Service office within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922 , being an office", substitute "an SES employee or acting SES employee".Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Limited Sale Act 1993808 Subsection 35(3) (paragraph (b) of the definition of authorised person ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in that Department.809 Subsection 38(4) (paragraph (c) of the definition of authorised person ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (c) an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in that Department, authorised by the Secretary, in writing, for the purposes of this section.Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Power Act 194981O Subsection 11(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".Social Security Act 1991811 Subsection 1331(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".812 Section 1341 Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Social Security (Administration) Act 1999813 Subclause 14(1) OF Schedule 3 Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".814 Clause 24 of Schedule 3 Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991815 Subsection 34(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".816 Subsection 81(4) Repeal the subsection.Special Prosecutors Act 1982817 Paragraph 18(a) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".States Grants (Education Assistance—Participation and Equity) Act 1983818 Paragraph 31(1)(c) Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act 1965819 Subsection 5(2) Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".820 Paragraph 5(3)(a) Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 (the public servant )".821 Paragraph 5(3)(a) Omit "such an officer", substitute "the public servant".822 Subsection 5(3A) Omit "an officer" (wherever occurring), substitute "the public servant".States Grants (Roads) Act 1977823 Subsection 34(1) Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1983824 Subsection 76(1) Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1984825 Subsection 89(1) Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Stevedoring Industry Charge Assessment Act 1947826 Subsection 4(1) (definition of officer ) Repeal the definition, substitute: officer means a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 .Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Act 1998827 Subsection 17(1) Omit "a person holding or performing the duties of a Senior Executive Office in the Department", substitute "an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the Department".828 Subsection 17(2) Omit "a person holding or performing the duties of a Senior Executive Office in the Department", substitute "an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the Department".829 Subsection 17(3) Repeal the subsection.Student Assistance Act 1973830 Subsection 3(1) (definition of employee ) Omit "Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".Superannuation Act 1976831 Subsection 3(1) Insert: APS Agency means an Agency within the meaning of the Public Service Act.832 Subsection 3(1) Insert: APS employee has the same meaning as in the Public Service Act.833 Subsection 3(1) (definition of permanent employee ) Repeal the definition, substitute: permanent employee means a person employed in a permanent capacity by the Commonwealth or by an approved authority, but does not include: (a) a part-time employee who is not an approved part-time employee; or (b) a person who is engaged or appointed for employment outside Australia only, not being a person who is included in a class of persons approved by the Minister, in writing, for the purposes of this definition.834 Subsection 3(1) (definition of Public Service Act ) Omit "Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".835 Subsection 3(1) (definition of temporary employee ) Omit all the words from and including "means" to and including "but does not include:", substitute "means a person employed, otherwise than in a permanent capacity, by the Commonwealth or by an approved authority, but does not include:".836 Subsection 3C(2) (definition of Department ) Repeal the definition, substitute: Department means: (a) an APS Agency; or (b) a Department of the Parliament.837 Paragraph 14A(1)(a) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (a) is a person to whom Division 2 or 3 of the Public Service Act 1922 applied immediately before the time (the repeal time ) when that Act was repealed and who: (i) during the transitional period (within the meaning of Part 3 of the PublicEmployment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Act 1999 ) continues in eligible public employment (within the meaning of Part IV of the Public Service Act 1922 , as in force immediately before the repeal time); or (ii) after the end of that transitional period, continues in the same eligible public employment (within the meaning of Part IV of the Public Service Act 1922 , as in force immediately before the repeal time) in which the person was engaged immediately before the end of that transitional period; 838 Paragraph 14A(1)(c) Repeal the paragraph.839 Paragraph 14A(1)(d) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (d) is a person who is a permanent employee, or a temporary employee, because of having been, or having been deemed to be, re-appointed or re-employed in circumstances similar to: (i) the circumstances in which a person could have been re-appointed to the Australian Public Service under section 63F, 63G or 66B of the Public Service Act 1922 , as in force immediately before its repeal; or (ii) the circumstances in which a person could have been deemed to have been re-appointed to the Australian Public Service in accordance with section 87M or 87Q of the Public Service Act 1922 , as in force immediately before its repeal; or840 Subsection 14A(1A) Omit "(1)(a), (b), (c) or (d)", substitute "(1)(b) or (d)".841 Paragraph 14A(1A)(a) Omit "(1)(a) or (b)", substitute "(1)(b)".842 Paragraph 14A(1A)(b) Omit "(1)(c) or (d)", substitute "(1)(d)".843 Subsection 14A(1B) (paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of previous relevant employment ) Repeal the paragraphs, substitute: (a) if the person, after being dismissed or retired from employment, was re-appointed or re-employed (or deemed to have been re-appointed or re-employed) in circumstances similar to the circumstances referred to in subparagraph (1)(d)(i)—the office held by the person, or the employment in which the person was employed, immediately before his or her dismissal or retirement; or (b) if the person is re-appointed or re-employed (or deemed to be re-appointed or re-employed) by a previous employer in circumstances similar to the circumstances referred to in subparagraph (1)(d)(ii)—the office last held by the person, or the employment in which the person was last employed by that employer, before his or her re-appointment or re-employment. 844 Subsection 14A(2) Omit "a person to whom Division 2 or 3 of Part IV of the Public Service Act applies or".845 Subsection 14A(5) Omit "Public Service Act", substitute "Public Service Act 1922 ".846 Paragraph 14A(6)(a) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (a) a person who has ceased to be an eligible employee again becomes an eligible employee because of having been, or having been deemed to be, re-appointed or re-employed in circumstances similar to the circumstances referred to in subparagraph (1)(d)(i) or (ii); and847 Subsection 14A(6) Omit "re-appointment, declaration or reinstatement" (wherever occurring), substitute "re-appointment or reinstatement".848 Section 16A Omit "Public Service Act" (wherever occurring), substitute "Public Service Act 1922 ".849 Subsection 21(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".850 Subsection 26(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act".851 Subsection 26(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Commissioner and the APS employees assisting the Commissioner together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Commissioner is the Head of that Statutory Agency.852 Subparagraph 51(2)(f)(i) Repeal the subparagraph, substitute: (i) in respect of a person employed in an APS Agency—the Agency Head of the Agency is satisfied that the engaging by the person in the other employment is in the interests of the Australian Public Service; or853 Subsection 57B(1) (paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the definition of fixed-term employee ) Repeal the paragraphs, substitute: (a) a person appointed under section 51 of the Public Service Act; or (b) an APS employee on a fixed term; or854 Subsection 57B(2) Omit "a person continues as an officer by virtue of a direction under subsection 37(6) of that Act", substitute "a person is immediately engaged under section 53 of that Act".855 Subsection 57B(2) Omit "at the same time as the person ceases to be an officer by virtue of the direction" (wherever occurring), substitute "at the same time as the engagement under that section ends".856 Subsection 57B(3) Omit "Public Service Act", substitute "Public Service Act 1922 ".857 Paragraph 58(3)(aa) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (aa) in the case of an SES employee—the person retires under section 37 of the Public Service Act;858 Paragraph 58(3)(b) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) the person's employment or appointment is terminated on a ground similar to a ground specified in section 76D, 76L or 76W of the Public Service Act 1922 , as in force immediately before its repeal;859 Paragraph 58(3)(e) Repeal the paragraph.860 Paragraph 58(3)(f) Omit "Public Service Act", substitute "Public Service Act 1922 , in its continued application because of section 8 of the Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Act 1999 ".861 Paragraph 58(3)(g) Repeal the paragraph.862 Paragraph 58(3)(h) Omit "otherwise than under the Public Service Act,".863 Subparagraph 58A(1)(c)(i) Repeal the subparagraph, substitute: (i) was an APS employee or a Secretary (within the meaning of the Public Service Act), other than a fixed-term employee; or864 Subparagraph 58B(1)(c)(i) Repeal the subparagraph, substitute: (i) was an APS employee or a Secretary (within the meaning of the Public Service Act), other than a fixed-term employee; or865 Section 120 Repeal the section, substitute:120 Persons to whom Part applies This Part applies to a person if: (a) the person ceased to be an eligible employee because he or she has voluntarily terminated his or her employment in order to become: (i) a candidate for election as a member of a House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth or of a State or of the Legislative Assembly for the Northern Territory; or (ii) a candidate in an election that is prescribed under the Public Service Act for the purposes of section 32 of that Act; and (b) the termination took effect not earlier than 6 months before the day on which nominations for the election closed.866 Subsection 125(3) Omit "section 47C of the Public Service Act", substitute "this section".867 Subparagraph 159(1)(b)(i) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act".868 Subsection 160(8) (paragraph (a) of the definition of declared authority ) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act".869 Paragraph 163A(1)(b) Omit "an officer or employee of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a Secretary within the meaning of the Public Service Act, or other person engaged under that Act,".870 Subsection 167(2) (definition of officer ) Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service or an approved authority", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act or an officer of an approved authority".871 Section 244 Omit "Public Service Act" (wherever occurring), substitute "Public Service Act 1922 ".Superannuation Act 1990872 Section 3 (definition of permanent employee ) Repeal the definition, substitute: permanent employee means a person employed in a permanent capacity by the Commonwealth or by an approved authority, but does not include a person who is engaged or appointed for employment outside Australia only, not being a person who is included in a class of persons approved by the Minister, in writing, for the purposes of this definition.873 Section 3 (definition of temporary employee ) Omit all the words from and including "means" to and including "does not include", substitute "means a person employed, otherwise than in a permanent capacity, by the Commonwealth or by an approved authority, but does not include".874 Subsection 3AA(2) (definition of Department ) Repeal the definition, substitute: Department means: (a) an Agency within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ; or (b) a Department of the Parliament.875 Paragraph 6(1)(h) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (h) a person to whom Division 2 or 3 of the Public Service Act 1922 applied immediately before the time (the repeal time ) when that Act was repealed and who: (i) during the transitional period (within the meaning of Part 3 of the PublicEmployment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Act 1999 ) continues in eligible public employment (within the meaning of Part IV of the Public Service Act 1922 , as in force immediately before the repeal time); or (ii) after the end of that transitional period, continues in the same eligible public employment (within the meaning of Part IV of the Public Service Act 1922 , as in force immediately before the repeal time) in which the person was engaged immediately before the end of that transitional period; 876 Subparagraph 19(1)(b)(i) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".877 Subsection 35(4) (subparagraph (a)(i) of the definition of declared authority ) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".878 Subparagraph 36(c)(i) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Superannuation Benefits (Supervisory Mechanisms) Act 1990879 Subsection 3(1) (definition of overseas employee ) Omit "section 82AF of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "section 71 of the Public Service Act 1999 ".880 Subsection 6(6) (definition of employer ) Omit "a Department within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "an Agency within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ".Superannuation Contributions Tax (Assessment and Collection) Act 1997881 Subsection 32(1) (paragraph (b) of the definition of person to whom this section applies ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) a person engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 in the Agency (within the meaning of that Act) of which the Commissioner is the Agency Head; or882 Section 36 Omit "an officer or employee within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".883 Section 43 (definition of authorised officer ) Omit "an officer or employee within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "a person engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Superannuation Contributions Tax (Members of Constitutionally Protected Superannuation Funds) Assessment and Collection Act 1997884 Subsection 28(1) (paragraph (b) of the definition of person to whom this section applies ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) a person engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 in the Agency (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ) of which the Commissioner is the Agency Head; or885 Section 29 Omit "a person who is an officer or employee within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "a person engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".886 Section 38 (definition of authorised office r) Omit "an officer or employee within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "a person engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992887 Subsection 5(5) (paragraph (c) of the definition of Commonwealth Department ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (c) an Executive Agency, or Statutory Agency, within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 .888 Subsection 6(1) (definition of authorised officer ) Omit "an officer or employee within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".889 Subsection 45(1) (paragraph (b) of the definition of person to whom this section applies ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) a person engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 in an Agency (within the meaning of that Act) of which the Commissioner is the Agency Head (within the meaning of that Act); orSuperannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993890 Subsection 10(1) (paragraph (c) of the definition of taxation officer ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (c) a person engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 , or an officer or employee of an authority of the Commonwealth, performing duties in the Australian Taxation Office; orSuperannuation (Productivity Benefit) Act 1988891 Subsection 3(1) (definition of Department ) Repeal the definition, substitute: Department means: (a) an Agency within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ; or (b) a Department of the Parliament.892 Subsection 3(1) (definition of permanent employee ) Repeal the definition, substitute: permanent employee means any person employed in a permanent capacity by the Commonwealth or by an approved authority.893 Subsection 3(1) (definition of Public Service Act ) Omit "Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".894 Subsection 3(1) (paragraph (a) of the definition of qualified employee ) Repeal the paragraph.895 Subsection 3(1) (paragraph (b) of the definition of qualified employee ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) a person employed by the Commonwealth; or896 Subsection 3(1) (definition of temporary employee ) Repeal the definition, substitute: temporary employee means any person employed, otherwise than in a permanent capacity, by the Commonwealth or by an approved authority, but does not include a person who is engaged or appointed for employment outside Australia only.Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993897 Subsection 51(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".898 Subsection 62(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997899 Paragraph 71(b) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) an SES employee in the Department;Taxation Administration Act 1953900 Section 2 (definition of officer ) Repeal the definition, substitute: officer means a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 .901 After section 4 Insert: 4A Statutory Agency etc. for purposes of Public Service Act (1) The staff necessary to assist the Commissioner are to be persons engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 . (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Commissioner and the APS employees assisting the Commissioner together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Commissioner is the Head of that Statutory Agency.902 Subsection 5(3) Omit "Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".903 Subsection 6(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".904 Subsection 13D(1) (paragraph (a) of the definition of officer ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (a) a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ; orTelecommunications Act 1997905 Subsection 347(1) Omit "a person holding or performing the duties of a Senior Executive Service office", substitute "an SES employee or acting SES employee".906 Subsection 347(3) (definition of Senior Executive Service office ) Repeal the definition.Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979907 Subsection 5(1) (subparagraph (b)(ii) of the definition of certifying officer ) Omit "a Senior Executive Service officer within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "an SES employee or acting SES employee".Telecommunications (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1997908 Paragraph 25(1)(b) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the Department;909 Subsection 25(3) Repeal the subsection.910 Paragraph 35(1)(b) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the Department;911 Subsection 35(3) Repeal the subsection.Telstra Corporation Act 1991912 Section 3 (definition of Senior Executive Service office ) Repeal the definition.913 Subsection 8AW(6) (paragraph (c) of the definition of associated person ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (c) a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ; or914 Paragraph 8BB(1)(b) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) an SES employee or acting SES employee whether or not in the Department;915 Paragraph 8BB(2)(b) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) an SES employee or acting SES employee whether or not in the Department of Finance;916 Paragraph 8CB(1)(b) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) an SES employee or acting SES employee whether or not in the Department;917 Paragraph 8CB(2)(b) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) an SES employee or acting SES employee whether or not in the Department of Finance;918 Paragraph 69(1)(b) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the Department;919 Paragraph 70(1)(b) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the Department;920 Subsection 71(1) Omit "a person holding or performing the duties of a Senior Executive Service office in the Department", substitute "an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the Department".Termination Payments Tax (Assessment and Collection) Act 1997921 Subsection 23(1) (paragraph (b) of the definition of person to whom this section applies ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) a person engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 in the Agency (within the meaning of that Act) of which the Commissioner is the Agency Head; or922 Section 24 Omit "an officer or employee within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".923 Section 31 (definition of authorised officer ) Omit "an officer or employee within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "a person engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program Act 1999924 Subsection 48(6) (paragraph (a) of the definition of senior officer ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (a) an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the Department; orTherapeutic Goods Act 1989925 Subsection 6A(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) While an approval is in force for the purpose of subsection (1), section 57 has effect as if such a function or power were a function or power under this Act.926 Paragraph 57(1)(b) Omit "another Department or of".927 After paragraph 57(1)(b) Insert: (ba) an APS employee in an Agency (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ) that has functions in relation to therapeutic goods; orTobacco Charges Assessment Act 1955928 Subsection 4(1) (definition of officer ) Repeal the definition, substitute: officer means a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 .Trade Marks Act 1995929 Section 6 (definition of employee ) Repeal the definition, substitute: employee means a person engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 . 930 Section 6 (paragraph (a) of the definition of trade marks officer ) Repeal the paragraph.931 Section 6 (paragraph (c) of the definition of trade marks officer ) Omit "(a) or".932 Subsection 206(1) Omit all the words after "functions", substitute "to a prescribed employee, or employees in a prescribed class, employed in the Trade Marks Office".Trade Practices Act 1974933 Subsection 12(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".934 Subsection 27(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".935 Subsections 27(2) and (3) Repeal the subsections, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Chairperson of the Commission and the APS employees assisting the Chairperson together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Chairperson is the Head of that Statutory Agency.936 Subsection 29G(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".937 Subsection 29M(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".938 Subsection 29M(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Council President and the APS employees assisting the Council President together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Council President is the Head of that Statutory Agency.939 Subsection 44(3) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ". 940 Subsection 44A(1) Omit "an officer or employee for the purposes of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".941 Section 65T Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ,".942 Section 10.80 Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".943 Subsection 170(2) Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 (the public servant )".944 Subsection 170(2) Omit "officer" (second and third occurring), substitute "public servant".Trade Representatives Act 1933945 Section 4 Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".946 Section 4 Omit "the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "that Act".947 Subsection 10(2) Omit "Commonwealth Public Service Act 1922-1932 or of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".948 Paragraph 11(4)(a) Omit "section 82D of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "section 24 of the Public Service Act 1999 ".949 Subsections 11C(1) and (2) Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Transport (Planning and Research) Act 1974950 Subsection 18(1)Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Transport Planning and Research (Financial Assistance) Act 1977951 Subsection 14(1) Omit "an officer of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986952 Subsection 89(3) Omit "employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".953 Subsection 162(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".954 Section 172 Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".955 Section 184 Omit "Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".956 At the end of paragraphs 184(a), (b) and (c) Add "and".957 Paragraph 184(d) Omit "President; and", substitute "President.".958 Paragraph 184(e) Repeal the paragraph.959 Subsection 186(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".960 Paragraph 193(1)(b) Omit "Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".961 Section 196 Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".962 Section 196T Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".963 Section 196ZM Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".964 Paragraph 212(1)(a) Omit "an officer or employee of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".965 Subsection 213(1) Omit "an officer or employee of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".966 Subsection 214(1) Omit "an officer or employee of the Australian Public Service", substitute "a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".War Graves Act 1980967 Subsection 7(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage Area Conservation Act 1994968 Paragraph 7(a) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (a) persons engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ; orWildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982969 Paragraph 18(2)(d) Omit "an officer or employee within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".Williamstown Dockyard Employees Act 1987970 Section 3 (paragraph (a) of the definition of relevant employee ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (a) a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ; or971 Section 3 (definition of the Service ) Repeal the definition, substitute: the Service means the APS within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 .Wool Tax (Administration) Act 1964972 Subsection 4(1) (definition of officer ) Repeal the definition, substitute: officer means a person appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 .Workplace Relations Act 1996973 Subsection 4(1) (paragraph (a) of the definition of public sector employment ) Omit "Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "Public Service Act 1999 ".974 Subsection 26(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , a", substitute "A".975 Subsection 72(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The". 976 Subsection 83(1) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".977 Subsection 83(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) For the purposes of the Public Service Act 1999 : (a) the Industrial Registrar and the APS employees assisting the Industrial Registrar together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Industrial Registrar is the Head of that Statutory Agency.978 Section 83BD Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".979 Subsection 83BL(1) Omit "Subject to section 87E of the Public Service Act 1922 , the", substitute "The".980 Paragraph 84(2)(a) Omit "appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 ".981 Subsection 84(3) Omit "section 78 of the Public Service Act 1922 ", substitute "section 71 of the Public Service Act 1999 ".982 Subsection 170CD(1) (paragraph (a) of the definition of Commonwealth public sector employee ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (a) under the Public Service Act 1999 ; or983 Section 170WK Repeal the section, substitute:170WK AWAs with Commonwealth employees An Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999 ) may act on behalf of the Commonwealth in relation to AWAs with persons in the Agency who are engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 .Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Act 1999984 Subsection 2(9) Omit "item 964 of Schedule 1 to the Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Act 1999 ", substitute "the item of Schedule 1 to the Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Act 1999 dealing with section 170WK of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 ". 10647Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I move an amendment to government amendment No. 10:(1) Schedule 1, at the end of item 767, add:(2D) An additional function of the Tribunal is to provide advice, for the purposes of the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 , in relation to terms and conditions (including remuneration and allowances) for the following offices: (a) the office of Parliamentary Service Commissioner; (b) the office of Parliamentary Service Merit Protection Commissioner; (c) offices of Secretary.The amendment provides the Remuneration Tribunal with an advisory role in relation to the remuneration and other conditions for the offices of Parliamentary Service Commissioner, the Parliamentary Service Merit Protection Commissioner and secretaries. It is expected that the same person will hold the offices of both Parliamentary Service Commissioner and Public Service Commissioner and similarly in the case of the offices of the Parliamentary Service Merit Protection Commissioner and Public Service Merit Protection Commissioner, and in that case there is no additional remuneration payable in relation to the parliamentary positions. This amendment provides a function for the Remuneration Tribunal in settling remuneration for those offices in other cases. I commend the amendment to the House.Amendment (Mr Speaker's) agreed to.Amendment, as amended, agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.10647Bill (on motion by Dr Kemp)—by leave—read a third time.Bills10647r79710647Consideration resumed from 28 June, on motion by Mr Speaker:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.1064810648Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—by leave—I move amendments Nos 1 to 43:(1) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 3), after paragraph (b), insert: (ba) to define the powers and responsibilities of Secretaries, the Parliamentary Service Commissioner and the Parliamentary Service Merit Protection Commissioner; and(2) Clause 7, page 3 (line 4) to page 5 (line 20), insert: AWA has the same meaning as in the Workplace Relations Act 1996 . award has the same meaning as in the Workplace Relations Act 1996 . category of Parliamentary Service employee means one of the following categories: (a) ongoing Parliamentary Service employees; (b) Parliamentary Service employees engaged for a specified term or for the duration of a specified task; (c) Parliamentary Service employees engaged for duties that are irregular or intermittent. certified agreement has the same meaning as in the Workplace Relations act 1996 . non-ongoing Parliamentary Service employee means a Parliamentary Service employee who is not an ongoing Parliamentary Service employee. ongoing Parliamentary Service employee means a person engaged as an ongoing Parliamentary Service employee, as mentioned in paragraph 22(1A)(a).(3) Clause 8, page 5 (lines 22 and 23), omit subclause (1), substitute:(1) This Act has effect subject to the Workplace Relations Act 1996 .(4) Clause 10, page 6 (line 19), before "accountable", insert "openly".(5) Clause 10, page 6 (lines 25 and 26), omit "the diverse backgrounds of Parliamentary Service employees", substitute "and utilises the diversity of the Australian community".(6) Clause 10, page 6 (lines 27 to 29), omit paragraph (h), substitute: (h) the Parliamentary Service establishes workplace relations that value communication, consultation, co-operation and input from employees on matters that affect their workplace; (7) Clause 10, page 7 (line 4), at the end of subclause (1), add: ; (l) the Parliamentary Service promotes equity in employment; (m) the Parliamentary Service provides a reasonable opportunity to all eligible members of the community to apply for Parliamentary Service employment; (n) the Parliamentary Service is a career-based service to enhance the effectiveness and cohesion of Australia's democratic system of Government; (o) the Parliamentary Service provides a fair system of review of decisions taken in respect of Parliamentary Service employees(8) Clause 11, page 7 (lines 17 to 23), omit the clause, substitute:11 Commissioner must give advice to Presiding Officers about Parliamentary Service ValuesThe Commissioner must give advice to the Presiding Officers: (a) to help them to ensure that the Parliamentary Service incorporates and upholds the Parliamentary Service Values; and (b) to help them to determine where necessary the scope or application of each Parliamentary Service Value.(9) Clause 14, page 9 (after line 18), at the end of the clause, add:(2) Statutory office holders are bound by the Code of Conduct in the same way as Parliamentary Service employees.(3) In this section: statutory office holder means a person who holds any office or appointment under this Act, being an office or appointment that is prescribed by the determinations for the purposes of this definition.(10) Clause 15, page 9 (line 19) to page 10 (line 9), omit the clause, substitute:15 Breaches of the Code of Conduct(1) A Secretary may impose the following sanctions on a Parliamentary Service employee in the relevant Department who is found (under procedures established under subsection (3)) to have breached the Code of Conduct: (a) termination of employment; (b) reduction in classification; (c) re-assignment of duties; (d) reduction in salary; (e) deductions from salary, by way of fine; (f) a reprimand.(2) The determinations may prescribe limitations on the power of a Secretary to impose sanctions under subsection (1).(3) A Secretary must establish procedures for determining whether a Parliamentary Service employee in the relevant Department has breached the Code of Conduct. The procedures: (a) must comply with basic procedural requirements set out in Commissioner's Directions; and (b) must have due regard to procedural fairness; and (c) may be different for different categories of Parliamentary Service employees.(4) The Commissioner must issue directions in writing for the purposes of subsection (3).(5) A Secretary must take reasonable steps to ensure that every Parliamentary Service employee in the relevant Department has ready access to the documents that set out the procedures referred to in subsection (3).(11) Clause 16, page 10 (after line 16), after paragraph (a), insert: (aa) the Merit Protection Commissioner or a person authorised for the purposes of this section by the Merit Protection Commissioner; or(12) Clause 20, page 12 (after line 23), at the end of the clause, add:(5) A direction issued under subsection (1) must be: (a) published in the Gazette within 14 days; and (b) laid before the appropriate House as soon as practicable;after the direction is issued.(6) In this section, appropriate House means: (a) in relation to a direction given to the Clerk of the Senate—the Senate; or (b) in relation to a direction given to the Clerk of the House of Representatives—the House of Representatives; or (c) in relation to a direction given to any other Secretary—the Senate and the House of Representatives.(13) Clause 22, page 13 (after line 6), after subclause (1), insert:(1A) The engagement of a Parliamentary Service employee (including an engagement under section 26) must be: (a) as an ongoing Parliamentary Service employee; or (b) for a specified term or for the duration of a specified task; or (c) for duties that are irregular or intermittent.(1B) The usual basis for engagement is as an ongoing Parliamentary Service employee.(1C) The determinations may limit the circumstances in which persons may be engaged as mentioned in paragraph (1A)(b) or (c).(1D) An engagement for a specified term may be extended, subject to any limitations prescribed by the determinations.(14) Clause 23, page 13 (lines 27 to 29), omit "For this purpose, award has the same meaning as in the Workplace Relations Act 1996 .".(15) Clause 23, page 14 (after line 1), at the end of the clause, add:(4) A Secretary cannot reduce the classification of a Parliamentary Service employee without the employee's consent, except in the following cases: (a) as a sanction under section 15; (b) on the ground that the employee is excess to the requirements of the relevant Department at the higher classification; (c) on the ground that the employee lacks, or has lost, an essential qualification for performing duties at the higher classification; (d) on the ground of non-performance, or unsatisfactory performance, of duties at the higher classification; (e) on the ground that the employee is unable to perform duties at the higher classification because of physical or mental incapacity; (f) in other circumstances prescribed by the determinations.(5) If a relevant award, certified agreement or AWA contains procedures to be followed when reducing the classification, then a reduction is of no effect unless those procedures are followed.(16) Clause 24, page 14 (line 6), after "relevant Department.", insert "A determination is of no effect to the extent that it would reduce the benefit to an employee of an individual term or condition applicable to the employee under an award, certified agreement or AWA.".(17) Clause 24, page 14 (lines 12 to 14), omit ". For this purpose, award and certified agreement have the same meanings as in the Workplace Relations Act 1996 .". (18) Clause 24, page 14 (line 17), at the end of subclause (3), add ", if the Presiding Officers are of the opinion that it is desirable to do so because of exceptional circumstances".(19) Clause 28, page 15 (line 30) to page 16 (line 2), omit subclauses (2) and (3), substitute:(2) For an ongoing Parliamentary Service employee, the notice must specify the ground or grounds that are relied on for the termination.(3) For an ongoing Parliamentary Service employee, the following are the only grounds for termination: (a) the employee is excess to the requirements of the relevant Department; (b) the employee lacks, or has lost, an essential qualification for performing his or her duties; (c) non-performance, or unsatisfactory performance, of duties; (d) inability to perform duties because of physical or mental incapacity; (e) failure to satisfactorily complete an entry-level training course; (f) failure to meet a condition imposed under subsection 22(2); (g) breach of the Code of Conduct; (h) any other ground prescribed by the determinations.(4) The determinations may prescribe grounds or procedures applicable to the termination of the engagement of non-ongoing Parliamentary Service employees.(5) Subsection (4) does not, by implication, limit the grounds for termination for a non-ongoing Parliamentary Service employee.(20) Clause 30, page 16 (after line 20), after subclause (2), insert:(2A) If a Secretary receives any non-Commonwealth remuneration for performing duties as a Secretary, then the Presiding Officer may give a notice in writing to the Secretary in relation to the whole, or a specified part, of the remuneration.(2B) The amount notified by the Presiding Officer: (a) is taken to have been received by the Secretary on behalf of the Commonwealth; and (b) may be recovered by the Commonwealth from the Secretary as a debt in a court of competent jurisdiction. (21) Clause 32, page 17 (lines 8 to 23), omit the clause, substitute:32 Review of actions(1) A Parliamentary Service employee is entitled to review, in accordance with the determinations, of any Parliamentary Service action that relates to his or her Parliamentary Service employment. However, a Parliamentary Service employee is not entitled to review under this section of Parliamentary Service action that consists of the termination of the employee's employment.(2) The determinations may prescribe exceptions to the entitlement.Note: For example, the determinations might provide that there is not entitlement to review if the application for review is frivolous or vexatious.(3) Without limiting subsection (1), determinations made for the purposes of that subsection may provide for the powers available to the Merit Protection Commissioner, or any other person or body, when conducting a review under the determinations.(4) Determinations for the purposes of subsection (1): (a) may provide for an initial review to be conducted within the relevant Department; and (b) may provide that applications for review of particular kinds of Parliamentary Service action are to be made directly to the Merit Protection Commissioner; and (c) must provide for an application for review to be referred to the Merit Protection Commissioner if the applicant is not satisfied with the outcome of an initial review within the relevant Department; and (d) in the case of a review following an application or referral to the Merit Protection Commissioner, must provide for the review to be conducted by a person nominated by the Merit Protection Commissioner or by a 3 member committee constituted in accordance with the determinations.(5) A person or body that has conducted a review under this section may make recommendations in a report on the review but does not have power to make any binding decision as a result of the review, except as provided by the determinations.(6) If the Merit Protection Commissioner is not satisfied with the response to recommenda tions contained in a report on a review under this section, the Merit Protection Commissioner may give a report on the matter to the Secretary of the relevant Department and to the Presiding Officers, for presentation to the Parliament.(7) In this section: action includes a refusal or failure to act. Parliamentary Service action means action by a person in the capacity of a Secretary or Parliamentary Service employee. relevant Department , in relation to Parliamentary Service action, means the Department in which the person who did the action was at the time of the action.(22) Clause 35, page 18 (line 20), at the end of the clause, add ", including engagement, promotion redeployment, mobility and termination".(23) Clause 37, page 19 (lines 4 to 6), omit the clause, substitute:37 Commissioner's certificate required for termination of SES employmentA Secretary cannot terminate the employment of an SES employee unless the Commissioner has issued a certificate stating that: (a) all relevant requirements of Commissioner's guidelines under section 35 have been satisfied in respect of the proposed termination; and (b) the Commissioner is of the opinion that the termination is in the public interest.(24) Clause 41, page 21 (after line 4), at the end of the clause, add:(2) The report must be prepared in accordance with guidelines approved on behalf of the Parliament by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.(25) Clause 43, page 22 (lines 9 to 15), omit the clause, substitute:43 Remuneration and other conditions of appointment(1) Subject to subsection (4), the remuneration and other conditions of appointment of the Commissioner are as determined in writing by the Presiding Officers.(2) For each determination, the Presiding Officers must seek the advice of the Remuneration Tribunal and take that advice into account.(3) Each determination must be: (a) published in the Gazette within 14 days; and (b) laid before each House of the Parliament as soon as practicable;after the determination is made.(4) If the same person holds both the office of Commissioner and the office of Public Service Commissioner, the person is not to be paid any remuneration in respect of the office of Commissioner.(26) Clause 47, page 24 (lines 10 to 13), omit the clause, substitute:47 Merit Protection Commissioner's functions(1) The Merit Protection Commissioner's functions include the following functions: (a) to inquire into reports made to the Merit Protection Commissioner (or to a person authorised by the Merit Protection Commissioner) as mentioned in section 16; (b) to inquire into alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct by the Commissioner and report to the Presiding Officers on the results of such inquiries (including, where relevant, recommendations for sanctions); (c) to inquire into a Parliamentary Service action, at the request of the Presiding Officers, and to report to the Presiding Officers on the results of the inquiry; (d) such functions as are prescribed by determinations made for the purposes of section 32; (e) such other functions as are prescribed by the determinations.(2) The following provisions apply in relation to an inquiry under paragraph (1)(c) (with references to the Auditor-General being replaced by references to the Merit Protection Commissioner): (a) sections 32, 33, 34 and 35 of the Auditor-General Act 1997 ; (b) any other provisions of the Auditor-General Act 1997 , or of regulations under that Act, that are relevant to the operation of section 32, 33, 34 or 35 of that Act.(3) The determinations may authorise the Merit Protection Commissioner to charge fees (on behalf of the Commonwealth) for the performance of functions prescribed under paragraph (1)(e).(4) In this section: action includes a refusal or failure to act. Parliamentary Service action means an action in relation to the employment of a Parliamentary Service employee, being an action by another Parliamentary Service employee or by a Secretary. (27) Clause 48, page 24 (after line 18), after subclause (1), insert:(1A) The report must be prepared in accordance with guidelines approved on behalf of the Parliament by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.(28) Clause 50, page 25 (lines 7 to 14), omit the clause, substitute:50 Remuneration and other conditions of appointment(1) Subject to subsection (4), the remuneration and other conditions of appointment of the Merit Protection Commissioner are as determined in writing by the Presiding Officers.(2) For each determination, the Presiding Officers must seek the advice of the Remuneration Tribunal and take that advice into account.(3) Each determination must be: (a) published in the Gazette within 14 days; and (b) laid before each House of the Parliament as soon as practicable;after the determination is made.(4) If the same person holds both the office of Merit Protection Commissioner and the office of Public Service Merit Protection Commissioner, the person is not to be paid any remuneration in respect of the office of Merit Protection Commissioner.(29) Clause 56, page 28 (lines 5 to 7), omit the clause, substitute:56 Responsibility for managing Department(1) The Secretary of a Department, under the Presiding Officers, is responsible for managing the Department and must advise the Presiding Officers in matters relating to the Department.(2) The Secretary of a Department must assist the Presiding Officers to fulfil the Presiding Officers' accountability obligations to the Parliament and provide factual information, as required by the Parliament, in relation to the operation and administration of the Department.(30) Clause 59, page 29 (lines 26 to 27), omit subclause (4).(31) Clause 60, page 30 (after line 4), at the end of subclause (1), add:Note: In Barratt v Howard [1999] FCA 1132, the Federal Court of Australia described the basis on which requirements of procedural fairness applied to the termination of an appointment of Secretary under section 37 of the Public Service Act 1922 .(32) Clause 60, page 31 (lines 8 and 9), omit subclause (3).(33) Clause 62, page 31 (lines 8 to 11), omit the clause, substitute:62 Remuneration and other conditions of appointment(1) The remuneration and other conditions of employment of the Secretary of a Department are as determined by the Presiding Officers.(2) For each determination, the Presiding officers must seek the advice of the Remuneration Tribunal and take that advice into account.(3) Each determination must be: (a) published in the Gazette within 14 days; and (b) laid before the appropriate House of the Parliament as soon as practicable;after the determination is made.(4) In this section, appropriate House means: (a) in relation to a determination relating to the Clerk of the Senate—the Senate; or (b) in relation to a determination relating to the Clerk of the House of Representatives—the House of Representatives; or (c) in relation to a determination relating to any other Secretary—the Senate and the House of Representatives.(34) Clause 64, page 32 (after line 12), at the end of the clause, add:(2) The report is to be prepared in accordance with guidelines approved by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit on behalf of the Parliament.(35) Clause 69, page 35 (after line 4), after subclause (1), insert:(1A) A Secretary may, in writing and with the prior written consent of the Commissioner, delegate to a person who is not a Parliamentary Service employee any of the Secretary's powers or functions under this Act (other than this section).(36) Clause 70, page 36 (lines 1 to 3), omit subclause (2), substitute:(2) Without limiting subsection (1), determinations may be made for, or in relation to, any of the following: (a) confidentiality of information obtained by persons performing, or assisting in the performance of, functions under section 32 or paragraph 47(1)(a) or (c); (b) immunity from civil action in respect of acts or omissions of persons performing, or assisting in the performance of, functions under section 32 or paragraph 47(1)(a) or (c); (c) prescribing penalties for offences against the determinations by way of fines of up to 10 penalty units.(37) Clause 71, page 38 (line 28) to page 29 (line 3), omit the definition of second-tier person , substitute: second-tier person means: (a) a person to whom Division 3 of Part IV of the old Act applied immediately before the commencing time; or (b) a person who becomes a second-tier person under subsection 76(6) of this Act.(38) Clause 75, page 41 (lines 21 and 22), omit "a Parliamentary Service employee", substitute "an ongoing Parliamentary Service employee".(39) Clause 75, page 41 (lines 28 and 29), omit "a Parliamentary Service employee", substitute "an ongoing Parliamentary Service employee".(40) Clause 75, page 42 (lines 14 and 15), omit "a Parliamentary Service employee", substitute "an ongoing Parliamentary Service employee".(41) Clause 76, page 43 (after line 13), at the end of the clause, add:(6) If the transitional period for a first-tier person ends at the end of the relevant period (as defined in subsection 87D(5) of the old Act), then the person becomes a second-tier person at the end of that relevant period.(42) Clause 78, page 43 (line 29), omit "first anniversary", substitute "third anniversary".(43) Schedule 1, item 3, page 49 (lines 11 to 13), omit the item, substitute:3 Item 1 of Schedule 1Repeal the item, substitute:1 Section 3 (definition of Parliamentary Department )Repeal the definition, substitute: Parliamentary Department means a Department of the Parliament established under the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 .With two exceptions, the amendments I have just moved seek to make the Parliamentary Service Bill 1999 consistent with the Public Service Bill 1999 , following amendments to that bill which the House has just accepted.On 28 June 1999 I introduced the Parliamentary Service Bill 1999 in this House. This followed the introduction earlier of the Public Service Bill 1999 by the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service. In my second reading speech I said that the Parliamentary Service Bill 1999 follows, as far as possible, the philosophy, content and structure of the Public Service Bill 1999. With the House having amended the latter bill, it is now desirable to make similar amendments to the Parliamentary Service Bill.The Parliamentary Service Bill creates for the first time a statutorily separate Parliamentary Service and establishes the employment, management and leadership framework for the parliamentary administration. It takes the five parliamentary departments from under the Australian Public Service-wide legislation and will, when enacted, require the parliament to operate and maintain its own administrative regime.However, the bill seeks, as far as possible, to establish a consistent framework between the Australian Public Service and the Parliamentary Service. This policy was adopted to ensure comparability of practices and values between the Parliamentary Service and the Public Service. The principal rationales for this approach were to ensure that the Parliamentary Service remained a professionally attractive career consideration for Australian Public Service, APS, staff, to ensure that Parliamentary Service staff were able to freely move between the Parliamentary Service and the APS and to ensure that the rights and obligations of employees of both services are, by and large, the same in intent.I turn now to the main changes made by these amendments. They are to, firstly, introduce four new Parliamentary Service values to emphasise equity in employment, access to employment and the career-service nature of the Parliamentary Service and underpin a framework for review of employment related decisions; secondly, revise the wording of some Parliamentary Service values to highlight the diversity of the Australian community, to stress that accountability must be open and to recognise the contributions of Parliamentary Service employees; thirdly, give a greater role to the Parliamentary Service Commissioner in relation to advice to the Presiding Officers flowing from values and in relation to directions establishing processes for investigation of breaches of the Parliamentary Service code of conduct; fourthly, require that departmental and commissioners' annual reports conform with guidelines issued by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit; fifthly, create an advisory role for the Remuneration Tribunal in relation to salaries for statutory office holders and departmental heads; sixthly, require that a range of Presiding Officers directions, principally remuneration related, be tabled and published in the Gazette; and, seventhly, create three categories of Parliamentary Service employment, namely, ongoing, fixed term and intermittent.Amendment No. 3 is a consequential amendment to amendments which remove the exemption for the termination of secretaries and SES from division 3 of part VIA of the Workplace Relations Act 1996. There is no equivalent amendment to the Public Service Bill because the original clauses differed slightly in their drafting.Amendment No. 42 is a technical correction to the Parliamentary Service (Consequential Amendments) Act 1997 which has not yet come into effect. That act inserts into the Archives Act 1983 a definition of `parliamentary departments'. As the Archives Act 1983 already contains such a definition, it is necessary to repeal the existing definition before inserting a new one.Other than amendment No. 42, all the amendments to the Parliamentary Service Bill are consistent with the amendments to the Public Service Bill already agreed to by this House, and their rationale is the same. I commend the amendments to the House and present the supplementary explanatory memorandum.21:33:0010654Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—Mr Speaker, we note that the amendments which you have moved to the Parliamentary Service Bill parallel those which have been moved to the Public Service Bill, with the exception of those that you have outlined that are not relevant to the Parliamentary Service. The opposition will be supporting these amendments, as I said in my speech at the second reading stage. We are also discussing with the parliamentary administration four additional amendments which reflect amendments we moved to this bill on the last occasion it was considered in the Senate. Depending on the outcome of those discussions, the opposition may move some additional amendments in the Senate.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.10654Bill (on motion by Mr Speaker)—by leave—read a third time.Bills10654r89410654Debate resumed from 30 June, on motion by Mr Reith:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:(1) "the House condemns the Government for introducing a bill which:(a) further entrenches unfairness and bias in the existing industrial relations system;(b) ensures that the role of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission is further restricted and the independence of the Commission is compromised;(c) reduces the minimum conditions available to all Australian workers by further undermining the award system as the dynamic framework for the protection and advancement of wages and conditions, through further award stripping;(d) denies Australia's lowest paid workers any further wage increase unless their award is stripped of basic entitlements such as long service leave, superannuation and paid jury service leave;(e) further removes workplace and enterprise bargaining from the protection of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, placing it solely in the hands of the Office of the Employment Advocate, which is run by one the Minsters former senior personal political staffers;(f) further weakens opportunities for employees to organise and bargain collectively; (g) aggravates problems of inequality for women and the most vulnerable in the labour market;(h) further restricts workers who are denied proper industrial protection in their state from accessing federal protection;(i) prevents the Australian Industrial Relations Commission from conducting much of its traditional conciliation role;(j) further dismantles the framework for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes;(k) amends the termination of employment provisions to limit an employee's right to pursue an application and extends the cost provisions;(l) emphasises the punishment and prevention of industrial action rather than its resolution;(m) unduly hinders the entry and inspection of premises by relevant organisations;(n) demonstrates a lack of balance in freedom of association provisions;(o) fails to ensure that Australia's labour standards meet our international obligations; and(p) has a short title which is deliberately misleading and fails to represent the actual intention and impact of the bill; and(2) the House also condemns the Government for its eagerness in tabling a bill that will specifically strip workers of their basic rights while failing to protect workers' legally accrued entitlements in cases of corporate insolvency; and(3) recommends that a new bill be introduced which:(a) delivers fair and equitable outcomes for Australian workers;(b) preserves basic conditions for all Australian workers;(c) provides for an independent commission with the appropriate power to conciliate fairly and settle disputes; and(d) provides jobs and income security.21:35:0010655Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—I am delighted to have the opportunity to continue my remarks on the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 , which I commenced on 2 September. It has been some time since I wound up on this issue. It would be my fervent hope that the opposition could agree with the government on this bill as they have agreed to the three bills which we have just considered—that is, the Public Service Bill 1999, the Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Bill 1999 and the Parliamentary Service Bill 1999 . This has been an example of the government and the opposition working together to achieve an outcome, albeit over a year too late. Nonetheless, an outcome was achieved. I compliment the opposition on their sensible approach to an outcome and I compliment the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs on working with the opposition to reach agreement on these issues. I wish that the opposition would agree with the government on this series of amendments which we now propose to the workplace relations legislation.As I said in my opening remarks, this bill is all about an evolving market for employment and evolving practices. On 23 April 1996, the then Prime Minister of Australia, Paul Keating—the former member for Blaxland—went to the Institute of Company Directors in Melbourne and basically talked about three things in relation to what we then called industrial relations. He talked about reducing the award system down to its basic parameters so that all the miscellaneous agreements between employees and employers could be left to employees and their employers and only the basic issues would be left to awards. He proposed that there be non-union agreements—what we know today as workplace agreements. He also proposed that the Australian Industrial Relations Commission—which we propose to call the Australian Workplace Relations Commission—be a court, if you will, of final resort.Then in opposition, we did not disagree with the member for Blaxland and his 23 April 1996 speech to the Institute of Company Directors. In fact, we agreed. We might have gone a bit further in a few instances, but we thought that he was headed in the right direction. He told his then Minister for Industrial Relations, the member for Kingsford-Smith, to go forth and propagate and make it happen. I have to give the member for Kingsford-Smith the credit that he tried. Unfortunately, he ran up against a whole gaggle of union chiefs who said no because Paul Keating had forgotten to confer with them and they did not agree to deregulate the labour market.As a result, we did not have agreement between the then opposition and then government, or today's government and today's opposition. So here we are again in conflict over a bill that really ought to be at the heart of what all of us believe in. It was the Australian Labor Party that time and time again brought to this place deregulation of our borders, that is, reduction in tariffs and reduction in limits on what could come into this country. But they forgot to also modernise the Australian labour market and they left it regulated at a time of deregulation of the real economy. This dichotomy has finally been addressed by this side of politics. This bill is simply one more step on the long-term path to getting us to a point where we all know we have to be—including the honourable member at the table, the member for Batman, notwithstanding that he was a president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—And a good one too.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—He used to speak to me—I have to say that. You never did. This bill is about a range of things. I talked about some of them in my opening remarks. I talked about improving the position of workplace agreements, that is, about them becoming the primary focus of workplace relations legislation, both for Australian workplace agreements and certified agreements in terms of award simplification. I talked about retaining the right of limited protected industrial action but finally introducing secret ballots, which is something I have been talking about for a very long time. I talked about the award system and the ARC being retained with a name change but modernised. We do not need a 100-year-old institution in Australia any more as part of the club to regulate Australian industrial relations. Then I had started talking about voluntary mediation services.This is one of the best, most modern ideas to come forward from this side of the House. I sincerely wish that the opposition would listen to this proposal for voluntary mediation services because it has a great deal of merit. The compulsion in mediation simply sets forces which are on opposite sides of an argu ment against each other and determined in a court-like atmosphere to seek a court-like outcome. As we know, courts are adversarial in nature, as is this House. But were people of goodwill given the opportunity, time and time again they could reach agreement away from the adversarial atmosphere. And here is an opportunity, a voluntary mediation service to replace compulsory arbitration. That is part of what this bill is all about. I commend it to honourable members.Another issue that I want to address in terms of this bill is about tightening the compliance network. It seems to me that for far too long too many, for too many reasons, have been allowed to go their merry way, notwithstanding what legislation said. I cite my old industry, the building and construction industry in Victoria, as an excellent example of why this legislation is important. The Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 guarantees for the first time in Australia's history, voluntary membership of association, and this is an issue with which I have been associated for the entirety of my parliamentary life.It is true to say that this new legislation is an attempt to make sure that those rules and regulations, which were totally intended in the Workplace Relations Bill, are finally in force because in the state of Victoria, as an example, far too many companies simply agree with far too many union bosses that there will be uniform compliance throughout the industry and that those employers who have employees who are not members of the union will be kept out of the work force, will be disallowed the opportunity to be subcontractors, disallowed the opportunity to be suppliers, will have their contracts cancelled and made meaningless because of the power of a few union bosses.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—What, the AMA?OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—No. Let's not try the AMA.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—They are the most powerful union in the country.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—No. There is, as there has been for far too long, such a strong union presence in Victoria, dominating the building and construction industry, that individuals have no opportunity to express their own desires. So those who do not wish to be members of a union are forced to become members or else their employer is held to account by the union itself. That is wrong and we all know it is wrong. There should be voluntary membership, which we guarantee to people should they want to join, and voluntary non-membership should people not wish to join.Unfair dismissals are also addressed in this bill. The government has continuously pushed to try to get reasonable legislation in to give small business an opportunity to hire whom they want and to expand employment in this country. It wants voluntary membership with increased accountability. This bill takes into account the interests of small business, which means increased employment for Australians.This bill offers a better balance between regulation and market forces, which all of us applaud. If the opposition were to wake up, they would come on board and support the legislation as they have the last three bills. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Before calling the honourable member for Batman, I remind the honourable member for Banks that if he really wants to make a contribution he might put himself on the speakers list. I congratulate the honourable member for La Trobe for ignoring the interjections of the honourable member for Banks.21:46:0010657Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—If one had listened to the contribution from the member for La Trobe one would have thought that industrial relations does not matter and that it is just a debate about ideology. I reject that proposition. I rise this evening to speak in support of the amendment to the second reading moved by the member for Brisbane, the shadow minister for industrial relations. In doing so, I clearly state that, from our side of the House, we believe that the industrial relations framework matters. It has important effects on our economy and our society. It affects the wages and conditions of employees and the employment and productivity levels of firms. It also affects the quality of our working lives and the control we have over our working lives.We have to understand that decisions made in the industrial relations field are invariably trade-offs. They are often decisions which mean that someone gains and someone loses. That is the harsh reality but the reality nonetheless. Where this does not hold, and where there are genuine opportunities for win-win arrangements, we must exploit those opportunities as a priority. It is unfortunate that the government is not prepared to be open to the possibilities in this respect.Given that this bill and the government's broader agenda are not about exploiting the potential gains of workplace cooperation, we must ask ourselves who gains and who loses under this bill, because that is the crux of the debate. I believe that the answer is simple. The workers, once again, are copping the brunt of what the government is calling labour market flexibility. The workers are copping the brunt of what the government is calling choice.The Howard government is not interested in labour market flexibility or in choice. It is interested in ideology as outlined in the contribution by the member for La Trobe this evening. Alternatively I must say that when you think about ideology, it is normally we on this side of the House who are criticised for fighting against ideology. But this is an ideology that has at its core the demise of workers' rights in this country. It has at its core the breaking down of the institutions that stand to protect workers, be they unions or the Industrial Relations Commission, the independent organisation that has so long served this country so well.The problems we face in the labour market give rise to major social costs that are so high that few observers could deny the need to do something. This is particularly so when we observe that the worst off are laden with a disproportionate share of the burden.The problems of the labour market are social problems as much as economic problems. We must recognise that solutions which seek to rip our social fabric apart are not solutions at all. What happens in the workplace clearly affects our economy, the lives of individuals and the life of our society. As with any area of policy, industrial relations must balance efficiency and fairness. We must look at the characteristics and trends of the modern labour market honestly and openly.I am disappointed when I look to this bill for I see nothing but ideology. There is no real debate or suggestion about how we would create a greater sense of fairness, equity or improved productivity at the workplace. For that very reason, I want to examine the context in which this bill has been introduced. The minister has developed a bad habit of distorting the truth. In particular, I want to comment on a few claims floating around from the other side of the House regarding the performance of our labour market. Let us deal with facts for a change rather than ideology.The minister says that his first wave assault on the Australian work force has given us economic growth, investment, more jobs and improved productivity. According to the Treasury, economic growth has actually slowed under the coalition compared with Labor's last term. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, growth in investment has dropped off significantly. According to the ABS again, Labor's employment growth was 60 per cent stronger than the coalition's. According to the Productivity Commission, the gains that Labor achieved in productivity growth in its last term have not been replicated by the coalition government.I call on the government to try to refute these assertions. They are assertions that come not from Labor but from the Treasury, the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Productivity Commission. Let us move beyond this nonsense that we have been hearing about the positive effects of the first wave, because the reality is that if the first wave has not drowned Australian workers, the second wave will.I have also heard the assertion that this government has not succeeded because it was not allowed to go far enough in 1996. They say that if only Labor and the Democrats would allow the government to have its way, we would see the benefits, or so the story goes. I am sure that we will hear it from the member for Makin in the very near future. Let us also think about that: if only they were allowed to have their way. They often used to talk about New Zealand. After all, they believed New Zealand got its way back in 1991, almost a decade ago. Until recently, this was the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business's baby. The New Zealanders implemented what he wanted to do—what he saw as the ideal model for reform of industrial relations in Australia. It is a bit like the way he used to talk about waterfront reform but, when it comes to so-called changes and benefits for those who use the waterfront coming out of his attack on waterfront workers, all of a sudden he has lost his tongue. In the same way, I have not heard the minister refer to New Zealand recently.I will remind the House of a few facts concerning the New Zealand experience—the minister's baby. They deregulated the labour market in a more radical manner than even Margaret Thatcher did in Great Britain. They stripped workers' rights and conditions, they stripped their independent umpire's ability to protect the vulnerable, they stripped union powers to represent workers, they made industrial action almost impossible, they attacked the minimum wage safety net and they cut welfare in the name of work incentives. In short, they did what the minister wanted to do. The next time he claims this is not his agenda or the next time the Prime Minister says that, I would ask people to look at what the two of them have said about industrial relations throughout their political lives.I suppose it is a bit like being reminded today of what the Prime Minister said, not all that long ago, about Indonesia and the Labor Party's attitude to changes in Indonesia. One's past statements come back to haunt one from time to time. When the government claim that this is not about balancing the interests of the workers on the industrial relations front and the employers, I suggest you compare what business groups say they want the government to do and what the government are trying to do. When one does that comparison, it becomes very clear who butters the government's bread.On reflection, what we can say about the effects of the Reith agenda in New Zealand is as follows. It was claimed that unemployment would be reduced, but New Zealand's unemployment rate today is higher than Australia's. It was claimed that labour productivity would improve in New Zealand. I urge the House to compare New Zealand's labour productivity in the 1990s with that of Australia—it does not stack up too well. It was claimed that the cuts to welfare in New Zealand would not hurt people, but we saw a massive increase in poverty, in association with Australia taking many thousands of New Zealand workers into its own work force—thereby actually subsidising New Zealand's mistakes through the taxpayers' contribution to social security and employment.The rhetoric of choice saw widening wage inequality. Real wages increased at the top end and fell at the bottom end. All of this was predictable and all of it was avoidable. It is now claimed that this path is the only way forward for the Australian workplace. Labor rejects that claim and rejects it absolutely. I note with interest the current international success stories on unemployment. I do not find New Zealand on that list. The Netherlands, Austria and Denmark are all comfortably below five per cent. In each case, what do we find? Their approach to unemployment has been based on social dialogue based on cooperation—a long way from the bill before the House this evening.I want the Australian community to look at this bill in terms of this government's broader agenda. I want people to think seriously about whether attacking workers' protections, insulting the unemployed, slashing labour market assistance and slashing investments in education and training are the answers to our labour market problems. I want the Australian community to think seriously about whether this is the sort of society we want to live in, because that is the reality we face with the bill before the House this evening. By claiming that the unemployed choose to be unemployed, the government takes its ideology to the extreme. The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business goes as far as to claim that welfare dependency is a bigger cause of unemployment than the level of economic activity. Dreamland stuff!I ask him to find a single credible economist that agrees with him. I ask him to point to a single piece of economic analysis that supports his contention. This is political manipulation of the lowest order; he should know better. The biggest barrier most unemployed people face is not welfare, but a lack of skills. The solution is not the `job snobs' label but the opportunity that stems from education and training. It is about a cooperative workplace that encourages a partnership based on cooperation, improved productivity and training—reasonable outcomes; a win-win for all.For that very reason, I also refer to the fact that the government claimed that Labor was spending too much on assisting the unemployed into work, so they slashed labour market employment and training programs. They now claim that under the new Job Network they are working harder to get people into jobs. Let us have look at this claim. Between November 1993 and May 1996, under Labor's programs the number of very long-term unemployed—that is, over 24 months unemployed—fell by 70,000. But since the coalition began to slash funding, there has been an increase in the number of very long-term unemployed—three years later that number has increased. We are talking about the most vulnerable in the labour market. We are talking about facts. We are talking about the figures produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics—not the Labor Party, not the ACTU, but the Australian Bureau of Statistics.The next time they talk or look to economic prosperity, the disadvantaged in the labour market are entitled to ask where their share has gone. If we were to take into account the drop in the participation rate as people give up hope and stop looking for work, the figures would be even worse. The rate has dropped by almost one per cent since the election of March 1996. This means people are basically deciding that they have very little hope of finding a job because of a lack of assistance and insufficient jobs growth under the Howard government. This govern ment has, in truth, managed to send shivers up the spine of every insecure worker and every recipient of government benefits. This government has chosen to attack the most vulnerable in our society and to hand out billions to the most fortunate. Robbing from the poor and giving to the rich is the heartless approach of the Howard government.But I venture to suggest that there is more at stake. For every worker made less secure, for every mature age worker pushed onto a disability support pension and for every one of our children allowed to grow up without educational opportunity, we undermine the very notion of shared responsibility. That is the notion that underpins society. That is the notion of reciprocal obligation. It is not the notion of the one-way street, the so-called mutual obligation, of the Howard government. What could we expect?Before us is the government's vision for the future of the Australian labour market. We might at least expect some reference to the difficulties facing ordinary workers and workplaces: worker insecurity, the struggle of the low skilled to keep up, casualisation, no opportunity for workplace participation and limited control over working lives. The problem is that this is a one-dimensional bill based on ideology and a very poor conception of the dynamics of the labour market. That is why the Melbourne Institute is right in saying that the minister's main game is the wrong game. It is why prominent lawyers are right when they say that this bill is grossly unfair. It is why the churches and the community organisations who care for society's vulnerable are right when they speak up—not to be denigrated but encouraged to speak up—and voice their concerns.Under the Howard government we have seen growing inequality among workers which has been accentuated by budget cuts that hurt the poor the most and which will be further accentuated by tax changes that will benefit the rich the most, including many members of the Howard government's frontbench. If there is one lesson to be learnt from the history of Australian industrial relations, it is that fairness matters. The minister may seek to deny that, the government may seek to deny that, but ordinary Australians know that fairness matters. Just ask the Premier of Victoria, Mr Kennett.The minister speaks the language of labour market flexibility. The symbolic force of flexibility relies on the positive association we make with the ideal of flexibility. After all, to oppose flexibility is to appear rigid and conservative. In practice, though, labour market flexibility has had one aim: to increase the ability of employers to have their way. It is about employers having their way without the need to consult either external standards, in the form of tribunals or legislation, or internal standards, whether unions or workers. The fact that we live in a society that does have standards is something to take pride in, not something to try to tear down. Labour market flexibility is sometimes couched in terms of the ability of business to adapt to changing circumstances. The ability of business to adapt depends on two things in particular: the adaptability of the work force, in which we must invest; and cooperation in the work force, which only comes from leadership, encouragement and support. It does not come from a heavy hand or a bludgeon, as is the Howard way. I do not see this bill improving skills and consultation in Australian work forces and workplaces.I now turn my attention briefly to some specifics of the bill. The bill has three fundamental flaws: it undermines the role of the commission, it seeks to undermine the safety net and it pursues neither efficiency nor fairness. The major problem I have with this bill is that it seeks to undermine independence. You would think the coalition might have learnt something from their Victorian state colleagues about what people think of a lack of accountability and independence in our public institutions.The minister wants to control who is in the commission and what they are allowed to think. Instead of an independent commission conciliating or arbitrating, parties must do it themselves. For those with little bargaining power, that means not at all. Of course you can pay to see a mediator, but it has to be one that is approved by the new Mediation Adviser. And who appoints the Mediation Adviser? The minister—just as he appointed the Industrial Registrar, one of his former employees, and the Employment Advocate, another of his mates. The secrecy of individual agreements would be made worse because you would no longer need the approval of the commission, which is independent. You now need only the approval of the Employment Advocate, the minister's adviser—the minister's mate.The second problem I have with this bill is that it seeks to undermine the safety net. Further award matters will be removed, including those that are not incidental. Incidental matters are those which are `essential and necessary to the operation of the award'. But they will no longer be allowed. Awards that have not been simplified, regardless of the reason, cannot have the safety net—a minimum wage increase—applied to them. This is at a time when the safety net adjustment is likely to be higher than before as workers fight to maintain real wage growth in the face of the inflationary impact of the GST—another attack on workers. It is those without bargaining power who will again be hit the hardest. They will get no increases and will see their real wages fall significantly.Finally, I want to ask the question: does fairness still matter? This bill makes it even harder to make an unfair dismissal claim. It undermines workers rights to be represented effectively while limiting rights of entry and cracking down on those workplaces that choose to be unionised. It undermines the right to strike by requiring a secret ballot and by extending the penalties involved. If this bill were really about fairness, it would contain more about the issues workers are worried about. But none of those issues are covered in this bill, because it is based on nothing other than ideology—and inferior ideology at that.Meanwhile the issues Australians really care about—worker insecurity, the low skilled falling behind, casualisation, the lack of retraining opportunities for older workers and the difficulty faced by those seeking to balance work and family life—go unattended. I urge the Australian community, on the basis of the debate that will occur in this House, to actually put in a submission to the Senate inquiry into the legislation, to go along, have its say and voice its concerns. If the so-called Reith's second wave is not stopped, fairness and equity will be destroyed in Australian workplaces. The opportunities for workers to actually engage in decent training and enjoy fair wages and conditions of employment, which in turn will improve their employability and create greater employment opportunities over time, will be destroyed. The independence of the Industrial Relations Commission will be destroyed. I commend the second reading amendment of the member for Brisbane to the House. (Time expired)22:06:0010661Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—I am pleased to speak in support of the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 —a bill which I know will create more security and more opportunities for the people in my electorate of Makin. I refute absolutely all that has been stated by the previous speaker, the member for Batman. This bill implements our policy on workplace relations, which we took to the last election and which was also entitled More Jobs, Better Pay. This bill is a very practical and down-to-earth piece of legislation. It is based on what is fair and what has been shown to work.The bill is also the culmination of a long debate in this country about the nature of our industrial relations system and discussion about how we can achieve the twin goals of lower unemployment and higher productivity and real wages for workers. At every stage of that debate, the Labor Party have had to be dragged kicking and screaming. When we first began to say in the early 1980s that there should be more bargaining for wages and conditions at the enterprise level, the then Labor government cried out that we were espousing a right-wing ideological agenda. But eventually they started to move quietly and cautiously in that direction. Unfortunately, they were still captive to the peak union bodies in Australia that were more interested in maintaining their own position in the system than in achieving better outcomes for their members.We started to have some sort of enterprise bargaining, but there were still union preference clauses, there were still closed shops and there were still not enough opportunities for workers to participate in the decisions in the workplace. In the 1996 election the coalition produced a policy that said we should have genuine enterprise bargaining with an opportunity for employers and employees to write their own contracts by way of Australian workplace agreements. We said that workers should not be discriminated against just because they chose not to join a union. We proposed legislation to make closed shops a thing of the past.Again, the Labor Party cried that we were running some sort of ideological agenda. They declared that it would not work, that wages would go down, that strikes would increase. But, in fact, history now records that exactly the opposite occurred. In 1997, following the introduction of the Workplace Relations Act, industrial disputes were the cause of only 75 working days lost per thousand employees. This was the lowest number since 1913, the first year in which records were kept. In 1998 that number fell even further to 72 working days lost per thousand employees.This result is all the more remarkable because it occurred in a climate of rising real wages and falling unemployment. Since the election of this government, real wages for a full-time adult employee have grown by nine per cent. This is nine per cent in three years, by the way, compared with just 4.7 per cent over the entire 13 years of the Labor government. At the same time, unemployment has fallen to seven per cent from the high of over 11 per cent that occurred under the previous government.We have a plan and our plan works. Our plan has reduced industrial disputation, reduced unemployment and increased real wages. Our plan for the future is to deliver even more jobs and even better pay by the measures proposed in this bill. This bill will make jobs more secure and more plentiful, give workers more of a say in their own pay and conditions and enable employers and employees to work together free from any intimidation.Part of the intent of this bill is to amend the objects of the Workplace Relations Act in a number of specific ways: to emphasise the proper safety net role of awards; to refer to the role played by the Industrial Relations Commission, which in this bill will become the Australian Workplace Relations Commission, in preventing and stopping unprotected industrial action; and to recognise a role for mediation as an option available for dispute resolution. It is important to make the point that awards are there to ensure that there is a minimum standard of wages and conditions to which all Australian workers are entitled. Awards should not dictate chapter and verse what happens in individual workplaces. Matters such as tallies, jury service, union picnic days and trade union training leave are matters that can and should be worked out at the workplace level.The other point I have mentioned is the recognition the bill contains of the role that mediation can play in resolving industrial disputes. This would occur on a voluntary basis and could supplement or be an alternative to the role of the commission. Voluntary mediation along these lines has a potential to be enormously valuable to employers and employees. It is all about creating a more cooperative workplace culture with employers and employees working together towards mutually satisfying goals.It is envisaged that mediation would be most effective in resolving differences related to the negotiation of enterprise agreements, as a step in dispute resolution, in cases of serious or protracted industrial action and where the parties to an agreement have made provision for mediation in their grievance procedures.The freedom of association provisions which we legislated in our original bill will be strengthened in this bill, closing loopholes which in some cases have continued to allow closed shops and preference for union members over non-union members. This bill also seeks to simplify and streamline the agreement making process. Since we introduced certified agreements and Australian workplace agreements in our original legislation, their performance has been impressive. Over 12,000 certified agreements and 50,000 Australian workplace agreements have been created in the two years since their introduction.We need to make this process even easier and more flexible to encourage more workplaces to take up these options and reap the benefits. We will seek to simplify the current procedures in a number of ways, including consolidating the requirements for making an AWA into a single provision, removing the requirement for employers to offer identical AWAs to comparable employees, giving the Employment Advocate greater power to request modifications to an agreement where there are concerns about it not meeting the no disadvantage test without the need for that to be referred to the commission at that stage, and fast-tracking approval for AWAs which provide rates of remuneration above $68,000 per year by removing the need for them to be scrutinised by the Employment Advocate before they go before the commission.The bill will also clarify the interaction between the AWAs and certified agreements by ensuring that the AWAs prevail over certified agreements, either to the extent of any inconsistency or comprehensively. Protected strike action will continue, but certain procedures will have to be observed before such action is protected. In particular, it will have to be preceded by a secret ballot overseen by the commission. Strike action will be protected only if it is approved by a majority of eligible voters out of a quorum of at least 50 per cent of eligible voters. The notice period for notification of an intention to take industrial action will be increased from three to five working days and notification will have to follow a secret ballot of the employees.I would like to return to what I consider to be the most important aspect of this bill and that is its strengthening of freedom of association provisions. Our original Workplace Relations Act prohibited closed shops and the inclusion of preference clauses in industrial awards and agreements—that is, clauses in which employees who were union members gained preference over employees who were not. That legislation also made it against the law for any employee to be victimised be cause of their membership or non-membership of a union.Since the passage of that legislation, the task has fallen to the Office of the Employment Advocate to handle complaints about agreements which still contain preference clauses. Under the legislation, these clauses have no standing but their continued existence can lead to confusion and even unlawful conduct by people who may not be aware that such clauses are now illegal. Figures released earlier this year showed that at that stage the Employment Advocate had made 735 applications to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission for the removal of these clauses from certified agreements. Of these, 698 had been heard by the commission and in all of these cases the offending clauses were removed.However, the government has found that in some workplaces there are still instances where indirect arrangements are put in place to effectively continue to give preference to union members. To overcome this, our new legislation will prohibit conduct which breaches freedom of association under the guise of site agreements, require employers to take positive steps to overcome closed shops, and provide a defence to breaches of freedom of association where the conduct complained of was designed to overcome a closed shop. It will prevent from certification agreements which contain clauses to encourage or discourage employees in relation to becoming a union member or which require non-union members to pay a service fee to a union. These new provisions will provide further protection to employees to ensure that their choice to join or to not join a union is theirs and theirs alone.This bill needs to be seen in the context of other legislation that the government has introduced, all of which has the intent of increasing employment opportunities for all Australians. In particular, we have brought legislation before the parliament to exempt small business from unfair dismissal provisions during the first six months of a person's employment, provided for the retention of junior wage rates in awards and agreements, and removed superannuation from the list of allowable award matters to ensure that employers and employees can enter into more flexible arrangements which suit them. These measures, along with the legislation we are discussing today, if allowed to pass the Senate, will provide significant assistance to small businesses and directly encourage them to take on more employees.In April last year I made a submission to the Senate Employment, Education and Training References Committee as it was conducting its inquiry into regional employment and unemployment. In that submission I made the point that there are a total of 71,000 people employed in the northern suburbs of Adelaide and that 50,000 of these are employed by 5,000 businesses, at an average of 10 employees per business. If the profit margins and costs of employing for each of these businesses were such that they were encouraged to employ one extra person, unemployment in my electorate of Makin would be reduced by approximately one-third.Thankfully, unemployment is on the way down in my electorate, thanks to the initiatives that this government has already put in place. However, we still have some way to go and the measures that we are now proposing would be of enormous benefit to the people in Makin who are still seeking work. This is the ultimate reason for my support for this bill, leaving aside the benefits to small business, the protection to workers and the enhancements of freedom of association. All of these things are important but my most important reason for supporting this bill is that I want to do all that is in my power and in the power of the government to reduce unemployment even further.This bill will encourage employment in my electorate of Makin because it simplifies agreement making procedures, reduces the bureaucratic burden on our businesses and encourages employers and employees to deal directly with each other to improve productivity and achieve better outcomes for everyone. Employees in my electorate know that they can achieve better outcomes in the workplace. Not only will they be making their own jobs secure; they will be creating extra opportunities for other job seekers. I support this bill, just as I support every job creating initiative that this government has put forward. I applaud Minister Reith and the Prime Minister for their commitment to job creation and for the benefits that this has already had for my electorate of Makin.22:20:0010664Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—I rise tonight to speak in this debate about the rather ill named Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 . Prior to entering this parliament, I worked for eight years as an industrial lawyer within the industrial relations system on behalf of workers and unions. I admit that from that experience I have a biased view. I did not routinely see on display the best in industrial practice, the best employers engaging in modern consultative and fair work practices. Nothing in the legal system tended to bring me into contact with such employers. Rather, the employers I came into contact with were employers being sued by their employees, employers who were subject to action by trade unions. By definition, I saw the problem employers, the employers who by their conduct had created a legal difficulty.While I know that there are in our community tens of thousands of employers who do the right thing, what needs to be understood in this debate and what cannot be wished away by some political rhetoric about more jobs and better pay is that there are these employers whom I saw—and whom I sued—during those eight years of legal practice: bad employers, shoddy employers and fly-by-night employers who treated like dirt employees who did not have the industrial strength to object.Perhaps the highest point of the exploitation I saw during those eight years was the exploitation of clothing trades outworkers, abandoned in backrooms and garages, working for a pittance, working night and day, left unpaid on many occasions and subject to physical and verbal intimidation. They were a marginalised work force but a work force of significant size, with approximately 300,000 Australia wide and more than 140,000 working within the state of Victoria alone.This is not overblown rhetoric for a political speech. I remember clearly the case of an employer who kept his time and wages book in pencil so that, when it was pointed out that he was paying less than the award rate, he produced a rubber and thought that by rubbing out the pencil entries and putting in the right figures that would fix the problem—not one extra cent for the workers ripped off but a beautiful time and wages book.I remember the outworkers who would be left unpaid as their employer literally disappeared, or the outworkers whose pay would be withheld because of some imagined defect in the clothes that they were making. I remember the outworkers given huge bundles of work and impossible deadlines to meet who would get there only by staying up all night or by getting the teenage kids on the sewing machine as well or by getting the young kids in the household to cut the cotton. I remember the outworkers who worked for one employer for 10 or 12 years, but when you examined their group certificates each and every year the identity of the employer had changed without anybody bothering to advise them. I remember the Vietnamese man, an outworker who lived in the Richmond housing commission flats, who had hired thugs turn up at his flat, threatening him with a beating because he had contacted the union.While I had direct experience with this sort of exploitation, I am by no means the only person who has been horrified and concerned about this kind of exploitation in our midst. This is a most inquired into area. In April 1987 there was the Report on Areas of Work Without Enforceable Minimum Standards produced by the Committee to Inquire into the Status of Women in Employment in Commerce and Industry and presented to the New South Wales ministers for industrial relations and employment; in September 1989 there was Out of Sight—Out of Mind: Outwork in South Australia by the Working Women's Centre; in March 1995 there was The Hidden Cost of Fashion—Report on the National Outwork Information Campaign by the relevant trade union, the TCFUA; in December 1996 there was Outworkers in the Garment Industry by the Senate Economics References Committee; and in July 1998 there was the Review of the Inquiry into Outworkers in the Garment Industry, once again by the Senate Economics References Committee.Each of these reports details graphically the exploitation of these workers and our continuing failure to address the issue. Each of these reports says that the problem within our midst is massive, despite the current forms of industrial regulation. And now we turn to consider a bill which would sweep much of that regulation away.My real-life industrial experience with this area convinced me of two basic principles. Firstly, the true test of an industrial relations system is not how it deals with the industrially strong but how it deals with the industrially weak such as migrant workers, women workers, un-unionised workers, isolated workers, unskilled workers and poorly educated workers who do not have the capacity to fight back. Secondly, an industrial relations system is not about nice neat looking pieces of legislation, learned tomes on industrial law in leather bindings or even about time and wages books kept in pencil. An industrial relations system has to be alive. It has to have an effect in the workplace and it has to be making a real difference to people's lives and the experiences they have at work.To analyse whether this legislation passes the first of these tests—the test of fairness, the test of looking after the industrially weak like outworkers—we need to review some history. The current legislation contains, as an allowable matter, dealing with pay and conditions for outworkers, but only to the extent necessary to ensure that their overall pay and conditions of employment are fair and reasonable in comparison to the pay and conditions of employment specified in the relevant award for employees who perform the same kind of work within the employer's commercial premises.This provision is in the current legislation not because of the generosity of the current minister towards outworkers—one would not have suspected that and, indeed, it is not true—but as a result of the arrangements made with the Democrats to secure the passage of the legislation through the Senate. Even with the legislation containing this clause, a long and complex commission case had to be run to determine whether or not the outwork clauses—clauses 26, 27 and 27A—of the Clothing Trades Award needed rewriting. Such a rewrite was possible because the minister's first wave of industrial relations reform minimised the allowable matters—the areas that could be covered by industrial awards. In continuing to allow the regulation of outwork, the minister's first wave limited that regulation so that it could be no better than what would be contained in a newly limited award. Fortunately, the clauses did survive largely untouched.The question for this House to consider tonight is: if this bill passes, will the outwork clauses survive again? Or, because of the requirement that the outwork clause be no better than what is available in the award, and the fact that this bill strips awards back even further, will the regulation of outwork be fundamentally weakened by this bill? Upon any reading of this bill, the answer seems clear. This bill will cause the paring back of the clauses which endeavour to regulate outwork. How is this so?Firstly, outworkers are likely to lose pay because of the eradication of skill based classifications as an allowable matter. Anyone who knows anything about this industry knows that, even under current circumstances with award regulation and recourse to the Industrial Relations Commission, outworkers struggle to be paid properly. Clearly, if there is no regulation in relation to payments for skill, then no money for skill will be paid. Remember, outworkers are not necessarily making standard garments like T-shirts or even business shirts; some of Australia's principal fashion houses have historically had product made by outworkers.Secondly, a vital condition like accident make-up pay will be deleted and will no longer apply to the regulation of outwork. This is an industry with high injury rates, particularly when long hours of work are performed at home without breaks and without the benefit of ergonomic furniture. This bill is saying to workers who are already lowly paid that, in those circumstances, there will be nothing to protect you—nothing to ensure you continue to retain your pre-injury earnings, even for the first period of injury.Thirdly, this bill will take away the regulation of redundancy pay and notice of termination for outworkers. It is simply not true to say, as the government does, that anyone who does not receive these moneys can take an unfair dismissal claim. There are circumstances such as redundancy where the worker might accept the termination of employment but still seek proper payment in respect of it. Another basic right lost. The list of what has been lost by outworkers, as contemplated by this bill, goes on: long service leave, bonus systems, jury service leave and public holidays. The regulation of all of these conditions will be lost. Given that we know people get exploited now as outworkers, what is the justification for sweeping any of the current system of regulation away?Debate interrupted.Adjournment1066610000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.1066622:30:0010666Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—The outer northern suburbs of Melbourne, and in particular the city of Whittlesea, are the products of the most positive application of multicultural Australia, not as a mere theory but in practice. This is the Australia that I have experienced throughout my life. I have been able to live within a community that displays the rich tapestry of Australia—an Australia made up of people from a range of backgrounds who are united by their desire to see that Australia progresses as a united, tolerant society.One of the ways this community has been able to achieve that type of cohesion is by sharing the experiences of the various communities that make up the overall geographic community. Over the past few years, a number of those communities have put together historical backgrounds by way of oral histories converted into other media, whether it be books or posters or, in some cases, videos. It was in this context that on 20 August I was pleased to be a part of the launch of the history, art and culture of the Chinese settlement in the city of Whittlesea, entitled Mooncake and Meat Pies.The history of Chinese involvement in the city of Whittlesea dates back to the late 1800s. There is reference in the 1880s to a Chinese market garden which lay between the Plenty River and Bruces Creek. Unfortunately, whilst there is photographic evidence of such a market garden, there is very little written history. The exact date that the Chinese market garden was established is unknown, and the reasons that it found itself on the other side of the Whittlesea township are unknown. It is believed that the establishment of the market garden occurred at about the time of the Yan Yean reservoir, which was the first part of a reticulated water system to Melbourne.The interesting thing about those of Chinese background who have made the city of Whittlesea their home is the diverse geopolitical areas that they have come from. Not only do they come from the People's Republic of China but also from Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam and even East Timor. The way in which they have been able to come together as a community and, through organisations such as the North-East Melbourne Chinese Association, to be able to work as a self-help group is to be admired, given that they come from such a variety of backgrounds.The history of the Chinese community follows the histories of the Macedonian community in the city of Whittlesea and in Westgarthtown, which was a German community late last century. It has added to the other oral histories of more Anglo-dominated parts of the city of Whittlesea, such as South Morang and the soldiers' settlement, which started in Lalor as the Peter Lalor Housing Co-op.This book is authored by Arthur—as he is known—Boon Wah Yong. One of the motivations for Arthur putting together this collection of 17 stories of very successful Chinese people in our community was the outrage that he felt in the early days of the One Nation party. The tone of the launch of this booklet was that Chinese migrants and the Chinese community felt that the way in which Pauline Hanson took over the expression `one nation' left them out of it. They had tried to achieve recognition that they were part of Australia as one nation. No matter what their differences are and what diversity they bring to Australia, they see Australia as a tolerant society, with people working together and obeying the one set of laws and in doing so sharing that diversity was creating this one nation. (Time expired)1066722:35:0010667Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise tonight to speak in relation to an issue I have spoken on before and which has some particular urgency—that is, the huge number of flights that are now flying directly across Cronulla. I spent some considerable amount of time at my new home unit, located right on Cronulla Beach, at a time of the weekend that residents have complained about the incidence of aircraft flying overhead. While the airlines say that they go out to sea, virtually every aircraft over a several-hour period flies directly above Cronulla Beach at intervals of almost one minute, thereby disturbing all of the residents who live under that flight path.I rise tonight to support calls for the adoption of the revised out-to-sea option for flights from Kingsford Smith Airport, a recommendation that would give much needed noise respite for people living in the suburbs of Kurnell and Cronulla in my electorate, in the suburbs of Bundeena and Maianbar and in Danna Vale's electorate of Hughes. An out-to-sea proposal has been around for some years. This proposal has been delayed by CASA because of safety concerns.The original out-to-sea option has been discussed at most implementation monitoring committee meetings this year, but the main concern preventing its implementation is that it would mean the convergence of flight paths. A proposal has been put forward by a constituent and local representative on the Sydney Airport Community Forum, Kevin Hill—and the Sydney Airport Community Forum, of course, is chaired by Dr Brendan Nelson—which would enable flight paths over the eastern part of my electorate to be redrawn, directing flight paths to safely avoid the suburbs of Kurnell, Cronulla, Bundeena and Maianbar. At the moment, the flights, which take off in a southerly direction from Kingsford Smith, fly over the unpopulated lands slightly to the west of Kurnell village and then continue on a straight path over Cronulla and Bundeena.Mr Hill's proposal is to have them fly, banking after take-off on a sharper angle, further to the west of Kurnell, but then veering in an easterly direction out to sea after passing Kurnell, so as to avoid Cronulla and Bundeena. The planes would then bank west again once they have travelled well past Port Hacking, meeting land again over the Royal National Park. The proposal would reduce noise at Kurnell by about three decibels. It would reduce noise at Cronulla by two decibels and at Bundeena by over four decibels. The one simple problem with this proposal is that it would add one mile to some flights in this flight path. I am told that Ansett and Qantas are likely to lobby against this proposal because of the additional cost of fuel with no regard for the human price currently being paid by residents of Kurnell, Cronulla and Bundeena. I certainly hope that this is not the case.Mr Hill's proposal was put to SACF last week. John Leeversuch, from CASA, has indicated that it poses no safety concerns for his organisation. I would like our airlines to know that the residents of Kurnell, Cronulla and Bundeena will be most interested in their response to Mr Hill's proposal once it is tabled at future SACF and implementation monitoring committee meetings. Certainly it is of interest because the flight paths coming in to the airport follow this very direction—it is called mode 10. If the airlines followed this mode, the noise would simply be taken away from the peninsula. While you still have the intersection at Kurnell where the flights go over, it still takes them away from the village and along that whole peninsula of Cronulla, where they do get 55 per cent of the aircraft taking off and out in that direction. More and more, the flights are taking off directly over the suburbs of Cronulla, Woolooware and Caringbah. If the airlines want the cooperation of the locals—there are many people who are employed by the airlines and at the airport from the Cronulla, Caringbah and Woolooware area, including the head of Qantas itself—that is understood, but it is time they recognised the need to change the flight paths to meet community objections.1066822:40:0010668Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—It is extraordinary in the context of the current constitutional debate that the Prime Minister is seeking to Americanise the executive of government. He is systematically undermining the independence of the Public Service by placing the pay of the Commonwealth's most senior public servants at his own discretion. The original draft of the Public Service Bill revealed his ultimate objective: the Prime Minister would determine the pay of departmental secretaries and those pay rates would remain secret. Combined with his powers of dismissal, that would make departmental secretaries accountable to nobody else but him. Thus far he has been thwarted by the Senate, with the Public Service Bill, but he has made considerable progress through the Remuneration Tribunal. Changes have been couched in terms of prevailing private sector practice and the need to attract people of the highest calibre.But what we are seeing has more to do with power than the quality of public administration. In Mr Howard's world, people of high calibre are just hired guns. Should public servants be there just to tell ministers what they want to hear? No. They are there to give them what they most need: frank advice, even if the elected government ultimately decides not to listen to it. Yet this Prime Minister is setting up a remuneration system designed to make his most senior advisers beholden to him. The first element is big pay increases. By the end of March next year, the base pay of the most junior departmental secretary will have increased by 35 per cent since the Howard government took office.This increase in base pay from $153,000 to $205,000 is only the beginning. For the first time, Commonwealth provided non-cash benefits like a car, spouse accompanied travel and superannuation—which together are worth $60,000 per annum—are being included in a new concept of total salary. Total salary, which at the end of March next year will be a minimum of $285,000 and a maximum of $305,000, becomes the base for calculation of performance bonuses of up to 15 per cent. That will take the potential remuneration of the most junior departmental secretary to $327,750 and the most senior to $350,750—increases since the Howard government took office of around 50 per cent in the pay for those positions. Section 3.14 of the Remuneration Tribunal's determination says:The entitlements (if any) to a performance bonus in any year shall be determined by the Remuneration Tribunal taking into account, without limitation, performance criteria established from time to time for this purpose by the Prime Minister and recommendations by the Prime Minister about performance outcomes.This is code for: what the Prime Minister wants, the Prime Minister gets. I was therefore appalled to discover at a recent public hearing of the JCPAA into the Financial Management and Accountability Act that the Prime Minister's own department gives him no objective analysis on which to base his decisions on performance pay. A senior officer of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet said:We certainly do not attempt to oversee the performance of other agencies or examine their annual reports.I then asked a series of questions in relation to performance pay:Question—Who determines a secretary's performance pay? Answer—The Prime Minister would make recommendations to the Remuneration Tribunal and the Remuneration Tribunal makes the formal determination.Question—When he is making those recommendations, if you are not maintaining an overview of departmental annual reports, on what basis is he doing it?Answer—The Prime Minister would take into account the views of his ministers and his overall understanding of the performance of departments and secretaries.Question—So there is no disciplined, rigorous departmental input into that process?Answer—The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet would not be, at our level, making any recommendations to the Prime Minister.Question—And not providing any advice about the performance of agencies?Answer—We do not oversee performance of agencies or police them in any way.Question—So it is a totally subjective process?Answer—I would not want to get into that.The Prime Minister has not released his criteria for assessment of performance pay, nor is he likely to. Without published criteria, a transparent process and proper accountability, the very real risk is that performance pay will be allocated by the Prime Minister with a view to making the Commonwealth bureaucracy an instrument of the Liberal Party rather than an apolitical public service. I give the following suggestions of what those criteria might be: giving first allegiance to the Prime Minister, not the minister, the department or the public; not expressing views other than those which conform with those of the Prime Minister and the coalition parties; unquestioning implementation of coalition party policy, no matter how ill-advised; assisting the Liberal Party propaganda machine; and covering up for the minister or the Prime Minister—an ability which will become increasingly necessary over the life of this government.1066922:45:0010669Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—I rise tonight to speak with great praise of two government initiatives that I have been part of and have attended in the last fortnight in the electorate of Groom. Groom is well known as a regional electorate based on the beautiful city of Toowoomba, and quite a significant proportion of the population is made up of not only Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders but also immigrants from many nations across the world.About six months ago, I was approached by the Rockville State School community, who were seeking my support for the peacebuilders program that they wanted to introduce to their school and to their community. Rockville State School is made up of students from a broad mix of ethnic origins and those whose families are less advantaged members of our community. Over time, the school had built a reputation which was not the envy of any other school in Toowoomba. It had a high level of truancy, a disturbing level of bullying in the playground, and a general level of unease which needed to be addressed.To attend the school and to attend a performance put on by the school children was one of the greater experiences I have had in my short term as a parliamentarian. Not only did they take a great deal of pride in their origins and in the cultures and traditions of their home countries, but they also spoke—even the little grade 1s—of the changes that had gone on in their schoolyard, within their classrooms and in the community as a whole as a result of the peacebuilders program. The federal government funded that program to the extent of slightly in excess of $50,000, and a person is currently employed to ensure that those strengths are built on. It really is a classic example of the federal government, the school community, the teachers, the parents and the students working together to produce better racial harmony and a greater pride in their community.The other program which I attended, just last Friday, which gave me as much satisfaction was the restoration of the Harlaxton Hall. The Harlaxton Hall restoration was carried out under the Work for Dole program. I know members opposite like to heap scorn on that program, but they really should have seen the final results of this restoration. I attended the hall about three or four months ago when the program was in its infancy. It was like many halls that you see in outlying suburbs and in rural communities. The paint was peeling, the windows were broken, and the inside of the hall was in general disrepair. Around the hall there was a great deal of rubbish and the lawn was unkempt.As a result of this Work for the Dole program, two gangs set to work to renovate the hall and to restore it to its original condi tion, and I have to admire the job they did. I admire two things in particular about the restoration, apart from the result. When they encountered problems that fell outside the general guidelines of the scheme, they not only used their initiative but they got in and did it out of their own resources. When they attempted to repaint the lining of the hall, the lining fell away in their hands. Without the slightest hesitation, they proceeded to strip the lining from the entire hall, replace it, learn some extra skills while they were doing it, and then paint it.The most pleasing thing, though, was that a number of the participants—all of whom live in close proximity to the hall—actually worked extra days during the week. The way the work was structured, two teams worked for two days a week, which meant that there were three days during the week when they really had nothing to do. These young men and women, rather than sitting back, decided they would contribute their time voluntarily to ensure that the outcome that was produced from this Work for the Dole program not only improved their skills—and of course many of them have got jobs from that—but ensured that the job actually exceeded expectations.I congratulate both these programs as being fine examples of federal government-community cooperation in my electorate.1067022:49:0010670Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—The 18th of September this year will go down in history as the day Victoria returned to democracy. I am referring to the outstanding result in the state election. There was even some sunshine in Ballarat, after all these years.I would like to congratulate the Labor candidates: in Ballarat East, Geoff Howard; Ballarat West, Karen Overington; Bendigo East, Jacinta Allan; Bendigo West, Bob Cameron; Ripon, Joe Helper; Seymour, Ben Hardiman; Gisborne, Joanne Duncan; Geelong, Ian Tresize; Carrum, Jenny Lindell; Narracan, Ian Maxfield; Oakleigh, Anne Barker; Tullamarine, Liz Beattie; and the two seats in Ballarat Province, Dianne Haddon and John McQuilten. That is 14 seats in total, in both houses, and 10 of those seats were in regional Victoria. That is enough to send a shiver up the spine of even the most experienced conservative federal MPs, quite a few of whom are with us tonight.I suppose we have to ask ourselves why. For the period 1991 to 1997, some 315 schools in the state of Victoria were closed, and 156 of those were in regional Victoria. Thirteen small hospitals were also closed. These small infrastructures were part of the small communities' total economic base. The Kennett government has closed them and has decimated those small towns' economies, and that is one of the main reasons why regional Victoria deserted the Kennett government in such large numbers.A major example of that is the small town of Korong Vale, which is in my electorate of Bendigo. I would imagine that all of you have seen the old Western movies with the tumbleweed blowing down the main street—that is Korong Vale. There were two businesses functioning in the town when I was there last, some months ago. The hotel had closed some three months beforehand. It has subsequently been reopened, but only in the evenings, because the proprietor has a day job in Bendigo. That is the only way it can survive. Privatisation had a big impact in regional Victoria, especially in Bendigo. Initially, 250 jobs were secured in the SEC and railway workshops before the privatisation policy was implemented, and it is now down to 50—an outstanding failure on the part of the state government. Compulsory competitive tendering has also played a huge role in doing away with jobs all around regional Victoria.We are also about to see the privatisation of some 60 nursing home beds in Bendigo and of course the privatisation of the Tullamarine Freeway. People who live in Bendigo and choose to drive to Melbourne on the Calder Highway get slugged for doing so. Whereas if you live in Ballarat or Geelong or other areas of Victoria you can drive to your capital city and not get slugged.Of course, the doozey of them all was that the Premier of Victoria had the audacity to come to Bendigo during the campaign and state that he was behind the privatisation of Australian Defence Industries. This was the Premier's initiative. He came to Bendigo and gloated about that. Is it any wonder that he got creamed in Bendigo! The people of Bendigo rejected privatisation overwhelmingly in the last state election and also in the previous federal election. The Premier had been poncing around the casino, sitting in Grand Prix vehicles and throwing sand over television cameras, and that was the vision that people from regional Victoria were getting. Regional Victoria burned whilst Emperor Jeff fiddled, and now he may well have paid the ultimate price.I congratulate Steve Bracks and the Labor team. It was an outstanding campaign. A lot of the credit must go to John Brumby, the former leader of the Victorian branch, who campaigned tirelessly throughout the period. I am sure he would feel well gratified with the result. It augurs very well for the people of Victoria. As I said in my opening remarks, it was the day that Victoria returned to democracy, and I was proud to have played some small part in that.1067122:53:0010671Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—I rise tonight to continue my lifelong campaign against the tobacco industry and their apologists. I start by pointing out to the House that on 5 November 1998 the Thai government required the following message to be mandated as a health warning on cigarette packets: `Smoking causes impotence'. Whilst that is true—and I am not calling for such a health warning to be added to Australian cigarette packets—I am this evening calling for a warning that smoking is a major cause of blindness to be added to the current range of forceful, factual and explicit warnings.I direct the attention of the House to a study published in the Medical Journal of Australia on 16 August this year by Associate Professor Paul Mitchell from the Department of Ophthalmology at the University of Sydney and two of his colleagues. They examined a lot of research not only here in Australia but also overseas. They looked at recent population based cross-sectional data from four countries, including Australia, together with data from two large cohort studies that have consistently identified smoking as the strongest environmental risk factor for age-related macular degeneration—the leading cause of blindness in Australia. All of these studies have shown that people who currently smoke are two to five times more likely to develop age-related macular degeneration than non-smokers or past smokers. Several studies have demonstrated a dose response relationship with pack-years of smoking and, conversely, a decreased risk with longer duration since the person stopped smoking.There are currently around 34½ thousand Australians aged over 50 years with legal blindness—in other words, they qualify for blind pension benefits. In over 80 per cent of these people, blindness is due to age-related macular degeneration. The authors of this study estimate that there are currently about 100,000 people in Australia with late stage AMD, of which around 20,000 may have it directly attributable to smoking. They further estimated that there are currently more than 8,200 Australians whose blindness from late stage AMD can be attributed directly to smoking. They have separately provided evidence that around 10,000 Australians are currently likely to be blind as a result of smoking. At present the only preventable confirmed risk factor for AMD is smoking. The researchers estimate that smoking may now be responsible for around 20 per cent of all cases of blindness in Australians over the age of 50 years. As 80 per cent to 90 per cent of blindness in Australia occurs in those over 50 years of age, there is a similar overall proportion of people blind as a result of smoking.Knowledge of the role of smoking in causing many specific diseases is unfortunately unacceptably low, although of course I know that the Chief Government Whip and every other member of the government is fully aware of this. Unfortunately, that level of knowledge is not possessed by every member of the electorates that we represent. For example, a recent Victorian study found that the percentage of smokers able unprompted to nominate specific conditions linked to smoking was 54 per cent for lung cancer, 38 per cent for emphysema, 38 per cent for heart attack, 20 per cent for unspecific cancer, 17 per cent for asthma and 22 per cent for bronchitis and respiratory problems.We know that at any one time about 10 per cent of smokers are actually thinking of giving it up, and that where health warnings play a significant role is with that one smoker in 10 or indeed with pregnant women who are smoking and are naturally contemplating giving it away. I believe that there is compelling evidence to have added to the list of health warnings that we currently have on cigarette packets in Australia, `Smoking is a major cause of blindness.' Whilst I realise that some would indeed advocate following the Thai model of `Smoking causes impotence', I do not believe at this stage there is sufficient evidence to warrant that that will necessarily do anything in Australia other than to make those particular brands attractive to young people.Question resolved in the affirmative.House adjourned at 10.59 p.m.Notices10672The following notices were given:Mr Mossfield to move—That this House:(1) recognises that there needs to be a greater recognition by all adults of the needs of younger people;(2) recognises that there needs to be a nation-wide recognition that young people can gather together without being regarded as potential law-breakers;(3) recognises that security personnel need to be far better trained to deal with young people in shopping centres and other public places and that such training enable the security personnel to better determine the correct method of handling young people in public places and shopping centres;(4) recognises that adults need to be more publicly exposed to young people and listen uncritically to the views they express and respect young people for the views they hold even if they are not agreed with;(5) recognises that Parliament supports the provision of an increase in technical high schools where young people can expand their practical talents where they are not necessarily academically inclined; (6) recognises that Parliament recognises the need for increasing dramatically the number of careers advisers available to young people for assistance prior to their leaving school and seeking full time employment; and(7) conduct a Parliamentary inquiry into the foregoing in order that proper national policies can be recommended to Government that will assist the advancement of young people of the future.Mr Neville to move—That this House:(1) recognises the role of community pharmacy in the Australian health system;(2) notes the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector regarding the discouragement of pharmacies in chain stores;(3) draws attention to the independent professional status of Australian pharmacists in their delivery of dispensing and health advisory services; and(4) believes that pharmacy ownership should continue to reside with duly trained and qualified pharmacists.1999-09-27Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) took the chair at 4.00 p.m.Miscellaneous10674Debate resumed from 23 September, on motion by Mr Reith:That the House take note of the paper.16:00:0010674Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—In this debate on the motion to take note of the paper on East Timor we are dealing with one of the most serious issues that we have had to face as a nation for a long time. All of the House supports the resolution of the United Nations Security Council on 15 September. In this House there has obviously been a discussion of the issues and of what led to the events in East Timor. Even today in question time, we had the Prime Minister making certain statements in relation to the matter.He did make the point that governments of various persuasions over the last 25 years or so have been responsible for far too much acceptance of what has been happening in East Timor and the role of the Indonesian military and the Indonesian government in East Timor. I think that is a correct proposition. But he also went on to imply that, because government had done this, somehow all parliamentarians had been of the same view, and that is not true. That important point needs to go on the record. In fact, from time to time a large number of parliamentarians—obviously not the majority—on both sides of the House have raised concerns about East Timor. The Parliamentarians for East Timor group of the parliament raised issues in relation to the Timor question.Today, the Leader of the Opposition referred to a comment by the Prime Minister in which he said that he criticised the left of Australian politics in 1985 in relation to their attitude to East Timor. The Prime Minister, in his reply to the Leader of the Opposition, did not actually deal with the question. He referred to the fact that governments of both persuasions had a certain position but he did not address the fact that there were many people, not just on the left I might say—although a lot of them were on the left of Australian politics—who expressed concerns in the community and in parliament in relation to the matter.Therefore, I have to say that what has happened in the Timor crisis is a salutary lesson about the excessive influence of the executive over parliament. There were concerned people on both sides of parliament and they were not able, irrespective of who was in government, to get their message or ideas across that things were wrong in terms of human rights and what was actually happening to the people of East Timor. We have to ask ourselves whether in these foreign policy areas there ought not to be a greater assertion of the role of parliament over government, irrespective of who is in government.In Westminster, foreign policy is discussed much more than it is in our parliament, and issues of foreign policy do need to be debated and dealt with by parliamentarians. We do have our foreign affairs committees and the like—and I have participated in those committees for a long time—nevertheless, I think that it is very important that parliament asserts its authority in these matters because we can make mistakes. And in the case of East Timor, even in recent times, we have made mistakes.A lot has been written about the Labor Party's recent position on East Timor, and it has been asserted that there was a very recent conversion to that position. But the facts of the matter are these: in April 1998 I moved a motion in the full caucus of the Labor Party which was seconded by the shadow foreign minister in which there was a significant shift from the position which Labor had held before then in relation to East Timor. That significant shift was then followed up by the shadow foreign minister in a number of important speeches in which he explained where we were coming from—that is, the Labor Party since that time—in relation to events in East Timor. Hardly anyone could have seen the dramatic nature of these events, but it is true that the Labor Party's change of position predated the announcements by President Habibie and the others in relation to the referendum and to the choice that was supposedly offered to the people of East Timor.Many people in this debate have spoken about the failure of the government to actually foresee what would happen following the referendum, and I think there is a point that needs to be made about this. We have an expert Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade but a department which is culturally dominated by certain attitudes. And what they brought to bear in this case was this: a certain culturally biased view. Because in Western democracies, or at least in democracies such as the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand—English speaking democracies, let us call them—people, generally speaking, accept a referendum result, they wrongly assumed that this was going to happen in East Timor. It was not what happened. If they had been sensitive to the intelligence which they received and, more importantly, to the cultural milieu in which these events were taking place, they would have realised that, just because a referendum passed, it does not follow that those who lose the referendum are going to automatically accept the result and go off peacefully.It was this cultural failure to understand people of a different background and what their response was likely to be in this matter which led to false propositions, not merely on the part of the government but on the part of the advisers to the government in foreign affairs. Maybe in the multicultural society we have in Australia we should get some government advisers in the department of foreign affairs who are broader in their cultural outlook, who understand that the reactions are not always the same. If we had done that, if we had understood the Indonesian psyche—where they were coming from, what they were encouraging in terms of the East Timorese—we might have recognised that we were facing an extremely dangerous situation and that we should avoid it.I think this is a lesson which we have to take on board straightaway, because we will make further errors if we bring to this exercise a mentality and an approach which is culturally very narrow, which presupposes that other people behave and act, notwithstanding their cultural background, in the same way, for example, as people in English speaking democracies do. Therefore we should try to make our foreign policy more sensitive to the cultural situation, to the understanding that other people have and not merely to the understanding that we bring to it.We are facing very dangerous times in East Timor. It is not clear what is going to happen, especially in Indonesia where it is possible that there could be a coup. Even if there is not a coup, the government itself, when it is elected—if there is an elected government—may persist in a policy which is detrimental to the people of East Timor. That may happen; I hope that it does not. Australia has to be sensitive every step of the way in this process. Not only do we have to support democracy in Indonesia; we also have to support those progressive forces that want to have an arrangement between Indonesia, East Timor and Australia. That should be our goal, and we should approach that goal with sensitivity to the people of Indonesia, who are caught up in a battle for their own democratic rights. This is a very important matter. (Time expired).16:10:0010676Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—Many of my colleagues have risen to discuss the tragedy that is East Timor, our involvement in the conflict, the suffering of the East Timorese people and the cruelty inflicted by the militia on the defenceless East Timorese people. I rise today for the same reason—to enforce the importance of the Prime Minister's decision to send our troops to East Timor. Firm commitments have already been given by a number of countries to support the international peacekeeping mission and others, such as the Republic of Korea and Sri Lanka, are considering making a contribution.Since our troops landed in Dili, they have been involved in minor incidents with members of the militia and members of the Indonesian defence force. Thankfully, to date all Australians are safe and well as they continue in their peacekeeping role. This is our nation's largest military involvement for more than 30 years and our most sensitive. Some individuals in the community are asking how the federal government could send these young soldiers to East Timor. How could we send our young men and women to a country where, at present, there does not appear to be any regard, or care, for the lives of anyone or anything? Others raise the issue of the growing discontent of some Indonesians—they do not want Australian Army personnel there and many of them have a hatred of the `colonials' who have entered their country and taken over.Questions continued to be raised when President Habibie agreed to allow our troops to enter East Timor on the condition that a majority of them be Asian in appearance. The answer to why the federal government persisted in leading a multinational force into East Timor, even after all of these issues were raised, was that it was requested to do so by the United Nations Security Council. That is not to say that committing our defence personnel was not a carefully measured, well-thought-out decision on the part of the government. I am positive that the Prime Minister agonised over which was the right course to take. To his credit, he made the right decision. And, yes, we have all thought about what it would be like to send young Australians off into dangerous conflict. We have to remember that our defence personnel have received the best possible training to handle this mission. In fact, the Australian Defence Force is at the highest point of readiness since the Vietnam War. Our Defence Force was aware this conflict was coming and, in June this year, began preparations. Preparations began with the increase in training and operational readiness of a brigade-size force in Darwin. It was this preparation that enabled us to respond with the speed and agility with which we did, and it is a testament to the professionalism of the Defence Force that we were able to do so. We were able to react because our Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Foreign Affairs were closely monitoring the situation prior to and following the results of the independence ballot on 30 August, a ballot which clearly showed the people of East Timor's desire for independence and freedom.The initial deployment to East Timor included land forces of brigade strength, logistic support elements, rotary wing support, air support and naval components. We have entered this difficult task well prepared, with every faith in the men and women who represent us in East Timor. We were so well prepared that we took on the role of leading the multinational force and are leading this force, I have to say, with the confidence and enthusiasm of a country well aware of and dedicated to achieving its goals, whatever the sacrifice.The maturity and success with which the Australian troops are handling this crisis make it difficult to believe that it is the first time Australia has been given the task of building and leading a multinational force on behalf of the United Nations. Most of you would have seen media images of our soldiers with their heads high, weapons ready and protective transport lumbering behind them. I recall the vision on TV of our armed forces carrying the Australian flag through the streets of Dili. Any country that called Australia lazy, complacent or uncaring can retrace their steps and rethink their view, for Australia, in one swoop, is proving its commitment to neighbouring countries, its commitment to peace and, most of all, its commitment to the security of all Australians. Nobody wants conflict; nobody wants the threat of war, but we have to accept that differing views will sometimes, unfortunately, lead to violence.In UN Security Council Resolution 1264, which was adopted unanimously on 15 September 1999, INTERFET has been mandated to restore peace and security in East Timor, protect and support UNAMET and facilitate humanitarian assisted operations. That is exactly what we are doing. We are leading a strong force of international soldiers to the resurrection of a country and to ease the suffering of thousands of human beings. Sacrifices that we have made by risking the lives of a maximum of 4,500 of our men and women will ease the suffering of thousands of others. Let us make no mistake about this. Our prime objective is to restore peace and allow the people of East Timor to enjoy the independence that they have sought for so long and which now, at the highest price, is in their grasp.To use the words of our defence minister, it is also in the interests of our national security to provide support in East Timor. We in Australia continue to enjoy our oppression free democratic lifestyles. Yet we still have some idea of what the East Timorese people are experiencing. Media coverage has shown us that. But can we or do we ever really want to understand it? Do we want to know what it is like to pass armed individuals walking the streets casually killing with callous disregard for human life? Worse yet, do we want to watch our loved ones slaughtered, their only crime a desire for freedom—freedom which we enjoy every moment of every day? Of course we do not. It is only when we really try to visualise and feel what these individuals are experiencing that we begin to understand the importance of this peacekeeping mission.Our troops will venture home, scarred by memories, but able to continue with their lives. These soldiers will appreciate their existence in the Lucky Country and will occasionally give thought to the notion that it was their bravery and commitment that removed a threat to the peaceful existence of the East Timorese. The people of East Timor will always remember the commitment by Australians. However, many of them will never recover from the atrocities meted out by the militia and sections of the Indonesian army.It is our decision as a strong country to try to ease their pain and, if possible, allow them to begin to gain what we have taken for granted since Federation—freedom. Since Federation, Australia has developed a network of security related alliances, treaties and agreements. Australia's relationships with the United States, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Canada are close and enduring. Shared history and a common commitment to Western democratic ideals strengthen these relationships. Also of fundamental importance to Australia's security are its regional relationships, particularly with the nations of South-East Asia and the south-west Pacific.In support of these collective defence arrangements is a wider security architecture of collective security, common security and other multilateral agreements. The maintenance and development of these relationships are enduring features of the way in which Defence seeks to protect Australia, its people and interests. The Army's professional competence and reliability has been a key element in forging and building these relationships. Furthermore, the deployment of ground troops to counter aggression is the ultimate demonstration of commitment to support friends and allies. By 29 September, as the leaders of the multinational force, we will, at the calling of resolution 1264, provide a progressive report to the UN Security Council on the situation in East Timor.We have just two days until this deadline and, in my view, the report looks good. This report may or may not recommend that more troops from Australia enter East Timor. Either way, the decision will be based on our success at undertaking the mandate given by the UN. The multinational force has been successful in carrying out the guidelines of the mandate so far, but this does not mean that death and destruction has, or will, cease.Hitting the headlines recently was the callous, unthinkable execution style murder of a Dutch journalist on the outskirts of Dili. This journalist, while sadly just one of the hundreds killed by the militia or Indonesian forces, served as a warning symbol to our media and, indeed, to the nation. This man had a family, friends and coworkers and he died because he was trying to keep his countrymen informed of what was happening in this atrocious abuse of civil liberties.These forces, part militia and part Indonesian army, hell-bent on denying freedom and independence to East Timor, will not give up easily and have no regard for the lives of others. Rather than allow independence or freedom, these poor excuses for human beings would prefer to see thousands of innocent men, women and children killed or maimed and mutilated. I hope that the cowards carrying out these murders are, at the moment, confused, scared and feeling threatened by the presence of armed, well-equipped peacekeepers. The evidence provided, however, suggests they are evil, arrogant and dismissive of this show of strength.As evidence, I refer to the grizzly discovery of several bodies and further confirmation of torture that has taken place in and around Dili. This murderous abuse of many East Timorese people is occurring in an environment where our troops have not yet begun the most dangerous component of their mission. As they scour the outskirts of Dili and enter small villages and provinces within East Timor, they are sure to find more evidence of death and destruction and will inevitably clash with forces wanting to kill as a symbol of some kind of sick victory.I know a lot of the issues I have raised today are echoing the thoughts and feelings of many of my colleagues who have already risen on this subject. What our troops need now, while working towards their goals in East Timor, is our support, our encouragement and our confidence in their ability to succeed in carrying out the UN mandate and to complete it without further loss of life. We cannot question the decision of the coalition government; we cannot question our troops' ability; and we certainly cannot question the reasons associated with the deployment of peacekeeping troops into East Timor. (Time expired)16:20:0010678Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I think we all speak in this debate with a feeling of guilt that Australians, under governments of both political persuasions, have let the East Timorese people down badly from the time that we left them to the mercy of the Japanese forces in 1942, to the present period when Australia and the United Nations have failed to keep their promise to provide protection for the East Timorese people after the independence ballot. However, all Australians would have welcomed the Indonesian government's decision to invite an international peacekeeping force into East Timor, while expressing our horror at the continual suffering of the East Timorese people.The point of my rising in this debate is to indicate on behalf of all Greenway residents our absolute support for the remaining people in East Timor and for the multinational peacekeeping force. I say `remaining people' because the militia has indiscriminately slaughtered so many of the population. Not only ordinary people were killed but also several nuns and priests were killed, including the General Secretary of the Christian Church in East Timor. Other church figures such as Bishop Belo and Bishop Nascimento were forced out of their homes and had to flee for their lives. These attacks on religious people and on the Timorese, who had the courage to vote for their own democratic state, are as bad as anything that was witnessed by the victims of, and undertaken by, the Third Reich during World War II. As we sat in front of our TV sets or listened to the radio or looked at the press pictures, we must all have been experiencing real horror and absolute disgust that these outrages could have been taking place.We should particularly thank the media for their detailed coverage of this ongoing disaster so close to our shores. Some of these people have already suffered with the loss of their lives. At the same time, we must be critical of the current government for its short-sighted decision to close down Radio Australia which robbed the East Timorese people of reliable news from the outside world during their crisis.Even more outrageous is the fact that the killings and mayhem appear to be supported by the Indonesian military. The failure of the Indonesian security forces to guarantee the safety of media representatives, United Nations and Red Cross workers, resulting in these people being forced to leave East Timor, would lead ordinary Australian citizens to believe that the Indonesian military was supporting a media blackout in East Timor to hide the atrocities that were being inflicted on the East Timorese people.The Indonesian military in East Timor has to accept its full responsibility for the atrocities that were committed in its name and committed by its supporters who were well armed by the military personnel, and who, it now appears, had never intended to accept the will of the people if it did not agree with their point of view. The Indonesian government should have told its military generals not only to stop the killings in Timor, but they should have been under instruction never to start the killings or to face all the penalties that murderers should face.The international community, now with the cooperation of the Indonesian government, must move quickly to ensure that the atrocities in East Timor do not go unpunished. The security and the health of the remaining people in East Timor must be our first consideration, then evidence must be collected quickly so that the appropriate legal action can be taken to ensure that breaches of international law are pursued. It is pleasing to note that Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, has stated that the United Nations will establish a tribunal to investigate crimes committed in East Timor.It is probably a bit churlish of me to say that the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith has been vindicated in his many pronouncements on this issue. Nevertheless, I think it needs to be noted that the honourable member was in fact vigorously chided by the government on more than one occasion for his policy stand and I suspect he may have been chided by one or two prominent people from our side as well. I believe the important issue was that at least someone was raising the real prospects of what finally happened, and no one can say that they were surprised by the events following the successful ballot.The member for Kingsford-Smith stated in a press release on 3 September that a senior member of the pro-integrationist militia had said:"If the UNAMET announces that the pro-independence side has won the ballot I promise it will be civil war again."If the UN says that they have won then the pro-independence forces don't deserve to live any more because it is not fair . . . I would go to war to slaughter all pro-independence people, because we will be sure that they have cheated."With this information available to the shadow minister, and being aware of the policy failures of previous Australian governments, why was this government caught so unprepared? With atrocities committed in East Timor by the Indonesian troops so well documented, such as the killing of the Australian journalists and the now infamous cemetery massacre, why was post-referendum East Timor going to be any different?The shadow minister for foreign affairs referred to several events that should have alerted the government to the tragic events that were likely to unfold in East Timor after the independence ballot. But the most poignant example was the case of Father Francisco Barreto. I quote from the honourable member's speech:Father Francisco Barreto sat in my office in Sydney. He came in his capacity as Director of Caritas in East Timor. He also called on the foreign minister in his plea for Australia to do what was required to guarantee security. He sat there and he told me of his dreadful foreboding of what was likely to happen to his people if they were left to the mercy of the militia and their military controllers. I saw him again in East Timor the day after the ballot and the day before the parliamentary delegation returned to Australia. He repeated his fears. Tragically, his foreboding proved all too correct. He was one of the first of the Catholic priests to be assassinated by the militia following the announcement of the ballot results.Surely this man was one of the real heroes of East Timor. He in fact predicted his own death, yet he bravely returned to East Timor, having failed to obtain protection for the people that he represented.The Minister for Foreign Affairs did say in question time last week that the government did not anticipate the extent of the violence. This has been a major international crisis close to our shores and this government has been caught asleep on the job. I do not mind the government taking credit for what it has done, and that is that, once it decided to do something about East Timor, it moved quickly to get a multinational peacekeeping force together. But it would also have been nice for the government to have said that they were sorry that they did not do more to protect the East Timorese people after the independence ballot had been conducted, and so have saved many innocent lives. At least more diplomatic pressure should have been applied to the United Nations to provide adequate protection for their own staff.Hopefully, we can now be sure that, as we look towards a more peaceful future for East Timor, we will provide full protection for the people there and that we can ensure that they are provided with housing, food, bedding and other necessities of life. We must ensure that all of the people have access to emergency supplies. We must also ensure that the peacekeeping force knows that all Australians are giving them their full support.The trauma in East Timor was aided and abetted by a group of belligerent generals who were not restricted by their government, as they should have been. I join with my fellow members of parliament in mourning the loss of the many killed in Timor. I am thankful that there remain many valiant people in East Timor who will pick up their lives again, with help from us and from other equally caring nations. On behalf of the people of my electorate of Greenway, I wish all members of the peacekeeping force in Timor a safe completion of their tour of duty and a speedy return to their home country and loved ones.16:30:0010681Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—Just a few weeks ago, the East Timorese people voted in a democratic election to decide on their independence from Indonesia. The result was what we would describe as a landslide victory for independence with 78.6 per cent of the East Timorese people voting for independence. It must be remembered, Mr Deputy Speaker, that over 98 per cent of registered voters voted in what has been acknowledged by those international observers of the election process as a relatively calm environment.Members of this parliament, led by the Hon. Tim Fischer, who acted as observers of the election process, have reported on the lengths people went to to ensure their vote. They reported that before the polling booths opened people had voted in their thousands, often holding their registration cards and their photo IDs in full view. In some villages where polling booths were located, people returned to vote in areas where their homes had already been burnt to the ground by the militia. This is an extraordinary commitment and demonstrates the will of the East Timorese people to exercise their democratic rights. However, as the result of this democratic vote became known, that announcement marked the end of any peaceful environment on East Timor. Credit and congratulations must be given to the officials from the Australian Electoral Commission for the work that they have done, to the consular staff and in particular to our Australian Ambassador, Mr John McCarthy, who has worked courageously and tirelessly throughout this entire period and continues to provide valuable advice to the government.Hour by hour we heard reports of armed anti-independence militia killing innocent bystanders, burning buildings, looting and forcing people at gunpoint to leave their homes. We then saw evidence of these acts of unbridled violence on our nightly TV news. Anyone who heard of or saw these acts of atrocities on innocent and vulnerable people, including in the following days, acts of violence against children, nuns and priests, was horrified and repulsed by such senseless violence. This violence spread to the UN and other international staff. In anyone's language, these were totally unacceptable acts of violence by the militia and those within the Indonesian military who did not disarm and stop the killing by the militia. Human rights were swept aside in this tide of violence and brutality.Australia did not shirk from its responsibilities in assisting the East Timorese gaining the opportunity to have their say in determining their future in a democratic election. Australia has not shirked its responsibility in coming to the assistance of the East Timorese in the aftermath of the election. When it became patently obvious that the Indonesian government could not or would not control the militia, many people both here in Australia and throughout the world demanded that something be done. Many people from my own electorate contacted me urging the government to do something. The reality was that neither Australia nor any other nation could send in peacekeeping forces to bring the militia under control and stop the killings without the permission of the country they would have to enter. To do otherwise would be regarded as invasion. Instead of our troops entering the country as peacemakers, they would be seen as hostile invaders and treated accordingly.The facts as now revealed show that Australia, through the leadership and drive of our Prime Minister and so well assisted by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and the Minister for Defence, achieved the agreement of Indonesia to accept an international peacekeeping force and the involvement of the UN. On 16 September, the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously for a resolution to establish an Australian-led multinational peacekeeping force for East Timor, known as INTERFET. The swiftness of this decision by the Security Council is testimony to Australia's determination and the acknowledgment of the seriousness of the situation by the UN Security Council, not known as having a record for such swift action. Major General Peter Cosgrove commands INTERFET, with Thailand providing his deputy. New Zealand, the United States, the United Kingdom, Italy, Canada, the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, France, Brazil and Ireland are all members of the coalition.While these negotiations were being pursued, Australia was also providing humanitarian assistance by airlifting homeless and displaced East Timorese and UN workers and aid personnel, as well as organising food drops to areas where people forced to flee their villages had sought refuge. I am sure that most of us saw those horrific scenes on television where parents passed their children across barbed wire fences into the safety of the UNAMET compound. Many of those children are now being cared for at the Puckapunyal army base in my electorate. I was there to welcome them and other family members who were airlifted out of Dili. I shall never forget their faces as they were assisted off the buses on arrival at Puckapunyal. Many of the children were unwell and were showing obvious signs of lack of nourishment. There are currently over 800 refugees being cared for at Puckapunyal.I want to place on record the simply outstanding job that the following people are doing: Megan McCrae and her team from DIMA, Major Blu Horton and his defence personnel, Jenny Oakley and her helpers at the neighbourhood house and the hundreds of locals who have been so generous in donating goods, services and their time. People from all over my electorate, whose generosity was spontaneous and overwhelming with the Kosovar refugees, are displaying the same level of concern and desire to help. It has been impossible to estimate exactly how many East Timorese have been made homeless and are at risk because of the violence of the militia, but it is thought to be in the hundreds of thousands of people. Australia has taken the lead not just in providing the humanitarian assistance that I have already detailed but also in assisting UN agencies to provide assistance directly to where it is needed in the shortest possible time, and making Darwin the jump-off point for international relief operations and warehouse facilities for storage, both for Australian donations and international relief supplies.As well as these efforts, Australia is making every effort to gain access to displaced East Timorese in West Timor. The Australian effort to restore peace and security in East Timor is the largest military involvement for more than 30 years, with an initial task force of 2,000 but with the capacity to increase this to 4,500, if necessary. As the Prime Minister has said, `Our soldiers go to East Timor as part of a great Australian . . . tradition, which has never sought to impose the will of this country on others, but only to defend what is right.' It has always been our objective to ensure that the will of the East Timorese in voting for their independence so overwhelmingly on 30 August be allowed to take effect in a stable and secure environment. Our concern also, of course, is for our troops, who have been given the task to achieve this outcome. I was particularly pleased that the government has increased entitlements to our troops in recognition of the level of their deployment and, importantly, it has provided the highest level of support to their families with a national welfare coordination centre being established to provide a 24-hour point of contact for families.This is a tragedy that continues to unfold for a gentle and peaceful people. We must, and we will, maintain every effort to see these people re-established in their own country in peace and security.16:39:0010683Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—On behalf of the people of the electorate of Wills, I wish to extend to the people of East Timor our acute sense of distress and grief at that which they have been experiencing in recent times and, of course, in many respects for the best part of 25 years. It is extraordinarily difficult for us to contemplate the magnitude of the horrors that people in that place have been through and, indeed, to reflect on how difficult it will be for them to rebuild their community and rebuild their society.I feel obliged to offer an apology on behalf of all of us who have been involved in the political process. While I think we should be careful about wallowing in blame, we should understand that it is the Indonesian military who have been primarily responsible for this tragedy, for this debacle. All of us who are involved in politics, people involved in the media, and people involved in other aspects of public life, must share some responsibility for what has occurred here because there is no doubt that to some extent the people of East Timor have been effectively lured into a trap and that they have suffered grievously as a result.What has occurred in East Timor leads me to make some sad reflections on human nature and the fact that people are still prepared to kill and torture others in cold blood. Some of my earliest political views were formed as a student of history and politics at the University of Melbourne. We used to study and reflect on things that had occurred back in the first part of this century, particularly things that had occurred in the Soviet Union with the rise of communism and the work of Lenin and Stalin and others in that place.We also used to study the rise of Hitler and the Weimar Republic and things that occurred during the Second World War, and events such as the Spanish Civil War, the conflict between the nationalist and communist forces in China, and so on. It was appalling, bloodcurdling, to realise what people were prepared to do to each other as part of these political conflicts. But, when I reflect on these things, I used to think of them as things of the past, as things that belonged to a different time. I used to think that in some ways we had learned from these dreadful experiences and had become more civilised as a result. However, when we see what has occurred in East Timor and, indeed, in other places in recent years as well, we realise that this has not occurred and we have to make some pretty sad reflections on human nature.I want to make a few brief points about this tragedy as I see it. I want to borrow to some extent from the work of Gareth Evans, who is uniquely qualified to comment on some of the history of the situation that we now find ourselves in. If we look back on the past years, one of the points that ought to be made is that Australia was not in a position militarily to stop or reverse Indonesia's invasion of East Timor in 1975, and neither were we in a position to move in unilaterally, against Indonesia's will, to stop the recent carnage.Perhaps we could have done more back in 1975 to try to discourage Suharto at that time, but there is very little reason to believe that it would have made any practical difference. There was very little international enthusiasm for getting involved in another conflict in Asia in the wake of the Vietnam War, and it seems highly likely that the Indonesians would have invaded East Timor irrespective of our views.The de jure recognition of Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor has been the subject of quite a lot of comment. I think it ought to be recalled and remembered that Australia continued to recognise East Timor as a non-self-governing territory entitled to self-determination. That was its status under Portuguese sovereignty and it continues to be the case under Indonesian sovereignty.We ought to be aware that, before the economic crisis of 1997, with its political aftermath which changed everything, there seemed to be absolutely no realistic prospect that Indonesia would ever actually agree to a fully-fledged act of self-determination on the part of the East Timorese in which independence was an option. I think people who followed that period closely would accept that. Of course, after 1997, this all changed dramatically and the economic crisis saw Indonesia coming under a great deal of international pressure and being very keen to get international support. So, with Suharto's downfall, we did see these new options for the resolution of the East Timor situation open up.As part of that, it should be noted that, at the time, those calling for independence—for example, Xanana Gusmao and then Jose Ramos Horta and Bishop Belo—talked about a decade of autonomy before a referendum on independence was held. Those East Timorese leaders knew all too well the potential for violence if things were rushed and handled poorly.The next point that ought to be made is that a great deal more could have been done to work for better security for the East Timorese during the ballot process and its aftermath. Clearly, what went on put the safety of pro-independence supporters horribly at risk. But we did not try in this area—and, indeed, we sought to dissuade other countries from pursuing the peacekeeping options. We should have done more with the US, but I guess we will never know whether that would have changed things because we never really tried.There are these issues of the past: whether we should have had this ballot on independence without East Timor going through a substantial period of autonomy; whether we should have proceeded with the ballot in the absence of proper protections for the preservation of physical security; and also the length of time that it took us to get the peacekeepers in there. But what we have to do now is to look to the future.In looking to the future, there are a few points that I think are very important. Firstly, we have to understand that our quarrel in East Timor is with the Indonesian military, not with its government, not with its people. I think some of the protests that have been made in terms of picketing embassies, bans on Garuda and so on, miss the point in this regard.Secondly, we are leading the United Nations military operation because we reflect the collective concern of the whole international community. As Gareth Evans said:We shouldn't be spooked by the strident claims of some Indonesian spokespersons . . . that Australia is playing regional policeman out of colonialist instinct and residual racist sentiment.Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, I want to say, as forcefully as I can, that there is no such thing as Asian human rights and other people's human rights. There are universal human rights and universal values.Next, I think we should still see our security interests as being best pursued with Indonesia and our Asian neighbours rather than against them. When this is all over—and it may take a very long time before it is all over—they will still be there and it is absolutely essential that we continue to have good relations with Indonesia and the other countries of the region.As I said at the outset, I feel—and I know that many people in the electorate of Wills who have contacted me feel—a great sense of grief and distress at what has happened to the people of East Timor during recent times. Our hearts go out to them and I am pleased to have had the opportunity to contribute to this debate in support of the UN resolution.16:49:0010685Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I am grateful to have this chance to comment on what is undoubtedly the biggest defence and foreign policy challenge that Australia has faced in a generation. Ben Chifley's `light on the hill' was, he said, to work for the betterment of mankind, not just here but wherever we could lend a helping hand. It seems to me that Australia's intervention in East Timor stands in the great tradition of one of our greatest Prime Ministers.In 1949, when the people of Indonesia were fighting to be free, the Australian government refused to support the Dutch colonial occupation and laid the basis of what should be a lasting friendship between Australia and the peoples of Indonesia. The tragedy of East Timor, which the Indonesian establishment, and particularly the Indonesian military establishment, seems never to have grasped, was that the Indonesians were every bit as much colonial overlords there as the Dutch had been in Indonesia itself.From 1975, Australian policy towards the forcible integration of East Timor into Indonesia has been that of an awkward and embarrassed bystander. For understandable reasons, we did not want our moral qualms to affect good relations with our giant neighbour, but you cannot have business as usual when people are being slaughtered in the street. I think the vast majority of Australians—and, I suspect, the vast majority of Indonesians—are actually relieved that an ignominious chapter in history seems now to have closed.If, as I hope, East Timor becomes a free, stable and democratic society, two people deserve considerable credit. The first is President B.J. Habibie, who realised that Indonesia's hold on people who did not want to belong was politically, economically and ultimately morally untenable, and thus permitted the United Nations ballot. The second is Prime Minister J.W. Howard, who could easily have dithered on the sidelines like so many of his predecessors, or, like the Pharisee, passed by on the other side of the road. Instead, he organised the multinational force which is now giving the people of East Timor the protection they are entitled to expect.A few voices have suggested that Australia should have let the Indonesians sort things out in their own way, as if the slaughter of innocents has ever been a part of any culture's ordinary way of doing things. A few voices have even suggested that Australia is trying to impose Western values. As the previous speaker, the member for Wills, has said, this is dead wrong. Australia is standing up for universal human values, values which are every bit as much Indonesian values as they are Australian values. When President Habibie sanctioned the free vote he was standing up for the best values of the Indonesian people, and when John Howard organised a force to stop the slaughter he was standing up for the best values of the Australian as well as the Indonesian people—values which had been forgotten, it seems, by rogue elements inside the Indonesian military.There have been times when Australia has committed more troops abroad. Obviously, the 300,000 who went abroad as part of the 1st and 2nd AIF had a much bigger role in conflict than the peacekeeping force. There have been times when Australia has made a bigger impact on world history—for instance, in March 1918 when the 1st AIF stopped the big German push, and in 1941 when the 2nd AIF virtually knocked Italy out of the war. But never before has Australia, in its own right, stood in this way for justice and freedom. We have never been a leader in any international expedition in this way. The UN resolution was our doing; the multinational army is our doing. None of this would have happened without us.There are some voices raised now to say that, because of what is happening in East Timor, Australia is the odd man out of Asia. On the contrary, we have never had more friends than since we decided to take our stand for justice and freedom for a people denied both for far too long.As well as Australia, Thailand, New Zealand, the United States, Italy, Canada, the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, France, Brazil and the United Kingdom are contributing to the force in East Timor. In addition, Fiji, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Egypt, Mozambique, Spain, Ireland, Denmark, Japan and Portugal are assisting in other ways. The People's Republic of China is making a small but significant contribution. All this is happening because our government and our Prime Minister decided that we had dithered on the sidelines for too long. Our government and our Prime Minister decided that Australia had to lead on behalf of the suffering people of East Timor. I doubt that Australia has ever stood taller in our region. Certainly, I have rarely felt more proud to be an Australian; proud to be an Australian and humbled at the exertions of our soldiers who are standing up for decent, civilised values on behalf of the Australian and Indonesian people.I just want to close with a few observations about the way this debate has been conducted in Australia. I regret to say that on this issue the Leader of the Opposition, who is a decent man, has blown a tin trumpet. It is as if Neville Chamberlain of 1938 was pretending that he, too, would have been Winston Churchill in 1940. He seems to be saying that we should have kept good relations with Indonesia while at the same time we should have labelled them an international pariah before the ballot and its aftermath. He seems to be saying that we should have known that elements of the Indonesian army would go on the rampage and we should have insisted on armed peacekeepers before the ballot, even though he must know that this would have resulted in the ballot's immediate cancellation. It seems to me that on this issue at times Kim Beazley and General Wiranto seemed to have formed a unity ticket. The result of the Beazley line is that East Timor would have remained an Indonesian killing field and a blot on Australia's conscience for ever.16:57:0010686Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—The motion to take note of the paper in front of us today concerns a horrific situation in East Timor at the moment where virtually the entire infrastructure of the island has been destroyed. The country that was there previously, with its own designation as a territory within Indonesia, has been virtually wiped away. Australian troops are now serving with the INTERFET force in a country where most of the population has been displaced. It is a country where at least 200,000 people in the past 25 years have been killed by the occupying Indonesian forces. It is a country where the militias numbered two just over a year ago. Those militias now number 13. They cover every region of East Timor.The notion brought up by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer—and as the Prime Minister indicated in his speech on this matter—that some elements or rogue elements within the Indonesian military forces were responsible for helping the militia does not bear even the slightest or most marginal examination. The deliberateness with which the Indonesian armed forces have gone about increasing the number of militia, from two to 13—increasing its geographic spread from a part of East Timor to every region of East Timor—and the manner in which they have conspired and colluded to drive the anti-independence militia campaigns, has been, and should have been, evident to this government before they made their major decisions.As our shadow minister for foreign affairs has indicated, there was ample evidence before the government throughout this year and prior to that that the Indonesian military were in a position where they determined their position in case East Timor should become independent. Effectively, that position was to raze the land to nothing, to displace its peoples, or to do away with them through the agency of the militias.The argument of the Prime Minister that there has been only one course to follow—only one reasonable, sensible course in all of this—is open to question. It is open to question in particular because of the misreading of history, either deliberate or unintended, that has been at the back of what should have been an informed view of what the intentions of the Indonesian military and the Indonesian government were.In 1965, during the period of time when there was a problem throughout the archipelago of Indonesia with the Indonesian Communist Party—from memory, the PKI—there were about 750,000 people killed by the Indonesian military in order to put down what the military typified as a communist coup or an insurgency. Since that time, since the establishment of the Suharto government and the relative stability brought by the Indonesian military to every village, every small part of the Indonesian archipelago, that was imposed with immense and brutal force in the 1960s, not one person who has worked in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade over the past three decades would be unaware of that campaign. Not one person seeking to give advice to the government would be unaware of the long history of what has happened, not only in East Timor but in other places.Irian Jaya is very close to Australia, as is East Timor. Papua New Guinea is free; Irian Jaya is part of Indonesia. But because there has been virtually no media coverage of what has happened in Irian Jaya over the past many years, it does not come up as the slightest blip on the Australian radar. But the department of foreign affairs has background information in relation to what has happened in Irian Jaya and in other places in Indonesia—certainly, in the last year or so, as to what has been happening in Aceh, Ambon, Kalimantan and the great instability that is there since the fall of Suharto, since his replacement by President Habibie and since the Indonesian economy was flattened to the point that 30 years of work building that economy were wiped out overnight. This is an unstable and difficult economic, political and social environment that the Indonesian government faces.The move towards democratic elections, despite the result, still hangs in the balance, and it hangs in the balance because the military still have an effective control over what happens in that parliament. Nothing demonstrates it better than what has happened in East Timor in the past year. And it is demonstrated absolutely when you look at the fact that they have been able to turn the militias on and off at will. The Prime Minister said it was just `elements' of the military. The foreign minister repeatedly said they were simply `rogue elements' of the military.During the election day, 78½ per cent of people bravely voted for independence, an independence vote that they were precipitously driven to by Foreign Minister Alatas and President Habibie, and which this government drove towards and pushed, against resistance from the leading East Timorese leaders who had cautioned time and again that the great problem in East Timor, for its people and for the country as a whole and its future, was its security and that, unless security was guaranteed in East Timor, what has happened would happen. All of those leaders warned in relation to that.As the shadow minister indicated, the Defence Intelligence Organisation did its job. It is not a secret that the United States listens in to every telephone call that is made in Australia. Equally, it is not a secret the Defence Intelligence Organisation has the capacity and has for many years been listening in to all communications within Indonesia and to the Indonesian military communications as well. That is how they have gained a lot of their information. All of the Western countries have that capacity. In fact, Australia gets information from the United States that it chooses to give us from its intelligence gathering activities, and we share our views with them.The Prime Minister and the foreign minister have argued that they could not have been prepared for what happened, that it could not have been predicted because there was very little information about what impact there would be after the independence vote. But, as Laurie Brereton pointed out on 23 September 1999 in his press release:The Shadow Minister . . . said today that the Australian Consulate in Dili received from UNAMET in early August, copies of documents detailing intimate cooperation between the Indonesian military and militias and their plans for widespread violence following the vote, including the mass deportation of population and liquidation of pro-independence East Timorese.That was in August of this year, before the ballot. In fact, if we look at what material was there, in one long paragraph there is a full indication of the Indonesian military cooperating with and organising the militias, planning what would happen if the independence vote was positive, and planning not only what they would do prior to it to try to disrupt it but what would happen afterwards. They laid out a plan for the devastation of that country and the destruction of the people.Our soldiers have entered into a very dangerous situation. It was argued by East Timorese leaders that foreign soldiers coming as a peacekeeping or peace enforcement force should have come in as soon as possible and that preparations should have been made before. Their preference was not to be driven by Foreign Minister Alatas and Prime Minister Habibie and then the Australian government into a precipitate vote, but once that had happened, even though they wanted a long period of time, they said there needed to be a peacekeeping force straightaway. Instead of that we had a wait of almost three weeks.The reason for that is the Australian government's failure to properly interpret and take regard of all of the military intelligence that it had in front of it. I think they did not take that into account because they simply chose not to. They chose not to because they placed their reading of the situation above the accurate information that was coming in, not just a small amount, but in droves from our intelligence sources.17:07:0010688Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—It pleases me to be given an opportunity to contribute to this debate on East Timor. I rise to speak on this motion sponsored by our Prime Minister, a motion which should receive the unanimous approval of all Australians and this parliament. However, what has been noticeable is the cheap, unprincipled attacks by various members of the opposition from the top down. It is both disappointing and demeaning for Her Majesty's opposition to be seen to be behaving in such a way over a matter of such national importance.If the opposition leader had reasonable grounds for acting in such a way, it could be excused. But he does not. The opposition leader claims that there has been a policy failure and that he could have done better. He claims that the large measure of this destruction could have been avoided. The only way that that could have occurred was by invading Indonesia, and surely he is not advocating that we should have invaded our nearest neighbour as an act of war.That sort of woolly thinking is naive and shallow, and the people of Australia deserve a lot better from such a representative of this parliament. It just does not follow that the United Nations would have acted before it did just because some people with the wisdom of hindsight suggest they saw it coming. Even the Leader of the Opposition himself said on 15 July this year that it was up to the United Nations to act, not Australia unilaterally. Anyone with any semblance of understanding of the United Nations would know that the Security Council would have had any action vetoed by at least one of its members, such as China or Russia, prior to the independence vote, or indeed before it actually did vote.This nation of approximately 800,000 people needs our support and we have given it. It is to the credit of our Prime Minister and our foreign minister, Alexander Downer, that we were able to obtain, on behalf of the East Timorese, a chapter 7 peacekeeping force on behalf of the United Nations in record time and without a veto. It is in our strategic interest to have a stable, secure and prosperous Indonesia and to ensure that the UN process in East Timor moves back on track so that the overwhelming will of the East Timorese for independence is obtained.It is also important to fulfil the humanitarian expectations of both the international community and the Australian population. Contrast this statesmanship with that of the opposition whose main contributors to policy making seem to come from a rabble of left wing journalists who were rightly taken to task by the Media Watch program on the ABC last Monday. They were taken to task for their lack of consistency and professionalism. They are bereft of policy and credibility to the Australian people.The member for Kingsford-Smith is no better in his role of shadow foreign affairs spokesman. To selectively leak details of confidential cables and briefings is not acceptable behaviour for a member of parliament. Just imagine if this had been done during any of the world wars. John Curtin would not stoop this low; Ben Chifley would not stoop this low; and even Gough Whitlam or Bob Hawke would not have stooped so low.Last Sunday I had the pleasure of being the guest of the Murray Bridge RSL sub-branch. They were unanimous in their support for our government's actions and deeds. They were unanimous in their support for increased defence spending and a build-up of our defence forces. I was certainly left with the feeling that they did not want to move to a republic.President Habibie is to be congratulated for his actions in allowing a free vote for independence against considerable opposition from his own people and our government for its change in policy towards East Timor. Indeed, the shadow foreign affairs spokesman is to be congratulated for dragging the Labor Party out of its acquiescent attitude towards Indonesia. Indeed, the actions of our government and those of countries such as Thailand, New Zealand and others have been exemplary in their quick and forceful commitment to solving the problems of East Timor. It is to their shame that, when Australians need to be seen as united in their resolve, the opposition is seen to be cheap, unprincipled and derogatory.I add my best wishes for a safe return for all our brave soldiers that will act as a peacekeeping force in East Timor and for all those soldiers from other countries as well. I am sure that I can express the same sentiment on behalf of all the people in the seat of Barker. In my short time in this parliament I am pleased to report that this issue has caused the greatest reaction from within the electorate of Barker and, importantly, from the ordinary people of all ages within Barker. These were people who would not ordinarily make representations to me, but they were good people who wanted to see an end to the injustices inflicted on the East Timorese. It pleases me that Australians still want a fair go for all the world's citizens, no matter what their colour or creed.We have taken the hard decisions. We have applied the right diplomatic pressure and we have planned this policy position correctly. Again, my best wishes to all our service men and women and God bless them.17:13:0010690Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—In speaking on this motion on the UN resolution on East Timor, firstly, I want to express my disappointment that I am speaking so late in the program when I had been led to believe that I would be speaking quite some time ago. I wonder whether or not that was accidental because part of my speech will be taken up with a report to this parliament, made back in October 1991, of a delegation of parliamentarians that visited Indonesia, including East Timor, earlier that year.That delegation to East Timor was led by the then Speaker of the parliament, the current member for Watson. The visit took place on 7 February 1991. The delegation included, as well as the then Speaker and me, the member for New England, Senator Macdonald, Garrie Gibson and John Riggall, who are ex-members. It was a very complex delegation dealing with very complex matters. It took quite some time before we finally tabled a report in October, some eight months after our return. That was partly because there was quite a lot of disagreement and discontent amongst committee members. It was quite difficult for us to formalise a final report.The report itself does incorporate a minority report on the question of East Timor. That minority report was tabled by me, Senator Sherry and Mr Gibson. For the record, it recommended that a conference convened by the United Nations consisting of all parties involved in the current dispute, including the governments of Portugal and Indonesia, be held as soon as possible; and, further, that the Australian government should directly pursue the recommendations, as outlined in the report, with the UN and the Indonesian government.That was a watered down version of what we had hoped for. We had hoped to get majority agreement on that. The three of us who submitted that report actually wanted an act of self-determination, but unfortunately at the time the alliance of the then Speaker with the members of the then opposition meant that that did not occur. If it had, it no doubt would have gone further towards shifting the attitude within the government to which I belonged towards a recognition that the issues in East Timor were not going to go away.While we were there there was a demonstration, and I do not think anybody was surprised at the subsequent massacre that occurred later in the same year at the cemetery. It was obvious that the tension and pressure building up in East Timor was close to boiling point, despite the comments made by General Warouw with whom we spoke at the time. Evidence of that tension was reinforced when Bishop Belo made it clear in our meeting with him that at that very moment he was not permitted to visit some people who were in jail.The report made some quite sensible unanimous recommendations, including concern about the level of Indonesian military in East Timor, but it failed to press some of the issues that we would have liked. In particular, we felt that there needed to be international recognition of and discussion on East Timor. Certainly, from our point of view, we would have liked to have put forward the view that there should be an act of self-determination and, just as importantly, that we should change our stance at the UN by calling for these activities. The fact that that failed to get a majority recommendation will, I think, be to the shame of those who were involved.The report, on reading it now, is in some ways poignant. General Warouw was telling us then about the demonstrations of the previous year—these were not new things; they had been going on virtually annually and even more frequently—and he said that there were only a few stone throwings, that there was no big trouble, that it was not really serious, that it had all calmed down, that matters were very peaceful and that they were moving to persuasion.All those things were being said when that was obviously not the case when we were walking around the streets. I think the report referred to an unannounced visit to Viqueque. When we got there, because there was no forewarning, the people in the marketplace that we went to were absolutely terrified. They all hung back and everything came to a halt as soon as we arrived. In other places we had visited, things went on as normal and so the difference was obvious. When a late change of plan meant that we visited somewhere unannounced, the reaction of terror and apprehension by the community was absolutely paramount.As one of the few parliamentarians who had the responsibility of visiting East Timor on behalf of this parliament and who reported back, I am disappointed that more was not achieved as a result. In fact, after the report was tabled, some people saw the report as in some way authenticating—of course, it did not do that. With hindsight, I do not doubt that the four people who were opposed to that minority report would now regret their actions, but they could have been part of a changed attitude on both sides of this parliament and it is somewhat of a tragedy that they were not.I think this whole debate has now become something of an apology for the Howard government, and that is unfortunate. I suppose the old saying that, if you do not learn from history, you are bound to repeat it, has never been more relevant. Moving to the more current events, I will just read through a few of the headlines that we have been getting in recent times: from the West Australian, `Timor, troops pay for PM's judgment'; the Sydney Morning Herald of 7 August, `An open invitation to a bloodbath'; the Australian, `A holocaust of Canberra's making'; the Canberra Times—not exactly a radical rag—`We should not have been surprised at events in East Timor'. An article in the Financial Review of 11 August, with the headline `Good policy loses out to saving a neck', states:Saving Alexander's neck is now taking a precedence over good policy making in East Timor.Again, in early August an article in the Sydney Morning Herald talks about the Americans and says:A senior united Nations official told our foreign affairs department that Australia's attitude in East Timor was defeatist and that a peacekeeping operation would be necessary.In the Age News Extra on 11 September the headline reads `Timor's pain; Australia's shame: why we kept Timor's secrets from the US.' The one that perhaps is the most striking is that of Laurie Oakes in the Bulletin of 21 September, `Canberra's massacre we had to have'.All of those comments are in fact hurtful, but they go to the core of what we now have, which is an absolute catastrophe—a catastrophe for the East Timorese people, a catastrophe for the Indonesian people and a catastrophe for our country. This was without doubt the greatest disaster in Australian foreign policy ever—of all time. We are playing with deckchairs on the Titanic as to whether we should have conscription, whether we should have 4,500 troops or 3,500 troops and whether they should be there for six months or nine months. The real issue is: firstly, how on earth do we win back the confidence of the people who used to see us as the experts on Indonesia and on Asian affairs and who trusted us and, secondly, how do we repair our relations with the rest of Asia?Our relations with Indonesia are dramatically affected, with the most recent events being the possible ban on purchasing Australian wheat, which we saw over the weekend. But that is no less so with the rest of Asia. Whilst Asian countries are involved in the peacekeeping activities—and I am delighted; I think we would all express our appreciation of that—the fact is that the idea that somehow we become a deputy sheriff for America in this region is absolutely appalling. The fact that that was not rebutted and refuted instantly and absolutely has meant that virtually every Asian country sees us as being the colonialists up to our old tricks and doing what we always wanted to do—help America in Korea, help America in Vietnam and now be America's deputy sheriff in the rest of Asia. (Time expired)17:24:0010692Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—The member for Newcastle has referred to a whole lot of newspaper headlines and to the more recent nonsense that was attributed to the Prime Minister regarding us being the deputy sheriff for the United States. I remind the honourable member that newspapers survive on sensationalism and, unfortunately, we have in this country now—probably nationally—a situation where journalists are more interested in creating the news rather than reporting it. A lot of the nonsense that they tend to report, in my view, deliberately inflames the situation so that they can sell more newspapers. I suggest that we do not give them too much credibility. They certainly do not deserve it.Only yesterday I saw images of East Timor which distressed me immensely. One of our soldiers was handed a suspected militia man to apprehend. During the process of that fellow being secured on the ground I saw journalists almost crawling over his back, and lying on their stomachs as they were jamming television cameras in the face of the militia man and in the face of one of our soldiers trying to do his job—absolutely disgraceful, and intimidating for our soldiers. A lot of this nonsense can clearly go back to the media.I rise today to support the Prime Minister in his efforts in the past few weeks to restore stability and peace to the South-East Asian region, particularly East Timor. I would also like to praise the efforts of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, for his very hard work and skill in being able to convince the Indonesian government that a ballot should take place. There is absolutely no way on this earth that there would have been any movement to restore independence to East Timor if the people there had not been afforded the opportunity to show overwhelmingly that they wanted independence. There is no way that the international community would have come on board without that. Unfortunately, the people are going to pay a very high price for it, but at the end of the day they will certainly achieve that outcome.I commend the countries that have come on board—Thailand, Britain, New Zealand, et cetera—although I must say I was very disappointed with the United States for the time that it took. I believe that it could have responded a lot more quickly than it did, and we might well have been able to be in there a little bit more quickly. However, it is there now and is committed to supporting the United Nations peacekeeping force. For that I am very grateful.In Cairns we have quite a considerable population of East Timorese, about 300. When these events started to unfold, there was a lot of concern in the area, prompting the formation of the Cairns East Timorese Support Association. It has conducted a very effective public awareness campaign, including a number of public meetings to which it has been able to attract quite a considerable number of people, and has been able to draw strong attention to the plight of the East Timorese people.One of the leaders and spokesmen, Antonio Pinto, has the very strong backing of a large group of people from Cairns, from a very broad range in the community. I have to congratulate them on the very proactive way in which they have acted, without resorting to racial or inflammatory tactics. What the group has done is very commendable, and I understand that several hundred are now involved in that support group.One of the things that is concerning me, and which is starting to unfold gradually, is the extent of the horrific crimes that have been inflicted on the East Timorese people. I must say I was very pleased to see the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner, Mary Robinson, come out with some very strong words on this issue. I think that we are going to have—from what I have been able to see—crimes against humanity of huge proportions. It is really going to throw a very bad light on the Indonesian military and some sections of the military in particular. I think that we have to be very careful when we are dealing with this that we do not point the finger at all of the Indonesian people. We should realise that it is only one small section of the population.In a media release today, the Australian Council of Overseas Aid, which represents all the non-government aid organisations, commented that Indonesian doctors in Australia are travelling to this area to offer their support. The fact that the Indonesian community in Australia is raising funds in support of the East Timorese is a wonderful thing.I would have thought, given the seriousness of this issue, that we would have had some sort of bipartisan support, particularly from the leadership on the other side. I was very disappointed when, on the first day of this debate, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, reverted to quotes of commentators in an effort to do some mudraking. The opposition leader made many hollow claims, the most hollow of all being that the intervention of the troops should have occurred earlier on.I have got to say that the Australian government as a whole has to accept some responsibility for what has happened here, and I say that successive governments for the last 25 years have been very reluctant to do anything. As I say, I am very proud to be part of a government that has been prepared to have the political will and the courage to get out there and actually start to do something.On 10 February 1999, Mr Beazley said that he `would be against overseas deployment of Australian troops in circumstances where there was no agreement within the community that they wanted a peacekeeping role performed'. That was on 15 February this year and he was totally opposed to going in there before we were invited by the Indonesian regime. On 2 March 1999, Stephen Martin, the shadow defence minister, said:You simply cannot commit troops in advance of a final system of Government being determined by the East Timorese people themselves.That is exactly what we had to do, and he acknowledged that on 2 March.Most importantly though, the shadow minister for foreign affairs, Laurie Brereton, has been ranting and raving about the fact that he had demanded sending a force prior to the ballot. This is the same man who, as Minister for Industrial Relations in 1993, said:I think one should not adopt the role of critic. One should, in acknowledgment of the vitally important bilateral relationship (with Indonesia) move in and assist wherever possible. The shadow minister also went on to say:We hope that in turn we could help the development of our neighbourhood, a neighbourhood in which we see Indonesia as our most important partner.So they also played a very strong role in supporting the Indonesian regime back then. It is interesting to note that he is probably the only shadow foreign minister that I am aware of in Australia who has actually been told that he was not welcome in Indonesia. I suppose that highlights his ability as a diplomat. I am pleased that Alexander Downer was working at that time rather than the shadow minister for foreign affairs.In closing, I would just like to send my best wishes to the Australian troops. Let us not forget that they will be there for some time. They have a very strong risk of facing hostile fire, from what we have seen to date. For the time that they have been there, they have absolutely excelled themselves. Also, we must not forget the families—their loved ones who are sitting here waiting on tenterhooks that they return safely. I think it is important that we all get behind them 100 per cent with our best wishes and encouragement and, of course, wish them godspeed.17:34:0010694O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—All Australians cannot help but be moved by events as they have unfolded in East Timor. I think all Australians are horrified by the death and destruction that has been visited upon East Timor since the people of that area voted for their independence. The UN Security Council resolution we are debating here today sets out the parameters for the UN's involvement in East Timor, especially since the ballot for independence which was held recently. Australia is playing a central role as peacekeeper in the United Nations force which is now in East Timor and which has the responsibility of securing the peace and setting the conditions for a reconstruction of East Timorese society, both of the economy and the social framework.My interest in this part of the world goes back a long way. Since my university days, when I majored in Indonesian politics, I have had an interest in the affairs of our near neighbour to our north. I was also fortunate to visit East Timor in 1994 as part of an Australian parliamentary delegation that had attended an AIPO conference in the Philippines and had also visited Singapore and Indonesia. Part of that visit to Indonesia included a visit to East Timor. We were the first Australian parliamentarians who had gone to East Timor for some time. Even today, my impressions then of East Timor are very much to the forefront of my mind as I see the graphic pictures coming onto our TV screens from East Timor. It was an area that had experienced extraordinary poverty and a strong Indonesian military presence.It is fair to say that the visit that we made to East Timor was a heavily sanitised visit. We knew that, and we were aware that the Indonesians were not allowing us to see the full extent of their involvement in that area. However, it was an important visit in the sense that we took the opportunity, as we did in Jakarta with the audience that we had with the then President Suharto, to put this issue on the table. And we put it on the table with the Indonesian parliamentarians that we met in Jakarta and again with the Indonesian military during the time of the delegation's visit. Sad to say, as one looks back at the history of Indonesian involvement in the province, that we could all say, `We could have done more.' But, on that occasion, we did make it very plain to the Indonesian military that we were concerned about human rights violations in East Timor.I was fortunate enough to carry a letter from Catholics in my electorate to Bishop Belo. There were concerns at the time for his personal safety. The first response from the Indonesian authorities at that time was to encourage the delegation not to see Bishop Belo. My fellow parliamentarians left East Timor and I stayed behind to deliver the letter. It was quite a harrowing experience to live for just a short time in an environment where there was a very strong military presence. It was an overbearing presence. The embassy official at the time counselled me about talking at random to East Timorese for fear that they would later become the victims of persecution by the Indonesian military and police authorities in East Timor.My community in the electorate of Corio has played a very strong role, both locally and by joining with other organisations around Australia, to keep a community focus on this issue and to keep pressure on the Indonesian government. The Catholic Social Justice Group in Geelong has been very active on this issue, as has the East Timor Association. I pay particular tribute to the activities of one of my staffers, Rosemary Nugent, who has put a lot of time and effort into making sure that that organisation kept this issue before the people of Geelong.Since the Vietnam War, Australians have become peacekeepers throughout the world, and now we find our men and women in the defence forces doing that job again in East Timor. They do it in extremely difficult diplomatic and military circumstances. The thoughts of all members of this House go out to them in that onerous task that has been put on their shoulders, to play the central role in bringing peace and security to the East Timorese in the wake of the pro-independence ballot that was held recently.The previous speaker, the member for Leichhardt, spoke about the role of previous Labor ministers. I think all members who have spoken in this debate would not wish to wash their hands of the particular roles that their governments have played in the past on this particular issue, and I do not seek to do that here. However, it is very important that the Australian people understand that the role of Australian peacekeepers in East Timor today, and the diplomatic and the military situation that they find themselves in in executing this noble task, has been the responsibility of this government, and in so many areas there are grounds to criticise the ministers who have been making key decisions.I am appalled at the manner in which the defence minister seeks to answer questions on the floor of the parliament on his role in the government's decision making on this issue. Likewise, I am appalled at the manner in which the foreign affairs minister has conducted himself both in the lead-up to the ballot and in the post-ballot era. The consequences of the failure of government policy at the end of the day will be borne by our soldiers in the field in East Timor. That is simply the fact of the matter.In the remaining moments that I have here let me reflect on the future of our relationship with our northern neighbour. It has been pointed out that in the past the relationship with Indonesia has gone through significant stresses and strains, but none more so than we find today in our relationship with Indonesia. It is very important that the Indonesian government accept and shoulder its responsibility in this matter of the conduct of its military forces in East Timor.The fragile democracy that has emerged in Indonesia is at risk because of the situation in East Timor, but the Indonesian government, democratically elected or otherwise, must accept responsibility for the Indonesian military in East Timor. Australians, as they always have, will regard the Indonesian people as their friends, and the relationship will endure beyond this particular crisis. (Time expired)17:44:0010695Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise to support the motion on East Timor that was brought into the House by the Prime Minister. In doing so I know I have the full support of the people in my electorate of Cook. One thing that has impressed me, having been the member for Cook since the election last October, is that on this issue I have received more phone calls than on any other issue since I have been a member.It is also interesting that the particular electorate I represent has 78 per cent Australian-born constituents and 93 per cent of Anglo-Celtic background. So my electorate is not one which is highly ethnic in nature, but rather it represents middle Australia. To have that level of support to show to our near neighbours has encouraged me. Overwhelmingly, the recommendation that has been made to me is that we should support the Timorese wholeheartedly in their efforts for independence.The first aspect of the motion was the overwhelming choice for independence exercised by the East Timorese people on 30 August. As a nation, Australia values its democratic traditions, its history and the whole environment in which we live and we look to our East Timorese neighbours and say, `What an amazing situation.' These people were under personal attack. Their houses were being burnt and their personal safety was being jeopardised. Yet they stood out in the sun, with their personal identification photos and cards, to be counted as part of the vote. Despite the difficulties, the pressure and the history, they were going to record their vote come what may.The level of the vote—there were 98.5 per cent who actually registered for the vote—is overwhelming, even by Australian standards. Given the pressure that was on the East Timorese, it is remarkable indeed. It is because of that fact that these people were expressing their own hope for independence. It has been a long and difficult period, not the least of which has been Australia's own involvement in East Timor. We came into that land in 1942—which actually coincides with the date of my birth. Australia has been involved for a long period. We were concerned that the Japanese were going to invade that area and use it as a base to attack Australia. Subsequently, we withdrew from that area and they had to put up with attacks from the Japanese who invaded East Timor.Following that, in East Timor in 1975, we saw the invasion by Indonesia. Australia remained silent during that period. We actually endorsed the Indonesian acquisition of the territory and never uttered any protest. Of course, it is very easy to look back, and I must admit my own personal liability in this regard. We did not regard the issue as being significant as far as we were concerned, and I did not lend my voice to the concerns of many people about the situation of the East Timorese.So today, these people, who have been through so much, have voted overwhelmingly for freedom, for independence. We can only stand back in amazement at the actual persecution they endured to reach that stage. But they have voted for independence and it behoves us as they are our close neighbours and because of their history—part of which is somewhat unfortunate in terms of our relationship with that country—and it is appropriate that we take part in the United Nations peacekeeping force and lead the delegation into East Timor at a very difficult time. Obviously, there are security problems involved and risks to the Australian troops, but they go in the best Anzac tradition. We have seen a great resurgence in terms of support for the Anzac tradition. At the early morning service on Anzac Day that was held in my own electorate, they had record numbers. We recognise the sacrifices of the generations before us.Now we have our own generation who are involved in the conflict in Timor, who are representing us in that place, who are part of a force that comes from Thailand, the Philippines, Malaysia, Korea, the USA and Britain. We have become part of the United Nations resolution 1264, which authorised a multinational force to restore peace and security and protect the United Nations mission in East Timor and facilitate humanitarian assistance. It is appropriate we do and I am sure all Australians support this effort.Of course this is a sensitive time. In his book, Australian Foreign Policy, former foreign affairs minister Gareth Evans wrote that in terms of achieving adherence to human rights standards:. . . blunt statements are usually not as effective as repeated, deliberately quiet entreaties.I have heard many careless and blunt statements made in this debate without recognition of the sensitivities of our relationship with Indonesia or of the work that has gone on in the past to assist East Timor. This damages our effectiveness in realising our goals in this sensitive international arena.President Habibie gave the option for an independence vote. Ideally, we should have had a greater amount of time in order to secure peace in the province. The decision to hold the ballot is a great achievement. It is a decision which President Habibie should be congratulated on. We should be sensitive to the political pressures he is under. He did not create the East Timor problem, but rather he inherited it. There was no way of knowing how strongly independent the military is of the government. We can only make our own assessments as to how important they are in the overall equation to ensure the stability of the Indonesian government. We must be careful in the types of statements that are made.Australia could not move in peacekeepers earlier. The whole rhetoric that `We should have done more; we should have done this' ignores the fact that on 5 May the agreement was made between Portugal and Indonesia to hold an independence ballot, and it specified that Indonesia would maintain security. Offers of peacekeeping on our part were rejected. We would have hardly wished to engage the 260,000-strong coercive force in direct military conflict. That is what would have resulted had a peacekeeping force been forced upon Indonesia. Without Indonesia's agreement there was no prospect for UN or other regional peacekeeping.The debate has also focused on the question of defence funding. In recent times, defence funding has focused more on hardware than on the number of troops the ADF has at its disposal. It is right that, in this period of lasting peace, Australia should find other priorities, and it is true that we now have the smallest number of personnel under arms since 1962, but the nature of the approaches to the Australian continent dictates that our focus should be on such issues as arming our submarines with cruise missiles and upgrading our F111 planes to allow in-flight refuelling.There is also no validity to the argument that Australia could have done more to pressure the United States or the international community. Our diplomatic efforts are unmatched by other nations. We are the only country to have diplomatic representation in East Timor, and we have never missed an opportunity to discuss East Timor. The United States has been fully apprised of the intelligence Australia has had on East Timor.It is with pleasure that I support this motion before the House. We do endorse the great stand taken by the East Timorese people on their decision to vote for independence from Indonesia. We welcome the United Nations security team and the fact that it is being led by an Australian group. We endorse the United Nations decision to send in a peacekeeping force. We also, as a parliament, as a country, and as parliamentarians who fully support our troops as part of the peacekeeping force, say that we are totally and absolutely with them. We uphold that great Australian tradition. We certainly look forward to their safe return and hope that it is without incident. We know that they go bearing with them the great wishes of Australia. We look forward to a time when both Indonesians and East Timorese can live in a situation which is one of peace in the region.17:54:0010698Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in this debate on a motion to take note of United Nations Security Council resolution 1264, authorising a multinational force to restore peace and security in East Timor, protect the United Nations mission in East Timor and facilitate humanitarian assistance. I have been particularly saddened by the events that have occurred in East Timor over the past few months. As members may be aware, I was honoured to be part of the international observer mission to the general elections which were held in Indonesia at the beginning of June. My participation in that as one of 500 overseas observers who were working in conjunction with domestic monitors from Indonesia led me to be inspired by the process and optimistic in the lead-up to the referendum in East Timor.During the Indonesian elections there was a lot of talk about the possible corruption of the system and the violence that might occur, and some of that violence did occur in areas such as Ambon and Aceh. However, in the main, the Indonesian general election went very smoothly for the first fair and free elections that that country had held. The Indonesian people spoke out at that time overwhelmingly in favour of a change in government, in favour of ousting the Golkar party from power and welcoming a new political party into power in Indonesia. I came back from that exercise optimistic and inspired, hoping that the same result might have occurred in East Timor during the referendum.I cannot reflect on what could have been done, should have been done or may have been done. I cannot reflect on whether we should have sent in peacekeepers earlier or whether there should have been more international presence in East Timor in the lead-up to the referendum and following it. What I can say is that at the moment there is a multinational force in East Timor to try to enforce peace, to try to protect the East Timorese people, and, even though it may be too little too late, it is a step which Australia has taken in the right direction.During the Indonesian general election the people spoke out to change the government without fear of reprisals, in much the same way that the United Nations and Australia encouraged the East Timorese people to vote in their referendum. We encouraged them to turn out to register to vote in the referendum, which they did in droves. We encouraged them to turn out to vote in the referendum, which they did in droves. As we know, that vote was overwhelmingly for independence of East Timor.We and the United Nations said, prior to the referendum, `We are here to assist you. We will stay with you throughout the vote and we will protect you after the vote has been counted.' The East Timorese people placed their trust in the United Nations but I believe that the international community failed the East Timorese people. People of any nation should never be subjected to the atrocities that reportedly have been inflicted upon the East Timorese people for voting for independence and participating in a democratic process. But finally Australia and the international community rose to speak out against these atrocities that were being committed in East Timor. I would just like to reflect on some of those actions which have taken place in our communities.On 9 September this year, we held a meeting in the Newcastle Town Hall. It was initiated by the Lord Mayor, Greg Heys. There were various speakers, including the Anglican bishop, Roger Herft; the Catholic bishop, Michael Malone; the federal member for Newcastle, Allan Morris; the Newcastle Trades Hall Council Secretary, Peter Barrack; the state member for Newcastle, Bryce Gaudry; and Sister Carmel Hansen from Caritas. Sister Carmel had been working alongside the Caritas sisters in East Timor. She said that about 40 minutes prior to her coming to speak to the packed Newcastle Town Hall, she had heard that a sister that she had been working closely with and had made very good friends with, had been hacked to death with a machete in East Timor. She chose to share her emotions with us at that time.We were also spoken to by Stephen O'Brien, another local Hunter Valley person, who was a volunteer district electoral officer in East Timor, and Stephen Tickner, a media photographer who had recently been in East Timor. They both recounted some of the atrocities and the violence that they had witnessed. That meeting at the Newcastle Town Hall was packed, as I am sure other town halls right across the country were as public meetings were held, and Australians stood arm in arm together and spiritually side by side with the East Timorese people.On 10 September, another meeting held in my area was of the Retired Mineworkers Association of the Northern District. I would like to mention a resolution which the Retired Mineworkers Association, Northern District delegates conveyed to the Prime Minister on that day, following their meeting. They urged the United Nations to urgently dispatch a peacekeeping force to East Timor to oversee and facilitate a peacekeeping process. They also called upon the trade union movement to exercise its ability to impose sanctions against the Indonesian government while the Indonesian government was seemingly not supporting, or not inviting, an international peacekeeping force.The MUA in Newcastle was the first group of trade unionists which placed sanctions against loading Indonesian vessels in the port of Newcastle. This delayed the loading of the ships for nearly two weeks. Patrick, which was the force behind the attacks on the unions early last year, supported their stance, indicating that any trade unionist who was involved in employing sanctions against Indonesian vessels during this time would not be penalised at all under the current Workplace Relations Act.An article in the Sun-Herald on 12 September described the international world trade union movement consolidating a campaign to impose sanctions, both economic and political, against Indonesia and the Indonesian government. This is just another message about the way that, when people are in trouble—whether they be workers, downtrodden citizens of another country or people being denied their participation in a democratic process—they are supported by trade unionists in all countries right across the world and across all industry bases. The international trade union organisation vowed to end the massacres and enforce the sovereign decision of the East Timor people and of the United Nations. (Time expired)18:04:0010699Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—Coming at this stage in the debate in this committee and in the main chamber after so many speakers, I guess it is going to be very difficult to say anything that may be new or have more impact than all of the things that have been said before. Nonetheless, I can understand why other speakers from both sides have been talking about this issue and why I feel impelled to talk about it as well. It is something of great importance not only to Australia but also to our region and the world as a whole. I have to say that I have never known so many people in my electorate to be so concerned and so upset about any particular issue. In the days when things were consolidating, virtually every time there was a television news broadcast of some of the disgraceful, horrifying and atrocious things that were happening I would have grown men and women calling me in tears because of their emotional response to those news telecasts.The response was one of pity and sympathy for the East Timorese. It seemed that people's judgment was overcome very often by their emotion and by their concern. I can understand that. I had one man ring me in tears demanding that we, as the government, should just go and bomb Jakarta that night. This was never an option. A number of people rang and said, `The government is doing nothing. You are not talking to anybody. You are not talking to the Indonesians, the United Nations, the Americans, the Malaysians or anybody.' This was totally untrue because the government was doing everything it possibly could in an endeavour to put together a solution to the situation which we now see, with the United Nations resolution of 15 September being put into effect with a multinational force led by Australia.We need to point out that this is only a temporary situation. Stage 2 will be a United Nations peacekeeping force with blue berets or blue helmets. We would expect that Australia will be part of that, but it will be led by the United Nations. We are acting on the basis of a United Nations Security Council resolution passed unanimously, which is quite amazing, in the shortest time that anything of that nature has ever taken place with regard to a similar peacekeeping force.With the greatest respect to my friends in the opposition on the other side of the chamber, not all of them but too many of them have used this particular issue as a little political whipping boy to attack the government. I am sorry that they did that because I believe that the government did everything that possibly could be done.I want to say, too, that we are not at odds with the Indonesian people; we are at odds with the atrocious things that happened in East Timor. We felt obliged to take the action that we did. We had to lead in the formation of the United Nations force, but it should be clearly understood that we have no argument with the Indonesian people as such. It is perhaps difficult for them to understand at this stage and I can understand that we may suffer in terms of our trade relations; nonetheless, whatever the outcome, we had to take the action that we did.There is one issue that is not germane to this but it is relevant in my mind, and that is—as has been said time and time again and the Prime Minister said it only today—every government of Australia up to the present time has not acted as we would, in retrospect, wished they had acted in regard to East Timor.The issue I want to throw in as another matter concerns West Papua, West Irian. We have not spoken in this parliament very much about West Irian since I have been here. But just as the issue of East Timor was a thorn in the side of so many of us because of our inaction when that invasion of East Timor by the Indonesians happened, I have to say to this committee and to the House in general that, for me, it has been a thorn in my side too that Australia did nothing when the Indonesians took over West Irian. We should remember that the island of Papua New Guinea was, in 1848, divided into three to carve it up between the Germans, the British and the Dutch. Of course, in World War I we liberated—to use the modern word—the German colony of New Guinea, we got the mandate over it from the League of Nations and it is now an independent country. But in 1848, over 150 years ago, that island was carved up.On 1 October 1962, post World War II, the Dutch government handed over their former colony of West Papua to an interim United Nations administration. I will not go into great detail on this because I have a lot more I want to say about East Timor. But West Papua was a Cold War sacrifice—it was a sacrifice to the aims and the objects of the Cold War participants. On 1 May 1963, Indonesia became the new colonial power in west Papua New Guinea and we did nothing about it. I regret to say that it was in the time of the government of former Prime Minister John Gorton and we did nothing about it, and I do not believe the Labor opposition at that time did anything about it either. I think it is to our eternal shame that not only did we not protest about the invasion of East Timor, but that we sat back and did nothing about the fate of the West Papuans.To come back to East Timor and, in particular, to our forces there, I have to say that I am so full of admiration and pride for the way they are conducting themselves. I have the greatest sympathy for their families, their loved ones, at home. Like everybody in this house of parliament, we all pray and hope that nobody will be seriously injured or killed. We cannot guarantee it, unfortunately, in this situation. But the message that we have to send to those Australian men and women who are serving in East Timor at the moment is that the whole of Australia is proud of them and what they are doing.I will not run off a list of all the countries that are participating, but it is more than encouraging that there have been so many countries which have come forward to say they will participate in one way or another—some with troops, some with ships, some just with money. It is worth noting that the Security Council resolution was unanimous. China was one of the members of the Security Council which voted for the resolution, and that is pretty significant. I was in China the week before last and it was in their news that China had agreed to send a small group of civilian policemen to participate in the peacekeeping task. It does not matter that it is small. It is the very first time, I believe, that China has participated in any one of these peacekeeping forces or activities. I think it says an enormous amount for the correctness of what is going on.It is such a pity that the militia in East Timor—or from West Timor—have behaved in the way that they have. I do not think that anybody witnessing that film footage will ever forget it; I know I certainly will not. It is up to the Indonesian government to realise that it has let down the people of East Timor. The army were there as peacekeepers, even under martial law, and they did nothing—I would find it very difficult to be convinced otherwise. They just let the militias run amok. It is also a great shame for Indonesia that they apparently allowed their troops, their people, to raze Dili and other areas to the ground to destroy the infrastructure, which will make it so much more difficult for the free, independent country of East Timor to emerge. Long-term, Australia's aim must be to assist that new country to emerge in a free, democratic manner, and we should give every assistance we can, once the emergency is over, to provide the East Timorese people with assistance to let them go forward in freedom and peace into democracy.18:14:0010701Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate tonight, and in doing so, I thought I might give a brief report of a couple of public meetings in my electorate of Bendigo, which have taken place in the previous two weeks. The first one was a meeting in Castlemaine on 7 September, which was called at one day's notice; approximately 90 people attended that meeting. The second meeting was a few short days later in Bendigo, again at short notice, and some 120 people from the Bendigo district attended that meeting. That meeting, incidentally, was called by the city of Greater Bendigo. This not only highlights the depth of feeling that people in Bendigo have over this issue, but I am sure it is reflected in communities all over Australia. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the resolutions carried at those meetings.Leave granted.The resolutions read as follows—East Timor Meeting Castlemaine—Tuesday, September 7, 1999.At a public meeting held in Castlemaine, Victoria, called at one day's notice, 86 people attended and passed the following motion unanimously:That this meeting demands the immediate and complete withdrawal of Indonesian Armed Forces from East Timor to be immediately replaced by a Peacekeeping force made up of Australian and/or United Nations Forces.Until Indonesian Forces agree to leave East Timor, we demand that the Australian Government implement the following actions:1 A complete trade embargo on all trade with Indonesia.2 Halt all financial assistance to the Government of Indonesia.3 Immediately desist from training members of the Indonesian Armed Forces in Sale or any other Australian Bases.4 The mobilisation of Australian Military forces to give armed support and protection to the People of East Timor as they move towards their democratic choice of independence.REPORT OF THE PUBLIC MEETING CALLED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF GREATER BENDIGO, CR. DARYL McCLURE TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR BENDIGO PEOPLE TO EXPRESS THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE PEOPLE OF EAST TIMOR FOLLOWING THE HAVOC WREAKED BY ARMED PRO-INDONESIA MILITIAS FOLLOWING A BALLOT WHICH RESULTED IN AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY IN FAVOUR OF CUTTING TIES WITH INDONESIA.The meeting commenced at 6.00 p.m. and was attended by approximately 120 Bendigo citizens.The meeting was addressed by Mr Victor Kaye, who had recently returned East Timor, after serving with the United Nations Assistance Mission to East Timor.The following resolutions were passed by the meeting:That this meeting of Bendigo citizens request:1 That the Prime Minister, the Honourable John Howard and the Foreign Minister, the Honourable Alexander Downer, express our outrage on behalf of the Australian Government to the Government and Military of Indonesia, and their failure to meet their obligations of protection and security for the East Timorese people as defined by the United Nations Agreement of the 5th May 1999.2 That a PeaceKeeping Force be deployed in East Timor and trade sanctions be imposed on Indonesia forthwith.3 That the Government be urged to use its influence with the International Monetary Fund and World Bank to withhold all monetary assistance to Indonesia immediately.4 That Bendigo people and businesses be urged to boycott Indonesian products and suspend all dealings with Indonesia until continuing peace and freedom is established in East Timor and all East Timorese have control of their own destiny in accordance with the United Nations 5th May, 1999 Agreements.5 That the recommended action expressed in the letter from Amnesty International be endorsed which requests the sending of telegrams/telexes/faxes/express/airmail letters, making the following points:(a) Expressing your horror at the situation in East Timor, and your fears for the safety of the entire population;(b) Noting that the United Nations is a party to the 5 May 1999 Agreements, and has an obligation to the East Timorese people, who, despite threats and intimidation, courageously exercised their right to self-determined by participating in the popular consultation on 30 August 1999;(c) Asking what, as a member state of the United Nations, your Government is doing to protect the rights of the East Timorese people; (d) Urging your Government to impose an immediate moratorium on all transfers to Indonesia of military, security and police equipment, weaponry, personnel or training which could be used by the army, police or militias to commit human rights violations. The moratorium should include all financial and logistical support for such transfers, including spare parts and maintenance, licensed production, brokering and Government-to-Government agreements;and that trade sanctions be imposed.6 That it be recognised that the resolutions made are aimed at the Government and the military of Indonesia, rather than the Indonesian people.7 That there be an immediate and safe return of all East Timorese who have been forcibly removed to Indonesia.8 That the Federal Government be advised that the Bendigo community stands ready to provide whatever humanitarian aid it can to assist those affected by the civil strife in East Timor.A collection was taken up to aid the people of East Timor. Funds would be distributed by Victor Kaye, through the United Nations Assistance Mission to East Timor.The Mayor and Council were thanked for arranging the public meeting.A small group of people arranged to meet after the meeting to arrange a candlelight vigil and rally.The meeting concluded at 8.00 p.m.83XGibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS—The guest speaker at both meetings was a man named Mr Victor Kaye, who is a resident of Castlemaine in Bendigo. Mr Kaye was in East Timor as a United Nations observer at the recent election, and made it back to Castlemaine on Monday, 6 September. Ironically, Mr Kaye said, the election day was quite peaceful. When he arrived at the guesthouse he was to stay in, an eight-year-old boy played his guitar and performed a song for him. The boy politely refused Mr Kaye's offer of 500 rupiah, or about $A1, for performing the song by saying, `I do it for you.' Such is the generous nature of the East Timorese people.But, as Mr Kaye reported, there were ominous undertones beneath the surface of normality. Violence erupted in the area he was staying in on the Friday, when the house Mr Kaye was staying in was fired upon. He and others who were staying in the home, including judges from the International Commission of Jurists, had to flee for their lives. The house opposite had exploded and was burnt out. The group fled to a second house and then a third house in the one night, dodging shots and being pursued by armed militia. Mr Kaye slept on the bare floor, rather than risk sleeping on a mattress, in case a fire bomb was thrown in.Outside, the streets turned to chaos, with incidents which made Mr Kaye sick to his stomach. He reported on a situation where a soldier ripped a three-year-old child out of the arms of its father, wringing its neck and throwing it into a burning house. Such were the activities being pursued by the militia. As Mr Kaye said, these people are not soldiers, they are dogs.On Saturday morning, Mr Kaye and his group managed to get a spot on a vessel which was due to depart East Timor. But as they departed, about 15 shots were fired at the vessel from the wharf. When the boat docked in the West Timorese harbour, the group was told to stay aboard for some hours, and then they realised that they would be taken away for interrogation. Again in fear of their lives, they grabbed their bags and barged through the armed militia guarding the wharf. `Just a few days later, we would not have been able to do that,' Mr Kaye said. `We were in mortal danger.' The group escaped into the streets and eventually made it back to the airport and back to Australia.That is a snapshot of the experiences of one man who has been very active in East Timorese affairs for some years and who was, as I said, over there as an observer in the elections. Man's inhumanity to man has never ceased to shock or amaze me. The stories relayed by Mr Kaye, and indeed the horrific pictures we see on our news bulletins, show that what has happened in East Timor is probably one of the most barbaric acts we have witnessed in our region.Last Sunday week, I attended the arrival of the second wave of refugees to the Puckapunyal safe haven, along with the member for McEwen, who is the patron. I remember standing at the door of the bus, helping the people off it, and seeing the looks of absolute despair on their faces, especially the elderly and the young kids. It was probably one of the most traumatic experiences of my life and something I will probably not forget for some time.As I mentioned before, we have seen horrific footage coming through on our television screens each night. Obviously, equally barbaric is the action of the Indonesian military as they withdrew from the province and burn and pillage everything that is left. Whilst the Indonesian people cannot be held responsible for that, their military certainly can, and thereby their government, and they must be forced to pay for the rebuilding of East Timor.Australia has its peacekeeping forces in East Timor, and we all welcome that. I know I speak for all people in central Victoria, and in fact for people all over Australia, in wishing those forces a successful mission and a safe return to Australia and their families. We owe an extreme debt of gratitude to the people of East Timor. We know how much assistance they were to us during the Second World War, and anything that this country and this parliament can do to help them must be done. They would have to be one of the most gentle races of people I have ever had anything to do with. Our hearts go out to all of them.18:20:0010704Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—Like many members of this parliament, I have been negligent over the past 9½ years in that the problems of the people of East Timor have not been a top of the mind issue for me. Since my election in 1990 I have tended to concentrate on domestic issues such as economic growth, taxation reform, tariffs, welfare, and internal regional issues. These were the issues which were of primary concern to my electors and to organisations and lobby groups within my electorate. East Timor was never raised during these 9½ years as a top of the mind issue. It was not something we had to focus on as a matter of urgency.There was, however, one exception, a constituent of mine by the name of Mrs Olive Taylor, a member of the Noosa branch of the Liberal Party. Olive had a background in defence and her late husband was an international pilot with Qantas. Olive had a passionate concern for the people of East Timor and she never let an opportunity slip by without raising the plight of the East Timorese. Even in election campaigns when the topic of conversation was far removed from East Timor, Olive would go to public meetings and get to her feet and push the case for the problems of those people. Like most Australians I was complacent, and like most Australians I left these problems to others whom I thought knew more than I did and who could handle foreign relations far more competently than I could. I accepted the assurances of the experts on both sides of this House over the past 25 years. East Timor has always been someone else's problem. So, Olive Taylor, all that time you were right. Your perceptions were far better based than many of your complacent colleagues, including me.The eyes of the world finally focused on East Timor immediately prior to, during, and after the independence ballot. We sent unarmed Federal Police to supervise the ballot, we sent officers of the AEC, and Tim Fischer led a delegation of members of parliament to supervise the ballot. What happened after the results of the ballot were announced is now a sorrowful chapter in world history.When the violence broke out Australians, including me, received a very loud and clear wake-up call. Australians saw atrocities never seen before in this region. We have seen over recent years atrocities, murder and the torture of people in Rwanda, Somalia and Kosovo, but that was far away, wasn't it. East Timor is part of our backyard. Nothing in my 9½ years has generated such a reaction from the people of my electorate as has the slaughter of the East Timorese. Families watching the nightly news saw men, women and children being butchered before our very eyes. We may never know the extent of the carnage.The reaction of the Australian government was swift and right in the circumstances. It reflected quickly the mood and anger of the people. No member of a civilised society can stand back and condone the wholesale slaughter of his fellow men. I refuse to believe that the average person in Indonesia condones the wholesale slaughter by the integrationist militia, apparently aided and abetted by the Indonesian army.No-one knows how this situation will evolve or how long it will take to resolve, but it does highlight a problem for this country. We have tended to put our heads in the sand and we have ignored the problem on both sides of the House. That problem is defence forces morale and conditions of service. Really, there have been decades of neglect and decades of erosion. Each one of us in our electorates have servicemen and we have ex-servicemen who have left the service and who wish they could have continued being servicemen, but the economics and the reality of pay and conditions are such that these people have no choice but to leave the defence forces.I believe there are key points to note in regard to this issue of conditions of service. The Defence Efficiency Review conducted recently set defence personnel ranks at the lowest level since before the Vietnam War. Now we see we have a problem and we have to face that problem. How do we resolve it? Conditions of service erosion in recent years include: inflation has outstripped pay rises for at least the last three years and maybe more; rations and quarters charges for single defence personnel have increased; married quarters entitlement ratios have decreased to the disadvantage of servicemen; remote locality leave travel entitlements are affected by things like fringe benefits tax; constant changes to the defence superannuation scheme have increased the age entitlements that can be received. Resignations in the Army are far outstripping recruitment.These are notes I have made resulting from quite a few years of dealing with defence personnel and their complaints to me as constituents. Complaints they make include that they are not happy with defence leadership. There is a perception that the ADF lacks leadership at the highest levels. They say that there is serious dissatisfaction with the Chief of Defence Force as well as other key army leaders who have sold out defence personnel for their own gain. There has been a series of senior leaders in Defence who were effectively sacked or passed over because they had the integrity to say `enough is enough'. They complained bitterly about cuts in the defence budget.Another problem area which has to be addressed is isolation. Because of Australia's vast coastline, the Army particularly has seen an increasing trend of moving troops to isolated locations such as Darwin, Puckapunyal and others. Prime locations in urban areas are being sold with no concept of the long-term effects. As I say, these are issues that the men are raising with me.The view on conscription is that it should be discouraged. Good recruiting and conditions of service will rectify this situation. A good soldier is one we can use for at least 10 years, not one year or two years. It would be better to have half the number of volunteer soldiers with higher morale than soldiers who do not want to be there. There would not be one professional army officer who would support conscription in this situation. The East Timor crisis, they believe, will in the short term lead to an increase in recruitment. This crisis has also helped to increase morale and revitalise the Army. Army personnel actually look forward to overseas operational service; this is what they are trained for.In conclusion, it is time, at the turn of this century, to address what has happened to our defence forces and their readiness. I have the greatest of respect and sympathy for the men and women who have gone to East Timor to serve their country, and for those who will also go in the coming months. I feel for their families, the mums and dads, the wives and the kids and the loved ones. This nation owes them a great debt and I think we should start paying it now. Thank you.Sitting suspended from 6.31 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.20:00:0010706Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—In referring to the United Nations Security Council resolution on East Timor, like other members speaking to this motion, I want to relate and state what I feel on this occasion. I believe the last time I spoke on something as tragic as this was before the House in January 1991. On that occasion, the Hawke Labor government had just made what was arguably its most difficult decision: to commit our Australian troops to the Persian Gulf as part of the United Nations force determined to liberate Kuwait from the occupying Iraqi army.Recently, as we all know, circumstances in East Timor have demanded that the Howard coalition government make an equally difficult and painful decision. Beginning on the weekend of 17-18 September and continuing in earnest throughout last week, Australia's service men and women once again entered a theatre of conflict with all the dangers and threats inherent in such a commitment.Just as the coalition in opposition offered its full support to the Labor government in 1991, so too do we, the Australian Labor Party in opposition, offer our support to the Prime Minister and his government in making this difficult decision. We just wish the decision had come sooner. While the opposition's support for Australia's troops in the field and for the government's decision to send them to East Timor remains unqualified, we do have some very serious concerns about the way the government has managed our role in this whole affair. I would like to return to those concerns later in my speech.Australia's forces in East Timor have embarked on an operation unique in our country's military and political history. For the first time, Australia leads a multinational force into the field. This is a challenge far beyond anything that Australian troops and service personnel have encountered since Vietnam and beyond. The objective of the multinational force is, I believe, no less forbidding—that is, the restoration and maintenance of law and order in East Timor and the facilitation of a peaceful, safe environment for its citizens that will allow them to move peacefully towards full self-determination. As a consequence of taking on this leading role, the numbers of Australian service personnel committed to the conflict are required at a level not seen since the conflict in Vietnam. Indeed, we are seeing a level of mobilisation of the Australian armed forces that we have not seen, I would venture to say, since World War II.Any time our Australian men and women are placed in a dangerous or a threatening position as a result of their membership of the armed services it gives us all cause for concern—for them and for their families and loved ones. But somehow our concerns and our emotions this time are even stronger. As the Leader of the Opposition said while addressing those troops in Darwin on 20 September:This is different.He went on to say:This is a new stage in the responsibility of the Australian people. This is a different page in Australian history being written here.In talking with my constituents over the last few weeks, I know that, especially in recent days as Australia's role in this peacekeeping force has become clearer, they, too, recognise that a new chapter in Australia's history is being written with our involvement in East Timor.With this greater level of responsibility come greater challenges, greater dangers, and Australian service men and women face the prospect of paying greater sacrifices for their service. We know they will not shirk taking on that extra responsibility. We also know they will not fail to take on any challenge and see it through successfully. We know they will not falter from paying any sacrifice to get the job done. For that, we all owe them a great debt of gratitude.Without a doubt, the people of Australia are fully supportive of our men and women in uniform. The people of Australia are with them as they embark on this dangerous mission. Our thoughts are also with their families and their loved ones, especially their spouses, partners and children. We pray it will not be too long before they are again united, safe and on home soil. They are extremely well trained. They are competent and capable young men and women, they have trained for the moment when their country would call on them to put their training to good use—and now is that time.It would have been better, however—certainly for the people of East Timor—had that time come earlier. We cannot discuss the situation in East Timor—the devastating violence and terror that have been witnessed there over the past weeks and the involvement of our Australian troops—without raising questions about the way in which the federal government has handled this matter.One of the more obvious questions—and one yet to be adequately addressed by either the Prime Minister or the Minister for Foreign Affairs—is why a greater effort was not made to convince the Indonesian authorities to introduce a UN peacekeeping force into East Timor before the independent ballot took place. If, as we know, that it was only because of the influence of the United States that the UN and Australia were able to convince the Indonesians to receive an international peacekeeping force in East Timor, then surely logic dictates that, had we marshalled US influence prior to the independence ballot, then a multinational force could have been in East Timor much earlier. It is a question that remains to be answered.If such a force had been in place, could we honestly say that the level of violence and upheaval that we have seen in East Timor would have taken place? It certainly would not have occurred on the same level that we have now seen. We knew—both from leaked documents and from the brazen statements made by senior members of the TNI—that the Indonesian army and its sponsored militias intended to embark on a reign of terror if the result of the ballot was a vote for independence. Australia's failure to get an international peacekeeping force into East Timor before the ballot—indeed, the Prime Minister's and foreign minister's grim refusal to even consider such a proposal—hangs over this government as the INTERFET force, having arrived in Dili, surveys the devastation and destruction.Indeed, questions must also be raised over the Australian government's failure to work harder at convincing Indonesia to allow East Timor a period of greater autonomy before an independence ballot took place. This would, I believe, have created a much smoother transfer to self-determination. That is what the people wanted. The Prime Minister seemed to want that, too, at one stage. He raised the prospect of East Timor passing through a period of greater autonomy before reaching independence with President Habibie. But, once the President signalled his opposing view, that was the end of it for him—our Prime Minister—and the foreign minister. Indeed, the Prime Minister and foreign minister helped drive the independence ballot forward at a cracking pace, ignoring all the signs and the military intelligence that, to push ahead for a ballot—especially without an international peacekeeping force in place—would lead to the slaughter of hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent people and the complete devastation of East Timor. We have to turn only to our nightly news to see that this has happened.Australia played a part in convincing the East Timorese that they could vote in safety and security and that there would be no retribution if they exercised their democratic rights. Because of our government's mismanagement of this situation, and because of the mismanagement of the UN, we have failed the East Timorese people—just as governments of all political persuasions have failed them in the past. We failed, but they have paid the consequences for our failure.The foreign minister has repeatedly congratulated himself and the government on the speed in which they have rallied an international force together for East Timor, but, if the truth be told, we saw three weeks of desperate improvisation on behalf of this government. The foreign minister and the Prime Minister should not be allowed to claim any credit for themselves over their handling of the East Timor situation. Quite the contrary, rather than accept the accolades, the Prime Minister and the foreign minister have many serious questions to answer regarding the debacle into which East Timor has finally descended. Once and for all, they have been exposed, I believe, as amateurs in foreign affairs that we already knew them to be, but this time we have had and seen devastating consequences. You cannot rewrite history. I believe Prime Minister Howard has tried to do that, but the people of Australia have long memories and will not allow it.I was most concerned to see on tonight's news our forces going through town after town and village after village and the scorched earth policy that has been implemented. On tonight's 7.30 Report, sadly, it was said that there was `destruction on a scale that no-one could ever have imagined'. I believe—and reports have shown this, even on tonight's news—that over 80 per cent of houses, buildings and infrastructure have been completely destroyed as the TNI make their way back to Indonesia.As our people start coming in to aid, assist and help the East Timorese people, it is going to take more than six months; it is going to take more than 12 months. It will take many years to put that country back on its feet. The people are certainly entitled to help and assistance but, more importantly, they are entitled to explanations, as the people of Australia are entitled to explanations. One of the first major questions has to be why we did not move sooner and why we did not act more quickly. More importantly, when people say how quickly we did act, I say to those people that there are many people now buried over there who perhaps would have been alive today if we had acted sooner than others thought was a great triumph, and I really condemn the government for that. (Time expired)20:10:0010709Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—The present debate on this UN resolution on East Timor reminds us that in Australia we take for granted a freedom of political expression which does not occur in Indonesia and does not occur in East Timor. It was 24 years ago when Indonesia invaded East Timor; it has been there for that time. Now, I understand, only 1,500 of its troops are left there.Of course every Australian has been positively dismayed at the scenes that they have watched in the news on television. I have not had the opportunity tonight but I understand, having phoned home, that the pictures are still of people finding trashing of buildings and trashing of areas as the TNI pulls out. I understand that photographs have been found linking some members of the TNI with the militia. This has all been most unfortunate and most extraordinary. But, as the Prime Minister has said as recently as today in the parliament, governments of both political persuasions have made mistakes in their foreign policy in relation to East Timor and also to Indonesia.I am reminded of just how important that vote for independence was: East Timorese being given, for the first time in their lives, the opportunity to vote and have some say in their future. I think there were very few people around who thought that this was all going to go smoothly. The fact that the ballot took place at all was nothing short of extraordinary. The opposition has chosen to attempt to score cheap political points on this but there is no way, as we have heard time and time again, that Indonesia would have allowed a peacekeeping force in to supervise that election. It was held with United Nations observers, including some of our own members of parliament. But what we have seen since, some people are saying, was predictable.The Prime Minister, in speaking to this motion, said that there was no more serious decision that any government could take than to commit Australian military forces abroad. There was a great seriousness in the chamber as we all listened to what he had to say, but then I was quite genuinely dismayed to hear the Leader of the Opposition attempt to turn this into a political debate, because this was not a subject for one political party over the other. It was something for the Australian parliament and it was something for the Australian people. It was a very serious commitment to be committing young, well-trained men and women of the Australian armed forces to combat in another country—extremely serious. Yet even on that occasion we could not have a situation where the Leader of the Opposition would join in a bipartisan way with the Prime Minister of this country to discuss this motion.I regret having to bring politics into this at all, because I think we are the most fortunate people, in the most fortunate country, in the world. But I remind those on the other side who wish to make this a political issue that it was the previous Prime Minister, Mr Keating, who signed the Timor Gap treaty with no parliamentary debate, no usual process. He was making foreign policy work in that area in what he considered was a relationship built on his special relationship with the leadership of Indonesia. And a previous Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, while not endorsing Indonesia's invasion of East Timor 24 years ago, certainly understood it and publicly said so.It is unfortunate that today, and during this week as we speak to this motion, these things have to be raised at all. I would like to think that Australian armed forces in East Timor could be sure in the knowledge that every member of the Australian public and the Australian government was behind them wishing them a safe and speedy return and that they were being prayed for every day. There would not be a mother in Australia who would not be concerned that her son might at some stage have to fight to serve his country. These are very serious times, and we do not know when they will finish. It has been very important that Australia act with the United Nations, that we act with the countries that are friendly in this region and that we be part of a multinational force.Growing up after the Second World War, I remember discussions at that time that the United Nations was to be our great hope—the great hope for having nations around the world working together to ensure peace. The United Nations has taken part in 42 peacekeeping operations since 1948, and Australia has participated in 20 of them. They include operations in India and Pakistan from 1950 to 1985, a Federal Police presence in Cyprus from 1964 until the present, operations in Iran and Iraq from 1988 to 1990, in Cambodia from 1991 to 1993, in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina from 1992 to the present, in Somalia from 1992 to 1995, in Rwanda from 1994 to 1995 and in Mozambique in 1994. All these efforts are reminders of what Australia has been doing as part of our United Nations obligations. But this is different. This is our troops in large numbers. This is Australia leading a force in our own part of the world.The founders of the United Nations were determined that it would work to save succeeding generations from the ravages of war. Peacekeeping has perhaps been the most visible way in which the international community has tried to meet this objective, but there have been other ways, too. There has been increasing interest in the provision of electoral assistance, and Australia has been increasingly involved in this area—as we were in the ballot that took place on 30 August.Like other members of this parliament, I have been influenced by what I have heard from my constituents. Working in my Adelaide office sometimes well past 8 o'clock at night, I know that people ring the number on instinct—probably not expecting it to be answered—because they have watched the news that night and have seen what has been occurring. It has always been beyond my comprehension how one human being could slice up, torture or put another to death. It is something I have not really been able to understand—unless one was protecting one's own family and one's own life. But that has not been the case. The East Timorese, like other oppressed peoples around the world, have suffered and are suffering.But Australia is doing its best. To every man and woman in our armed forces who is there serving their country, doing what they are trained to do and representing all other Australians in East Timor, I wish a safe return. I trust that this matter will not be a long time in the settling, but I fear otherwise. I think there will be a high financial and personal cost to Australia being part of this peacekeeping force—or trying to install some kind of peace before it can be kept. I wish our troops well, I wish the East Timorese some peace in the future and, also in the future, I hope that, as we debate these issues, we will do so as a parliament and leave cheap political point scoring out of it.20:20:0010710McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—All members of parliament on both sides wish our troops in East Timor well and a safe return home. While we may disagree in some ways with the government's method of getting there, no-one—either on my side of the parliament or on the government's side—is in any way being derogatory about the role of Australia's soldiers in Timor. I am sure that was not the import of what the member for Adelaide was saying about my colleague Mrs Crosio, who spoke earlier.Like everybody else in Australia, I have been deeply saddened by recent events in East Timor. It is impossible not to be moved by the tragic circumstances of the East Timorese with the graphic images and reports of violence and atrocities perpetrated upon them. The overwhelming majority of the East Timorese people, when given the opportunity on 30 August to choose their future, voted for independence. No-one could doubt their determination to be independent and their joyful reaction when they learned the result of the vote. About 80 per cent of those eligible to vote voted for independence and the people, at the end of it, were very happy. Unfortunately, their happiness was short-lived. A wave of violence swept over the island and it seemed little could be done to stop it.The frustration of being unable to do anything to realistically stop the violence was felt by all Australians. With the United Nations resolution in place and the presence of the multinational force in East Timor, there is now a different set of feelings being experienced. For the first time, Australia is leading a multinational force and that puts an awful responsibility on us. Many of us will know someone who has a family member in the defence forces. Young men and women are being transported to the small island of East Timor not to defend their own country but to help stand up for a small group of people who want to be their own people and not part of a neighbour's empire.There are a number of things that worry me about our involvement in East Timor. We are not a large country in world terms. We are larger than East Timor, of course, but not a really big player when it comes to world conflicts. Sure, we are willing to join in with other democratic nations to assist where we can, but we cannot do it all on our own. While I am aware that we are certainly not alone in East Timor, the government has accepted a huge responsibility. While I have confidence in our armed forces, and am sure that they will do their very best in the situation they find themselves in, I do not want Australia to be drained of the best resources and left with a depleted Defence Force in years to come. It also needs to be acknowledged that this is not going to be a quick and easy operation. It could go on for years. Even if the militia were quietened down, you would still need a strong presence there. You could never be sure that peace could be sustained.When the issue of East Timor is discussed by politicians, the temptation to bring politics into it is almost overwhelming. Political point scoring is the order of the day for many. I do not want to do this. I want to look to the future and what is best for Australia as well as Timor. We need to keep our mind on the future and our place in the world. We need to think of the importance of independence for the Timorese and the importance of Australia's relations with our neighbours. We are not a large enough country to sustain a big commitment to East Timor indefinitely. We cannot afford to have our troops locked into an engagement in East Timor forever. I believe we need to have a realistic balance which is in the best interests of the East Timorese and the best interests of Australia.There is probably a need to have some of the political rhetoric wound back. This morning on AM I heard a diplomat say that he believed that the last few weeks had destroyed 50 years of engagement between Australia and Indonesia. If that is true, I think that is a very sad thing. It is sad for both Australia and Indonesia and I hope that it is not true. Too much political rhetoric by both the newspapers and politicians can end up making a situation which is terrible even worse. Comments, for instance, made by commentators that compare what has happened in East Timor to the Holocaust and to Rwanda are just taking it too far. Let us be very clear about this: the Holocaust and Rwanda were state sponsored murder, sanctioned from the highest level of the state and were state policy.No-one in their right mind can say that what has happened in East Timor is the policy of President Habibie and his government. There are disturbing reports that elements of the TNI have been involved, but no-one can say that President Habibie has had this as his government's policy. To compare what has happened in Timor to the Holocaust and to Rwanda says just that. Indeed, I think the reverse might be true: that President Habibie, if he can be criticised in this issue, can probably be criticised for moving too fast to allow self-determination and independence. It is not the policy of him or his government to kill the Timorese people.Other government commentators have suggested that there should be conscription to fill up the Australian Defence Force. What a quaint 19th century Tory view that is—let's start a small war and conscript the unemployed to fight it for us! These are the sorts of rhetoric which I do not think do Australia or Indonesia or Timor any good. What has happened in Timor is most disgraceful. If only one person has been killed it is a tragedy for that person and for their family, and we Australians must provide help. But let us not demonise the Indonesian people in doing this because this is not a war that they have started. They are not the people who are to blame.Some inquiry in the future might show us who are the people to blame. But it certainly is not the Indonesian people and I do not believe it is President Habibie and his government. Indeed, he will probably be the person who loses his job over this, so he will pay the price for the decisions that he has made.It is really time for us to wind back a bit of the political rhetoric. And it is time for us to consider what we as Australians can do and what we should be encouraging our friends in Indonesia to do. We should not be getting into these bellicose arguments about how it is necessary for Australia to rearm, about how we should be improving the size of our Defence Force, because all that does is send a signal to our neighbour that we are not really interested in engagement and involvement with them but that we see them as the enemy. I think people in this parliament should make sure that we do not see that happening.Having sounded those cautionary thoughts, I sincerely hope and pray that the situation in East Timor can be put right. Unlike most Australians, I have had the privilege to visit East Timor and I was struck by the relative unsophistication, quiet dignity and determination, and deeply felt Christian faith of the majority of its people. For many years now those people have suffered and have wanted to lead independent lives. That is what I think a lot of the people in Indonesia have wanted to do. What we have seen in the recent little while have been steps towards proper and open elections and democracy in Indonesia. That, for us, in our region and with our largest neighbour, is very important. I do not think we should see all those good things that have happened in Indonesia get washed away, in the minds of Australians, by what has happened in Timor.As I said at the beginning, the people of Timor have been trodden on and have suffered the consequences of being a small community with a bigger neighbour, but they have remained true to themselves and their faith. We should remain true to our friendship with both the Timorese people and the Indonesian people. We should make it very clear, in the things we say and the things we do, that we have a vast distaste for what has happened in Timor and that if the Timorese people have chosen to be independent they have that right, as we and others have that right. But we should ensure that we also send a signal to our friends in Indonesia that our argument is not with them, that our argument is about what has happened in Timor. I think we should just take a step back and take a little bit of a deep breath to ensure that we stand up for the rights of the people of Timor and, in the same circumstances, ensure that we encourage the Indonesian people to continue the friendship that they have with us and to continue down the path of democracy that they have started to take. These are thoughts that we should consider at this time as well.20:30:0010713Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—It was with a degree of hesitation that I put my name down to speak to this motion because I thought, `There isn't anything that I could add to this that hasn't already been said.' I am sure that many members in one way or another have reiterated what has gone before them. But then I realised that I do not come to Canberra just to say and do the things that I think are important; I am here to represent more than 80,000 people in the electorate of Bradfield. From their perspective, I have a responsibility to put at least some comments on the public record.As our troops sailed to East Timor, it was with a sense of great apprehension that their families bade them farewell. That the safety and lives of Australians have been put at risk to secure the peace, dignity and survival of others is not new to Australians. Although mateship did not make it into the preamble, I thought it was rather ironic that, almost a century after Federation, that endearing, often uniquely Australian characteristic was being demonstrated by young Australians abroad—in this case in our region. That is something that ought not be lost on us. It reminds us perhaps that the more things change, the more they remain the same. I also thought that, as devastating as the inhumanity of human beings is towards others, as devastating as the images of East Timor and what we read about it are, in other parts of the world things as bad as that—in some cases even worse—are happening every day, yet in many ways, Australians seem desensitised to what goes on.But in this case, we have something happening on our doorstep, and for reasons that are obvious to anyone who observes the political process and human behaviour, we understandably have greater concern about that. Yet some of us have been frustrated in not having other significant nations throughout the world appearing to share our concern. With a sense of impotent rage, we have seen—certainly I have seen, along with all honourable members—and heard cruel evidence of man's inhumanity to man in East Timor. At the same time, the political machinations of the Indonesian army have made very little—if any—sense, as soldiers seemed unwilling or unable to prevent the brutality so evident to anyone who can see, hear and feel. As each day unfolds, as the peacekeeping forces go further into East Timor, it would seem that there may be some basis for accusations that the Indonesian military—or at least sections of it—if not participating in some of these violent acts, certainly may have stood by as they occurred.Over the last month my office has been deluged—and I mean deluged—by people advocating everything from the immediate dispatch of warships to harsh economic reprisals and indefinite trade bans on Indonesia. While not all of us have kept our feet on the ground, we are indeed fortunate that our Prime Minister, the Hon. John Howard, has. Troops into East Timor without United Nations endorsement and Indonesian government consent would be tantamount to invasion. There is every reason to believe that had Australia pressed stridently for a UN peacekeeping force before the ballot was held, it is likely Dr Habibie would not have allowed the ballot to be conducted at all.Australia is in no position to invade anyone, let alone a country with military resources at least 12 times greater than our own. In advocating a vote for independence and subsequently leading the peacekeeping force, Australia is not regarded by many Indonesians as their favourite neighbour. Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world with 211 million people, attributes blame for a disastrous situation to Australia, amongst others. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, like our troops, Australia is headed for an uncertain future.As the economic repercussions of this human tragedy face the discipline of capital markets, a number of issues are already emerging. Defence expenditure is likely to increase. Whatever the member for Watson has said, it has become obvious, even to the most left-leaning Australian, that Australia is going to need to invest more in its defence forces, not because we want to send a message to Indonesia and other countries in our region that we are arming ourselves, but rather because it may be said that Australia is not perhaps adequately equipped through its defence forces to provide its contribution to humanitarian and peacekeeping work as we are currently doing.The peacekeeping role is indefinite and is likely to require vigilance of shipping and trade routes, amongst other things. Refugee intakes might need to be increased at a time when tension in the region militates against Australia's ambition to become one of its key economic players. Advocates of economic sanctions against Indonesia, particularly the IMF rescue package, ignore two critical facts. The first is that the people who would suffer most are already the poorest of the poor. Sixty million Indonesians have been sending their kids to bed hungry at night for almost two years, and some people want to make it worse it would seem.The second fact relates to self-interest through which, with a degree of concern, I notice foreign policy seems to be conducted increasingly over the last few years. Financial instability means one thing, and that is political instability. To urge the withdrawal of financial assistance to a country that is only beginning to emerge from the worst currency and equity crisis in its history is to impose a slow and agonisingly painful revenge which will not easily be forgotten by our northerly neighbours.Australia's measured response has been as decisive as circumstances would allow, and the UN Security Council, as we have been reminded by the Prime Minister, has made a significant decision in record time. In avoiding precipitate action it may be that a far worse long-term outcome of human and social condition dimensions has been avoided. We will never know.One of the disappointing aspects of the debate about the motion, and I refer particularly to the Leader of the Opposition, is that there have been some attempts by people on both sides of politics to assign blame for foreign policy decisions in relation to East Timor over the last 20 years. It is very easy for any of us to look back in hindsight and say that the right or the wrong thing was not done, but I do not think it is going to serve the interests of anybody for us to blame any of our previous governments, whether they be Labor or coalition governments, which really thought that they were doing the best thing for both the East Timorese and for Australia at the time.The other point that I would like to make is that Australia and Indonesia are evolving in their own respective ways. Australia is only just beginning to adjust to its place in this region, both economically and socially. Mr Keating as the Prime Minister pushed it in a particular direction, much to the consternation of many Australians. But so too are the Indonesians starting to feel the first stirrings of real democratic processes. I think it is going to be a tumultuous period. We do not know where this whole East Timorese situation is going to end up, but it is going to be difficult. I would like to think that in the long term Australia and Indonesia and our other Asian partners will develop a more enduring and substantive relationship than perhaps we might have been led to believe existed when Mr Keating was the Prime Minister.I would also like to reinforce the comments made by the member for Watson criticising suggestions that we have conscription. I would like to fully endorse those remarks. I believe that it is nonsense to be suggesting that we go back to conscription, particularly in relation to this matter. And whilst I am a strong supporter of work for the dole, I do not particularly want to live in a country that has to fight for the dole.Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. I strongly support the motion in the terms that have been described. Let us hope that Australian troops are home soon, as much for the sake of the East Timorese as for ourselves.20:40:0010715Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—Last Tuesday the parliament unanimously passed a motion in relation to East Timor. Part of that motion was a formal recognition of the UN Security Council resolution 1264, which is the subject of tonight's debate in the Main Committee. There can be no greater decision of any government than to commit troops for overseas service. No matter what the circumstances, a debate by the federal parliament in this environment is of great moment. The fact that the motion of last week received unanimous support in both houses is a clear reflection of Australia's resolve to contribute now, in 1999, in the most positive way to help the East Timorese people attain their quest for independence.In my original notes, I have written that I do not wish in this debate to enter into discussion about whether the Howard government could have acted in a more decisive manner to minimise the bloodshed since the referendum on 30 August. On some occasions, having reviewed the debate and having now listened to the further debate, I am a bit ambivalent about whether I wish to enter into a further discussion. The issues have well and truly been canvassed, especially the clear evidence of the availability of intelligence reports and the statements of East Timorese leaders predicting that the retribution carried out by pro-integrationist forces would, in fact, occur.Whilst it is important to acknowledge the availability of these assessments, I believe it is still important to acknowledge that these are not the first intelligence reports over the last 25 years that have been ignored by successive governments. When some of those on the other side choose to criticise the actions of Labor governments over the past 25 years—whether it be the Whitlam, the Hawke or the Keating government—there has been a fairly consistent attitude by the leadership of not only the Labor Party but also the coalition on this matter. That is not to say that there have not been brave souls, individual members, who stuck their necks out in putting views that went against the views of the leadership of their political parties. The issue of East Timor has always had a special place and, as individuals, from time to time we have tried to come to grips with the reasons for previous decisions.The reaction of young people to the issue of East Timor has interested me. Soon after being elected to this place, I came to realise that many Australians who questioned what successive governments had done in East Timor were too young to realise what had actually happened. They had therefore made a judgment based on the evidence that they had gathered, and based on what they thought should have happened in contemporary times. This is an issue that has always been important within the Australian public. Therefore, the men and women of the Australian defence forces who are now deployed in Timor have the greatest support of the Australian public.No matter how robust the debate has been on the motion moved in the House of Representatives or on the notation of this UN resolution, there is one clear fact: all members of this parliament give their greatest support to the ADF forces. They support those forces and hope that they are able to return safely as soon as possible.I know that this is one occasion when I feel very confident that I can put not only a personal view but also a view on behalf of the people I represent here in this place—the electors of Scullin. They would wish me to convey to those people serving in East Timor—in the knowledge that those people serving will do so in the most professional manner possible—the hope that they return safely in the not too distant future. Regrettably, it would appear that that not too distant future may be a little way off. In talking about those serving in the ADF, we would also like to ensure that those serving as humanitarian workers in East Timor also feel the support we have for the work that they are doing in trying to help the East Timorese people back to the greatest degree of normality.It is important that those who have committed crimes against humanity in East Timor should be brought to account by the world community. It is not trite to say that some of the footage and stories that have been beamed out of East Timor are of the most horrific crimes imaginable. It would not be appropriate to think that those who carried them out would be able to get away with what they have done.Another thing that Australia should play a leading role in is the humanitarian effort. Whilst, on behalf of the community, the government is encouraged to provide a safe haven to some of the refugees from East Timor, we should also remember that those efforts should be carried out in the context of ensuring that those who wish to return to East Timor can do so with great safety and success.Another point that we should remember is that there are many in the Indonesian community who are involved in a great struggle to further democratise Indonesia, and they are deserving of our praise and our support. When we make comments, in general these should not be seen as being against the whole of the Indonesian populace but as a recognition that there is a determination that out of this Indonesian democracy can also gather great strength.In the quaint language of the UN, this particular resolution concludes by saying that the Security Council decides `to remain actively seized of the matter'. I am not too sure what that actually means. If it is a very positive notion, I hope that the UN, through the Security Council and the other agencies, is `actively seized' of the matter with great urgency and determination so that the East Timorese people may be freed from the situation in which they find themselves. People such as Xanana Gusmao, Jose Ramos Horta and Bishop Belo—the leading public figures who have continued the struggle and who are supported by the many thousands brave enough to participate in the referendum to overwhelmingly support independence—are deserving of our greatest support. That is the reason Australia is involved—not for any reasons of territorial gain, but to see that the right thing is done.I have quoted James Henry Scullin before, but I never actually thought that it might be appropriate in the context of a foreign affairs matter. This quote appears on Scullin's memorial. It says:Justice and humanity demand interference whenever the weak are being crushed by the strong.It is in that context that I wholeheartedly support Australia's involvement now in INTERFET and, if required, later in peacekeeping troops in East Timor.20:49:0010716Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—I support the motion before the House, and the action that Australia has taken in East Timor. Our action follows an internationally monitored democratic ballot, an overwhelming vote in favour of independence despite intimidation and threats of reprisals, a reign of terror, and a unanimous decision by the United Nations Security Council. In doing so, I wish first to express my gratitude to the men and women of the Australian defence forces who are putting themselves at risk and accepting hardship in order to serve Australia, the United Nations, the people of East Timor, democracy and justice. It is an honourable task that they are carrying out.It is a great pleasure to be able to stand in this House in bipartisan company to support such an historic resolution. I am sure the Australian defence personnel involved in East Timor, and the wider Australian community, will also welcome the bipartisan approach taken by this parliament. It is with hope that we in Australia look to a resolution of the humanitarian and military crises within East Timor and the quick restoration of good relations with Indonesia bilaterally and in the context of the international community and the region's neighbours.East Timor has been for too long a running sore in South-East Asia. Although it is painful for all involved to have to dress the wound now, we look with hope to its rapid healing and to the time when we can all get on with helping each other to a better future without the threat of violence and the intimidation in East Timor. The history of the region since the Second World War has confirmed to all in South-East Asia that peacefulness and good relations within the countries of that region, and within the region itself, are the highway to economic prosperity for Australians, Indonesians and everyone else.We keep extended our hand of friendship not only to the East Timorese but to all the people of the Republic of Indonesia. I give thanks to the Indonesian military leadership who, in the best spirit of international community cooperation, have facilitated the safe arrival of the international force in Dili. With respect and a warm heart, I sincerely ask the distinguished members of the Indonesian parliament and the Indonesian people to support their President's call for them to accept East Timor's vote for independence, as it is in their and all their neighbours' self-interest to do so. All in our region must look to the future, seeking reconciliation and mutual cooperation.The dispatch of the Australian troops to East Timor on Monday, 20 September 1999 saw an interesting confluence of time and destiny. In a few weeks time there will be the centenary of the Australian colonial expeditionary force that was sent to South Africa following the outbreak of war between Britain and the two Dutch South African republics on 11 October 1899. After the Federation of the Commonwealth of Australia on 1 January 1901, there began the unification of these units—consisting largely of mounted rifles—in action in South Africa, which led to the whole force being designated for the first time as an Australian force.There is another dimension to the dispatch of the Australian troops this week that is of notable distinction. The arrival of the troops was preceded not by an air bombardment of high explosive bombs, but by an airdrop of food and other emergency supplies to a displaced, starving and terrorised population. I ask those who are critical of Australia's involvement to note this. This follows decades of development and periodic emergency assistance worth billions of dollars to our neighbours in the near region.If anyone in Indonesia wonders why Australia has taken the lead in coming to the aid of the East Timorese people, it is quite transparent. There is nothing sinister about it. It is a natural extension of the goodwill policies, largely in the form of grant aid, that Australia has been following in Asia for almost half a century, beginning with the Colombo Plan. As I speak, it is not bombs that are exploding on the Indonesian archipelago, but emergency food parcels fluttering to the ground, and you cannot get more benign than that.Since the Federation of Australia in 1901, Australia's armed forces have come to know full well the seriousness of armed conflict. They have tasted the fruit of victory and have suffered the consequences of battles lost. Indeed, not only have many Australians on active war service lost their lives in the region but many have suffered terribly as captives. Australians understand what it means to be unarmed, unprotected and at the mercy of brutal and armed adversaries. This is another reason why Australia has given a high priority to the elimination of suffering in East Timor. We carry a heightened awareness of events in this part of the world, partly brought about by the shedding of Australian blood.The loved ones of the Australian military personnel who today are left behind in Australia are experiencing the daily anxiety of hanging on to every word of every news bulletin and reading every newspaper report they can find. I have more than a few of those loved ones in my electorate. There are a number of military installations there, including one of Australia's largest military installations, the Holsworthy defence area.For this reason, and for the sake of those who are personally involved in events in East Timor, I want to make something quite clear. It is this: despite what others have said in this House during this debate, the crisis that has occurred in East Timor is not due to any failure in Australian policy but to a failure in Indonesian policy. Australians have no cause to feel guilt or blame for what has happened and nor should this government. Nor should we be the scapegoat for the failures and misdemeanours of others or for the passing political advantage of others.I want to say to the families of our troops that, whatever happens, your loved ones are in East Timor for the best possible reasons. They are there following the best possible efforts of the government and the international community to bring about a peaceful and just resolution of the slaughter and mayhem that has occurred in East Timor since Indonesia agreed to a United Nations ballot earlier this year. The government has ensured that the rules of engagement allow them to adequately protect themselves and the lives of others. As well as the best wishes of the Australian people, Australian defence personnel deployed in East Timor will receive tax free salaries and other benefits, including a set of tax free allowances totalling $125 a day. As well as receiving additional leave entitlements and loan subsidies, they are covered by the Commonwealth veterans' entitlement and the military compensation scheme should they be harmed. They will also become entitled to service pensions.The Prime Minister has cautioned Australians about the dangers of this humanitarian mission to establish the rule of law and order. I have no doubt that Australians will stand up and bear any unpleasant consequences of the danger because we are united in our objectives in East Timor, as set out in the resolution before the House, and because it is a just cause, without any shadow of a doubt.On behalf of many Australians, I give thanks to God for the democratic institutions of our nation which we too often take for granted. I give thanks to God for the men and women who place themselves in danger in order to protect others, whether it is to be police or emergency services personnel here in Australia or defence personnel undertaking hazardous assignments overseas. We pray for the peaceful and just resolution of the conflict in East Timor. We pray for the safe return to their homes and loved ones of those who have been sent forth from Australia and from other countries to make up the international force in East Timor. We thank God that help has arrived for the displaced, sick and dispossessed. We pray for his blessing upon all in the region. For all our Australian troops, we pray that he will bring them all safely home.20:57:0010719O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—I would like to add to the comments of many members in the House on this motion on the UN resolution on East Timor. I commence by saying that I do not intend to canvass again many of the views that have already been put forward by members. The views about our involvement, as expressed in the contribution of my leader, Mr Beazley, at the commencement of this debate, sum up my views about the political issues surrounding our involvement.As one of the members of this place who was fairly heavily involved during the mid and late 1980s in the task of assisting Vietnam veterans achieve some proper recognition, I want all those serving to know that military involvement weighs heavily on the national psyche. There is not a person in this place who does not take very seriously and heavily the weight of decisions such as this to become involved. As every other member has expressed wishes of electorates, I also express the best wishes of every constituent in my electorate of Burke for the safety and wellbeing of the members of the defence forces now serving in East Timor and those who will follow on as well.In the few minutes remaining for my contribution, I would like to canvass some ideas I have about where all this really ought to go a little further down the road. I believe that the Australian government has no option but to be planning now for a long-term involvement not only in the securing of peace but in the long-term rehabilitation of what has become a destitute, ravaged nation of people. We must make a long-term commitment to securing peace and security for these people. I believe that we now need to begin planning and perhaps building a coalition of helpers, of volunteers for when we are in a position to guarantee their safety and to say to the aid agencies that it is not just a case of securing peace for East Timorese people, not just of helping people return to their homeland, not just a matter of securing emergency accommodation and emergency food supplies for these people, but that in fact Australia has a much greater and longer-term obligation than that.I believe that, for better or for worse, we have been a significant player in bringing on this vote for independence, in bringing on what has taken place, and I believe there is a national will to help in the long-term rebuilding of East Timor. I have not experienced that national will in such a broad range across the community in relation to anything else that we have been involved in in my time as a member of parliament. The will towards helping here is across all age groups and for a whole lot of different reasons, so I think there will be the opportunity for Australians to be more than willing about this.The picture that I am trying to create is that the Australian government, with the support of the opposition, should be planning not only a long-term presence to secure safety and peace but that those transport links, the accommodation links, the supply links should be kept open. We should now be starting to build a volunteer force of people who are prepared to go to East Timor—be it for a month, two months, three months or a longer term—to actually take part in replacing the infrastructure and in helping people rebuild their homes; even going and looking at the 1974 manifesto of Fretilin.Fretilin's manifesto in 1974 talked about building a nation. At that time, in the broad policy guidelines, there were items such as building a justice system, building a system of civil administration, building schools, running an education system and taking part in the world as a fully developed nation. Nowhere in that 1974 manifesto of Fretilin did they envisage doing it from rubble and ashes. The fact is that East Timor starts from a worse position than it was ever in in 1974 and a worse position than anyone ever envisaged. In my view, that means that Australians have a key role to play.I cannot help but reflect on the many thousands of Australians who are in the huge group of 50-year-old people who have been displaced from the work force or told they can take their lump sum and go in their four-wheel drives and caravans and wander around Australia for the next 20 years. Do we seriously think that that is what these people want to do for the rest of their lives? Of course it is not. I think anyone half smart could now start reaching into groups of people like that who have enormous skills and who are grossly underutilised in Australia. It might be one in 100 of them, it might be one in 1,000, but I reckon it would be closer to one in 10 of them who would say, `Yes, if you could transport me there, if you could provide me with food while I am there, if you can guarantee my security, I'll go up and help them build a school, I'll help teach those kids, I'll help set up a local government structure, I'll help build a trade union,' or whatever it might be.If we were to begin planning and talking about such a notion, I believe you would be amazed at the response you would get from Australians who would be willing to go and provide their presence, providing we can guarantee their security, providing we can transport them there, and providing we can accommodate them while they are carrying out that task. Such a proposal sent my mind back to the airline pilots strike of the late 1980s when there was a situation where the military did transport many of us around, not just VIPs and the rest. They went into action keeping the tourist industry alive during that horrific six months, particularly in North Queensland and in Tasmania. They kept the tourist industry alive by putting resources to work, proving the capability that is actually there.I know this is all very optimistic. I have made preliminary assumptions in bringing a proposal like this forward. I have assumed that we will be able to secure peace. I have assumed that under a lot of pressure the government will reinvent the reserves and we will have an ongoing presence. I have assumed that as part of the UN force we can set in place the preconditions to do this. Having put those preconditions in place, I want us to start thinking now where we will take it from, not start thinking then.I reiterate the thoughts I had at the outset, and that so many other members have conveyed in this debate, about our support for our personnel. I also place on notice now my belief that we need to begin thinking optimistically about how we can pull this nation together to actually make that longer term contribution.21:07:0010720Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—I rise to support the motion that this House:(1) notes the overwhelming choice for independence exercised by the East Timorese people on 30 August;(2) welcomes United Nations Security Council Resolution 1264 authorising a multinational force to restore peace and security in East Timor, protect the United Nations' mission in East Timor and facilitate humanitarian assistance;(3) endorses Australia's agreement to the United Nation's Secretary-General's request that Australia contribute to and lead the multinational force;(4) expresses its full support for the Australians serving with the multinational force and its full confidence in them; and(5) looks forward to their safe return home. I support this resolution, particularly as a former serving member of the Women's Royal Australian Navy within the Australian Defence Force, and I am pleased that the opposition also supports it. It is a great honour to have served in the Australian Defence Force and now serve the Australian people as a federal member of parliament for the seat of Makin.However, it is with some surprise and concern that I note the Australian media so far has not given credit for the fact that the Prime Minister has displayed some of the greatest statesmanship of all our prime ministers this century. The following ministers should be given credit for their endeavours to secure a peacekeeping force under the auspices of the United Nations: the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer; the Minister for Defence, John Moore; the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, Bruce Scott; and the Prime Minister.Many countries are participating from within and from outside our immediate region. I understand that so far we have commitments from Brazil, Canada, France, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, the Philippines, Portugal, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, the United States and the United Kingdom. I am delighted that all of these countries have made such a commitment, due largely to the efforts of our Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs.However, on a sad note I am disappointed at the opportunism displayed by some members of the Labor Party on this issue. It can only be detrimental to the morale of our soldiers and all of the peacekeeping forces currently in East Timor. In fact, I am ashamed and appalled at the way the opposition is behaving in this matter. As the Prime Minister said in question time today, it is time to look forward—to work and concentrate on the present—to our continuing success in Operation Stabilise. It is at this point that congratulations of all of the Australian people should go not only to the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence but also to our soldiers and the tremendous professional work that they are carrying out in East Timor.I am heartened by the knowledge that all of the peacekeepers, but in particular our own Australian soldiers, are highly trained professional, committed and dedicated men and women. I salute all of them and their courage and would like them to know that this is not only my own personal point of view but my view as a federal member of parliament representing many Australians who are also justifiably proud of our peacekeepers. I also salute and commend the courage of their families and loved ones back home. I am heartened by the fact that our ministers and their support staff are doing everything in their power to support the families and loved ones of our men and women serving overseas.Again, I would like to point out that it is simply irresponsible for the Labor Party to behave in the manner that it has. It was simply irresponsible for some people to suggest that the government should have somehow pushed harder than it did for Indonesia to accept a United Nations peacekeeping presence before the independence ballot.It is on the record that our Prime Minister raised this very issue with President Habibie of Indonesia before the ballot, but that the Indonesian government was, at that stage, resolutely opposed to the idea. By suggesting that Australia should have pressed this case further than we did, in the face of clear Indonesian opposition, the Labor Party is suggesting that we should have thrown away our entire relationship with Indonesia at that point. Not only that, but we could possibly have jeopardised the prospect of there being any independence vote for East Timor at all. Instead, we did the only sensible thing under the circumstances: we prepared our own forces for what might—but still we hoped would not—happen.Imagine Labor's alternative policy, that Australia humiliate the Indonesian government in international forums—and send our troops to be slaughtered. Even if the ballot had still gone ahead, under these circumstances Labor's policy would have guaranteed the unnecessary shedding of Australian blood in East Timor. Not only the militia but very likely the Indonesian military and the government would have been deeply antagonistic to our presence in East Timor under those circumstances.As it is the INTERFET commander, Major General Peter Cosgrove, has reported that he has received cooperation from Indonesian military authorities. It is important to note here that our Prime Minister has praised President Habibie for realising the need for peacekeeping forces to enter East Timor under these difficult and tragic circumstances. No mistake should be made on this point. However dangerous our position in East Timor—and it is dangerous—it would have been made immeasurably more so had we acted in the way that the Labor Party is advocating.The approach of this government to the East Timor question has been by far the most principled of any government since East Timor was integrated into Indonesia nearly a quarter of a century ago. This government has faced the issue squarely and acted at all times to find peaceful and diplomatically sustainable solutions to the East Timor question. In particular, I would like to commend Prime Minister John Howard and Foreign Minister Alexander Downer for their tireless efforts in the face of confused and contradictory criticisms from the opposition and some foreign policy commentators. I would also like to take this opportunity to send my personal message of thanks and good wishes to Australian personnel currently serving in East Timor as well as all of the United Nations peacekeeping forces. With those brave people go all of our thoughts and prayers for a safe and successful mission.We are not in East Timor because it is the safe thing to do or the politically expedient or the popular thing to do. We are there because it is the right thing to do for the East Timorese. I applaud the conviction of our Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the courage of our defence forces and the tremendous generosity and goodwill of the Australian people.I would like to echo our Prime Minister's comments, as I am sure many Australians do, that we pray for the speedy and safe return of all our Australian soldiers and that security and peace can be restored in East Timor for the good of the East Timorese, Indonesia and the security of our region in general. I hope that Australia can look forward to rebuilding its relationship with Indonesia.21:15:0010722Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—At such moments in our history, we all must bear witness to the truth as we know it. This afternoon I listened to the members for Cook and Fairfax and their sincere comments about the failure all of us have exhibited in giving this issue the due weight it deserved over the last 25 years. For myself, I also say mea culpa.Many of us were gulled, I believe, by the positive democratic developments that took place in Indonesia during the last year. We believed that the referendum in East Timor could take place with a quasi democratic regime led by President Habibie. Supporters and, indeed, critics of the Howard-Downer-Habibie plan for the democratic referendum in East Timor underestimated the sheer bastardry of elements in the Indonesian ancien regime. We underestimated the evil of some elements in the Indonesian military such as General Zacky Anwar, whose legacy is burning churches and the uprooting of an entire people.One person, in my view, however, stands out from the prevailing wisdom, and in my capacity as a member of the Labor Party's foreign affairs caucus committee I have had the honour to support him: the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith. His siren calls went unheeded, and hundreds of thousands of people have paid the price. Yes, it is true that all previous Australian governments bear historic guilt in this debate. It is true, however, that there is not a total historical discontinuity between past Indonesian-Australian relations and the cold peace that unfortunately exists between our two countries now. As the past foreign minister the Hon. Gareth Evans said:. . . before the economic crisis of 1997—in Indonesia—and its political aftermath changed everything, we all had to live with the fact that there seemed no realistic chance of Indonesia ever actually agreeing to a fully-fledged act of self-determination in which independence was an option.He went on to say:. . . after 1997 the impossible suddenly seemed possible. It had nothing to do with the change of government in Canberra. Rather, the economic crisis or Indonesia coming under international pressure as never before, and desperate to garner international support. That and Suharto's downfall opened up brand new options for the resolution of the East Timor situation. John Howard correctly called one of them when he wrote to President Habibie in December 1998, urging Indonesia to grant East Timor significant autonomy immediately and to hold out the possibility of a full self-determination ballot at an unspecified later time. The trouble was that Habibie's response—inspired more by pique than high principle, and insufficiently canvassed with his military—went a quantum leap further than Howard has proposed, by throwing open the prospect of independence if autonomy was refused.Unlike the previous speaker, I think that honest people can disagree about this issue. While all of us undoubtedly support the role of Australian troops in East Timor—indeed, some of us on this side of politics would be willing enough to be generous to the foreign minister and to the Prime Minister and say that the deployment did take place remarkably quickly—people on this side of politics do not believe there was an either/or option prior to the referendum taking place.It may indeed be true that the referendum would have taken place only if the Indonesians were not forced to have a peacekeeping force there while the referendum was actually on. However, there are a great many other things that the Australian government might have done. The shadow foreign minister repeatedly pointed them out in question time in the previous months, and I remember them. I have been there since 3 October, and two events stand out in my mind in particular. They are the meeting where the head of the Australian foreign service met the US Assistant Secretary of State, Mr Stanley Roth, in January and, when asked about a contingency plan, Australia said, `We are not interested'; and later when one of our military officials was asked by a US Marine general about a similar contingency plan.I believe that the telephone call made by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff to General Wiranto some days after the sacking and pillaging of Dili shows that other things could have been done. As the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow foreign minister have said, we should have been on the phone to the Americans making sure that the situation in Dili was tied down and that, if our influence could not be used, that the considerable influence of the US government was deployed with the Indonesians.When General Shelton rang Wiranto—and, unlike our Minister for Defence, he was able to get through on the telephone—he immediately agreed, and Indonesia agreed soon after, to a peacekeeping force being deployed in Timor. If such pressure had been put on the Americans immediately prior to the referendum, the situation in East Timor might have remained relatively calm, as it did on referendum day. On referendum day, the Indonesian TNI showed that they could keep control in Indonesia, where 78 per cent of people voted for independence. I believe that, if Australia had fulfilled its responsibility of keeping the Americans focused on this part of the world immediately prior to the referendum, we could have concentrated the minds of General Wiranto, General Anwar and the various other people whose evil deeds we know about now.During question time today, the Prime Minister distanced himself from the report in last week's Bulletin that he had announced a new strategic imperative for Australia—the Howard doctrine. Whether the Prime Minister used the actual words or not, what he argued for was as follows:It is the more muscular Australia prepared to fulfil the role of regional deputy to the global US policeman . . . Howard embraces the "deputy" concept . . . Australia . . . will draw strength from its distinctive characteristics of a Western civilisation in Asia; an Australia not seeking to fashion itself like the rest of Asia . . . It is very disappointing for those of us who, like the Prime Minister, would like to look forward on this Timor issue, that such a fundamental commitment of our country's position seems to have been made on the run—not in a considered speech, not after extensive consultation with military and foreign policy advisers, but, with apologies to Mr Brenchley, in a throwaway interview in a weekly magazine. Doctrines can be extremely significant things. President James Monroe, the then President of the United States, told Congress in 1823;We owe it, therefore, to candour and to the amicable relations between the United States and those powers (referring to European Powers) to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety . . . He clearly did not have the same eye for history as our current Prime Minister. It was some time before historians and commentators came to refer to this enunciation as the `Monroe Doctrine'. The word `doctrine' was also their addendum.Earlier this afternoon, we heard comments from the members for Leichhardt and Grey that some of the reactions to the Prime Minister were sensationalist and left-wing journalism, et cetera. A person whom I have never known as a left-wing journalist, Mr Greg Sheridan, a foreign editor of the Australian, had this to say about the so-called Howard doctrine:Gaze out today on the rubble of what was once Australian foreign policy and weep. As Canberra races to find an ark of 1950s antiquity in which to carry its back-to-the-future Howard doctrine, the region has reacted with extreme hostility.. . . . . . . . .The Howard doctrine has instead overwhelmingly underlined every cliche and stereotype of white arrogance and neo-colonialism.This is a dangerous moment for Australia. The understandable pride at our magnificent servicemen and women is in danger of spilling over into ugly and destructive jingoism.And he concluded:What is needed now is a steady, calm hand on the tiller, an emphasis on continuing friendship and engagement. Instead we've had wild talk of fundamental change in Canberra's approach to the region, involving especially a new emphasis on military power.And there is no sense at all that this has been thought through or the necessary policy figures consulted. This is a mess, built on failure. God knows where it is leading.As for left-wingers and sensationalists, could I also quote David MacGibbon, a former Liberal senator and Chairman of the Joint Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee.QK6SERCOMBEMr Sercombe—He's pretty left wing.WF6Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBY—Yes, he is a real red-ragger. He said:The real danger we face in all this is being seen as a post-colonial relic, isolated from Asia in a corner of the Pacific. It's very easy to run the campaign against Australia that we are isolated in Asia and we've spent 50 years trying to put a different perspective.The tragedy of this foreign policy is not its implementation in Timor on the ground at the moment. The military forces are doing a fine job, a job that is supported by all of the Australian people. We have a great responsibility to see that at a future time they are replaced. The 7th Task Force, particularly, in Brisbane will have to be upgraded very rapidly, and certainly Australian military expenditures will need to be focused on providing more foot soldiers so those very professional service people can be transited out.Honest people can disagree about what this government did in the past, prior to the referendum. Honest people can argue, as I believe the opposition does, that a different pressure could have been put on the Indonesian authorities and a different result would have been had in Timor.21:25:0010725Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—Mr Deputy Speaker, do you have any objection if I make my remarks sitting down?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—No, that is fine. It may set a precedent that may well be continued.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—I can see little point in standing in a room where we are all so absolutely visible. In addressing the motion on the UN resolution on East Timor, and having watched the television records of what is happening in East Timor at the moment, I would like to commend the Australian forces on the impression that they have given, which is of a highly disciplined, very effective force. I, as one Australian, have been very proud to see the way that they have behaved: with dignity and yet at the same time with firmness. Certainly my congratulations go to Major General Cosgrove for the way that he has acted in an extremely difficult situation.Having said that, I would like to spend the rest of my time in comments on various issues. The first is East Timor itself, and Australia's obligation to East Timor. I read in the Australian several days ago a comment by Paul Kelly discussing the various myths, as he saw them. One of the myths that he named was Australia's `obligation' to East Timor. His point of view was that we had no obligation to East Timor and the feeling that post World War II we should have done something more for East Timor was neither practical nor even reasonable. I would disagree with Mr Kelly on that point.My father was one of those servicemen during the Second World War who fought in the islands and near East Timor. They were very much aware at the time of how much their lives and safety depended on the East Timorese. They had an understanding with the East Timorese that the kindness, the putting aside of their own safety, the putting themselves at risk by the East Timorese for Australians would always be remembered by Australia. But after the events of 1975 there was a feeling that Australia had not remembered what had happened during the Second World War. I believe that within the country there was a feeling of, perhaps, shame that we had not done more to protest at what had happened to East Timor.This is not to say that we could have changed the events of history. I doubt that we could have. But there was a complicity in our attitude to what had happened in East Timor which I think has caused many older Australians and, from them, their children and grandchildren to feel a sense of shame. That now has passed and I think there is a feeling in Australia that we have done the right thing: even by putting Australian lives at risk we are standing for principles that we believe in in East Timor. We are opposed to butchery, and we will step in where we can to prevent it from happening and to protect innocent women and children.I have heard people say, `We will regret this decision because popular opinion will go against it when we see bodies coming home in bags.' Those people are treading on very dangerous ground. If it should happen that Australian lives are lost in Timor, the worst thing that we could do to the survivors and the relatives of those people who died, who gave their lives, would be to say that their involvement should not have happened, that we should not have been there. All that we should say is that they died for a good cause, and we need to say that if it happens, not to start at this stage saying, `Well, we weren't going to achieve anything anyway. It is not a good pragmatic decision because we may lose Australian lives.'There is pride that we have taken the right decision. The feeling of the population is that we have finally stood up for the liberal democratic values that we are supposed to hold in this country and there is a time to say that these values are more important than pragmatism.Having said that, I would like to briefly touch on the role that the opposition has played in this debate. It is not one that I suspect covers the opposition with any great honour. They have had two arguments against the course of events. The first is that Australia should have sent in peacekeeping forces earlier. The second is that there should have been a coalition of peacekeepers before the ballot. Both of these points are so far from what was possible as to be ludicrous. To go back, we did not know what the vote on East Timor was going to be, and neither did Indonesia. I defy anybody to say that they were not surprised when they saw the extent of that yes vote, especially after the intimidation that had gone on in East Timor.We did not know how the referendum was going to pan out, neither did Indonesia. Although we were afraid of what the militia might do, we could not prejudge the issue. To do so would have brought the severest condemnation not only from Indonesia but from all of our other South-East Asian neighbours. We could not say, `This is going to happen: let's rush in.'Let us also look at the practicality. When we finally did go in as a peacekeeping force, it was with the agreement of Indonesia. We could not have gone in without that agreement, without declaring war on Indonesia, which was obviously patently ridiculous. It also followed a resolution of the United Nations. That resolution only followed an invitation by Indonesia. We had to have that invitation.If the opposition thinks there was any real likelihood of Indonesia offering that invitation beforehand, they should have a look at what was needed to eventually get that invitation. It was the television sets around the world displaying the violence that was erupting in East Timor and the actions of the militia. On top of that, it required pressure from the United States and also from neighbouring countries and the International Monetary Fund. That pressure had to be there at the end in face of what was happening to get Indonesia to make that offer. But the opposition has sought to find party political advantage in this situation which, for the welfare of the whole of this continent, is a very dangerous thing to do.Indonesia is upset about what happened in East Timor. It had spent a lot of money and time in trying to secure the province and it was slapped in the face with a 78 per cent vote against it. Following that, it has the condemnation of Australia. It does not need, therefore, any encouragement from Australian politicians for Indonesia to start badmouthing Australia. How does the opposition think that the leadership of other South-East Asian countries, such as Thailand, react when they see not only Indonesia criticising Australia but also Australia's own politicians?They do not see it in the way that we see it, as party political point scoring, but they see it as dissension within Australia about the role we are playing in East Timor. In doing so, the Leader of the Opposition has much to answer for. It may be that it was in response to the stinging criticism of his ex-colleague that he had an un-Churchillian streak of timidity. This was not the time to show that he was not timid. It was a time to unify all Australians to stand behind Australia's effort in East Timor and to look to the future of Australia and East Timor.Finally, may I say that it is in East Timor's interest that Australia have good relations with Indonesia because we do not need Indonesia taking out anger at Australia on East Timor. Despite the posturing of the opposition, it is not Australia who will be the be-all and end-all of what happens in East Timor. It is very much up to the Indonesian military whether they continue to support the militia in East Timor or not. If we look to the future, we have to try to stabilise the relationship with Indonesia, not just for the sake of the relationship itself but for the interests of all East Timorese and the future of a stable and secure East Timor.21:35:0010727O'Byrne, MichelleMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—Before I go through the body of the statement that I want to make, I do want to make one reference to the previous speaker, the member for Hindmarsh. Taking on board her acceptance of the commitment and obligation that we owe East Timor, all I wanted to say was that the UN promised that they would be there before, during and after the ballot. They gave a commitment to the East Timorese people that the Timorese believed.Let me say that I do endorse the motion currently before the House and, in doing so, I certainly echo the sentiments of my electorate. The support that the Australian community has for the people of East Timor is enormous. By supporting this motion, we have sent a clear message to the Australian and the international communities that the Australian parliament is serious about the protection of life and liberty in East Timor. The only solution is to stop the violence so that the East Timorese people can live in safety. We must also commit ourselves to the rebuilding of East Timor when peace is a reality. These people have lost not only their security but their infrastructure.Over the last few weeks we have all seen the destruction of towns and the murder of thousands. There are reports by the few remaining journalists and those gradually returning that the atrocities have been incredibly disturbing. The annexation of East Timor by Indonesia has had a devastating effect on the East Timorese people. Estimates have been made that between 100,000 and 200,000 people have lost their lives as a direct result of the conflict in East Timor over the last 24 years. Over the last few weeks we have all seen the destruction of Dili and the murder of thousands. The television coverage of the situation in East Timor has been disturbing but it has brought home to the Australian community the importance of Australian participation in moves to assist the East Timorese. I would like to take this opportunity to applaud the courage of the Australian troops now in East Timor, or as the Leader of the Opposition called them, our `young Australian warriors'. I have, like other members, received a huge amount of correspondence regarding the situation in East Timor. One email I received last week struck a particular chord with me and I would like to share some of the comments of the writer with members today. She said:I am a soldier's wife. My husband is very likely to be deployed overseas if the Liberals ever get their finger out. It needs to be done, they need our help. I have four children and I just think of all the poor kids over there who need a digger's hug and safety they can provide. If I didn't think this was necessary I would not be writing this. I don't normally want my husband to put himself in danger but, for God's sake, it needs to be done.This email was signed `Just a diggers wife'.The friends and family of these defence personnel are justifiably concerned about the safety of these Australians, but I believe they appreciate the importance of this commitment to peace. When entering a career in the military, people are making a commitment to the security of Australia, and at a time such as this they have also made a commitment to the security and safety of our region. While these defence personnel accept the risk associated with their career choices, any moves into areas of conflict necessarily increase the potential for harm. I wish, therefore, to thank those people for their commitment to Australia and wish each of them a safe return to family and friends.I think we need to ask ourselves in exactly what context we are sending our young warriors to the killing fields of East Timor. I am concerned that the situation in East Timor has degenerated without the Australian government having adequately prepared for these highly predictable circumstances. According to the shadow minister for foreign affairs, the member for Kingsford-Smith, there are two main reasons for the situation in East Timor reaching this crisis point. Firstly, there was the decision to allow the independence process to move quickly and disregard the intelligence outlining the potential for bloodshed should the TNI remain in force with the so-called militia forces which, media reports indicate, is operating with, at the very least, the tacit support of the Indonesian military. Secondly, there was the delay in involving the United States.In November 1998 Xanana Gusmao suggested a timetable for the territory to gain independence from Indonesia. The essence of it was that 18 months should be spent solving problems relating to security, which included the disarming of paramilitary groups followed by a transition process lasting at least three years during which there would be a political education program and the establishment of an East Timorese police force as part of a possible deployment of peacekeeping forces.Xanana Gusmao, with Noble laureates Jose Ramos Horta and Bishop Belo, suggested that it might be necessary for East Timor to have a significant period of autonomy—in some statements up to 10 years—before a referendum on independence. It is clear that these three people so involved in the movement for an independent East Timor felt that the safety of the East Timorese people was best ensured through a gradual process. When it was decided that the East Timorese should vote as quickly as possible on whether they wanted autonomy within Indonesia or complete independence, neither the United Nations or the Australian government acted to oppose this decision. In fact, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs acted to expedite the process of independence. The consequence of that inappropriate action is now apparent to all.The recognition by Xanana Gusmao of the potential for violence and the need for the internal security of East Timor to be established was unfortunately not shared by the Australian government. Indeed, it appears that US intelligence reports derived from Australian sources indicated that there was a very high risk of violence following the conduct of the ballot for independence. I believe that, with effective diplomatic endeavours, thorough planning and regard to appropriate risk assessments, much of the bloodshed in East Timor leading up to and following the independence ballot could have been avoided.Due to the lack of foresight by this government and its apparent unwillingness to heed advice on the situation in East Timor, the Australian troops—a significant portion of the multinational force—are now entering a dangerous situation. They do so with bravery and with that certain matter-of-factness that often characterises Australian forces. I would like to repeat my heartfelt thanks to those people for their commitment to Australia and to wish each of them a very safe return to their families and friends. We need to urge the government to adequately resource and relieve these men and women. I also urge the government to rethink its very short-sighted policy of de-funding Radio Australia and to reinstate the broadcasts needed not only by our troops—members may have seen a few of them watching the footy the other day on television—but by those members of the Indonesian community who support our actions and who need to know what our position is.I want to pass on my congratulations and my appreciation to all those Tasmanians who have written, emailed or attended rallies and vigils in Tasmania, in particular to those who organised a rally and vigil in Launceston last Friday. Unfortunately, this event was not incredibly well attended, but those who did attend have an incredible amount of regard and support for the people of East Timor. They have been involved in this issue for some time and expect an awful lot from this government.In conclusion, it is very important that we must not kid ourselves that we are not culpable in this affair. The United Nations promised the East Timorese that we would be there before, during and after the ballot. Indeed, there were UN posters which contained a picture of the dove, the UN sign of peace, and said, `UNAMET—the prize is peace'. I support the motion before us, but I believe we owe it to those who have died to examine the process. This should not have happened and it should never happen again.21:42:0010729Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—I am pleased to be here tonight in support of the motion, but also to canvass a few of the issues around East Timor and what has occurred. It is true that the whole policy and the issues around East Timor have in many ways dominated Australian foreign policy over the last 25 years. I for one, amongst a number of other members, have been involved in demonstrations on these issues in years gone by. Certainly it is true to say that many on this side of the House have had concerns about East Timor policy over the last 25 years, often in a situation where we were critical of the policies of our own government. However, we can also agree that it has been an issue to which there is no easy solution. Recent events have shown that that is, in fact, the case.As we look through what has occurred over the last few months, we are now in a situation where there is a debate about what might have been if certain things had happened, and 20/20 hindsight has been used on a number of occasions in looking at the question of what policy actually was undertaken on a number of issues. Those issues focus on things such as: was the ballot for independence for the East Timorese people held too early; should there have been peacekeepers in place prior to the event; how and how well were the Americans involved in the formulating of options and their involvement in options around the question of what occurred; and where do we go from now?I would conclude that there are a number of things which the government should be looking to in the future around the question of what occurred. Although 20/20 hindsight is something that none of us have, it is certainly true that there were a range of concerns raised about aspects of policy on East Timor. Certainly it is true that spokespersons on behalf of the opposition, and a number of commentators, had raised a number of these issues over time and suggested quite strongly that there were matters that needed to be taken up earlier than they were and probably more effectively than they were.It is always hard in the foreign policy area to make judgments about how well a particular policy is pursued. It involves making judgments in an area where people often are involved in rewriting history after the event. However, as many academics have said, it is fair to say that there are issues there about the terms of engagement, about the Australian foreign minister and defence minister being involved earlier, and there are certainly issues about involving the United States at an earlier time and making sure that they were aware of the desperate situation.It is also fair to say that since the results of the ballot were made known, the resultant carnage in East Timor, the ferocity of what has occurred and the degree of desperate action that has been taken by the militia in the context of what has occurred in East Timor have been a surprise to some of us. Only tonight on the news we saw more details about the level of death and destruction. New atrocities are appearing on a daily basis.That leads to the issue of a human rights court and the need to have a war crimes process to ensure that the perpetrators of these crimes are brought to justice. This is going to take a long time. It is certainly something I am sure the government will be cognisant of and will move forward on as quickly as it can. I understand that there are difficult issues there that need to be addressed, but certainly those issues must be addressed if we are going to see a situation where those who did these acts in East Timor, and those who may do them in other parts of the world, understand that barbaric behaviour cannot be allowed to go unchecked.One of the other issues that has come up and which has been an item for discussion over the weekend, and in particular today in question time, is the matter of the so-called Howard doctrine. I stress that the Prime Minister today in question time did seek to clear up a range of inconsistencies and concerns that had been raised about that policy, but there are some things that still need to be said and some issues that need to be taken up.The Bulletin article that has been the basis of this matter was published five days ago and yet it took the Prime Minister until today to clarify some of those issues about being a regional policeman, or a Deputy Dog as some would say, for the United States in this area. You have got to ask yourself the question why he took so long to respond. I saw Admiral Barrie on the Sunday program yesterday and he was clearly struggling to avoid answers on that issue. He saw it as being outside his brief, but also he was clearly uncomfortable with the position the Prime Minister had taken. He knew full well the concern about our position within the region as an independent power.I will quote an article in today's paper as an example of the commentary that the initial position has brought forward. Greg Sheridan in the Australian said:Gaze out today on the rubble of what was once Australian foreign policy and weep. As Canberra races to find an ark of 1950s antiquity in which to carry its back-to-the-future Howard doctrine, the region has reacted with extreme hostility.We have seen the reaction from a number of countries in the area. The problem with having a proper debate on some of these issues about our position in the region is that you often get into a `he said, she said' argument. You get a situation where particular issues are reinterpreted time and time again in order to try to remove any concerns or inconsistencies.But it took five days to respond, five days to actually address the issue and clarify some of those concerns. We see in this particular position, however it has been redefined to this day, a fairly common thread that has run through this government on foreign policy issues and from this Prime Minister from a very early stage. It is an approach which harkens back to the days of empire in some respects. It is a variation on a theme where we can go forth and basically be a policeman or a great white Raj. I am not quite sure how you quite put it in these circumstances.I think that is an issue of concern. It does miss a fundamental reality about today—and I don't want to get into a debate about whether we are Asian, from Asia or in Asia—that we need to be conscious of our position in this region geographically. We need to see ourselves as a nation that can engage within this region.Indonesia, and a number of other regimes, have a democratic base that is not in common with our own nor are their actions to domestic security concerns what we, as a people, would endorse. These things raise concerns about how we involve ourselves in this region. The reaction that has come back to what was perceived as the Howard doctrine has been one of scorn and derision, pretty much universally within the region. This is a concern about how we position ourselves in the future. This has to be looked at very carefully. I hope the government will look at that very carefully because, if we are not in a situation where we can be seen to be working with our neighbours within the region while still having differing views on a range of issues, we will have problems on a trade and defence level and in putting ourselves forward as a proper contributor in the region. These are the sorts of things that this government particularly has to look at very closely.I wish all the troops who are deployed in East Timor all the very best of luck. We are with you; we believe in what you are doing there. We believe it is important for this country, this region and for the world to see a proper and just settlement in East Timor, for the people to be protected and to have the right to build a new nation of their own. That is something that we all want to see. The job that they are doing there is so important. They have our very best wishes for a safe deployment, hopefully not for too long—but I suspect it will be for some time. I wish the very best to all those troops who are there.21:52:0010731Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—I rise to support the Prime Minister's motion seconded and supported by the Leader of the Opposition. In Australia we believe in freedom and we believe in democracy. This issue is an awful lot about both of those concepts. I understand that, in much of the world, freedom and democracy have interpretations which would not be ours in Australia. I remind honourable members that we have the sixth oldest parliamentary democratic system in the world, exceeded only by Great Britain, the United States, Canada, Sweden and Switzerland—that is to say, countries that have kept their original democratic institutions, that have not been destroyed by military takeover, dictatorship or outright war.There is no question in my mind that East Timor has been a significant problem for the world community for a very long time. It has been a greater problem for the citizens who live on that half of that island. I would not pretend to know the answers to their problems nor would I pretend to know whether or not the Indonesian Prime Minister Habibie's decision to have a referendum or plebiscite on the issue of independence versus administration for autonomy as part of Indonesia was correct. It is not for me to say what is right for Indonesia. Some 25 years ago, I suspect that the whole world maybe made a wrong call when they let Indonesia attack East Timor; when they let them come in with armed intervention and take over a very small country that did not want to be under their control.Nonetheless, we live with history as we do, and we will live with history for a very long time, because what is left today of East Timor is perhaps not worth owning except to those people who live there, who want to live there and who have been displaced from that country.It was not that the Howard government sought independence for East Timor but rather that it sought some autonomy for a number of years, leading to the possibility of a referendum or a plebiscite on independence. Those on the other side who blame the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and other members of the government, or indeed backbenchers like me, for the problems that we experience today in East Timor are just plain wrong. No-one created the problems in East Timor other than Indonesians themselves.We recognise the importance of good relations with Indonesia. It is absolutely important that we continue to work towards gaining increasing good relations with that very major country, that major conglomerate of islands so very close to our north. It is self-evident that we cannot go our way in this part of the world without some relationship with Indonesia. It is better for us and it is better for the Indonesians if that relationship is positive. At the moment it is not good; I would be the last one to deny that fact.It is obvious that the relationship has deteriorated since East Timor voted for its independence and since, apparently, members of the Indonesian armed forces encouraged the militants in East Timor to destroy the infrastructure of the country, murder many of the inhabitants and chase others to other islands of the archipelago. But, notwithstanding the military's actions, we can only assume the good intentions of the Indonesian government and the people of Indonesia, and we must work towards improving relations over the near and distant future.We wish our troops in East Timor well. They go with our very best wishes and we wish them to stay out of harm's way. I would never wish anyone to have to go to war: I believe in peace. But I also know, realistically, that there are times when it is right to fight for what you believe in. Without putting too fine a point on it, the fact that the international community has decided that this is one of those times is highly appropriate. That those poor, gentle people in East Timor, suffering as they have over how many decades, should be put to the ultimate desecration by the militia and apparently by some Indonesian troops over recent weeks since they voted for independence, is beyond the pale.It is highly appropriate that Australia leads the international force. It is highly appropriate that we asked for the international force and that we have asked for support from not only Asian nations but European and American nations as well. From my viewpoint, it is encouraging that that support came freely and willingly, and as the troops build up we will see, increasingly, different faces and different uniforms across the small bit of that island that is East Timor.It is a difficult operation for the troops. I certainly do not pretend to be an expert on military operations or military affairs, but that mountainous island poses extreme difficulty for the international troops. They come under heavy pressure from the militant militia and others with weapons who would do them harm, and who want to destroy the international peacekeeping force for no other reason than to make sure that either they win or they simply destroy that which they were unable to win. That is very sad.This is a difficult operation and I wish our troops well. I hope they come under no criticism and I hope they come to no harm. Australians send them with goodwill and with all our support, from every side of politics, from every colour, from every religion, from every country on earth. We send them to represent us in this international situation which we cannot control but where we wish, on a humanitarian level, to help people who deserve our help and our respect to maintain their lives, to rebuild their communities and infrastructure and to make a future for themselves now that they have said that they believe in freedom and they believe in democracy, as we believe in freedom and we believe in democracy.I have no question in my mind, having watched television and listened to reports, that there have been extreme violations of human rights in that poor, small island. And they are extreme. The kinds of atrocities that have occurred are not minor violations of imprisonment or incarceration but violations that demean all of us as human beings, and I deplore those atrocities. I wish I could wipe them from my mind but I cannot. It is important that the United Nations, as the body from which we seek leadership in this issue, comes to grips with this problem, examines the violations of human rights that have occurred there and brings to justice those who have perpetrated the injustices.This is a critical time for all of us. It is a critical time for our poor friends on that small island to our north. It is a critical time for us, in terms of our standing in the international community. I am confident that we will stand tall and proud, as will our East Timorese neighbours, at the end of the day.Motion (by Mr Hawker) agreed to:That further proceedings be conducted in the House.Main Committee adjourned at 10.03 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing10734The following answers to questions were circulated:10734(Question No. 323)32310734Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr Sidebottom849BraddonALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 9 December 1998:(1) Did the former Tasmanian Liberal Government and the former member for Braddon provide him information about proposed magnesite mining and processing in Tasmania and related energy options for Bass Strait; if so, what information.(2) Did he indicate to the former member for Braddon that (a) he would personally take an overview of the proposal and (b) Mr Bob Mansfield of the Government's special projects team would be asked to take a leading role in advancing the proposal.(3) Is the proposed Crest Resources 51 billion magnesite project in Tasmania on the Government's special projects priority list; if not, why not.10734Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The former Liberal state government and the former Member for Braddon both argued strongly for support of the project. I received information which was provided to the Commonwealth on the nature of the proposed investment and its importance to Tasmania.(2) During the last federal election, the former Member for Braddon announced that the Major Projects Facilitator attached to my Office, Mr Bob Mansfield, would oversee the project and make sure there were no unnecessary delays or impediments in terms of satisfying Commonwealth government requirements. This announcement was cleared with my Office prior to release.(3) The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources grated the proposal Major Project Facilitation status on 21 April 1999.10734(Question No. 801)80110734McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 9 August 1999:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 154 (Hansard , 30 March 1999, page 4778), how many incidents where language differences have been a factor have been reported since March 1996.(2) How often do Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) inspectors conduct random inspections of foreign operators at their first port of call in Australia to assess the ability of the pilot in command to understand and speak the English language.(3) How many random inspections referred to in part (2) have been conducted by CASA inspectors since March 1996.(4) What percentage of foreign operators which have entered into Australia since March 1996 have been subjected to random inspections referred to in part (2).(5) Do Air Operator's Certificates issued to foreign operators contain a condition that the pilot in command, and any other crew member making a radio transmission from the aircraft, must be able to read, speak and understand the English language; if so, are operators other than the pilot in command ever subjected to random inspections carried out by CASA inspectors; if not, why not.10734Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has advised that BASI has received sixty incident reports since March 1996 where language was identified as a factor. These reports included instances where the reporter referred to language as a factor and those where the Investigator has determined that language was a factor in the incident.(2) As part of the international safety oversight program, CASA conducts inspections of two foreign operators per month. While these inspections are planned (and therefore not "random"), they are unannounced ie. the operator is not aware that they will occur. Additional unplanned inspections may be undertaken as a result of incident reports or information obtained from other sources.(3) Eighty-six inspections have been carried out since the program commenced in October 1996.(4) At present, seventy foreign operators hold Australian Air Operator's Certificates that permit them to conduct commercial flights into and out of Australian territory. Thirty-nine operators conduct regular passenger flights into Australia and seven conduct regular cargo flights. Nine operators carry out only a few passenger or cargo flights per year, and fifteen have not visited Australia for some time.Ninety-two per cent of the regular passenger operators and fifty-seven per cent of the regular cargo operators have been inspected on at least one occasion.Thirty-three percent of the operators who visit Australia infrequently have been inspected, and occasional inspections have been conducted of operators who do not hold an Air Operator's Certificate but have received approval for one-off non-scheduled flights.(5) Air Operator's Certificates issued to foreign operators contain a condition that states:"The language for radio communications within Australian Flight Information Regions is English and for this purpose the pilot in command and any other crew member making a transmission from the aircraft must be able to read, speak and understand the English language."CASA inspectors endeavour to speak to each member of the aircraft technical crew during an inspection to assess their ability to converse in the English language. This will include the Captain, the First Officer, and any other pilots carried as part of the operating crew and the flight engineer if carried.10735(Question No. 802)80210735McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 9 August 1999:(1) Further to the answer to question No 157 (Hansard , 10 March 1999, page 3703), has progress been made to introduce a system which will result in Airservices Australia being advised of the reasons why pilots have had an operational requirement for other than the runway nominated in accordance with the Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport (KSA); if not, why not; if so, what are the indications which have been received by Airservices Australia in relation to this system.(2) Will the system also record the number of times pilots have refused LTOP based landing directions at KSA; if not why not.(3) If the answer to part (2) is yes, and the system has already been established, how many times have pilots refused LTOP based landing directions at KSA. (4) What steps must be taken for Airservices Australia to obtain the information which I requested as to whether pilots have refused LTOP based take-off directions since it was implemented and will he direct Airservices Australia to take those steps.10735Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes. Airservices Australia advises that it has introduced a reporting system under which operators whose pilots have required a "non duty" runway are contacted and are asked to provide Airservices Australia with reasons for their use of the "non duty" runway. The results so far show that it is overwhelmingly the departing or arriving long haul B747 aircraft that are requesting a "non duty" runway for operational reasons. Pilots' requests are for the use of the main north-south runway and departures are requiring the use of the runway more often than arrivals.(2) The primary purpose of the "non duty" runway reporting system is to give an indication of the type of aircraft requiring a "non duty" runway, to determine whether there were other than operational reasons for pilots requesting such runway and to assist in the education of pilots on the operation of LTOP at KSA. The system does not therefore seek to record with absolute accuracy the number of times pilots have had an operational requirement for a runway other than the nominated runway.See (2) above.(4) I am advised by Airservices Australia that due to difficulties in clearly defining "non duty" runway use particularly during LTOP runway mode changes it would not be practical to develop a reporting system that would comprehensively and accurately record all "non duty" runway use.10735(Question No. 803)80310735McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 9 August 1999:Further to question No. 1735 (Hansard , 28 August 1997, page 7369), will he direct the appropriate body to keep and maintain consolidated records in relation to complaints made by air traffic controllers employed at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport; if not, why not.10735Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Airservices Australia has advised that it currently maintains a mandatory (electronically submitted) air safety incident reporting system which is the primary vehicle for air traffic controllers to voice their concerns on any defined air safety incident. Within this system there is a function encouraging air traffic controllers to report "events", which are defined as those occurrences which do not fall within the definition of an incident but which may be cause for concern in certain circumstances.Air traffic controllers may also report their concerns formally through either of two independent, confidential reporting mechanisms- the Confidential Aviation Incident Report (CAIR) system managed by the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (BASI); or- the Safety Management Information System (SMIS) managed internally by Airservices Australia's Directorate of Safety and Standards.The above systems are subject to formal registration, recording and any related issues are managed.Additionally, there are always avenues for air traffic controllers to report their concerns or complaints through the standard management protocols. Airservices Australia advises that any issue raised to management is assessed and acted upon in a manner appropriate to the impact of the issue. Such issue would normally be responded to via a formal letter or e-mail and the response kept on file.Airservices Australia management at Sydney also advises that it has an issues management policy which encourages controllers to raise concerns with management and management has undertaken to respond to concerns in writing.10736(Question No. 805)80510736McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 9 August 1999:(1) Did the answer to question No 156 (Hansard , 11 February 1999, page 2632) in part state that International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) standard phraseologies have been adopted to the maximum extent possible; if so, will he give similar importance to the ICAO recommendation that compliance with published noise abatement procedures should not be required in adverse operating conditions such as when the crosswind component, including gusts, exceeds 15 knots; if not, why not.(2) Will he amend the Australian Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) Sydney noise abatement procedures so the use of runways is only allowable where there is a crosswind component of no greater than 15 knots; if not, why not. 10736Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question as follows:(1) Airservices Australia has advised that it fully accepts its International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) obligations and has adopted ICAO recommendations on standard phraseologies to the maximum extent possible. However, Airservices Australia advises that ICAO recommendations recognise there are matters on which ICAO member states have different needs and requirements arising from differing local operating circumstances and that member states can adopt different practices to those recommended by ICAO without the need to file a difference (as is the required case with ICAO standards). The maximum crosswind criterion at Sydney Airport was increased to 25 knots in 1989 as a noise abatement measure in order to maximise departures over Botany Bay.(2) Refer (1) response.10736(Question No. 862)86210736Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 August 1999:(1) How many active reservists in the Australian Defence Force (ADF) are estimated to be (a) tertiary students, (b) unemployed, or (c) otherwise without employer provided superannuation coverage.(2) What would be the estimated annual cost of the ADF making a superannuation contribution on behalf of active reservists equivalent to 7% of their ADF-provided pay and allowances.10736Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) Approximately 11%.(b) Approximately 11%.(c) Figures requested are unavailable.(2) Based on the figures available, it is estimated that it would cost Defence $1.5 million to make a 7% superannuation payment on behalf of active Reservists.10736(Question No. 868)86810736Pyne, Chris, MPMr Pyne9V5SturtLP10 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, 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 scheme 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.10737Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Cabinet approved the Employment of Scientific and Technical Enemy Aliens scheme (ESTEA) in December 1946.I am advised by my Department that it has been unable to establish that any allegations of war crimes were made against any persons who entered under the ESTEA scheme. However, some may have been former members of the Nazi Party.(2) I am informed that nothing has been located on file to suggest that the backgrounds of prospective scientists were covered up nor that the objections of the CIS and normal security clearances were ignored. Those were matters that were reviewed by Mr Menzies in 1986.(3) Yes. Mr Menzies was satisfied that appropriate security clearances had been obtained by those German scientists and technicians who entered Australia under the ESTEA scheme.None of the available records indicate that Mr Menzies was misled.(4) No.Any allegations of substance concerning alleged war criminals which have come to light since the closure of the Special Investigations Unit have been referred to the AFP for investigation in the same way as any other alleged offence against the law of the Commonwealth.If specific information identifying particular individuals overlooked by the Menzies review is forthcoming it will be investigated by the AFP. 10737(Question No. 883)88310737Sciacca, Con, MPMr Sciacca6J4BowmanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 25 August 1999:(1) How long is the backlog of applications for review by the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT), accumulated since the amalgamation of the Immigration Review Tribunal and the Migration Internal Review Office.(2) What is the breakdown of the backlog by (a) application category and (b) registry or MRT office.(3) What criteria are being used to select and process the inherited backlog.(4) Have criteria been established for the processing of new applications; if so, are these applications simply being added to the backlog.(5) What are the estimated processing times for applications for review by (a) registry and (b) category.(6) How many appointments have been made to the MRT, by registry, as at 25 August 1999.(7) How many appointments referred to in part (6) are on a (a) part time and (b) full time basis.(8) What is the breakdown of appointees by registry.(9) How long is the tenure of appointments.(10) What are the professional qualifications of each of the appointed MRT members.(11) Has a tribunal member been given the responsibility for training newly appointed members; if so, which member.(12) Will a next round of appointments be announced; if so, when.10737Ruddock, 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) On 1 June 1999 the Migration Review Tribunal received a handover caseload of 5550 cases. There are, as at 31 August 1999, 5829 cases on hand.(2) (a)-(b) The following is the breakdown of the backlog (unconstituted cases) as at 31 July 1999 by application and registry. Only those visa subclasses containing more than 100 applications have been separately identified.REGISTRYVisa SubclassACTNSWVicTotal1051633693088404579539517466430987205161453806372902735467667120932808013812053211820341214620156048112211811001938113170104283698162101145853125686284549122103185843119805273748112Other633Total4627(3) The Tribunal's Administrative Circular 2 of 1999 lists criteria currently being used to select and process the inherited backlog of cases and new applications. In the first months of the Tribunal's operation regard is being had to members and staff expertise. This is done in the context of the overall criteria for processing which are as follows:(a) "Time-limited" cases—bridging visa refusals or cancellations where the person is in immigration detention as a result of the refusal or cancellation;(b) Visa refusals and cancellations (other than those covered in (a)) where the review applicant is in immigration detention;(c) Visa cancellations where the person is not in immigration detention;(d) Long Stay or Short Stay (Visitor) visa refusals (onshore or offshore) where: (i) visiting parent, spouse, child, brother or sister (ii) visa applied for to participate in an event of special family significance in which applicant is directly concerned (iii) the event and the applicant's involvement identified in the visa application (iv) visa application refused on ground that genuine visit not intended or on basis of risk factor (v) the application was made long enough before the event to allow for internal review and review by the Tribunal.(e) Priority cases (where the Principal Member or Senior Member decides that the case involves special circumstances of a compelling or compas sionate nature) should be constituted after the cases listed in (a) and (b) above. Depending on the circumstances they may take precedence over the cases listed in (c) and (d) above. (The effect of this is that cases with compelling reasons for early processing ahead of other cases are being constituted to members for early decision);(f) If there are none of the above cases awaiting constitution in the Tribunal any members who were previously members of the Immigration Review Tribunal (IRT) should have constituted to them any cases which had been constituted to them in the IRT and which they had not completed on 31 May 1999;(g) If there are none of the above cases awaiting constitution members should have constituted to them any cases transferred from the IRT or MIRO in which applications for review were lodged prior to 1 January 1997. In doing these constitutions regard should be had to members' specialisations. If there are none of those awaiting constitution applications for review lodged prior to 1 June 1999 should be constituted.(4) The applicable criteria listed in answer to question 3 above are also applied to new applications.(5) (a)-(b) Estimation of processing times at this stage in the Tribunal's operation (3 months after start up) is difficult. Applications for review currently being lodged in each registry of the Tribunal and not falling within criteria a) to e) above are not expected to have been processed before 1 June 2000. (6)-(8) There have been 29 appointments made to the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) as at 25 August 1999. Broken down by registry, the figures are:NSW—Senior Member 1Full-time Members 2Part-time Members 11VIC—Senior Member 1Full-time Members 2Part-time members 6WA—Part-time Members 2QLD—Part-time Members 1ACT—Principal Member 1Part-time Members 2(9) All MRT member appointments expire on 31 January 2001 with the exception of the Principal member whose Acting appointment expires on 31 January 2000.(10) The professional qualifications of each appointed MRT member are:. BA, LL.B (Hons), LL.M (Hons). LL.B. BA, LL.B, LL.M. LL.B. BA, LL.B (Hons). LL.B, BA. BA (Hons). LL.B. LL.B, Forensic Medicine. Bachelor of Commerce, Bachelor of Education, Master of Education. LL.B. BA, MA, Ph.D. LL.B, LL.M, Masters in Admin. LL.B (Hons), LL.M (Hons). BA (Hons), LL.M. BA, LL.B, Dip of Practical Legal Training . BA (Hons), LL.B. BA. BA, LL.B. LL.B, BA, MA, Ph.D. BA, LL.B, LL.M (Hons). LL.M. BA, LL.B, Dip Ed. LL.B. BA, LL.B, LL.M, Dip of International Law. Dip of General Nursing. LL.B. LL.B. BA, LL.B(11) No individual member has been given the responsibility for training newly appointed members. Such training activity is an integral responsibility of all members and they perform this activity under the direction and supervision of the Principal Member.(12) I have yet to consider this matter.10740(Question No. 887)88710740McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 26 August 1999:Further to the answer to question No 155 (Hansard , 11 May 1999, page 5073), how is use of the crossing runway modes of operation at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport consistent with the concept of segregated airspace as developed from the study conducted by Ratner and associates.10740Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Airservices Australia advises that the purpose of segregated airspace is to minimise the interaction between air traffic and reduce air traffic controller coordination requirements. This is achieved through airspace design that provides to the greatest extent possible separate airspace volumes for traffic patterns managed by individual controllers. Additionally, Airservices Australia advises that Standard Arrival Routes (STARs) and Standard Instrument Departures (SIDs) are utilised to define altitudes and traffic cross-over points. These airspace design and management procedures are equally applicable to all modes of operation at Sydney.