1999-09-283914REPS1074101999-09-28Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Ministerial Arrangements1074114:00:0010741Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Minister for Defence will be absent from question time today and tomorrow. He will be travelling to Cairns and Darwin to accompany the United States Defence Secretary on his visit through northern Australia. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs will answer questions regarding defence and the Minister for Sport and Tourism will answer questions concerning industry, science and resources.Questions Without Notice107411074110741Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Are you aware that the author of the Bulletin article on the Howard doctrine says that during his interview with you he twice characterised Australia as a deputy to the US and that you assented? Is it also a fact that, when he suggested that Australia would be `a sort of deputy policeman', you finished his sentence by adding `in the region'? Isn't it the case that far from misportraying you the author accurately captured what you were getting at? Isn't it the case that you only backflipped when you were forced to by damaging reactions to your loose talk in the region, where goodwill and mutual confidence are so essential to the success of the mission in East Timor?10741Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In the House yesterday I had some remarks to make about the characterisation of my views on the role of this country in the region, and I do not intend to recapitulate those remarks except to make the obvious point that what has occurred over the past few weeks does represent a very significant change in the climate in which foreign policy is conducted in this country. Those who are interested in a serious debate on that will not indulge the sort of rhetoric that the Leader of the Opposition has indulged but rather might take a little notice of what some of the foreign ministers in the region have said. Talking on CNN today, the Foreign Minister of Thailand had, amongst other things, this to say in relation to the attitude of Australia:We have no differences, but we think it is the collective responsibility for all of us in the region to make sure that any trouble spots that need our collective help . . . certainly we will respond and we have responded very swiftly.It was in that same interview that the Foreign Minister for Thailand confirmed the commitment of an infantry battalion by Thailand to the multinational force. As the House is aware, the deputy commander of the multinational force is a member of the Royal Thai Army, and I think it is important that the contribution being made by Australia be seen in the context of collective action with our neighbours and friends in the region. It was in no small measure that the friendship between Australia and Thailand, and the common attitude that Australia and Thailand has to developments in the region, led to Thailand making the contribution that it has made, and I welcome that contribution. It is a very important one and, along with the contribution of forces from the Philippines and other countries in the ASEAN region, it is an extremely important element in the multinational force.Over the past few weeks this country has assumed both a diplomatic and, as far as participation in the multinational force is concerned, an undoubted leadership role. It has not been a leadership role tinged with any sense of triumphalism but rather a leadership role which is born of the responsibility we carry in the region to work with our friends and neighbours. The action taken by the government has been not only the right action but also an action that enjoys considerable support in the Australian community. Far more importantly than any of those considerations, it enjoys the respect of the international community.DT4CREANMr Crean—No, it doesn't.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I am interested to hear that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asserting that the action taken by Australia does not have the support of the international community. Even Gareth Evans contradicted that at the Press Club, and that is saying something.1074210742Washer, Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the House of any recent international comments which have been made on Australian financial regulation and the success of the coalition government's policies in this area?10742Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for Moore for his question, and it happens that I can draw the attention of the House to some comments that have been made on this very subject by none other than Dr Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve System of the United States. He was addressing the World Bank group and the International Monetary Fund program of seminars in Washington yesterday, under the heading of `Lessons from the global crises.'I do not think anybody in this House would dispute that Alan Greenspan more than anybody else has been responsible for the remarkable economic performance of the United States. When Alan Greenspan talks about matters monetary and matters economic, he speaks with the immense authority of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve System of the United States. As always, I had a look at Dr Greenspan's remarks. They are always worth reading. He has a lot to say about the contribution of information technology to economic growth and, on this occasion, he had a lot to say about Australia's performance in the face of the Asian crisis over the last year. Amongst many other interesting things about the global crisis, he had this to say:Australia serves as an interesting test case in the most recent Asian financial turmoil. Despite its close trade and financial ties to Asia, the Australian economy exhibited few signs of contagion from contiguous economies, arguably because Australia already had well-developed capital markets as well as a sturdy banking system.In other words, the chairman was drawing attention to one of the underlying strengths of the Australian economy. We bring many assets to this region, and one of them is a very strong economy. I am prepared on this occasion, as I have been in the past, to give in particular the Hawke government credit for some of the steps it took in relation to the Australian financial system, but since we came to office the government has taken a large number of steps to further strengthen the Australian banking and financial system.The Wallis inquiry, whose recommendations were overwhelmingly implemented by this government, has really given Australia a world-class banking system. We have given to the Australian banking and financial system a degree of integrity and prudential supervision that is second to none around the world. We have established a single prudential regulatory agency; we established the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to adopt the corporate regulatory functions of the Australian Securities Commission; we have strengthened and made more transparent and accountable the regulation of the payment system under the Reserve Bank; and we are working to introduce the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program, a comprehensive initiative designed to enhance the efficiency of the economy while maintaining investor protection and market integrity.Whilst I have been prepared today, as I have on other occasions, to give the former government some credit in this area, can I say that the Labor Party does itself no credit at the moment in obstructing the passage of the CLERP legislation through the Senate, because this legislation will further strengthen Australia's financial framework. It has now been recognised at the highest economic level in the world what a strong, robust, well-run and well-regulated economy is Australia's. The contribution of a strong, well-supervised banking system to the strength and resilience of the Australian economy has been very important. It is another piece of evidence of the careful and prudent management and leadership of the Australian economy by this government over the last 3½ years.1074210742Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. It follows his previous answer, to the Leader of the Opposition, praising Thailand's commitment to the multilateral force in East Timor. Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to media reports suggesting that Thailand will reduce its commitment in East Timor from approximately 1,800 to as few as 1,100 troops and that they will serve only until February 2000? Further, I ask whether the Prime Minister has seen the comments attributed to the commander of the Thai contingent, Major General Songkitti Jaggabatra:. . . we are not doing our job under Australia. We don't care what has been going on between Australia and Jakarta. We are under the UN.Is the Prime Minister not concerned that the debacle of the Howard doctrine has contributed to the scaling down of Thailand's commitment to the East Timor multinational force?10743Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am very surprised that the shadow minister for defence should seek to interpolate into a legitimate political debate matters of an operational kind.Mr Martin interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—No, there is a line. It is perfectly legitimate of the Australian Labor Party to indulge in political rhetoric about this, but there can be no argument that, at an operational level, we are acting under the sponsorship and mandate of the United Nations. The United Nations has invited an Australian to command a multinational force, and the arrangements for command involve a Thai officer being the deputy commander. The advice that I have, as recently as this morning, is to the effect that the Thai contribution will go ahead and that the arrangements that have been worked out between Australia and Thailand are most satisfactory. I have no doubt that there will be a strong working relationship in the future, as there has already been between General Cosgrove and General Songkitti of Thailand. I think it would serve the interests of parliament and of the multinational force if the opposition did not seek to generate differences where they do not exist.1074310743Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. The minister will be aware of the historical decision by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission last Friday to abolish the tally system for the meat industry. Would the minister advise the House how this will benefit rural and regional Australia? Is the minister aware of support for this decision?10743Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I note that he was himself in fact a meat processing worker for some 32 years, that he ran a meat processing works for some years and that he knows a great deal about this matter. He clearly recognises that our side of parliament has a capacity to deliver for not just the processing sector but for the workers in it.84HZAHRAMr Zahra—What about the workers at Pakenham, you fraud?4K4Mr ANDERSON—Thank you very much for that interjection, because the point being made was that we have been attacking workers with our pursuit of the abolition of the tally system, and that is what I wanted to talk about today.Mr Zahra interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for McMillan!4K4Mr ANDERSON—Mr Speaker, yesterday in this place the minister—Mr Zahra interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for McMillan is defying the chair and, if he behaves like that again, will be warned.4K4Mr ANDERSON—We will come to the question of who is defrauding who in a moment. Yesterday in this place the minister for workplace relations and small business told the House of a vitally important milestone in industrial relations reform and for jobs growth in rural and regional Australia—the ending of the tally system in Australia's $6 billion red meat industry. That has been welcomed by the NFF; it has been widely welcomed by the Cattle Council of Australia and by all in the industry. It is a welcome breakthrough all round. It is interesting to note that the Industry Commission said in 1994 that these reforms were vitally needed, certainly for farmers, because our beef industry is competitive on international markets only because Australian producers are paid less than their competitors internationally. That was overwhelmingly because of high processing costs in Australia. That is what they said: low prices here in Australia because our processing costs were higher than America's, higher than New Zealand's and higher than Ireland's. In fact they then expanded the study and found we were still the most inefficient of five nations. They also said that processors were losing out.Opposition members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—I heard somebody talk about Aberdeen. The Industry Commission, when Labor was in power, said we needed these reforms to keep the processors going so that places like Aberdeen would still have jobs.Mr Horne interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson!Mr Horne interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson!4K4Mr ANDERSON—Exactly! Four hundred jobs lost because Labor would not introduce the reforms that were needed to save the jobs.Mr Horne interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson leaves me no choice but to warn him.4K4Mr ANDERSON—The Industry Commission actually also said that these reforms were vitally needed for the workers in the processing sector. Under Labor the Industry Commission, as it was then constructed, said that workers needed these reforms. Despite the catcalling from those on the other side and despite the fact that they would not deliver, the Industry Commission said `improved efficiency in processing will encourage an expansion of livestock production and meat processing and so will increase the demand for labour'. That is what they said.Indeed, in those days it was authoritatively estimated that processing efficiencies could potentially result in savings of about $1½ billion. They reckoned that about half of that could go to the country's cattle producers, about a quarter to the processors and about a quarter to the workers. I would have thought the workers would have liked that sort of improvement in their bottom line in extra jobs. So reform has benefited livestock producers and brought better returns for farmers, more jobs for regional areas and better paid jobs. The interesting thing about this of course is that the ultimate rub—forgotten now by the ALP—is that in 1991 the ALP supported the abolition of the tally system. They supported it! The Commonwealth made a submission to a full bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in 1991, when Peter Cook was the Minister for Industrial Relations, and it said `it would be preferable to move away from the tally system altogether and introduce alternative payment systems'. How far they have slipped! With all of their rhetoric about how they care about regional Australia, with all their talk about being interested in regional jobs and improving prosperity in the bush, all we see is opposition to everything—opposition to tax reform, opposition to cheaper fuel, opposition to the very industrial relations reforms that will produce better outcomes for the workers in rural and regional Australia.1074410744Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Isn't your former adviser, Gerard Henderson, right when he wrote that, as a result of your Howard doctrine, Australia's relationship with Asia-Pacific and the US has become enormously confused? Isn't former ambassador Ross Garnaut right when he said that you had raised `some undefined boundaries about Australia's willingness to intervene including militarily in the region' and that those `undefined boundaries' were bound to raise doubts about Australia's intentions in the region? Isn't former ambassador Tony Kevin right when he says that you are `putting at risk the whole accumulated effort of the last 50 years to reach out to the people in our region and find areas of common interest and find areas of mutual security'? Why did you allow such a lurid message of Australia as the US deputy in Asia to hang in the air for six days before you clarified what you meant to say?10745Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am glad the Leader of the Opposition has asked me an additional question on this subject and I will just take each of the remarks that he raised one by one and deal with them. It is true that Gerard Henderson, who worked for me as far back as 1986—Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—Yes, he was on my staff. Of course he was; I am quite aware of that. I think it is fair to say that since leaving my employ and becoming a commentator he has been a fairly consistent critic of mine and a fairly strong supporter of the foreign policy stances pursued by the Keating government. That is his right—it is a democratic society—but I do not think somebody should be able to dine out on the basis of a past association when their posture and their writings ever since have been largely in the opposite direction. So of course Gerard Henderson said that. Gerard always wanted me to read speeches, so it is not surprising that he always gets upset when I do not use a prepared text. Anyway, we will just let that go by now.Mr Bevis interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane!Mr Bevis interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane is defying the chair. If he continues to behave in that manner, he will be warned.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I saw Mr Garnaut's remarks. I do not know about that, from what I saw of Mr Garnaut's remarks. I have a lot of respect for Ross Garnaut. Amongst the other very intelligent things he has said in the last few months is that Australia is now in the middle of the third great era of economic growth since Federation, and I think Ross is absolutely spot on about that.It is a serious question, and I am perfectly happy to take as much time as the House allows to give a detailed answer. From what was quoted to me by the Leader of the Oppo sition, I have no particular argument with what Ross Garnaut had to say. So far as the remarks of Mr Kevin are concerned, I do not agree with his assessment, and if the material quoted by the Leader of the Opposition is in any way drawn on the article by Mr Kevin in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald, I certainly reject his assessment. His assessment proceeds on the basis that, somehow or other, miraculously, what should have happened was that Australia should have huffed and puffed, and we should have brought about a miracle transformation in East Timor. We should have been able to persuade, without hindrance from the Indonesians, the assembly of an international peacekeeping force. We would have been able to persuade the Indonesians in advance of the ballot to allow that international peacekeeping force to enter East Timor. There would have been no bloodshed and the ballot would have still gone ahead.Mr Kevin, as I understand it, was actually implying—or perhaps even directly asserting—that we should have argued against the holding of a ballot in East Timor after Dr Habibie said he would have a ballot on independence. Much of the criticism of the government is based on the proposition that, when Dr Habibie said, `I will have a ballot on independence,' we should have gone to the Indonesians, both privately and publicly, and pleaded for them not to hold a ballot about East Timorese independence. That would have been an absolute absurdity. It would have been seen as a betrayal of the interests of the Indonesian people, and it is certainly not a course of action that we would have embraced. May I say, without any fear of contradiction, that if we had adopted that course of action the most strident criticism of us would have come from the Australian Labor Party. The Australian Labor Party, led by the member for Kingsford-Smith, would have gone all over Australia saying, `For 25 years we have begged and prayed and hoped that the people of East Timor would be given a vote about their future. The miserable Howard government, when that opportunity is within their grasp, are trying to stop it happening.' That is exactly what the Australian Labor Party would have said.So much of what the Leader of the Opposition said in his question reeks of a person who is clutching for some kind of political opening, recognising that on this particular issue this government has been able to achieve an outcome that has done great credit to Australia internationally, an outcome that is strongly supported in the Australian community, and an outcome that is justified by the two things that should always justify foreign policy approaches: the evident national interest of Australia and the fact that what we are doing is right. What we have done in East Timor is not only in Australia's national interest but is also overwhelmingly right, according to any moral judgment that one would seek to bring to the situation.While I am on my feet, I would like to add to the answer that I gave to the member for Cunningham. Since answering his question, I have had a look at the transcript of the interview conducted on CNN earlier today with the Thai foreign minister. The foreign minister was actually asked a question similar to the question asked of me by the member for Cunningham. The journalist asked, `Is Thailand scaling back its troops in East Timor, and why?' The implication in the honourable gentleman's question was that the scaling back was due, in some way, to Thailand's unhappiness with our foreign policy stance. That was the context of the member for Cunningham's question. Let me read to you very carefully what the Thai foreign minister had to say:We have sent our advance logistic team down there since the 19th of this month and we have made some consultations down there with many other colleagues, and they have come back, and now they are working on the details. We certainly were ready to send about 1,500. Right now with the result of the consultation, they think they will probably need about 1,100. The details are still being worked out in Bangkok, but all this are the results of the consultation with our colleagues down in Darwin and Dili.Who are colleagues in Darwin and Dili? The Australians.1074610746McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Minister, are you aware that Victoria is currently discussing its milk market regulations? Would you inform the House how the federal government may assist the industry should the states choose to deregulate their dairy industry?10746Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the honourable member for his question. As he indicated in the question, Victoria—and, for that matter, a number of other states—are considering deregulating the farm gate prices, and they are considering other issues associated with their dairy industries. It is anticipated that, if there is to be deregulation in the states, it will have a considerable impact on dairy farmers and the communities that they support. Incomes are expected to fall as prices drop to close to either manufacturing level or export levels. This is certainly going to have significant social impacts. The dairy industry has come to the federal government and asked us to assist with a restructuring package, should the states wish to support deregulation.I am pleased to advise the House that the federal government has agreed to implement an approximately $1.8 billion structural adjustment package for the dairy industry should the states decide to proceed with deregulation. This would be the biggest structural adjustment package in the history of agriculture in Australia. If the deregulation occurs on 1 July 2000, as the industry is projecting, this would be the biggest single deregulation in the history of Australian agriculture.It is proposed to fund the package through an 11c a litre levy on all retail milk sales. This levy is unlikely to have an adverse effect on milk sales and milk prices, because there are already considerable consumer transfers in the milk market. Indeed, since 1928 there have been consumer transfers, and in fact the deregulation is likely to halve the level of consumer transfer, and this levy would of course be the last consumer transfer to occur in that industry before the normal market forces would prevail. It is intended that payments would be made to farmers over a period of eight years at the rate of 46.23c a litre for market milk and 8.96c a litre for manufacturing milk. Those payments will help farmers to make a decision about whether they want to stay in dairying, whether they want to adjust to some other form of agriculture, or whether they want to move out of agriculture altogether.I want to emphasise again that the decision about deregulation is a matter for the states and the dairy industry. The federal government, however, stands ready to provide adjustment assistance should the industry move in the direction of deregulation. I would like to commend the honourable member for Corangamite, who is chairman of the government's dairy industry committee, and other honourable members of the government who have participated in the negotiation of this package. The future of the dairy industry is in its own hands, and this decision by the government today demonstrates that we are prepared to provide assistance to adjust to the social changes that will inevitably occur if the industry decides to deregulate. This is a major initiative, and I wish the industry well as it considers its future over the next few months.1074710747Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Given that Australia's commitment to peacekeeping and aid for East Timor will involve a significant new cost to the budget, will this commitment be met by reducing the surplus or by further spending cuts?10747Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have already indicated a broad order of magnitude of, I think, $500 million as the impact. I think I also indicated—and certainly the Treasurer has—that we will have further things to say about that in the mid-year financial review.1074710747Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Would the minister inform the House of the benefits to the Australian mining industry that will flow from the government's new business tax system announced last week? How will these reforms help boost jobs growth?10747Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the honourable member for Kalgoorlie for his question. Obviously, the member represents one of the most significant mining electorates, along with a number of others, in Australia; indeed, in the world. Independent experts have forecast that the mining industry will receive gains of better than six per cent from the government's tax reform package that has been announced. Let us bear in mind that Australia's mining industries are key export earners. In the past 12 months we have exported around $40 billion out of the mining industry, and that generates around 90,000 jobs in Australia. At the end of the day, the government's strategy of modernising the Australian economy and making it much more competitive with the rest of the world is about securing and generating new jobs for Australians. So, 90 per cent of all jobs in the mining industries rely on Australia's exports from mining products.It is interesting to note some of the benefits that will flow for the mining industry, which will strengthen their position and competitiveness in terms of the international marketplace. There will be lower company tax rates, immediate deductibility for removal of overburden and immediate deductibility for prospecting and exploration. From 1 July 2001, spending on export market development becomes immediately deductible and spending on native title will be deductible. From 2001, mine closing costs will be deductible. It is interesting to note, if we go back a few years, that the Industries Assistance Commission estimated that the sales tax on lubricating oils and diesel fuel excise payable in an open cut coalmine added about 40c per tonne to costs.We need to ask ourselves these questions: who put these charges on, and who maintained these charges on the mining industry? Who put the sales tax on the miners? Of course, it was the Labor Party. Who put fuel excise on the mining industry? Of course, it was the Labor Party. But it is certainly not going to be the Labor Party that is removing them; it is going to be the coalition government that is removing them. I go back to where I started: the strategy that our government has embarked upon is about modernising the Australian economy through taxation reform and certainly making it much more competitive on the international scene, and that includes Australia's all-important export mining sector.1074810748Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is to the Acting Treasurer. Do you stand by the government's promise that the GST package will cut the price of air travel? How does that promise stack up with yesterday's announcement by Qantas that the GST has forced a 7½ per cent increase in domestic airfares?10748Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I thank the honourable member for her question. When the government released the new tax system package, it indicated that there would be a number of impacts on various industry sectors. One of those sectors was the air and space transport industry, which includes international air travel and the domestic legs of international travel, which, of course, are GST free. It also includes general aviation, domestic and various international transport components, and transport generally. So the amount stated in the tables in respect of the new tax system documents relates to the broad industry. We know, of course, that international air travel will in fact reduce in price as a result of the goods and services tax on the basis of the impacts, provided, of course, that the airlines themselves take up the fact that the GST component is exempt from international air travel.The two domestic airlines announced yesterday—this is what the honourable member for Dickson is referring to—that there would be a 7½ per cent increase on 1 July next year on domestic air travel. Of course, that is certainly less than 10 per cent. All we ever heard from Labor was `10 per cent on everything.' I also make the point that as a result of the government's new tax package there is a considerable benefit to every Australian in the tax system and a greater affordability of airfares and many other things as well.I note that some tables that flowed from the announcements that were made yesterday in respect of the airlines increasing their domestic fares by 7½ per cent indicated that business airfares would increase by a certain sum, et cetera. Business class is usually occupied by businessmen, and they of course have a right to a refund on the GST component on any fares that they might pay.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The chair will not tolerate the level of interjection currently coming from opposition benches, and particularly from the member for the Northern Territory. He ought to exercise more restraint.HQ5Mr FAHEY—We acknowledged all along that certain things would have an increase attached to them, including domestic airfares, and we have seen the results of that. I do commend both airlines because they have voluntarily agreed to ensure that they abide by the guidelines that the ACCC has put forward. Of course, if there is any stepping outside of that, it is up to the ACCC to act, as they have been given the authority to do so. I thank the honourable member for her question, and I sincerely hope that that heavy load is not weighing her down too much.1074810748Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Would the minister inform the House of the specific benefits that will flow to family farms from the government's new business tax reforms?10748Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the honourable member for Cowper for that very important question and acknowledge his particular interest in family farmers, who make up the backbone of our agricultural sector. About 99½ per cent of our 85,000 broadacre and dairy farms in Australia are family owned. Like all other small business operators, farmers have little time to do paperwork, and they are looking forward to the new tax system which will sweep away much of the administrative costs that have been associated with managing their business. For instance, with respect to depreciation—a tax concession which has to date been unnecessarily complex for farmers and small business—under the new tax reforms announced recently, farmers will be able to manage their depreciation on a pooled basis with a 30 per cent rate of depreciation. That rate is equal to or better than they have been able to claim in the past and it is certainly a far simpler system for them to operate.In addition, assets costing less than $1,000 will be able to be written off immediately. Labor's capital gains tax, which placed such a burden on the rural sector and certainly saw farm assets swept away when people wanted to retire, will be significantly relaxed. The complete removal of capital gains tax on assets held for more than 15 years by individual retiring farmers will be a particular bonus. The President of the National Farmers Federation has pointed out that around 70 per cent of farmers have owned their properties for 15 years.So that is all very good news. I am sure that honourable members who are in regional areas and those opposite who occasionally visit regional areas very much appreciate the message they are getting from people about what a wonderful reception this package has received. I would think that, particularly, the member for Dickson would be interested in these matters because she has not had much time, she tells us, to visit regional areas lately. So I am passing on this information to her to save her the trouble. I also know she has not had much time to visit her electorate. So perhaps the small businessmen there have not had a chance to pass the news along. But I want to assure her, in case she has gone to sleep over the last week or so, that there has been some very good news in the regional sector. Graham Richardson was complaining this morning that the honourable member for Dickson seems to have disappeared and nobody can find her. She has disappeared off the radar screen, according to Graham Richardson.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Minister, the answer has no relevance to the question. The minister will resume his seat.1074910749Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—My question is to the acting Treasurer. Has the acting Treasurer seen reports of the impending stand-down of three and a half thousand workers at Ford in Victoria? When will the government act to change the current unsatisfactory GST transition arrangements for the car industry? Given that your delay is jeopardising the living standards of these workers and of workers at other vehicle and components manufacturers, including in my electorate of Kingston, what are you waiting for?10749Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I have noted the question with respect to the car industry. I presume it flows from a statement that was in this morning's Age and other newspapers relating particularly to the Ford Motor Co., which indicated that it was intending to stand down a number of workers. I can indicate that, since day one, the government has been monitoring developments in the car industry ahead of the introduction of the GST. The simple facts are—and I am sure that the honourable member for Kingston will not like this—that to date there is little evidence that consumers are putting off the purchase of new vehicles in anticipation of lower prices after the commencement of the GST. In fact, the industry data for August show that sales for 1999 continue to lag just behind the 1998 record sales level and they continue to be ahead of the 1997 levels, and that of course was the previous record year. Total sales for the first eight months of 1999 were 2.3 per cent lower than 1998 but 13.4 per cent higher than 1997. Total sales for August 1999 are 3.9 per cent lower than August 1998 but 11.1 per cent above the August 1997 figure.I note that Holden's Director of Sales and Marketing, Mr Ross McKenzie, was quoted in the Australian Financial Review of 7 September last as saying that it was the car maker's best August result in 20 years and, if there was a GST downturn, Holden was not being affected. Clearly the evidence contradicts very much what the honourable member for Kingston was implying in his question. What we will see is the GST enhancing competitiveness of the Australian vehicle industry and the component manufacturers through reduced costs arising from the abolition of a range of inefficient taxes. This will enhance the competitiveness of this industry both here and abroad.I understand that the Ford Motor Co. has given a number of reasons for its stand-down. It has been put to me—but far be it from me to make a judgment—that the current model Falcon has not been a very good seller and that has had a pretty big impact upon just how the Ford Motor Co. is travelling. I can only point again to what Mr Ross McKenzie of GMH has said in terms of their sales and the facts which come from the industry which indicate that there has been no downturn in sales of motor vehicles during this year in any significant way whatsoever. Therefore, it is not correct to suggest that the GST is having an adverse impact on the car industry.1075010750Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Can the minister advise the House of the impact which the economy's strong growth is having on unemployment levels in Sydney's western suburbs and on the Central Coast, areas where unemployment was once fixed in double-digit figures? What impact are the government's policies having in other areas, particularly in regional communities? Can the minister advise the House of any other initiatives designed to reduce unemployment?Mr Emerson interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Rankin.Mr Emerson interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Rankin will excuse himself from the House under the provisions of 304A.10750Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Parramatta for his question. We are now seeing the benefits of improved employment growth and lower unemployment in regional Australia, and the member has referred to his own area. Since the coalition came to office, according to those small area labour market survey figures released yesterday by my department, we have seen unemployment in the Parramatta region drop from double figures to just about five per cent from the 1996 period. We are also seeing this elsewhere across rural and regional Australia. The Sydney Morning Herald had an article this morning with the headline `Jobs revival for battling west suburbs' and the Age had another, `Jobless crisis ease in bush'.If you look at the numbers, in Auburn, going further into Sydney, Sydney west's unemployment has fallen by four per cent from 13½ to 9.5 per cent. In Gosford, up on the coast, the rate has fallen from 6.5 to 5.3 per cent—well below the national average and a great testament to the work of the local member. Going elsewhere around the country and up to Queensland, Wide Bay-Burnett—this is in the 12 months to the June quarter—recorded an increase in employment of 8.9 per cent. This contributed to a fall in the unemployment rate of 5.4 percentage points to 9.7, a tribute I would think to the minister who is a very strong reformer—and strong sensible reform equals jobs. For the member for Groom, Darling Downs recorded an increase in employment of 6.2 per cent and a fall in the unemployment rate from 5.3 to 3.5 per cent—again, testimony to good representation encouraging our great rural industries and our small businesses in regional Australia, and giving them the confidence to go on and give people jobs.This government is genuinely interested in rural and regional Australia; in fact, we are out in it all the time. None of our members are too tired to get out and do the things that have to be done.Opposition members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—We have moved into camera range now; this is one way to lift the profile. The government has the policies, and those policies are providing real benefits to rural and regional Australia. When we look to see what the Labor Party are doing, not only do they oppose each and every measure that we have introduced; when you ask them what is their policy, their usual response is to say that there will be a discussion paper. So, we only have to go back to July—not far back—or you can go back to March. In March we were promised a discussion paper; we got one in July. I will tell you what was in the July document. The Leader of the Opposition said that he would be pursuing new economic reform agendas. He said, `I will be launching a more detailed policy discussion paper in September.' He went on to say, `At that time I will be launching a new blueprint for the employment outlook over the next decade.' It is about time that we had some policies from the Leader of the Opposition, and we would like to see what is in this outlook paper. I can tell you what it ought to include; it ought to have something about unfair dismissal to provide encouragement to small business.UU5HORNEMr Horne—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The minister was asked a specific question about employment in rural and regional Australia and government initiatives to promote it. He has given us a travel talk about coalition seats. He has not mentioned Hunter or Paterson or Newcastle.10000Mr SPEAKER—The minister was asked a question about unemployment in both urban and regional Australia and I believe he was responding to that question.WI4Mr REITH—I was also asked about other relevant policies which would encourage this good growth that we have seen. The point I make to the Leader of the Opposition is that he has made a promise to produce a policy position paper by the end of this month. You have two days to go.Opposition members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—That was your statement. I am simply asking you whether or not you are going to stick to that promise. It is reasonable to say if we are going to promote employment in rural and regional Australia, those businesses that are going to provide those jobs want to know what your position is on capital gains tax; they want to know what your policy is; they want to know what you are going to be prepared to do—10000Mr SPEAKER—The minister is obliged to address his remarks through the chair, and businesses are not particularly interested in the chair's view of capital gains tax.WI4Mr REITH—Mr Speaker, I am very happy to address my remarks through you, because you would know in your electorate that the policies that we have introduced have provided real job opportunities. It is time that the Labor Party, instead of opposing every sensible reform measure that has given us these good figures, actually produced a policy of their own.1075110751Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. I refer the minister to the Australian Communications Authority Telecommunications Performance Monitoring Bulletin for the June 1999 quarter which again reported a serious decline in Telstra service levels. I also refer the minister to yesterday's decision by the ACA to formally investigate whether, as a consequence of that decline, Telstra has met its customer service guarantee and universal service obligations? Isn't it the case that the continuing decline of Telstra service levels, particularly in rural and regional Australia, is a direct result of your government's privatisation policy? Minister, do you and the National Party still believe that the full privatisation of Telstra is in the best interests of rural and regional Australia?10751McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I thank the honourable member for his question but, sadly, he continues to confuse ownership with levels of service. Quite frankly, it is misleading to do so.5V5SMITHMr Stephen Smith—Both are declining.10000Mr SPEAKER—The member for Perth!XH4Mr McGAURAN—The government has welcomed the Australian Communications Authority decision to formally investigate Telstra's quality of service. We believe that Telstra's performance is fundamentally unsatisfactory in a number of areas.Mr Stephen Smith interjecting—10000Mr SPEAKER—The member for Perth is warned.XH4Mr McGAURAN—Senator Alston, the minister for communications, has said this in the last couple of days following the June quarter release of figures showing Telstra's performance in meeting customer service guarantee standards. Whilst there are a number of areas of improved performance in the June quarter, according to that survey, the ACA's bulletin shows that Telstra's performance remains extremely low in some areas and is getting worse in others. In the major rural areas of the Northern Territory, Telstra met the customer service guarantee time frame in providing new connections to customers where there was no existing infrastructure only 42 per cent of the time. Performance was similarly poor in Tasmania. Nationally, Telstra's performance fell 11 percentage points in providing new connections to customers in urban areas where there is no existing infrastructure.The government—it must be remembered at all times—has established and recently enhanced arrangements to deal with the problems concerning the customer service guarantee in legislation giving the ACA power to direct telephone companies to improve their performance. Under the legislation introduced by this government—absent under the Labor government—outcomes of the ACA investigation could include a remedial direction under section 118 of the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act. Telstra would have to comply with such a direction or face fines of up to $10 million. Not only is the government providing for rural and regional Australia by way of the social bonus but we are holding Telstra to customer guarantee standards through a legislative guarantee empowering the ACA to act in that regard.1075210752Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—My question is to the Minister for Employment Services. Has the minister seen media reports of a recent evaluation of the effectiveness of the government's Job Network? Are these reports accurate, and what is the government's response to them?10752Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I thank the member for Petrie for her question and for the interest she takes in the Job Network members in her electorate. I am aware of a report by the Committee for the Economic Development of Australia released last week which provides independent confirmation of the sound performance of the government's $1 billion Job Network. This report says that in principle and largely in practice the move to the Job Network has been a good one. There is an overwhelming view among survey respondents that the system has been a success. The report says that 75 per cent of respondents felt that the Job Network was the same or better than the former CES and that 92 per cent of job seekers say that the Job Network has been adequate to very good at providing assistance.These findings reflect great credit on the 300 private sector, community based and charitable agencies that comprise the Job Network, and they deserve the gratitude of all Australian seekers. The report also reflects credit on the architects of the Job Network: the senior officers of my department plus my ministerial predecessor Senator Vanstone and my distinguished colleague the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. The report also said:There is a widespread feeling that the media and some politicians have been irresponsible in providing a distorted view of the Job Network to date.The report does not name these irresponsible politicians, but I am sure it has not entirely escaped the attention of the House that between May and November last year the member for Batman issued 30 press releases attacking Job Network, describing it as `a hopeless fiasco', `a farce' and `a mess'. I am pleased to see that since then the member for Batman has been maintaining a dignified silence.Honourable members interjecting—EZ5Mr ABBOTT—The report concludes that there are no inherent flaws in the Job Network. It notes the difficulties faced by indigenous job seekers. These have been very substantially addressed by the package recently announced by my senior colleague the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. It also notes the high cost of the delivery of Job Network services in regional areas, but the government expects this to be addressed by the bids under the new tender round. No system is perfect. The government is always looking at ways to improve the Job Network. But it passes the one test which really counts: it is far better than the alternative—the old bureaucratic monolith, the CES, which it replaced.1075210752Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, yesterday you tabled a statement from Dr Rachel David, your ex-staff member, who was present at the meeting with the Royal College of Radiologists on 6 May 1998 which was, in her words, a meeting to `sign off on what the Department had already decided'. You will recall that in that statement Dr David said:All those present agreed to keep the discussion strictly confidential until the Budget announcement on May 12, at which time the Consultative committee would communicate the decision.If there was no disclosure at the meeting of what would be in the budget about the MRI funding decision, why were the radiologists sworn to secrecy about the budget?10753Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—There is a very simple answer. It was because they had been told there would be a supply side measure. They were not told what it was.1075310753Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. What developments are occurring in the organisation and management of the Australian Public Service? What is the importance of recent developments in this area?10753Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Deakin for his question. As members will be aware, last night the amended Public Service Bill 1999 passed through the House of Representatives with the support of the opposition. This in principle agreement between both sides of the House should, subject to several outstanding matters, secure the passage of the legislation through the Senate. The Public Service Bill is the biggest overhaul and reform of the Australian Public Service in more than 75 years. Let me make it clear that we would have preferred the bill in its original form. It was brief, it was simple and it had a focus on principles that was appreciated by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Nevertheless, the amended bill reflects a significant step forward in the organisation of the public administration of this country. It complements the government's reforms in the economic and industrial area. The bill reflects the contempo rary realities of the Australian Public Service. It is less than one-fifth of the size of the old act. It has been totally rewritten in plain English and it is a simple and easy to follow piece of legislation.On behalf of the government, I welcome the approach that has been taken by the opposition in discussions on this piece of legislation. We realise that it has not been an easy matter for the Labor Party to reach agreement on this bill. In particular, we welcome the fact that the Labor Party has come to accept that the Public Service Bill 1999 must be complementary to the Workplace Relations Act and must not undermine the considerable advantages that have already been achieved through the application of the Workplace Relations Act in the Public Service, particularly in relation to the application of Australian workplace agreements. The amended bill is a sound basis for the enterprise based approach that is embodied in the Workplace Relations Act. It gives agency heads full power for engaging staff as well as power to determine their remuneration and terms and conditions of employment, subject to the workplace relations framework.Members of the public will also be interested to know that the bill provides protection for whistleblowers raising allegations of code of conduct breaches. It ensures a secure parliament-endorsed legislative framework for the values and code of conduct, and it removes the compulsory age 65 retirement and the concept of office from the Public Service which currently results in significant rigidities and complexities. This legislation allows for a flexible, dynamic, modern Public Service with proper accountability, which is vital for good government and for providing sound and effective services to the people of Australia.1075310753Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—Again my question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Is the minister aware that at least 14 of the 31 suspect contracts for new multimillion dollar MRIs were ordered by companies associated with members of the executive and the MRI task force of the Royal College of Radiologists with whom he was negotiating? Can he also confirm that the Health Insurance Commission has completed its report into these suspect contracts and has referred at least one case to the Director of Public Prosecutions? Will the minister now disclose the dates on which the 31 suspect contracts for MRIs, worth around $90 million, were allegedly signed?10754Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I am not aware of the information offered by the honourable member. She may be correct. As the Health Insurance Commission said in the Senate estimates, they will release the information when they finish their investigations. My understanding is that they have not finished their investigations; it will take some time longer. I am aware that one case has been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I am told by the Health Insurance Commission that that involves an alleged case of backdating a contract. Of course, if someone had advance knowledge of it, you would not need to backdate the contract, would you?1075410754Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House what steps the government is taking to ensure that regional communities, such as those in my electorate of Parkes, have access to a wide range of services?10754Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question and acknowledge his very real interest in the various programs that the government runs as we seek to do everything we can to upgrade services and to create new investment and job opportunities in rural and regional areas. I note that that contrasts in some ways with my opposite number, who, rather to my amazement, indicated yesterday that she had not been quite certain of how to target me and that this had had a fair bit to do with the fact that I hadn't copped any questions. She conceded that, yes, it was true that she hadn't actually spent a lot of time going for me. She said:Well, John Anderson, interestingly enough, has been mucking around too, changing the structures and making it harder for us to know where we want to apply the pressure. He's just finished doing that. I think it's clearer now where we need to work.In light of that I was absolutely astonished to have had the sort of revelation that `We now know where to target attacks' on me. But it goes straight past me to the Acting Treasurer. I think it is terrific that the member for Parkes is interested in what we are doing. Just the other day we saw the announcement of a significant number of new programs. So far, a total of 182 projects under the rural communities program, worth about $21 million, have been funded. Last week the Macquarie Rural Advisory Service in New South Wales, in the member's electorate, received $107,000 to employ a health liaison officer who will carry out a networking advocacy and liaison role between rural families and health and welfare services. Then there is the Gin Gin and District Community Alliance in Queensland, with funding of over $5,000 to provide a community services directory, which will list a range of valuable services. The post-polio network in Tasmania, I believe in the electorate of the honourable member for Lyons, will have $23,000 to employ a coordinator to administer the activities of the network and enable the network to service a range of objectives.I should mention Rural Plan. It has been a very popular program, with grants of up to $200,000 to help regions map out a strategic direction for their future. We have announced a significant number of those now. Some $1.144 million of them are so far approved. Whether it is the Murray-Mallee in South Australia, the Far North Queensland project or the Northern Rivers, there is no doubt that these programs make a real difference in helping people at a time of enormous change in rural and regional Australia to plan and develop strategies and then implement them.1075410754Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Yesterday the minister tabled a statutory declaration from Penelope Rogers, then a senior officer of the Department of Health and Aged Care, who was present at the meeting between the minister and the Royal Australian College of Radiologists on 6 May 1998, to which he had taken his budget proposals for discussion. Minister, when you said yesterday that there were no minutes of the meeting, were you saying that the senior public servant made absolutely no form of note for file or other written record of an unusual late evening pre-budget meeting of the type described? Will the minister explain why his department fails to keep proper records or will he now table all material on file or held personally by officers in relation to this meeting?10755Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—First of all, Ms Rogers is still a senior officer of the department. I have never told my department to keep minutes or not to keep minutes, and I didn't in this case. I asked yesterday morning were there any notes or minutes. Had there been, I would have been happy to table them. I was informed that there were none. I will check again to see if there are any. If there are, I am happy to have them tabled. Secondly, in regard to the claim that this meeting was somehow unusual, it might be unusual for the honourable member to be working late in the afternoon; it is not for me.1075510755Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. Can the Minister inform the House how recent announcements regarding fringe benefits tax exemptions will affect Australian Defence Force personnel?10755Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I thank the member for Herbert for his question. Yesterday I announced a further set of reporting exclusions from the fringe benefits tax for Australian Defence Force personnel. It is really in recognition of service mobility and the effect that this has on our defence families. As a result, the exclusions that I announced yesterday include reunion travel for members and their dependants, education assistance for school-age children in critical years of schooling. and allowances paid to defence families with special needs. On top of that, the elements of the overseas—Opposition members interjecting—YT4Mr BRUCE SCOTT—I thought this was an issue for the other side of the House, but obviously they don't want to hear.10000Mr SPEAKER—By any standard, that was a quite unnecessary outburst from members of the opposition. I ask them to exercise more restraint.YT4Mr BRUCE SCOTT—The element of the overseas living allowance that compensates for cost of living differences will also be excluded from reporting. Yesterday's announcement followed the government's announcement last month that housing assistance provided to ADF personnel in Australia will be totally excluded from the fringe benefits tax reporting requirements. What this means is that ADF personnel now have the widest and most comprehensive set of exclusions from the fringe benefits tax reporting legislation in the entire Australian community. That demonstrates the government's recognition that ADF personnel are required to serve in demanding and difficult environments.This review of fringe benefits tax reporting for ADF personnel is comprehensive and completes what I believe is a very appropriate exclusion for members of our ADF right across Australia. I thank the member for Herbert for his question. He has a very important defence installation in his electorate—3 Brigade, the rapid deployment force, at Townsville. I know that this measure will be welcomed by all members of the ADF and I hope it will be welcomed by the opposition.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice107551075515:16:0010755Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I seek your permission to add to an answer.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister may proceed.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—In answer to a question from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition about costs, I mentioned a figure of $500 million that I had referred to in the speech I made last week. I should point out to the House that that $500 million was based on a deployment of 2,000 for a period of six months or so. If it turns out to be longer than that, the figure could be significantly higher. I want the House to be aware of that.Distinguished Visitors1075610756Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery the former member for Scullin and former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr Harry Jenkins, and his wife. All members of the House would extend to him a very warm welcome.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Personal Explanations1075615:17:0010756Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the Deputy Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Never more seriously.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may proceed.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Today in a report in the Age newspaper, under the heading `House on the hill', in the first item I was referred to as `Carlton's No. 1 ticket holder'. I am North Melbourne's No. 1 ticket holder. For anyone from Labor ranks to be referred to with that company amounts to nothing short of libel. I would appreciate a correction—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made the point where he was misrepresented.Documents1075610756Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings .Matters of Public Importance107561075610000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER— I have received a letter from the honourable member for Brand proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The need for a coherent and effective foreign policy to advance Australia's international interests, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:18:0010756Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I notice that the Prime Minister, in another dramatic gesture to accountability in this place, has left the chamber for this debate. Let me take one or two of his answers, which are directly relevant to the matter of public importance raised today, and correct some impressions that he has put forward in those answers. They will become very important as the debate about these issues proceeds and as this parliament performs its role in keeping the government to account on important matters of national interest.Firstly, in his criticism of the shadow spokesperson for defence, the Prime Minister suggested that raising the issues of a nation's commitment in terms of numbers was an operational matter and it was a dastardly act on the shadow minister's part to refer to it in this chamber. Let me say that that is an absurd proposition by the Prime Minister. He and I and others canvass regularly the numbers to be deployed and the rationale for that deployment. Only a person in deep ignorance could assume that that was an operational matter.Operational matters refer to either continuing or proposed activities on the ground by the Australian defence forces and questions related to that. As to the numbers that are engaged in the process, that must be a matter of concern in this parliament. It must be a matter of concern not simply because it is our duty to look at that but because we have been asked from time to time, by implication, by the force commander to bear all that in mind. The force commander himself has speculated on whether or not the numbers to hand are adequate for his task. We must keep an open mind on that matter and be prepared to review it in this chamber.The second issue is the Prime Minister's propensity to erect a straw man, as though the criticism that has been offered of his foreign policy to this point, or his actions in relation to East Timor, is a criticism based solely on a view—and when I read out the three quotes, he took the last two in this regard—that, as he confronted the statements made by Dr Habibie that a vote ought to be held, were he to suggest that that ought to be postponed, that was an absurd proposition and the only effective criticism that has been offered of his policy to this point.The fact is that the Prime Minister is being held accountable in this parliament for a failure to do his utmost to ensure that the implementation of that process—in so far as it could be influenced by foreign powers in the international community—took place as peacefully as possible. For him to contemplate in that regard the possible pre-ballot deployment of peacekeeping forces is the substance of the concerns that have been issued with respect to his foreign policy. That is an entirely legitimate area of criticism. Erecting a straw man in the way in which he did today will not get him over the problems associated with it.I think you would have to say—and the press actually has picked this out in the course of the last week or so—that the Prime Minister's statements that were issued to the journalist Fred Brenchley in the Bulletin of last week represent a low point in the articulation of coherent and sensible foreign policy in this country in about the last 40 years. He seems to feel it a positive virtue that he stands in the face of successive coalition and Labor governments that have sought to build a reasonable relationship with the region around us and to see Australia's interests in terms of its economy and security advanced by a decent relationship with the nations in the region around us. It seems to stand in the face of his own policy pronouncements when he caused the Minister for Foreign Affairs to issue a white paper on these matters where they assigned relationships with Indonesia, with China, with Japan and with the United States the epithet of being of fundamental importance—which I would have thought implied some special connotation which he now eschews—and having assigned to the Asia-Pacific region a statement that that was a region of the highest priority for Australia. I would have thought these were statements of the bleeding obvious.But the Prime Minister asserts—he asserted in that article and he asserted again today—that everything has changed. Therefore, assumptions concerned with our relationship with China, our relationship with Japan, our relationship with the United States, our relationship with ASEAN and our relationship with the bulk of the Asia-Pacific region have now fundamentally changed, and he has inserted in this process some coherent solution, some coherent structure, that is supposed to replace those fundamental assumptions. There is in fact only one thing that has substantially changed, and it is to be regretted but it is inevitable, and that is the character of the relationship with Indonesia—a relationship which he was prepared to characterise, when he became Prime Minister, in this way on Indonesian television:We of course extended de facto and de jure recognition with the incorporation of East Timor into Indonesia back in the late 1970s, but inevitably there will continue to be debate and comment about human rights issues in Australia by Australians. It is part of the tradition of our country. But it should be seen in that context and it should not be allowed to affect, and I said this to the President yesterday, it should not be allowed to damage or affect or to obsess the relationship between our two countries.As he defended himself yesterday, he explained himself by creating a completely misleading impression in this House that somehow or other he had been verballed by Fred Brenchley. What he was seeking to say was, `There were 13 years of Labor horror in relation to East Timor, and then I arrived.' Of course, he has been there before. As I had occasion to point out to him yesterday, virtually his first foreign policy statement when he first became leader of the Liberal Party was an interview that he conducted on SBS, oddly enough, and he was asked these questions: Compere: Do you think there is not enough effort being given to getting on with Indonesia?John Howard: That is my concern. I was there recently and I spoke to everybody from President Suharto down, and there is a great desire on the part of Indonesians to have a better relationship. But obviously they have to make concessions, and I think they have; this, you know, continuingly quite absurd attitude about foreign journalists. But, generally speaking, I think the preoccupation of the Left of Australian politics with the events in East Timor has needlessly soured our relation with Indonesia. It is just very much to our benefit and long-term interest that we have a better relationship.Compere: 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 could you bend over further?John Howard: 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.The Prime Minister has a reliance on what he feels to be a 24-hour memory in this community, that he has no record and no past, no views to which attention can be drawn, no statements of foreign policy since he has become Prime Minister of this country to which people look for consistency, look for commonsense and look for an effective defence of the national interest. Of course, he has made those statements repeatedly, both as Prime Minister and in opposition, over time.There is only one common thread, however, through the Prime Minister's often colossal peregrinations on this matter, and that is the seeking of domestic political advantage. It is as if there is a foreign policy and national security road. One kerb side is Australia's national interest and foreign policy commonsense, the other kerb side is John Howard's perceived domestic political interest in being able to manipulate the symbols and actions of foreign policy for political advantage. Like a learner driver, he overcorrects between those two points as he proceeds down the road, anxious always for an opportunity to secure what he so loved in the 1960s—the political advantage in foreign policy for the Australian Liberal Party.The problem is this: when you are Prime Minister of the nation, you must from time to time eschew the seeking of that advantage in terms of the national interest. You have to sacrifice from time to time partisan political advantage for the national interest, and part of that process is to lay down coherent foreign policy. One of the problems associated with the absurdities of the prime ministerial pronouncements to Fred Brenchley is that when you actually look through them there is no coherence. That was the complaint really of Gerard Henderson: Australia's relationship with the Asia-Pacific and the US has become enormously confused. So it has. Those statements are enormously confusing.We had that redoubtable journalist, with whom I do not always agree, coming in today and saying, `What is this Prime Minister doing repudiating his conversation with me? It is true I presented the view of the deputy sheriff's role, but he completed the sentence for me. He said, "In the region, in the region. Get this clear: in the region."' That is a completely ill-thought-out proposition, but it was one that made him happy. When that particular article came out, there were chortles of cheerfulness through the Prime Minister's office. He had been given the opportunity to correct it. No, it represented precisely what he wanted to say.What he wanted to say, of course, was intellectual mush, and it did not take very long for anybody with a bit of commonsense and 20/20 vision about foreign affairs and national security concerns to actually come in and torpedo it. More important than that was the impact it had on the attitudes to this country in the region around us. We still need a decent relationship with the region around us and we need it even more in the circumstances in which we now find ourselves where the issues of Australian-Indonesian relationships are to some degree at least beyond the Australian capacity now to control.It is not as though this is taking place in circumstances where that coherence has somehow lessened in its necessity. It has in fact been enhanced, because one of the things missing from the debate last week on this very important situation in East Timor was the end process—the endgame. In the end, there has to be an exit from Timor strategy. The first thing we require is a decision by the Indonesians of the Indonesian parliament to forthwith, when they meet, give East Timor independence. The second thing we need is decisions by all sections of the Indonesian bureaucracy, but particularly the military, to cease all forms of aid and comfort to the militias, and in particular to cease any form of encouragement to them to deploy across the border in mischief raids or anything else. We also need those 100,000-plus effective hostages across the border in West Timor back in East Timor unharmed. We need that from the process. And, in the end, we need a good relationship between the newly independent East Timor and its neighbour.In terms of international human rights, we need those in Indonesia and elsewhere who have been guilty of murder over the last few months to be accountable. These requirements, which are now manifestly Australian national interest requirements, because bound up in the middle of them are Australian serving personnel, require an enormously deft diplomatic touch. They are extraordinarily difficult things to achieve. It is absolutely essential to the achievement of them that we have the following conditions: (1) a coherent sense of strategy and a perspective from this government on what the endgame ought to be as far as Timor is concerned, and there was nothing of that emanating from the Prime Minister in Fred Brenchley's article; (2) we need the assistance of the international community, the United Nations in particular and the United States in particular. It was the United States that finally rocked the boat sufficiently to get any form of peacekeeping force in. I am glad to see, in statements made by Secretary of State Albright and also in what appears to be the purpose of Secretary Cohen's mission, an intention at least to start to address those issues effectively with the Indonesians. And (3) we need absolutely the support of the ASEAN powers and the Asian region to ensure that Indonesia does not try to seek advantage from being able to portray us in a certain way, and does address its responsibilities.So we need a response from those whom the Prime Minister has insulted, deprecated or dismissed. This is a low point, the lowest point, in Australian foreign and national security policy in many, many years. The Prime Minister has not corrected his stance; he has tried to slip slide around an incompetent performance on his part. He is not here to debate it. The Prime Minister must improve his standards of accountability and his strategy if we are to secure what we absolutely need out of this situation in Timor, and we will hold him accountable. (Time expired)15:33:0010759Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—It is very sad to hear the Leader of the Opposition take this cheap shot during a time when we have our forces deployed overseas. What we hear from the Leader of the Opposition is opposition for opposition's sake. We hear negativism all the time. We hear nothing but a rehash of the same arguments we have been hearing for the last several days. We hear personal attacks, and that is unfortunately the measure of the opposition we have today. We have not heard any constructive policies.The Leader of the Opposition has just finished up by saying that we need a strategy, we need some international help, we need some help from the United Nations, we need some help from the United States and we need the support of ASEAN and our Asian neighbours. That, of course, is exactly what this government is already delivering. What we have seen from the opposition is a desperate attempt to play catch up.Let us have a look at some of the facts of the situation, because the Leader of the Opposition is very good at the hyperbole but does not very often get down to the facts. He made much of the so-called Bulletin article. Let me reiterate what the Prime Minister has already said very specifically: the government does not see Australia as playing the role of deputy for the United States or, indeed, any other country in the region. Neither does the government see the United States playing a role as regional policeman, although continued US engagement in the region is of course vital. The expression `deputy' itself was used by the correspondent during an interview, and it was not the PM's description. I therefore should make it clear that what was in that article did not represent the government's view.The situation was that security in East Timor had broken down with the most appalling violence and destruction being carried out on the ground. The government's view is 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 should take a lead in managing. The government, having already increased the readiness of our armed forces in case peacekeeping was required, then moved extremely speedily to get the United Nations onside and to get the region onside. The point I make is this: it took three days to get that United Nations resolution through—an all-time record for getting a United Nations resolution of this type through. It normally takes weeks, if not months. In the cases of Kosovo, Rwanda, Bosnia or anywhere else, it took weeks, if not months, to get those resolutions through and to get peacekeeping forces and United Nations forces put together. This government—the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs—managed to get that through in record time, and they are to be commended on the action they took.Not only did we get the United Nations onside, and we are there acting in the name of the United Nations, but we managed to get our regional neighbours onside. That is because we have good relationships with our regional neighbours. For example, Thailand has provided the deputy commander of the force and it is providing substantial forces—well over 1,000 troops. The reality of life is that we have a good relationship with Thailand. We have an outstanding relationship with Thailand, and I recall not more than 12 to 15 months ago being in Thailand and talking to the deputy foreign minister there who talked about the fact that Australia's relationship with that country was the best it has been for more than two decades because of the work we have been doing, the support we have given them and the ongoing assistance we are providing them.We have a good military relationship with Thailand. We have good military relationships with most of the ASEAN countries. To listen to the Leader of the Opposition, you would think that we have had no involvement from ASEAN, that it was not interested and that we were upsetting it. But the reality is that, apart from Thailand going into East Timor with us, the Malaysians, the Singaporeans and the Filipinos have made a commitment. In the wider areas of Asia, the Koreans have made a commitment, and even the Chinese, who normally follow the line of strictly non-interference in other countries, have said they will provide some police to help with this particular project.Let us make it very clear that this government has done the right thing. It has marshalled the United Nations, it has obtained United States' support, it has obtained support from this region of the world, and we have gone in there to try to help that desperate situation on the ground. We made it clear that we would not send forces except at the request of the United Nations, and that we have done. We made it clear that we would not put in forces without Indonesia's agreement, and that we have done. I suggest to have done anything else would have been the height of negligence.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 merits. On the East Timor issue, we felt we had both the responsibility and the capacity to respond. It demanded an urgent response. We therefore took the lead and, when asked eventually by the UN to form a coalition with regional and other international forces, we drew on that US support to provide important backup as well. It is interesting to note that, just today, Madeleine Albright, the US Secretary of State, is quoted in the media as saying that she is trying to apply as much pressure on Indonesia as possible. She wants to make sure that we, the United States and the United Nations apply pressure to Indonesia in terms of, if necessary, economic sanctions, such as withdrawing IMF and World Bank type assistance, so that Indonesia stops giving its support and help to the militia in East Timor in order for the situation to work. There is a strategy there. We have marshalled our resources, and we are getting on with that very important job.This matter of public importance talks about not having a coherent policy. Let me just say that the coalition has been promoting Australia's values abroad in a practical and realistic way for some time. This is in sharp contrast to Labor's populism, which was focused on economic retreat. That would have led to Australia being isolated both diplomatically and economically. Frankly, Labor's record after 13 years did not bode well for our international relations. Of course, there were some good things that the previous government did. We all acknowledge that not all was bad, but generally speaking Labor operated on a basis of behind closed door treaty making. In fact, I well remember the statement in May 1995 of the honourable gentleman for Holt when he was the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who I see is taking notes—I do not know whether he is to speak after me or not—when he said, `I do not favour subjecting treaties to the vagaries of parliament.' In other words, when the Leader of the Opposition stands up in this place and says, `The Prime Minister is not here to deal in this exercise of accountability,' we have to recall the then foreign affairs minister saying that he did not believe in the accountability of parliament. He made it very clear—and I will remind the House again of what he said: `I do not favour subjecting treaties to the vagaries of parliament.' In other words, the parliament is not allowed to know. This is the standard of accountability that we got from the other side of the House.Labor was frequently diplomatically reckless. We all remember when the member for Kingsford-Smith brought relations with New Zealand `to an all-time low' by tearing up the single aviation agreement. And Labor, of course, insulted our Malaysian neighbours and friends and damaged our trade interests by that infamous comment about the Prime Minister of Malaysia being `recalcitrant'. Labor has too often, it seems to me, engaged in posturing rather than conducting a realistic assessment of Australia's interests and capacity to achieve results. Declaratory statements on human rights were not matched by achievements on the ground. Labor failed in government to deal effectively with the banning of landmines, as conceded by the member for Kingsford-Smith, the shadow spokesman. In opposition, Labor now supports policies that would isolate Australia at the expense of Australia's long-term interests.I make these points because we should remember that this matter of public importance which the Leader of the Opposition has proposed says:The need for a coherent and effective foreign policy to advance Australia's international interests, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region.The point I am making is that we already have that. As a coalition, we have said that our priorities include our commitment to ensuring Australia's positive contribution to our region, enhancing Australia's security, liberalising regional multilateral trade and having a humane and principled foreign policy.This government established and completed Australia's first ever foreign policy white paper. I remind the House of the document. It was called `In the national interest: Australia's foreign and trade policy'. This was the first time that this country had seen a white paper of that sort. It identified a number of priorities, including the priorities of getting on with `the region's three major powers and largest economies—the United States, Japan and China—and with our largest neighbour—Indonesia'. It talked about a whole range of important things and the way we would go about delivering that policy.It seems to me that this country has had a coherent policy for a long time. And, pursuant to that, I would just remind the House of some of the things that we have done. For example, we established an independent review of the aid program, we reformed the secretive treaty making process that operated under the other side of politics, and we now have a parliamentary treaties committee to look at all of those things. We played a key role in bringing together a peace settlement in Bougainville, in PNG, and we assisted with the rehabilitation and reconstruction of that province. That would not have been possible if we had followed the policy suggested by the ALP of suspending aid to PNG. We have protected Australia from the Asian economic crisis and we have assisted a number of Asian countries to get over their particular problems—I have already mentioned the comments of the Thai deputy foreign minister—and of course we have done the same thing with a number of other countries.Through measures such as the Prime Minister's economic governance initiative and the Asia crisis fund, the government has provided substantial assistance to address the social impact of the crisis and to promote economic reform in the region. We have provided substantial assistance for democratic elections in Indonesia, the first ones since 1995. That included sending observers, which of course included parliamentarians and officials. That positive contribution will assist Indonesia, in spite of the difficulties that we have at the moment, to become the world's third largest democracy. I well remember that only last year, when I was attending as a delegation member on behalf of this parliament the ASEAN interparliamentary organisation meeting in KL, the Indonesian delegation was very keen to get technical assistance from us. That is something that we have since supplied.We have dramatically changed Australia's policy in terms of the global ban on antipersonnel mines. We have established regional security dialogues with China, Thailand, the Philippines, Vietnam, South Korea and Japan. We have established human rights security and consular dialogues with China, backed up by practical assistance to improve human rights.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—This government said it was more interested in trade than in human rights.UT4Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENT—And of course we all know, as I would remind the gentleman from Banks, that we delivered the comprehensive test ban treaty to the world. So we have had a comprehensive policy and we are delivering a comprehensive policy. But the facts of life are—and the opposition should understand this; in fact, having been in government for 13 years, I would have thought they would have well understood this—that as a country of our size you cannot dictate what everybody else is going to do and that from time to time situations will develop to which you need to react. I think that situation has happened in East Timor. We have broken the mould on East Timor.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Broken the mould?UT4Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENT—We have broken the mould. I never noticed you, when you were in government, doing anything about democratic elections in East Timor.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Aston will ignore the member for Banks.UT4Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENT—I never noticed, Mr Deputy Speaker, the opposition when they were in government talking to the President of the country about giving any form of autonomy to East Timor.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Get out of it! Don't rewrite history.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The member for Banks!UT4Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENT—The reality of life is that the situation has changed. Change is starting to occur in Indonesia and we have taken advantage of that change to try to assist the situation in East Timor. So I think we have a good foreign affairs policy. We have acted properly in East Timor. Frankly, the opposition are all over the place on this. As usual, they are negative and they are destructive. The things that the Leader of the Opposition is asking that we do are already being put in place by this government and we should reject this matter of public importance proposed by the Leader of the Opposition.15:48:0010762Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—In foreign relations change is the only constant and certainly there has been change since the Labor Party left office in 1996—nowhere more so than in East Asia and nowhere more so than as a result of the economic meltdown in East Asia in 1997 which has fundamentally changed the landscape in a number of respects, certainly in Indonesia, making within the art of the possible in relation to East Timor things that were simply not within the art of the possible when we were in office.But what has not changed in that landscape has been the underlying fundamental realities that must form the base for any contemporary Australian foreign policy, whoever is in power. What are those realities? First, Australia is within the Asia-Pacific, in the East Asia region. That is where we live, that is where we must survive strategically, that is where we must prosper economically, and that is where we must find our place and role if we are to develop our full potential as a nation. Underlying reality No. 2: Australia's interests, like those of every other country these days, extend beyond the traditional security and economic interests that traditionally preoccupied diplomacy. In a globalised world there is a whole basket of transnational issues in which Australia, like every other country, has an immediate interest—issues of human rights, of the environment, of unregulated refugee and other population flows, of health pandemics, of terrorism and of narcotics. These are the sorts of issues which need cooperative multilateral action.We in the Labor Party, while in government, summarised that basket of interests as amounting to Australia's interest in being and being seen to be a good international citizen—being a good international citizen because those issues can only be resolved by cooperative action; being seen to be a good international citizen because there is a reputational spin-off, in cruder national interest terms, if you do this sort of thing extremely well and cooperatively with others.Thirdly, the reality about our underlying foreign policy situation is that Australia's capacity to advance our interests, whether they be of the economic, security or international citizenship kind, are necessarily limited. We do not have the military clout and we do not have the economic clout of the great powers. Our power is the power of persuasion, and that has to be understood by anyone in charge of any Australian foreign policy in the contemporary environment.The fourth underlying reality about Australian foreign policy in the contemporary era is that we have very little capacity to advance our interests, however defined, by relying on our great and powerful friends. Those days are over. Our great and powerful friends have interests of their own. They are less immediately focused on this area than was the case in the Cold War era. They have a responsibility to participate in the resolution of problems in our area, as everywhere else; but, as for the notion that we can somehow routinely rely on that kind of relationship and that kind of support, those days are over. That has to be at the beginning of one's understanding of contemporary foreign policy.The final reality about our contemporary situation is that to advance our interests—and this is really just a corollary of what I identified before—Australian diplomacy must have a strong multilateralist flavour and it must have a very strong Asia-Pacific and East Asian regional flavour. That does not mean kowtowing to the countries in our region. That does not mean sucking up to them. That does not mean overaccommodating them in all the ways that have been suggested as characteristic of our policy by the Prime Minister in recent days. It does mean understanding that this has to be the shape and the character of our foreign policy and that, if we are to be productive and if we are to be effective, it involves an intelligent, civilised relationship with those countries in our region and a willingness to put our resources into multilateral cooperative action as well as routine bilateral action of the kind that this government seems to most favour.Approaching foreign policy in this way, Australian foreign policy in the 1980s and 1990s was seen, I think universally, as being very successfully advanced. In the region, it enabled us—with cooperation with Indonesia in particular—to bring a solution to Cambodia; it enabled us to establish the architecture of APEC; and it enabled us to establish, at our initiative essentially, the ASEAN regional security dialogue forum. More globally, it enabled us to play a role in the resolution of the apartheid agony; it enabled us to play a role in establishing the Antarctic wilderness park; it enabled us to play a crucial role in bringing the chemical weapons convention to a conclusion; it enabled us to play a very significant role in initiating a whole new international debate, now abandoned by the present government, on the elimination of nuclear weapons.There were some limitations, of course, on our strike rate. An agonising limitation, and one that gave me an enormous amount of pain, was our inability to move the game forward on East Timor in Indonesia, because of the situation as it then stood. I know that the member for Aston, Peter Nugent, is a much more civilised fellow than his performance in his last contribution would suggest—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—It is not his last contribution.VD4Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANS—It is my second last. For him to suggest that we did not pursue the issue of autonomy, or that we did not pursue the issue of a massive draw-down of military presence by Indonesia in East Timor, is just a canard of a kind that is beneath the standards to which he usually aspires and which he usually achieves. That is not right. It is something that drove my foreign policy, and I drove my diplomatic counterpart, Ali Alatas, crazy with the insistence with which I pursued that. But we were not able to move it because the Realpolitik situation before the 1997 meltdown was just not of a kind which enabled Indonesia to be moved by that kind of pressure.The government tried to move on that front last year, and I, for one, thought that the Howard initiative in actually raising the issue of autonomy followed by an independence ballot was an entirely reasonable and realistic initiative to pursue in the environment as it had evolved after 1997. What was not realistic to pursue was the enthusiastic scramble for credit which followed when Indonesia, largely in a fit of pique—not on the basis of inspired conceptual willingness to appreciate the force of Australia's, or anybody else's, logic or argument—went further and said that if East Timor rejected autonomy they would embrace independence. It was then that, instead of scrambling for credit, the Australian government should have had warning bells jangling all over in exactly the way that Xanana, Belo, Ramos Horta and the rest were urging. So that has not been a triumph for Australian foreign policy, for all the reasons that have been articulated very well by the leader and others in recent times.What has happened more fundamentally since this government has been in power has been an erosion of our credibility and an erosion of the effectiveness and the coherence of the foreign policy which we were developing in an effective and coherent way. We may be now doing the right thing in East Timor by our military presence there, and I for one am absolutely persuaded that we are. But why do we have to express the way in which we are doing it so arrogantly and so patronisingly and regard it as an exercise in the application of Australian values as distinct from universal values? Why did we have to allow to take wing the notion that we were doing it as a deputy for the United States global police chief? We were doing it in order to pick up a theme that was running hot and strong in the whole international environment: an absolute distaste and disgust with the appalling behaviour of the Indonesian military and the necessity of the international community to respond to that through the United Nations. The pitch was wrong, the spin was wrong, and the articulation was wrong, because the mind-set which lay behind this approach by the government was wrong.We have lost any kind of leadership role in APEC or the ARF. We are no longer playing that active, credible, multilateral role in the United Nations and elsewhere—whether it is on disarmament issues or anything else—that gave us the status of a really effective niche player in the international scene, a player that really could move the agenda forward. What we have got now, in lieu of those sorts of achievements of the past, is the Howard doctrine—by Robert Gordon Menzies out of John Foster Dulles.Instead of emphasising our commitment to the region of which we are part, we are now emphasising what makes us different: our `special place' as a European, Western civilisation. Instead of emphasising the universal values that we want everyone to subscribe to, we now talk incessantly of Australian values. Instead of emphasising the healthy independence which for the last decade or so has characterised our friendship with the United States—our critical alliance friendship—we now go out of the way to paint ourselves as acolytes of the United States. And all of that is hopelessly astray in terms of coming to grips with the kind of contemporary realities about our policy that I described.One of the hardest things is to get the balance right between realism and idealism. It is stupid to talk in terms of one or the other. What you have to do is to have a sensible and intelligent balance, and you have to know when to stop. You have to be prepared, when pushing the policy envelope out as far as it will reach, on human rights or anything else, to be conscious of the art of what is achievable and to stop short of anything that is counterproductive. You have to explain frankly what is possible and not create expectations, internationally or domestically, that you cannot satisfy. And you always, but always, have to be very deeply reluctant to advise or to embrace courses of action which involve the shedding of other people's blood.All of those things, I think, have been beyond the capacity of this government to articulate so far as its foreign policy is concerned. The kind of foreign policy we have seen is not one for the 21st century. Unhappily, it is one for the 1950s, and this government ought to go back to the drawing board. (Time expired)15:58:0010765Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—The previous speaker, the member for Holt, is perpetuating an old Labor myth: the notion that the coalition does not understand the region and that it does not deal with multilateral institutions. He also specifically made the criticism that we were not focusing on what was achievable. I know this could be his last day in the House of Representatives, but I would ask him about the blue book, Cooperating for Peace —his job application for UN Secretary-Generalship—and the reform agenda for the United Nations: what did that achieve?In terms of the revisionism that we are now seeing on East Timor, it is worth reading—why wasn't this on the record?—his 1989 ministerial statement. There was no record of his talks on autonomy for East Timor. In what we take to be the Labor government's white paper, his book on Australian foreign relations co-authored with Bruce Grant, there was no mention of autonomy for East Timor. In fact, he talked about how recognising the sovereignty of Indonesia in East Timor was irreversible and how the Labor government's focus was on improving the conditions of the people of East Timor.He also talks about one of the things he sometimes did talk about when he was in government—building coalitions of like-minded interests. Of course, that is the sort of thing the government would do. The previous speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, in question time and again in his contribution to this debate on this matter of public importance focused on comments that were made by the Prime Minister in 1985, which is a long time ago. In 1985 the now Leader of the Opposition actually supported a GST. We know that quite well. Another critique the Leader of the Opposition made is that foreign policy is driven by domestic concern. One of the criticisms this government made in our white paper, and subsequently, is that one of the problems with the previous Labor government was that they focused too much on things like secret treaty making. They never realised there was a role in a democracy for the people to actually have ownership of and take part in the debate on foreign policy. You cannot go for too long leaving the people behind in foreign policy. (Quorum formed)With regard to the comments that have been attributed to the Prime Minister in the Bulletin, we need to focus very clearly on what he said in the parliament yesterday. What he did was to make it clear that he 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.They are sentiments that I think we would endorse. This did not escape the Thai foreign minister on CNN but, unfortunately, it has escaped the Leader of the Opposition.In terms of the priority the coalition government puts on the region, the first trips the Prime Minister made when he became Prime Minister were to Jakarta and Tokyo. Since we have been in government, we have received the first ever visit to Australia by a president of China and the second ever visit by a president of the United States of America.The starting point for considering what the government's foreign policy should be really is the 1997 foreign and trade policy white paper entitled `In the national interest'. The sentiments are in the title. If you actually read it, it says that we will be focusing on advancing the national interest. We will not be concentrating on grand constructs, which used to be the hobby of the member for Holt—and they did not actually deliver much for Australia. We will be focusing on a hard-headed pursuit of Australian interests, but we do accept that we will be continuing things the previous Labor government initiated. We will be continuing a concentration on the Asia-Pacific region. We will be focusing on our relations with the United States, China, Japan and Indonesia. We will be continuing strong support for the World Trade Organisation and APEC. But, importantly, we see a role for the population—that there should be a whole of nation approach and that specifically advancing Australia's interest is a task for all Australians, not just their governments.Labor's record focused on a behind closed door treaty making process. They treated the parliament and the Australian people with contempt. As we have already heard, in May 1995 Gareth Evans said, `I do not favour subjecting treaties to the vagaries of parliament.' We had the Australian-Indonesian agreement on maintaining security signed by the member for Holt and the previous Prime Minister, Mr Keating, on 18 December 1995. The opposition did not know, the people of Australia did not know and the media did not know. It was a secret treaty. What effect did it have when violence broke out in East Timor? None.We have heard from the Leader of the Opposition; he was the great defence minister! We had the Dibb report and we had the strategic defence doctrine. And what happened? As soon as the strategic defence doctrine came out in 1987, what was the first regional crisis the now Leader of the Opposi tion faced then? It was the Fiji coup of 1987. The shadow minister sitting at the table might remember it. What about the Fiji coup of 1987? What about Prime Minister Lini's request for assistance to maintain internal law and order in Vanuatu? Specifically, to quote Stewart Woodman:The Fijian coup in 1987 revealed some important limitations on the ADF's force structure in meeting deployment tasks. Not only was it difficult to match Australia's intimidating conventional capabilities to a sensitive political approach but Australia lacked both a capability to sustain and tactically deploy ground forces at distance in the maritime environment and a capability for civil law and order tasks.So we had Bomber Beazley sitting at the ministerial desk, and when the coup broke out in Fiji in 1987 we could not evacuate Australian citizens. We had the F111s, the FA18s, the Oberon submarines and we could not evacuate Australian citizens.What was their response to Bougainville? When we came to office in 1996 the war was still going on in Bougainville. We as a government dealt with the Sandline affair. It was actually the Sandline affair and our response to it, saying that mercenaries were unacceptable in the South Pacific, that gave impetus to the Burnham agreements and to the peace process. Now, two years on, you see peace in Bougainville. Similarly in East Timor, as the previous speaker on this side noted. Violence broke out in Dili on, I think, Sunday, 6 September. Within two weeks INTERFET were in Dili. That is a record, if you compare it with Rwanda and Bosnia, to have international troops with a United Nations Security Council resolution covering them deployed in that time. That is a record and it is a credit to this government and a credit to the Minister for Defence for upgrading the readiness of the Australian Defence Force. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for this discussion has now expired.Committees10767107671076716:08:0010767Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members business on Monday, 11 October 1999. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for the next sitting.The report read as follows—PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNotices1 Mr Beazley to present a bill for an act to amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996 to ensure that leave for participation in service and training as a member of the Australian Defence Force Reserves be one of the matters which can be taken to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission for conciliation or arbitration. (Notice given 23 September 1999. )Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 5 minutes—pursuant to sessional order 104A.2 Dr Nelson to move—That this House:(1) notes Tuesday 12th October is the day of Six Billion People;(2) notes uncontrollable population expansion will lead to increasing pressure on the world leading to serious environmental and social problems;(3) while respecting cultural sensibilities, calls for a realistic approach to family planning, including access to information on family planning; and(4) stresses the issues of population and development are interconnected. (Notice given 20 September 1999.)Time allotted—40 minutes.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Opposition Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.3 Mr Horne to move—That the House: (1) acknowledges the oyster industry as a responsible industry that is a large employer of people both directly and indirectly in regional Australia;(2) recognises that regional jobs are rapidly diminishing and the loss of a viable oyster industry would result in the loss of thousands of jobs in coastal Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria; and(3) calls on the Government as a matter of urgency to exclude oyster farmers from having to value their oyster crop as an asset and therefore be considered as income for taxation purposes starting in the year 2000-2001. (Notice given 21 September 1999.)Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.45 p.m.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Government Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.4 Mr Neville to move—That the 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. (Notice given 27 September 1999.)Time allotted—30 minutes.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Opposition Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.5 Mr Hollis to move—That this House:(1) calls on the Government to reverse the decision on the transmitters at Cox Peninsula near Darwin; and(2) urges the Government to recommence broadcasting from Cox Peninsula as a matter of urgency. (Notice given 22 September 1999.)Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Government Member speaking—10 minutes.Each Member—5 minutes.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.Miscellaneous1076810768Order of the day returned from Main Committee.Ordered that the order of the day be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills10768r65310768Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration at the next sitting.(Quorum formed)Bills10768r83210768Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1)Page 2 (after line 2), after clause 3, add:4 Review of operation of Act(1)The Minister must cause an independent review of the Lifetime Health Cover Scheme to be undertaken as soon as practicable after the third anniversary of the commencement of this Act.(2)A person who undertakes such a review must give the Minister a written report of the review. (3)The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament not later than 31 December 2003.(4)In this section:independent review means a review undertaken by persons who:(a)in the Minister's opinion possess appropriate qualifications to undertake the review; and(b)include one or more persons who are not employed by a registered organization, the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority and have not, since the commencement of this Act, provided services to a registered organization, the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority under or in connection with a contract.(2)Schedule 1, item 11, page 5 (lines 5 and 6), omit the heading to clause 1, substitute:1 People who are late in taking out hospital cover(3)Schedule 1, item 11, page 5 (lines 7 to 9), omit subclause (1), substitute:(1)The amount of the contributions payable for hospital cover in respect of an adult beneficiary is increased if:(a)he or she did not have hospital cover on his or her Schedule 2 application day; or(b)he or she:(i)turned 31 years of age on or before 1 July 2000; and(ii)did not have hospital cover on 30 June 1999; and(iii)ceased to have hospital cover after 1 July 2000 but before 2 July 2001.(4)Schedule 1, item 11, page 7 (lines 8 and 9), omit paragraph 3(1)(b), substitute:(b)days on which the cover was suspended by the registered organization in accordance with the rules for suspensions provided in regulations made for the purpose of this paragraph.(5)Schedule 1, item 11, page 7 (lines 10 and 11), omit subclause (2), substitute:(2)However:(a)the 730 days referred to in paragraph (1)(a) do not include:(i)days to which paragraph (1)(b) applies; or (ii)if the adult beneficiary turned 31 years of age on or before 1 July 2000 and did not have hospital cover on 30 June 1999—days on which, on or after 1 July 2000 but before 2 July 2001, he or she did not have hospital cover; and(b)if he or she turned 31 years of age on or before 1 July 2000 and did not have hospital cover on 30 June 1999—the days referred to in paragraph (1)(b) do not include days on which:(i) on or after 1 July 2000 but before 2 July 2001, he or she did not have hospital cover; and(ii)he or she has not met the requirements specified in regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph (either generally or in respect of the kind of circumstances to which paragraph (1)(b) applies in this case).(6)Schedule 1, item 11, page 7 (line 25), after "July 2000" (first occurring), insert "and there is no provision under this clause for a later day to be the Schedule 2 application day".(7)Schedule 1, item 11, page 7 (line 27), after "2000", insert "and there is no provision under this clause for a later day to be the Schedule 2 application day".(8)Schedule 1, item 11, page 7 (line 27), at the end of clause 5, add:; or (c)if the adult beneficiary either:(i)entered or enters Australia on a protection visa within the meaning of section 36 of the Migration Act 1958 that was issued on or after 1 January 2000; or(ii)was or is granted such a visa after entering Australia on or after that date;the day on which he or she turned 31 years of age or the first anniversary of the day he or she became eligible for Medicare benefits, whichever is the later.(9)Schedule 1, item 11, page 7 (line 27), at the end of clause 5, add:; or (d)if the adult beneficiary is an Australian citizen or the holder of a permanent visa within the meaning of the Migration Act 1958 who is absent from Australia for the whole of the period starting on 1 January 2000 and ending on 1 July 2000—the day he or she turned 31 years of age or the first anniversary of the day he or she returned to Australia, whichever is the later. (10)Schedule 1, item 11, page 7 (after line 27), at the end of clause 5, add:(2)A person is eligible for Medicare benefits if he or she is an eligible person within the meaning of section 3 of the Health Insurance Act 1973 or a person who is treated as an eligible person because of section 6 or 7 of that Act.(11)Schedule 1, item 11, page 9 (after line 28), after subclause (1), insert:(1A)The Minister must determine that a person is to be treated, for the purposes of this Schedule, as having had hospital cover on 30 June 1999 if:(a)the person applies to the Minister, in accordance with subclause (2), for the determination; and(b)the Minister is satisfied that one or more of the circumstances specified in the regulations apply to the person.(12)Schedule 1, item 11, page 10 (after line 29), at the end of clause 12, add:(4)A registered organization must keep separate records in relation to each adult beneficiary covered by a joint membership.(5)When an adult beneficiary ceases contribution for a joint membership, the registered organization must notify each adult beneficiary covered by the joint membership that the contribution for the joint membership has ceased.16:14:0010769Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.The National Health Amendment (Lifetime Health Cover) Bill 1999 is the most major change to health insurance probably since the decline of the lodge system in the 1950s and 1960s. It will give people incentive to get in young and then keep their insurance, and the benefits will be a more stable system and cheaper premiums over the longer term. In effect, what we will be doing is rewarding long-term members.This bill has been fully debated in this place and in the Senate, and we are now just agreeing to a number of amendments that have come back from the Senate. These amendments cover a number of areas. One is a review of the act which, as I recollect, was put up by the Labor Party. The government is happy to accept this review.The second concerns how refugees will be dealt with in the application of Lifetime Health Cover. Refugees entering Australia at any time will be able to lock into a base premium rate within 12 months of first becoming eligible for Medicare. Migrants who are currently in Australia awaiting access to Medicare or on waiting lists to enter the country on 30 September this year will not be disadvantaged due to the grace period ending on 30 June 2000. In addition, the government will conduct a review, as mentioned, in 2003 which will include an investigation of any possible disadvantage to a specific class of migrant.There are several other areas. One is the minimum period of membership. This was an oversight in the original piece of legislation, and it is quite sensible to fix it. We have set a minimum period of membership for people joining health insurance during the grace period. New members will only lock into the right to pay premiums at the base rate if they maintain their membership for at least 12 months; that is, until 1 July 2001. Finally, Australian citizens who are overseas during the period 1 January to 1 July 2000 will be allowed a 12-month period of grace on their return to Australia in which to take out hospital cover with a health fund to be eligible for the base rate premium.16:17:0010770Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—As the minister has said, it is the case that the National Health Amendment (Lifetime Health Cover) Bill 1999 has been subject to detailed consideration, including that which was carried out by the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee which highlighted a large number of deficiencies. Nevertheless, the underlying concept of moving towards lifetime community rating is something that the opposition has supported.The government, however, has failed to listen to advice in a number of areas, many of which have arisen from the work of the Senate committee, and unfortunately has not agreed to make sensible amendments to fix up the scheme to make it fairer and more workable. Because these amendments have not been made, there is every possibility that the scheme the government has devised, instead of making the industry stronger in the future, will increase the degree of adverse selection and, what I am concerned about, will create a rush to join private health insurance, particularly towards July next year. I have no doubt that the government will be very pleased if it does get a short-term spike in membership; no doubt it will claim to have fixed the problems in private health insurance. But, of course, if that occurs, it will be to the long-term detriment of the industry.The opposition, demonstrating its capacity to look to the long-term interests of the health insurance funds, put up 24 different amendments which had come out of the Senate inquiry. The government has conceded, and the minister has outlined the areas where agreement has been reached, a number of the opposition's amendments. I am pleased that, for example, the government has recognised what both the opposition and the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman have argued: that this bill creates a great deal of uncertainty and that there was, therefore, a need to conduct a review of this legislation by the end of 2003. A proper review is very important for the future of this industry and I am pleased we will now have one.However, the opposition is concerned that the design of Lifetime Health Cover that is before us could close the door to many people who may be thinking of joining health insurance. The funds should not expect this review which is to be done by 2003 to be the basis of yet another rescue plan; the enormity of the last one should be enough. The onus is on the funds to make this scheme work, and for them to do so without expectation of additional subsidies.The government's original plan was very unfair to refugees. But, as outlined by the minister, the government has accepted an amendment put forward by the opposition that refugees will only pay penalty premiums related to the period of time they have spent in Australia and they will be given the same length of grace period—that is 12 months—as Australian citizens get at the start of the scheme. That will mean that people to whom we are giving protection are able to start their life in Australia on an equal footing with other Australians.I am pleased also that the government will introduce a regulation to give fair treatment to migrants who are already in Australia or who have applied to come here and need to wait out the balance of their two-year waiting period for Medicare eligibility. The opposition also has successfully protected the position of a large number of Australians who are ordinarily resident overseas and who otherwise would have been denied the opportunity to secure an age of 30 in this scheme—because, of course, they are not currently resident and are not going to be resident on the relevant date and cannot make use of the grace period.The government has also accepted the rules on suspension of membership. It has accepted that the previous rules were unworkable. The bill, as drafted, lacked an objective test of when a suspension had been granted. I am pleased that the government has agreed to fix those rules. The government also has accepted the serious flaw in the bill in regard to rights of spouses. Labor's amendment requires that proper records be kept and spouses be notified when the member ceases payment. With marriage breakups, this has been a common problem that will become very important under Lifetime Health Cover. The Private Health Insurance Ombudsman raised the problems that his office has encountered with complaints from former spouses. The current practice of the funds is only to record the details of the member and not the other people covered by the same policy. (Extension of time granted) But because of the way that Lifetime Health Cover works, it is only reasonable that the funds be required to record the details of spouses and to advise them when the member ceases payments.On the other hand, there remain many serious problems with the legislation and, unfortunately, the government has refused to engage in a meaningful discussion about how the bill could further be improved. As the minister is aware, the Labor Party has supported the underlying issue of lifetime cover from the outset. But we have not been able to have a debate or a discussion about the range of other amendments that Labor took to the Senate which arose, as I say, in the main from the Senate inquiry.I was particularly concerned about the changes that emerged from the letters which the minister exchanged with the Australian Democrats. The Democrats' deal with the government has, to my mind, come at the price of properly protecting public hospital funding, consumer rights, and the interests of veterans, retired women and young people. The Democrats have voted with the government to defeat each of these amendments and certainly have not stood up for the people who expected the Democrats to advocate on their behalf.The Democrats have supported letters from the minister rather than taking these issues into the Senate and considering legislation and amending that legislation where it is defective. This emerging practice of accepting letters or verbal undertakings from the government is, from our point of view, a bad precedent as these commitments are not enforceable. It is more than likely we will see from this letter that was exchanged that badly worded letters can often lead to confusion.In my view, the minister's letter to the Democrats is not going to be worth the paper that it is written on. The Democrats have been naive to accept that these letters will, for example, protect our public hospitals. This issue was most important from the opposition's point of view. The amendment that we moved in the Senate to protect our public hospital system from the clawback of up to $200 million from public hospital funding was to make ineffective the provision in the Australian health care agreements that funding to the states for public hospitals can be reduced if private health insurance levels increase above a certain point.Public hospitals stand to lose a large slice from their budgets as a result of Lifetime Health Cover. We believe the only long-term effective way to protect them is by legislation—not by an exchange of letters. The Australian health care agreements set trigger points for each state above which funds are clawed back out of the public hospital system if participation in private health insurance increases. Nationally, the trigger point averages 34 per cent, and the states stand to lose $200 million or more if participation reaches the level assumed in the original actuarial work of 36 per cent. It is the case that the government and the Democrats have entered into a deal about this issue. But it will not result in a government amendment to the legislation and there is no mechanism in these letters to back up any promises.An attachment to the letter that the minister gave to the Democrats was circulated some hours after the deal was done, but this does not make the promise any clearer. The mechanism apparently is to be based on a comparison of hospital income from the private health insurance funds with the amount the Department of Veterans' Affairs received in 1997-98. There is no mention of the demand on public hospitals or the ability of the hospitals to use their available funds to successfully meet that demand. So the outcome of this agreement struck between the government and the Democrats is that public hospital funding is at risk.The introduction of Lifetime Health Cover was unknown at the time the states signed the Australian health care agreements and the potential for the states to lose $200 million in this way was not known. In their minority report after the Senate inquiry, the Democrats agreed that public hospitals needed to be protected and they specifically said that no funds should be deducted without proof that demand had reduced as a result of an increase in private health insurance. (Extension of time granted) But now they have accepted a promise in a letter that the clawback provisions could be revoked if the participation rate exceeds the trigger point given in the Australian health care agreements. The minister says in this attachment which he gave to the Democrats that he has committed himself to revoking the agreement if the clawback clause is triggered. If this is a binding commitment then the government should have had no problem revoking the provision. I would appreciate the minister, after I have finished my remarks, agreeing here publicly that this provision will be revoked if the clawback clause is triggered. It is the only way we have left before us now to make sure that public hospitals will be protected.The opposition also believes that there was a strong case to extend the exemption for over-65-year-olds to include those under 65 who are retired on age, widows or veterans pensions. It is the case that in the past women have been treated equally with male pensioners over 65. It is a very bad precedent to start here that female pensioners should be discriminated against. If this precedent is allowed to be established, it could quickly spread and result in a rollback of entitlements in other areas. I was very disappointed that the Democrats abandoned this group and allowed the establishment of this precedent.Another amendment would have required the minister to reform the reinsurance pool by 1 July 2000 so that Lifetime Health Cover can work properly. Reform in this area would have sent the signal to the private health insurance industry that each fund must become more efficient and consumer focused. If Lifetime Health Cover is to work properly, there must be reform of reinsurance. The effect of reinsurance is to re-adjust between funds, according to the profile of their members. If the funds have no incentive to control costs, then the benefits of Lifetime Health Cover will be lost. I am sure the minister is aware that the actuaries who designed the scheme suggested that reform of the reinsurance pool could wait a short time, but this is clearly a less than desirable outcome. If the minister is unwilling to accept a deadline being inserted by legislation, then I ask him to make a clear commitment today that this reform process will happen in the very near future.Another amendment which we pursued was about the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman's powers, particularly the powers we wanted to give him to remedy hardship cases and other unforeseen anomalies created by the new scheme. The bill, as we have it here today, only contains a limited power for the minister to establish regulations to cover hardship that occurs in the first two years. From our point of view, having the minister determining issues of hardship on the basis of regulations is inflexible and likely to be slow. This Lifetime Health Cover Scheme is very complex and depends on many evidentiary issues over which we can expect disputes to arise. Age, residency in Australia, prior coverage, identity and coverage as a partner in a former relationship are all likely to be causes of dispute.From our point of view, the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman is the appropriate body to consider complaints and hardship applications. The government's argument was that this would give the ombudsman further powers that would have been greater than those of the AAT. But the government provided no argument or no evidence to back that up. In fact, the powers that we had proposed to give the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman would have been purely to resolve administrative problems and to ensure the smooth working of the scheme. There was nothing unique about the proposed powers and they should have won the support of the government and the Democrats. Unfortunately, we are stuck with the minister making personal decisions over the next two years to cope with hardship. So I ask the minister at the least to give an undertaking that the regulations will not be narrowly defined and to take on board the serious problems that remain buried in this bill. Otherwise, a number of very important parts of the scheme will remain unworkable and we would like to see at least some of those being remedied. (Extension of time granted)The opposition moved another amendment which would have limited the extent to which funds could offer policies requiring an up-front excess larger than $500 or which had many excluded procedures. These low cost products have been used by high income earners to avoid the Medicare surcharge without offering any real coverage for private hospital use. Under Lifetime Health Cover they will become even more attractive because they provide a loophole to avoid penalties for upgrading coverage later. The actua ries warned against allowing the continuation of these products as they would undermine the scheme.There has been a marketing trend for the funds to offer special discounts aimed at young people, in particular by allowing claims to be made for gym shoes, foot massages and a variety of other things. I gather the government does not disagree with the thrust of what the opposition has proposed, and is recognising the reality. There has been a strong trend towards these products as we now have many people, accountants included, advising their clients about how to minimise their tax. The problem is that this group are now being given considerable advantages and we would like to see that remedied. I gather that the minister has undertaken to introduce a regulation to achieve the goal of ensuring that such products do not satisfy the provision for exemption from the Medicare levy surcharge. I trust that he will watch carefully to see whether this regulation has the desired effect.The opposition also put a strong case for discounts to be offered to young people under 30. This had been recommended by the consultant actuaries, Trowbridge. The scheme proposed would have given people under 30 a two per cent reduction in premiums for every year prior to the age of 30 that they joined a health fund. In rejecting this measure, the government and the Democrats have sent a sharp message to people under 30 by refusing to provide a fair pricing structure. The advice from the actuaries has been ignored, and young people will be overcharged. Anyone under 30 would have to seriously question whether it is in their interest to buy health insurance under the government's new rules. The short-term impact of the new arrangements will be a spurt in older members, but the long-term outlook for the funds is ominous. Instead of attracting more young people, the scheme is more likely to drive older people to join, which will severely weaken the funds and push up premiums.The opposition is pleased that the government at least listened to one set of criticisms at the Senate inquiry. The health funds raised a blatant loophole that would have allowed people to gain a membership age of 30 for Lifetime Health Cover simply by joining for a short period. The department told the Senate inquiry that they would solve the problem by regulating for a three-month minimum period of membership from 1 July next year. This was clearly not going to close the stable door. The opposition believes a period closer to three years would have better fixed the scheme. Nevertheless, the government has introduced its amendments to give effect to a 12-month minimum period, which is better than the original proposal but we believe it could have gone further.We discussed the best way to provide a serious disincentive to this new behaviour we were concerned about—join and lapse strategies—which could undermine and defeat the purpose of Lifetime Health Cover. The opposition has accepted the industry's preference for a fixed date rather than a fixed period as the means to set a minimum requirement. This issue was raised originally in the Senate inquiry by HCF, and other funds were also very concerned about this potential behaviour. I certainly hope that the amendment moved by the government and accepted in the Senate—and that will be accepted here today—will go at least some way towards fixing that problem.Labor was also concerned about people currently without health insurance but who have had it for many years in the past getting credit for their past membership and paying a lesser penalty. An example was given in the Senate minority report: a person who had been without health insurance for three years after the introduction of Lifetime Health Cover but who had previously been a member for six years would pay a penalty of $60 under Labor's amendment, compared with $180 under the government's proposal. (Extension of time granted) Unfortunately, the government and the Democrats declined to support the opposition's attempts to protect people who had been long-term members of the funds but who had let their membership lapse, often for good reasons, such as losing their jobs and not being able to afford health insurance over the last few years. Unfortu nately, their long-term prior membership of health insurance is not going to be recognised because the government and the Democrats refused to accept the opposition's amendment.Finally, I want to make some remarks about advertising. The opposition unsuccessfully moved a motion to require the proposed $10 million government advertising campaign to be vetted. We wanted to see that advertising campaign vetted in advance by the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission and the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman. It is appropriate from our point of view that the government's publicly funded advertising should be judged against a fair set of criteria, including the guidelines for advertising private health insurance developed by the ACCC and the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman. But once again we found that a deal had been done on this point. The Democrats had received a letter from the government. Unfortunately, we may see in the advertising, that I understand is about to be released, another effort by the government to use public funds to promote political interests. But we will only know that when the advertisements are finally released.As I said at the outset, we do support the underlying principles of lifetime community rating and we will be voting for the bill in its amended form. I am only sorry that we have not been able to achieve more. With greater discussion between the opposition and the government we could have improved the bill even further. The market for new members of health insurance will, I think, shrink greatly after this grace period that the government has created. The rejection of discounts for young people will narrow even more the market that currently exists for new members to get into the funds. The Australian public are well aware of what they get from Medicare and they do not have the government's ideological commitment to private health insurance. They are very happy with our public system and only ask that the federal government properly fund our public hospitals and not leave them exposed, as they have done as a result of this legislation. Nevertheless, I look forward to the commitments the minister has given so far. I ask him, if he could, to respond to the issues I have raised.16:41:0010775Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I must say I am delighted the Labor Party are supporting this. I would hate to see what they would do if they were not supporting it. There is no doubt that we did have a lengthy discussion with the Democrats and that we did accept some amendments. I thank the Labor Party for their support of this concept. But we would not have any capacity to be able to pick up the sorts of amendments they said because, quite frankly, we do not think they would make it workable.There were a number of things that the shadow minister stated. I will take them in order. She said that the rush to join up private health insurance would lead to adverse selection. I do not believe this will be the case because we have exempted people over 65 years of age. That is the most important thing. If you look at drawing rates of people under 65, by and large they draw less than the dollar for dollar that they put in. So the adverse selection, I think, has been largely mitigated by exempting people over 65.The shadow minister on a couple of occasions mentioned younger people. This was one of the options in the original Trowbridge report. But contrary to her saying that we ignored their advice, it was one of two options put up to us. We chose not to take it because of several reasons. The first is that it would make it much more complicated. The second is that it would put premiums up for people over 30 years of age by several per cent, and to mitigate this in the first year we would have had to have put in the order of $180 million to the reinsurance pool. We were unable to do that. We thought it was far more sensible, in introducing such a big change as this, not to have those concerns at this time. I should say, though, that we have designed the legislation in such a way that it does not exclude us or a future government at some point in time. So I look forward to having a look at the Labor Party's health policy next time to see if the shadow minister is any more successful at finding $180 million from her colleagues than I was.She mentioned a variety of amendments relating to veterans, retired people, young people, women. I guess we could have excluded them and just had it apply to blokes 25 to 55 years of age like me, but I do not think it would have worked if that had happened. As to public hospitals, this is something the shadow minister has made a lot of. I should talk about the clawback provisions to explain why they exist in the health care agreements and then perhaps it will become a bit more obvious what we are trying to do.The states put a very strong case that they had been duped by the Labor Party in 1993. I agree with them. The health care agreement that the Labor Party signed with the states in 1993 stated that there would be a review of the funding every time there was a two per cent drop-out in private health insurance. There was a clear expectation from the states that this would lead to greater funding. That was never provided for and never came.The person who was most upset about this was Dr Refshauge, the then health minister for New South Wales. I had to agree with him; it was outrageous that the previous Labor Party finance minister, now opposition leader, made no provision to honour their word in the health care agreements they signed in 1993. So when we came to sign the new agreements in 1998, the states insisted that because of a drop-out in private health insurance they were losing a stream of income that they applied to public hospitals and they should be compensated for that.This comes from three ways: from private health funds through same-day patients, overnight patients and nursing home patients. The South Australian government estimated that it cost them somewhere between $17 million and $27 million for every two per cent drop-out from private health insurance, or somewhere in the order of $180 million for the whole of the public hospital system in Australia every year—because the drop-out was happening at the rate of about two per cent a year. This was the failure of the previous health care agreement.We signed this agreement on the basis that, if there was a drop-out from private health insurance, we would meet some of that revenue. This was at the states' insistence, but the states also signed an agreement saying that it would only be fair that if they get extra revenue, because private health insurance increases, they share that with the Commonwealth. If you use the figures that South Australia provided of $160 million to $180 million extra that they would be getting nationally, they would share half with us, which is roughly how we came up with the figure of $83 million.The fact that we invoked the clawback provisions means that the states are getting their revenue stream from another source—that is, private health funds. (Extension of time granted) In fact, I believe they will be better off because the clawback is not dollar for dollar on their estimates. We were sufficiently confident of this that I was prepared to give an undertaking to the Australian Democrats that if private health insurance went above 34 per cent—that is the national average, so whatever the figure is for each state—and the clawback provisions were invoked, the first thing we would do would be to look at the extra revenue stream that the states have got over 1997-98 in four areas: private patients for day stays; private patients for overnight stays; private patients who are nursing home patients; and the revenue that the states get from the Commonwealth out of veterans.All this money is applied to public hospitals. If the amount of money the states are getting from these four sources does not compensate for the clawback, the clawback will only occur to the extent that they will be no worse off. The result of this is that the states cannot possibly be worse off in dollar terms, but they can still be better off. There is only an upside. I am not imagining that the clawback provisions will be invoked, but it is possible over the life of this agreement. Of course it will be irrelevant after 2003 because we will be signing a new agreement then. Maybe in the fourth or fifth year of the health care agreement it could drift up so that the clawback is invoked. If it is invoked, any cent that we take from the hospitals will be more than matched by the extra money they have from other resources, so they will be at least the same but potentially much better off.The shadow minister raised a number of other concerns. There was one about reinsurance. This is under way. We have had this under way since, I think, 1 March this year. We are on a parallel tracking system and plan to have it introduced on 1 April 2000. She raised concerns about the Ombudsman. We were not prepared to give the Ombudsman powers that did not exist with any other ombudsman in Australia—powers, in effect, that would have been greater than those of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. She mentioned regulations and asked that I ensure that they would not be narrowly defined. These regulations are the way we will deal with migrants and long-term fund members who may have had to drop their insurance because of financial hardship. I seriously want to help long-term fund members. That is the whole point of doing this. I will be as generous as I can be with genuine cases, but they will have to show that they have been long-term members and they will have to show that they were in financial hardship at the time.The shadow minister mentioned up-front deductibles. We will be regulating to ensure that a greater than $500 up-front deductible per single insured unit will not be eligible for exemption from the one per cent levy surcharge. Of course, people will still be free to take out these premiums if they wish to do so. It may be that some low income people want to have a degree of private health coverage and would rather have a very high front-end deductible product. These premiums will still be available if health funds wish to offer them, but they will not exempt high income earners from the surcharge.I have touched on the issue of younger people and the reason we did not agree to such a measure. I offer a challenge to the shadow minister that she may have the opportunity of doing so at some very distant point in the future. On the issue of advertising, I can give the shadow minister a complete assurance that we will behave in exactly the same way as her party behaved in government. She should have no worries about that, I am sure. Finally, the shadow minister mentioned that we would have achieved more with greater discussion between the opposition and the government. I have to say that, after 3½ years as minister, it is quite a change to have the opposition being supportive of something we do. If this is a sign of things to come, maybe there will be greater discussion and cooperation between the opposition and government.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills10777r89410777Debate resumed from 27 September, on motion by Mr Reith:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr Bevis moved by amendment: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.16:52:0010777Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—Last night in addressing the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 I explained that it failed the test of fairness, that it failed to protect the industrially weak like outworkers. That of itself should be enough to cause this House to reject this bill, because how could any member of this place stare into the eyes of a migrant woman who works enormous hours at home for a pittance and say, `I gladly voted to make your life harder'?But the reasons to reject this bill do not stop there. Because this bill is premised on the desire of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business to eradicate unions rather than on a desire to create a fair, modern industrial relations system, it contains many provisions designed to undermine the capacity of unions to go about their work, and most fundamentally of all in ensuring award compliance. In pursuing his ideological quest, this minister forgets a very important point: that industrial regulation, awards and agreements are just so much wasted paper unless there is an effort on the ground to ensure that these provisions are complied with. The truth is that, whoever has been in government, the only entity out on the ground day after day, in workplace after workplace, ensuring workers get what they are entitled to is the trade union movement.In the eight years from 1987 I conducted, as a lawyer on behalf of the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia, every prosecution it engaged in against employers who mistreated outworkers. We launched hundreds of them. In the same time period, the Commonwealth government body charged with prosecuting employers in breach of industrial awards did not undertake one such prosecution in respect of outwork. That occurred in spite of my running training seminars for government inspectors on behalf of the union.As woeful as this record is, at least some compliance work was undertaken generally during the period, if not on the question of outwork. The position now is that under this government the Office of the Employment Advocate is focused on an agenda of union busting, not at all on an agenda of award compliance. A quick look at its web site shows the true purpose and nature of the office. Underneath all of the freedom of association rhetoric that we have heard from this government, what you find on the web site is a mere 30 words telling you that you can join a union and 137 words—more than four times more—telling you that you do not have to join a union and how to resign from the union if you have. I have been unable to locate any action the office has undertaken to prevent acts of discrimination by employers against those employees who want to be members of unions, though, as we all know, such discrimination is common, particularly in the industry I have been speaking about during this speech, the clothing industry. So we find that the reality is that the only entity out there ensuring compliance with awards and agreements is the trade union movement, and this bill fundamentally undermines its activities.Once again let us analyse this in relation to the clothing industry and the question of outwork. Key to regulating outwork is keeping records and allowing union access to those records. Clauses 26, 27 and 27A of the Clothing Trades Award contain an extensive mechanism to ensure that records are kept, and that has been done because the only mechanism that is available to track the provision of clothing trades work, from the retailer to the designer through a multitude of middlemen to the outworker who finally performs the work, is the keeping of extensive records. And key to regulating outwork, apart from those records being in existence, is the ability of the union to get its organisers, often at some personal risk, to chase through that work chain. Literally they follow trucks full of cut pieces of material to the homes of outworkers or to the clothing factory where the work is being delivered. This bill will undermine all of that compliance activity, all of that law enforcement, in a largely underground section of the work force—all of that law enforcement that the government cannot be bothered doing.This bill limits a union's abilities to inspect records to those records which relate to union membership. This is bordering on the laughable. Given that by definition most of the outworker work force are underground and not members of unions, this provision in and of itself is critical to cutting off an information chain that is necessary for identifying award breaches and outworker exploitation.Even more farcically, this bill limits the rights of entry of union organisers to premises where it has a written invitation from a union member. In this industry, where much of the work force is non-English speaking, who is going to do the writing? In this industry, where much of the work force are unaware of their legal rights, why would they write such a note? How would they know that such a provision exists? How would they know that help is available? In this industry, where it is on the public record that workers have actually been physically intimidated, who is going to sign such a note, even if they can produce it in the English language, and forward it to the right entity? This is just crazy public policy, designed at the end of the day to ensure that award compliance is undermined and that outwork and other areas of the work force that are industrially weak remain marginalised and remain without award protection.The government says that the solution to this is an alternate route of paperwork, getting a certificate from the commission registrar, and that in those circumstances you do not need a member's invitation. But we all know that, in an industry like the clothing industry, in order to ensure award compliance you have to strike while the iron is hot, you have to follow when the work is being moved. This is an industry where operators come and go within a 24-hour or a 48-hour cycle, and to suggest that being able to approach the commission registrar for a certificate in order to enable you to enter a workplace is a substitute for full entry rights is complete nonsense. Once again I would ask government members if they could really explain to any outworker why they are voting for this legislation, given these sorts of provisions.The provisions of this bill also go a long way towards undermining an industry-union initiative in the outwork area that was applauded by an all-party Senate committee. I refer the House to the inquiry I mentioned yesterday, the Review of the inquiry into outworkers in the garment industry, produced by the Senate Economics References Committee. This committee inquired into the area of outwork and conducted a subsequent review. When it conducted that review, it went out of its way to congratulate the industry and the trade union, the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union, for the development of a home workers code of practice. The all-party Senate committee went on to note that this was a major breakthrough for the industry and it was to be hoped that it would finally lead to the elimination of exploitation of outworkers. It noted that this was an agreement between the relevant trade union and the relevant employer bodies. It talked about 34 retailers and 35 manufacturers and fashion houses being signatories to the home workers code of practice in March 1998.It goes on to say that the home workers code of practice is a comprehensive document that provides for accreditation, record keeping, a list of contractors, accredited companies keeping a check on their contractors, a contractual arrangement that signatories cannot give work to outworkers for less than the award, and outworkers being defined and treated as employees. It is no surprise to see that those provisions of the home workers code of practice, agreed to by industry and applauded by an all-party Senate committee, basically mirror the provisions of the industrial award. What this government and its members need to realise in dealing with this bill is that there is an argument to suggest that this whole code of practice will be rendered void or illegal because of the way in which the freedom of association provisions are drafted in this bill—their very breadth. Even if that is not the case, certainly the code of practice and its enforcement will be substantially undermined because the code itself is not legally enforceable—it requires the mirror provisions of the award to be enforced. As I have detailed earlier, there is a real question as to how much of those provisions will survive if this bill is enacted into law.In those circumstances, it is clear that this bill should be rejected by this House as unfair to those in our work force who need our assistance the most. Members of the House need not necessarily take my word in relation to that, but I refer them to the statement titled Justice at work—a statement of concern by church leaders in Victoria which indicates that they believe this bill raises an issue of national importance and it raises an issue whereby women, migrant workers and young workers will be most disadvantaged. I urge members to consider that statement. As to the sentiments in it, all I can say is `amen'.17:02:0010780Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—In speaking in this debate on the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 , I would like to focus on three points. The first point is that it strikes me how out of place the rhetoric in the debate is when you compare it with the legislation. One of the features I have noticed since I have been in the parliament is that, whenever we debate a piece of legislation on industrial relations, the rhetoric is strong and often out of bearing with the actual piece of legislation. This point was noted in the debate on the 1996 Workplace Relations Act by several commentators on labour relations.The second point I would like to focus on is the principle which lies behind this bill. We pursue labour market flexibility to decrease unemployment. There are significant advantages in a more flexible labour market—it improves productivity and decreases unemployment. Secondly, it helps in the competitiveness of Australian firms. (Quorum formed) As I was saying, the rhetoric in this debate is totally out of place when you look at the evolutionary nature of the legislation. Secondly, there is the principle. We do this to reduce unemployment and to give businesses a competitive advantage. The Labor Party are stuck in a bit of a time warp. They think that the only way you can do this is by cutting wages. There is no future for a developed country like Australia in being a low wage country. The future lies in businesses realising that their sustained competitive advantage lies with their human capital.Since this piece of legislation does continue from where the 1996 act left off, I would like to focus on the results from that act. Since the government was elected, the unemployment rate has decreased from 8.7 per cent in March 1996 to its present level of 7.2 per cent; 480,000 jobs have been created, despite most of the economies in our region being devastated by the Asian financial crisis. The strong employment growth has been the result of robust economic fundamentals and labour market reform. More needs to be done, and that is the aim of More Jobs, Better Pay.Enterprise bargaining started under the Labor Party after a realisation that the award was no longer relevant and that adversarial relations between employers and employees were not good for workplace relations. Union membership during the period of the Labor government decreased from 50 per cent of the work force to its present level of 28 per cent. Workers realised that unions were no longer relevant. The union movement itself has decided it needs a sea change from amalgamation and the creation of mega unions in the 1980s to a culture which gets back to the shop floor. In his document Unions@work, Greg Combet argues that unionism is all about `educating delegates and activists to better recruit, service and bargain in the workplace'.Centralised tribunals conducting conciliation and arbitration have been a feature of labour management relations since 1904. In this decade industrial relations have undergone a shift from a system of centralised arbitration to bargaining at an enterprise level. That trend continued under the Workplace Relations Act 1996. There has been a shift in the level of bargaining from an industry and economy level to a system which places bargaining at the enterprise and workplace level. The key features of the 1996 act were the continuation of collective agreements, the introduction of individual Australian workplace agreements, the award simplification process, the influence of the act on industrial disputes and the freedom of association provisions in the act. During the 1996 election, the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business described the coalition's vision for industrial relations as one where direct relationships between employers and employees were central and where the scope for third party intervention was much reduced. That was our policy.Industrial relations reform as represented by the 1996 act has been evolutionary and continues the decentralist thrust of early industrial relations legislation. It provides for more opportunities for direct relationships between employees and employers but still maintains some regulation monitoring of labour market relationships. This bill is in the same mould and will continue the evolution of labour market relationships to an enterprise level focus and ensure the award system will remain as a safety net.The 1996 act provides employers with opportunities to deal directly with employees and to agree on terms and conditions of employment that suit individual workplaces. Implicit in the legislation is the assumption that to negotiate agreements will require time and resources from the parties involved. How quickly employers utilise the legislation has depended on a range of factors. In an article in one of the labour bulletins, Gough and Rimmer conclude that factors which affect the level of workplace change include the extent to which industrial relations have been adversarial, the development of human resources, the number of unions at the workplace, the education level of the employees, the stability and age of the workplace, the number of unions and awards already in place and the existence of resources for workplace training. This legislation will not initiate change by itself. It will happen only if employers wish to consider enterprise bargaining in the context of wider employment and industrial relations issues.Low productivity growth and high unemployment have characterised the labour market in Australia for at least 25 years. A rigid labour market associated with a powerful labour movement and centralised arbitration have contributed to high levels of unemployment. The principal advantage of enterprise bargaining is that it makes the labour market more flexible and increases labour productivity. There is evidence that, since the introduction of formalised enterprise bargaining in 1991, labour productivity has moved from a growth level of 1.4 per cent in the 1980s to three per cent in the 1990s. This trend has been maintained since the introduction of the Workplace Relations Act. Former Keating economic adviser John Edwards attributes this to enterprise bargaining, the weakness of the trade unions and an Industrial Relations Commission which facilitates productivity enhancing changes in work practices. Enterprise bargaining has given employers the freedom to reorganise work if they wish.That is an important consequence of enterprise bargaining. It provides an incentive for better human resource management. A centralised, award based system did not encourage enterprise-centred employee relations. By contrast, the shift to enterprise bargaining requires a business to focus on employee relations and to differentiate its business on the basis of the management of its employees. As I said previously, the best businesses realise that the sustained competitive advantage they enjoy is through their human capital—their employees. In a globalised economy, the best way to compete is to have higher productivity and better systems of work organisation. There is no future for a developed nation like Australia to compete as a low wage country.I recognise that many members of the opposition have specific expertise in the area of labour relations. After all, it is their training ground; it is their breeding ground. But I somehow feel that, because of that breeding ground in the trade union movement, they are caught in a time warp of their own making. Most of their rhetoric—for example, Prime Minister Keating talking about the Lancashire cotton mills—is as a result of their having come up through a system where they think of industrial relations in a confrontational way. That is not the future for workplace organisation in this country; it is not the future for a developed country like Australia to try to compete as a low wage country. So the bill continues the emphasis on agreement making and emphasises the role of the award system as a safety net.From October 1991 to 31 March 1999, 24,920 federal agreements were formalised by the Industrial Relations Commission. Over 50 per cent of these have been formalised since the introduction of the Workplace Relations Act. So there has been renewed growth in the number of collective agreements under the Workplace Relations Act. The number of employees covered by agreements has gradually increased. In June 1993, only 35 per cent of federal award employees were covered by an enterprise agreement. By February 1997, around 64 per cent of employees were covered by registered agreements.Since the implementation of the Workplace Relations Act 1996, there has been strong growth in the number of employees covered by collective agreements, with the private sector accounting for about 85 per cent of all agreements and over 60 per cent of all employees covered by a collective agreement. Another feature of the increase in the number of agreements is the increasing proportion of agreements made in the service industries, particularly health and community services and personal services. This shows that the Workplace Relations Act has been successful in expanding collective agreement making in industries where they have not been widespread.Section 170LK of the Workplace Relations Act allows for collective agreements to be made directly with employees. The number of agreements has accelerated each quarter since the introduction of the act. Section 170LK agreements account for more than 1,000, or 8.8 per cent, of all agreements made under the Workplace Relations Act. These agreements are more common in the private sector and in lightly unionised sectors such as the services sector. There is no longer a requirement that unions be notified of negotiations occurring under this process unless employees request this.The Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has examined the impact of the act on designated groups, such as women, part-time employees, people from non-English speaking backgrounds and young people. In 1998 the proportion of women covered by agreements was greater than the proportion of women in the work force. The proportion in other designated groups was below average and increasing, except for the non-English speaking background group, which declined. The difference between the wage outcomes of male and female employees and part-time and full-time employees narrowed. People from non-English speaking backgrounds, which was a group that it was thought might be disadvantaged by agreement making—and evidence shows they were not—received bigger increases, while young people received smaller increases.In some industries, for example the construction and plumbing industries, pattern agreements—which are identical to each other—appear to be the norm. Similarity between agreements is not ideal as it essentially reproduces the award and provides little in the way of flexibility at a workplace level. This bill will limit pattern bargaining by allowing the Workplace Relations Commission to terminate a bargaining period if a party is involved in pattern bargaining. These results demonstrate that there has been strong growth in collective agreements, especially in the area of agreements made directly with employees. These developments show that the Workplace Relations Act provides a framework for employers and employees to choose the most appropriate form of agreement for their circumstances.The Workplace Relations Act 1996 allowed, for the first time, agreements between individuals and their employers. These agreements can be negotiated on an individual or collective basis. One of the improvements of this bill is that it streamlines the approval process of AWAs. The uptake of AWAs has been increasing each year, with 10,000 lodged in 1997 and 40,000 lodged in 1998. There have been 60,000 AWAs approved since March 1997. The AWAs and the section 170LK agreements have been much more widely taken up than their analogous predecessor, the enterprise flexibility agreement.The bill will improve the administration of AWAs by allowing AWAs to be implemented as soon as they are signed, which will give some protection for what is already occurring; by removing the requirement to offer the same AWA to all comparable employees, which undermines the nature of the AWAs and is further red tape which does not protect anyone; by removing the requirement for referral to the Workplace Relations Commission if unsure about whether the worker is worse off; and by allowing AWAs to prevail over certified agreements.Despite the rhetoric of the ACTU prior to the 1996 election, and despite some high profile disputes in the last couple of years, the number of days lost in industrial disputes in 1997 and 1998 was the lowest since records began in 1913. However, in areas such as mining and stevedoring where union organisation remains strong, levels of industrial action in 1997 and 1998 remained high. Clearly, section 127, which allows the commission to hear and to quickly determine whether directions to prevent industrial action should be given, has a deterrent value. From January to October 1997 the commission received 164 applications and only 23 of these resulted in orders being issued to cease industrial action. So, while the commission issues relatively few directions under this section, its availability to employers can end disputes quickly once an application is made. This bill will further improve the operation of section 127 orders by forcing the Workplace Relations Commission to direct that unprotected action cease and to deal with an application within 48 hours.The commission will also have the power to terminate a bargaining period if pattern bargaining is occurring. Prohibiting secondary boycotts under the Trade Practices Act 1974 has also had a powerful deterrent effect. Currently any secondary boycott which causes loss or damage or lessens competition can incur a penalty of a $10 million fine. In addition, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is more likely to impose penalties than the Industrial Relations Commission. Only one union was prosecuted under the secondary boycott provisions in 1997. The operation of those secondary boycott provisions prevented the MUA from encouraging a secondary boycott, but they avoided those penalties by threatening an international boycott.The Workplace Relations Act made union preference clauses non-allowable so that being a member of a union was not a condition of employment. In practice, the `conveniently belong' principle does not provide a full freedom of choice for an employee. In addition, most cases of compulsory union membership in an enterprise are not due to preference clauses in an award but to an arrangement between the union and the employer.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Like Dr Shepherd's union. You're a bit quiet about Dr Shepherd's union.TK6Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTT—I will take the interjection because membership of the AMA was not compulsory. When I was a medical practitioner, I was not a member of the AMA, so I am happy to educate the member for Batman on an area of industrial relations. The Workplace Relations Act is evolutionary rather than revolutionary. The legislation is incremental in its stated goals. As Rimmer highlighted in an article in Australian Bulletin of Labour , evolutionary change is the pattern in Australian federal industrial relations and the 1996 act fits this analysis. So does this bill. The evolutionary nature of industrial relations has had its advantages. Many businesses are not ready to take advantage of the choices that are available to them.Viewed in the context of industrial relations tradition in Australia, the Workplace Relations Act should be seen as incremental and evolutionary. These amendments continue that tradition. While labour market reform is an important micro-economic reform, it does provide an incentive for firms to differentiate on the basis of their work force. As such, enterprise bargaining requires and reinforces close attention to HR management.In conclusion, the future for employment and for business lies in the development of human resources of business so as to gain a sustained, competitive advantage by having more labour market flexibility. This bill will encourage that. I think the opposition should welcome this and should look to the future. (Time expired)17:22:0010783Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—In listening to the members opposite, it is interesting to note that they regard this Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 as a great opportunity for companies to invest in the human resources of their employees. Unfortunately, this does show that the members have not actually read the bill. There is nothing in the bill that contributes to what might otherwise be a worthy thing for the government to be setting out to do. I know that people will be surprised, when they do bother to read the bill, that the key issue of concern confronting employees in Australia at the moment, job security, is not dealt with. They are concerned not just about how long they will have a job for but about what hours they will work and whether they will actually know a week ahead of time; whether they will be able to make arrangements for child care; and whether they will be able to pay their mortgage. Job security and predictability of employment are the key issues concerning Australian workers at the moment. Can anybody tell me where, in this 300 pages of bill that will amend the existing Workplace Relations Act, there is anything that deals with these key issues?Unfortunately, despite the raft of amendments and the absolute haste with which the government has been able to prepare these amendments and introduce them into the House, there is nothing that deals with this single most important issue for Australian workers. In fact, there is nothing in there that protects workers when the companies that employ them become insolvent, there is nothing to protect them from corporate restructures, and there is nothing to protect them from transmission of business in order for companies to escape award coverage. In fact, there are three changes which make these situations even worse. The first is the proposed change to the transmission of business provisions which, as they currently stand, provide for automatic award application when a business is bought by another company. Those are proposed to be significantly weakened to encourage dodgy corporate restructures, which we have already seen in some very dramatic and sad cases in the last couple of years.The second change is a further change to notice payments, which are paid to employees on termination. Those matters are to be taken out of awards. This is part of the cutting back of award provisions. Members opposite like to say that this increases flexibility and improves human resource management. What it actually does is encourage employees to feel even more insecure in their employment.The third change that affects workers is in provisions that cover casual workers. These provisions in awards are fairly meagre as they stand, but they are also to be taken out of awards. And they are not just to be taken out of awards where it is appropriate, but they will be prohibited from being in awards. That includes matters such as the proportion of casual employees in a workplace, the hours worked by casuals, maximum and minimum numbers of casuals, and rostering provisions. All of these are being taken out at a time when casual employment is a growing sector of the Australian work force.To be fair, the government has released an entitlements paper which might, in some people's view, start to deal with this issue. However, it deals with only an absolute minimum safety net provision. It does not guarantee that workers will get all of their entitlements in situations of insolvency, and, even though it is the workers' money, their accrued entitlements will not be paid to them. There is an example in my electorate which I have spoken about in the House before: Braybrook Manufacturing, where some 70 migrant women workers are going to be without employment. Their entitlements are not to be paid to them. The company is insolvent and there are insufficient funds to meet the payment of their entitlements. The government's proposal would pay some of those workers—the maximum would be eight weeks pay. In fact, the entitlements of many of the workers who have worked for 30 or 40 years with the one company would be in excess of 60 weeks pay.Even the inadequate proposal that the government has put forward in a discussion paper is not in the bill. It is just something that is going to be discussed. Even though it is a key issue of concern to Australian workers, the government has not bothered to put any proposals such as these in the bill.Given these constant abuses, can Australian workers cope with even less protection than they currently have? Who or what will be there as the watchdog, if you like, for industrial decency and fairness? We already know the answers to these questions.Australian workers are already worse off as a result of the first wave of changes; they cannot afford to lose further conditions and security. Yet these second-wave changes are actually offering workers less protection via the Industrial Relations Commission. Its powers are shrinking. It is not allowed to use fairness and decency as a test anymore when setting standards for working conditions, and there will be less access for workers to the commission and to the courts. People will not be able to pursue their claims because they will not be able to afford it. The commission used to be a free court—a court that was accessible to everyone to quickly and cheaply resolve industrial disputes. But now, under these proposed changes, the commission will be charging workers and unions for pursuing any claims within the court. Not only that, matters will move more quickly to the court.There is less certainty in the commission and there is less certainty in the courts as well. The changes in the issues that the awards can deal with will make it harder for workers to prove their claims, even when they are forced to go to court. It would probably surprise many to know that the changes that are proposed in this bill actually remove classification levels—and therefore the rates of pay for people working at different levels—from awards. They also remove a requirement to keep records of hours.We know that not all employers are bad, and I do not think that anyone on this side of the House says that, but the Workplace Relations Act does need to provide some protection for people who are employed by the very worst of employers. How, when you are being underpaid, are you going to prove your claim when there is no provision in the award for your classification rate and there is no requirement for your employer to keep records? It is clearly ridiculous. It is clearly something that this government is pursuing without real thought being given to the impact that it will have on working Australians.This bill will make the detection of award breaches—even breaches of the pared-down awards that this government has brought about—more difficult, because it restricts the examination of the books by unions. In our current environment, the unions are the only watchdogs that exist in industrial relations. The department has abdicated its responsibility to have some role as a watchdog and to do workplace inspections. Individual workers who make inquiries about underpayments will not be assisted by the department, and unions—whatever criticisms those on the other side of the House wish to make—are the only bodies in the Australian industrial relations context which routinely check to ensure that basic decent standards and award standards are being complied with in the workplace.There is also a new regulatory role for the Employment Advocate, but the changes to the role of the Employment Advocate do not provide any extra security or inspection powers in relation to working conditions; they provide the advocate with the power to check on unions. The focus of Peter Reith, the minister in this area, is clearly on the regulation of unions—and in some circumstances it is completely unnecessary regulation—not on the regulation of employers, the workplace or working conditions. As I have said, this lack of protection is exacerbated by the department's abdication of responsibility in this area. It is extraordinary that the minister wants to legislate the very room in which a worker can talk to their union but will not allow an award to tell an employer what to pay an injured worker. This minister wants to legislate what a worker's lawyer can tell them in an unfair dismissal case but does not want awards to cover hours of work, training or classifications rates.You can see from these examples, and there are many more of them, that the priorities of this government are completely wrong. It is pursuing this agenda in a mean-spirited way. It says that it wants to further deregulate the labour market because there is too much regulation. But this is clearly a sham. As I have said, the only deregulation that is going on is in relation to the abuses that can occur at the hands of an employer who is prepared to treat their workers badly. There is increased regulation of unions, there is increased regulation of right of entry and there is increased regulation of negotiation, although that is supposed to be something that is freed up in this process. There is nothing in the amendments to help workers, only to make it harder for them to enforce their rights.One of the most fundamental crimes committed by this bill is the further attack on the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and its powers. Many in the House would know that the industrial relations powers in our Constitution came about following the very nasty disputes of the 1890s. They were instituted to ensure that protracted disputes would not occur in the future. They were put in the Constitution by our founding fathers because, even at that time, they recognised that there needed to be a capacity to settle industrial disputes so that they would not drag on without any hope for relief. What we are seeing is a turning back of the industrial relations agenda to that time. The Australian Industrial Relations Commission has had so many of its powers removed that it cannot effectively arbitrate during disputes. As a result of the first wave of changes, it was easy to see what problems were caused in the maritime union dispute. In the past, such a dispute would have been handled by the Industrial Relations Commission. It would have tried to negotiate a solution between the parties. It would not have been left to the courts to determine this matter. But, given the restriction that the commission can now only arbitrate on allowable award matters and only arbitrate in very limited circumstances following negotiations over agreement matters, there are fewer and fewer opportunities for parties to use the commission to actually find a solution.The other difficulty in the changes proposed by this legislation to the running of the commission is that the bill seeks to commercialise or privatise significant aspects of the commission's current duties. The minister has presented it as a reform to propose that there should be fee paying voluntary mediation as part of the services that the commission provides or refers to people. In fact, that is what the commission was able to do, but free of charge, in the days when conciliation was actually an emphasis of the industrial relations agenda in this country. It is not just the attack on the commission's powers that concerns me; it is also the attack on the independence of the commission, which flows through to the commission's capacity to deal fairly with working conditions. Once the commission loses its powers and its independence, we have to worry about how it can properly deal with maintaining fairness and decency in the workplace.This bill proposes that commissioners be appointed for a short time, a period of just seven years, and in fact it also allows for acting commissioners to be appointed for one year. Originally, when the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission was set up, these commissioners were often High Court judges, and even for an extended period of time when they were not High Court judges they were regarded as being at the same level of standing as High Court judges and were very well respected. We are now seeing the gradual shrinking of the way that a commissioner is treated, and this is yet another significant step—a very significant step—that means that commissioners do not have security. If they are not able in their decisions to have the favour of the government, will they find themselves reappointed at the end of their term?There are also a number of very significant legal changes being proposed in this bill. The industrial relations system, as I mentioned briefly before, used to be able to pride itself on being non-legal. The reason that a separate commission was set up was that the social perspective, if you like, and the inherent importance of employment relationships in people's lives could not be governed by an ordinary court or legal system. What we are seeing in the proposals put forward by the government, though, is more and more emphasis on the legalities. There is also no longer any equality before the law for workers.One of the most significant changes means that workers will have to pay to use the commission. Costs are going to be introduced in many areas. There are increased costs in unfair dismissal areas, there are costs for mediation and there is quicker access for employers—but not for employees—to go to courts, where fees are payable and where it is much more expensive for an employee to engage lawyers to appear on their behalf. In contrast to this, however, it will be much easier for employers to sue workers. It seems to me that there is no fairness in a system where we are constantly favouring people who have not only the most bargaining power but also the most legal firepower and the most money in our industrial relations system.This bill proposes to remove section 166A of the act, which provides for a cooling-off period. When employers and their workers were in dispute, there was a three-day time frame to allow the commission to try to resolve the disputes with both parties before the employer was able to race off to the court. That section is being removed and it means that the commission has no opportunity to try to resolve a dispute before an employer sues a worker. It also means, of course, that the workers are seriously disadvantaged in terms of cost and access to justice.Not only that but this bill also seeks to repeal the provisions that allow the Federal Court to vary unfair contracts. The unfair contracts provision is the only protection—and it is pretty scant protection as it exists—for the large number of owner-drivers in the transport industry, for subcontractors and for many dependent contractors who rely on there being some potential to examine contracts for fairness to ensure that the increased bargaining power, or the certainly unbalanced bargaining power, of employers is not abused. This bill does not seek to put anything in its place; it simply proposes to remove the Federal Court's powers to review any unfair contract.Not only that but we have orders and injunctions that can be granted against workers and unions being able to be automatically applied. This is a most serious and dramatic change, and I think there are some significant civil liberty issues related to it. I do not think anybody in this House would expect that, in a commercial dispute or any other type of dispute, an injunction preventing them from carrying on any of their normal duties or actions in life would be applied without them being granted some opportunity to argue against it.The provisions in this bill require the commission and the court to make such drastic orders within a set and very short time frame whether or not there has been any capacity for the other party to be heard. This is extraordinary. We can compare it to the way a commercial list operates in the supreme courts around this country or in the Federal Court. The commercial lists are actually set up to be speedy lists that ensure that any commercial dispute that requires immediate attention can be dealt with straightaway. There are no courts around this country where orders are made that ultimately affect the final rights of one party without there being a chance for them to be heard. I am not even sure that it can be constitutional for the courts' discretion to be removed in these matters.On top of that, the bill seeks to remove an individual's right to take political action or protest action. In the circumstances of the significant protests that have taken place with respect to the circumstances in East Timor, it is concerning that this government is trying to restrict this right. I am unsure whether this government really would try to stop our community being able to protest and express its great concern, anger and distress about the circumstances that have been occurring in East Timor.Of course, you could not have this government introduce any workplace relations changes without dealing with unfair dismissal laws, because that is, after all, its obsession. It has got to the ridiculous point where it is making it harder for a person to be able to complain if they believe they have been unfairly dismissed. Sacked workers will also be prevented from pursuing a claim without the matter even being heard. The commission is going to be given the power after a conciliation conference to deny a worker the right to pursue their claim to a full hearing. All this means—as I am sure the government knows—is that conciliation conferences will become hearings in themselves. It will in fact require workers to go through two lengthy hearings. It will not mean that fewer people will pursue unfair dismissal claims if they have been treated unfairly.This bill also attacks the conditions that can appear in awards. We are seeing awards being stripped back now in the most extreme way. Awards are no longer going to be able to set fair and reasonable conditions but only basic minimum conditions. We are removing all sorts of conditions from awards that even this government, as well as other people across the country, acknowledge are important. We talk about skill development but we are going to remove classification rates, which seems to me to be extraordinary. Accident pay, jury service leave and transfers and rosters are going to be removed from the awards. These are basic issues that we need to have covered in some way in our employment relationships, but this government wants them to be prohibited from being in awards. It is also extraordinary in the circumstances where reserve leave was already removed from awards in the 1996 changes, and we have seen the terrible impact that that has had when we now need to be looking at using our reserves for the crisis in East Timor.Fundamentally, this bill is actually a diversion. The industrial relations agenda of this government is a diversion. It does nothing to help workers. It only drives down their conditions, takes away their security and fails to safeguard their health, training and entitlements. It does nothing to improve the skills of workers that will help employers. It does nothing to create jobs or help business. It is just a diversion to hide the government's lack of industry policy. It is an attack on unions simply for sport, not to achieve any outcome. This is one of the most concerning areas, but unfortunately time will not allow me to go into this in any more detail. We need unions in this country. The more deregulated the system becomes, the more we need them as watchdogs in our industrial environment. This government is seeking to take away employees' security and also their capacity to be represented. (Time expired)17:42:0010788McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—I acknowledge the thoughtful contribution of the member for Gellibrand on the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 . It represented the views of the opposition in a bygone era. I note that the whole of her speech referred to a system of industrial relations that is now changing quite considerably in Australia. She talked about award breaches—the very thing that we are trying to change—classification of awards, right of entry negotiation and all those things that have been extensively debated in this place. She said that the maritime dispute would have been solved by the Industrial Relations Commission. They had 100 years to solve that problem and they did nothing about it.In the 20 minutes that the member for Gellibrand had, she said that she is against the bill, but she put no positive proposition of what the opposition would do in the area of industrial relations. With respect to her final comment on the East Timor issue—which is really a foreign affairs issue—she falls into the age old problem of bringing in industrial muscle to solve international arguments and debate. Whilst it was a thoughtful contribution, it represented a point of view that some members of the opposition still retain.I am somewhat disappointed that the member for Batman has left the chamber, because he has had some experience in these matters. He has seen good and bad employers and good and bad unions, and he knows in his heart of hearts—because of his exposure to this whole debate—that the way to go is to form a more cooperative and more enterprise based approach to industrial relations in Australia.This bill is evolutionary, not radical. It builds on the many years of work that the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business put in when in opposition and now in government. I wish to acknowledge the minister's contribution to this whole debate during those times in opposition. I do claim to have been part of those early discussions when the then opposition put forward changes which would make the industrial relations system work better for Australia. This is a shift from the regulated labour markets to a freer and more flexible system, contrary to what the member for Gellibrand has just been saying. She wishes to return to the regulated system that has seen the demise of jobs and Australia's productivity.As we know, before the election of the Howard government in 1996, the system was both centralised and paternalistic. It was based on the 1904 assumption that there would be confrontation in the workplace and there would not be cooperation. As the member for Gellibrand should understand, the reality is that employees have moved into a new era of cooperation. I just note the wonderful performance in the Alcoa plant in my electorate of Corangamite. There, the work force and management have moved into an era of cooperation in improving their productivity and the quality of their performance. It is an outstanding example of what this bill is all about and displays a different attitude from that of members opposite.This bill will ensure that there are more jobs and better economic growth for the future of Australia and that there are improved living standards and sustained growth. It will help employers to pay people according to their productivity, with an appropriate safety net. It will help to reduce levels of unemployment, which now are down to 7 per cent. I would claim that the change to our industrial relations has brought about this scenario: unemployment levels are gradually moving downwards and more Australians, including young Australians, are finding job opportunities. Under the coalition's leadership, 317,000 new jobs have been created. We must continue to create new jobs, more jobs in a framework of changed industrial relations.The old industrial relations system contributed much to the lack of job opportunities because it was a straitjacket. Obviously this government, with this second set of industrial relations changes, is determined to reform the system yet further. Even mainstream international experts and bodies, such as the OECD, state that `the pace of reform in Australia should not be slowed down' and that `workplace relations reform must be ongoing to make inroads to unemployment'. That is an international unbiased comment.The fundamental problem with the overregulated labour market that the government inherited—that is, from the previous Labor government—is that its terms and conditions are rigid and not enterprise specific. These are the very things that the member for Gellibrand was talking about—award conditions, a specific set of arrangements across the board rather than ones that are industry specific.The OECD economic survey of Australia for 1999 at page 65 summarises:Until just a few years ago, Australian industrial relations were characterised by an unusually high degree of regulation. Wages and conditions of work were determined by a complex system of highly prescriptive, centrally determined awards, based on compulsory arbitration by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and similar industrial tribunals in the states.The OECD report at page 68 went on to note:Awards had become a major obstacle to higher company efficiency as they hampered the organisational flexibility of workplaces, making it difficult for enterprises to adapt to a changing economic environment.That is an interesting comment from an independent international authority. It supports the thrust of the minister's new bill before the parliament which will bring about further changes.The centralised system produced no fewer than 3,200 awards, and members opposite wish to maintain this complex award system. Fancy having 3,200 awards in the Australian working environment. There is an obvious need for simplification so that higher levels of productivity can produce better wages and higher standards of living.We need to be fully aware of the economic rationalist market view, and some people might criticise my position on this. But it is quite obvious that high wages are the result of increased productivity, and members opposite should be pleased about that. Certainly the member for Bendigo would understand that improved productivity will bring about a better wage structure. I know he understands that because he has been in the work force and looked after the interests of workers. For employers to improve their profitability, the skills of workers need to be improved and workers can then command higher salaries. Our changes are in the interests of workers so that they can improve their standard of living.We need to encourage competition—and, again, some members opposite are concerned about this. We need to ensure that businesses can compete against one another and that more productive employers are able to reap the rewards of those competition arrangements between firms and between better workers. The reward for hard work—improved efficiency and better workers—is part of the changes proposed by the government. Overregulated market award type conditions pay people exactly the same amount of money, no matter whether they are good, bad or mediocre. The fundamental changes in these industrial laws before the parliament will ensure that Australian workers are paid according to their abilities and according to their capacity to work for their employers.This legislation will ensure that there is a true safety net to look after the interests of workers at the lower level. The commission will maintain the minimum award safety net. But the bill makes significant changes to the commission's powers, and those powers will be confined to fewer areas. The bill also removes a number of matters that can be included in awards—and this really demonstrates this bill's importance. As well as changing skill based classifications, there will be the removal of tally systems and bonuses, which I will talk about in a moment; public holidays not declared by a state government; union picnic days—and the member for Bendigo, having enjoyed a few of them in his time, would understand that they are not really part of modern industrial arrangements; notice of termination; accident make-up pay; training and education provisions, which should be in other areas; transfer between work locations; long service leave; paid leave for jury service; employee time records; and superannuation. All those matters can be taken up by employers and employees. They will simplify arrangements between employers and employees for enterprise based agreements. I turn to the removal of the tally system, which has been alluded to by the Minister for Transport and Regional Services here in the parliament today, and say how pleased I am that the commission has agreed to remove the tally system. On 24 September it agreed to remove 43 pages of proscriptive and inefficient provisions from the meat industry award. Again, the member for Bendigo would understand that. He has been around the meat industry and other industries and he understands the absolutely outrageous nature of this tally system. For the information of members, I will outline what the tally system means. In simple terms, a team of workers in the abattoir have a tally of 1,200 sheep or cattle for the day and, as long as they achieve that in a five- or six-hour day, they can then go home. So there is no capacity for the management or the work force to improve their skills; there is no incentive to have a plant that will kill more; there is no incentive to utilise that plant on a better basis; and there is no incentive to improve the numbers processed. This was an act of faith by the AMIEU, particularly Wally Curran in Victoria, who said that the tally system had to be maintained at all costs. It is a landmark breakthrough in this whole debate that the tally system has now gone, and it is part of the bill before the parliament. As the minister said here in the parliament today—let us just note what he said—the red meat industry is a $6 billion industry where processing costs are higher than New Zealand, USA and Ireland. The savings from the removal of the tally system would be about $1.5 billion—one-half to the farmers, one-quarter to the processors and one-quarter to the workers. The important thing is that the workers would gain from the removal of the tally system.I turn now to some aspects of the no disadvantage test that is contained in this bill. Again, it has been a matter of some considerable debate as to the interpretation of the no disadvantage test and its relativity to the award conditions. The commission has ruled that the awards are the basis for this no disadvantage test. The matter will be more clearly defined under this set of legislative proposals. The conciliation role of the commission will be changed under the bill. Compulsory conciliation can now only be considered for matters that can be arbitrated such as disputes over allowable matters; demarcation disputes; unfair dismissal cases; following on the termination of a bargaining period on certain grounds; and, in exceptional cases, other disputes. Voluntary conciliation will be available in other matters.Another significant change is that seven-year appointments will be introduced for judges and commissioners, which will allow judges and commissioners to step down after seven years. The bill also allows for the streamlining of certified agreements. There will be no scrutiny of certified agreements if a number of conditions can be met. There will be no formal hearings unless they are considered to be necessary and certified agreements are not to restrict the operation of the other enterprise agreement, the Australian workplace agreement.Australian workplace agreements—the fundamental tenet of the government, which bring about a more flexible situation between the employer and employee—are to take effect from the date of signing and not when the Employment Advocate approves them. Those who have been close to this whole debate would understand that that is a move in the right direction. Approval of the AWA without checking is permitted for people who earn more than $68,000 per annum, which again is a more flexible position. If the Employment Advocate considers that the Australian workplace agreement does not pass the no disadvantage test, then it must be referred to the commission. So there is protection for workers if the no disadvantage test is seen to be not working. Independent mediators are to be introduced. This will mean that not only the commission will handle these problems but there will be a bit of competition in this whole area of industrial relations which has not been the case in the past.I turn quickly to the area of unfair dismissal laws, which the member for Gellibrand talked about. Those of us on the government side are very concerned about the whole problem of the unfair dismissal laws. That set of arrange ments—based on a flawed ILO convention—were drawn up, as I recall it, by Minister Brereton at the time in response to pressure from the ACTU. The OECD themselves noted that an undesirable side of such legislation is that it may create severe disincentives to hiring workers, particularly in small enterprises.This bill aims to discourage speculative and unmeritorious unfair dismissal claims. Evidence in my electorate suggests that it costs between $5,000 and $7,000 to fight an unfair dismissal case. The member for Bendigo would understand that because he has been close to these sorts of arguments. The commission will have to determine during conciliation whether such spurious claims will be taken up or whether there has been a fair process. We are suggesting in this bill that small businesses with less than 15 permanent staff be exempt from the unfair dismissal laws for the first six months of the worker's employment. You do not need to be a Philadelphia lawyer to work out that that is a good provision: it will allow the possibility of employing more young people.The benefits to individuals are increased flexibility and far greater worker participation in their terms and conditions. When I visited the Ford plant at Broadmeadows six weeks ago, I found that, through the participation of the workers in helping management to improve conditions in the workplace, the workers were actually singing on the job. They were pleased that they were producing a quality product; they were pleased with their working conditions; they were pleased to be participating in an exciting environment where people were doing a good job, receiving a fair day's pay and getting a very good outcome. Estimates show that 35 per cent of the labour market are covered by awards, 30 per cent are covered by both awards and registered enterprise agreements, five per cent are covered by registered enterprise agreements only and 30 per cent are covered by informal arrangements and individual contracts.In the time remaining, I want to refer to the waterfront dispute, because that is a clear demonstration of the important freedom of association provisions that we have introduced in this bill. Closed shops will be removed so that there will be no favourable treatment to union members over non-union members. The bill prohibits a person from being treated detrimentally because of being a union member, so it is an even-handed approach, and allows for the removal of provisions that discourage or encourage union membership from awards or certified agreements. Again, there has been a very long debate on that issue.The waterfront dispute demonstrated the implications of the closed shop mentality—as in the `MUA here to stay' slogan, which clearly identified those members who wanted to maintain the 100-year-old monopoly of their right to work on the waterfront. I am sure the member for Throsby and his good friend John Coombs would be upset at the outcome on the waterfront, because they know in their heart of hearts that the changes that took place on the waterfront did benefit the whole of Australia. The new industrial relations climate, section 127 of the act which ensured that there was a setback to workers causing industrial action on the waterfront, and the Trade Practices Act secondary boycott provisions certainly restrained the MUA. The changes in the industrial relations climate brought about by this government meant that the monopoly position of the MUA was certainly under threat. The MUA was the last bastion of the closed shop in the Australian workplace.It is interesting to note the remarkable number of changes that took place on the waterfront because of the industrial relations laws introduced by Minister Reith. There were remarkable changes in crane productivity after the reforms. There was a lift in productivity of up to 400 per cent per man in some ports. Patrick reported a lift in productivity of between 200 and 300 per cent per man generally across the ports. A new attitude and culture started to emerge with these changes. The major changes were no overtime and bonuses for productive work. Half the work force were achieving these productivity increases. Reliability and timeliness of ships dramatically improved with the new culture. The majority of employees were better off under the new working arrangements and reliability in the ports improved.Finally, I mention the secret ballot. Again, this was a fairly lengthy debate, but this will ensure protected industrial action with advance notice being given.In conclusion, this bill is a vital part of the evolution of Australia's workplace relations system. It gears our system to more productivity, which is the key to growth and higher wages. It helps reduce job retarding unfair dismissal rules. It helps simplify awards and refocuses them on their true role of safety. It protects the rights of an individual to join or not to join a union. Individuals have a greater say in their own conditions of work instead of having them imposed from on high by award conditions or the Industrial Relations Commission. (Time expired)18:02:0010792Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—I rise in this debate on the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 tonight to speak from two perspectives. As my friend the honourable member for Corangamite has pointed out, I had some 15 years involvement with the trade union movement as a full-time official looking after the hospitality industry in regional Victoria—15 years of my life of which I am extremely proud. I am very proud of the achievements of the trade union movement during that time and I wish them well in the future. The second perspective was as a small business person. Prior to coming to this place in October, I operated a small business specialising in providing advice to other small businesses to sort out the mess the Kennett government made of industrial relations in the state of Victoria and then later on, once the Howard government was elected, to sort out the mess that they had created. I will have a bit more to say about that a little later.The government claim that these changes are vital to aid the strong economic growth that they so often tell us about. But they do not understand that in regional Australia and in regional Victoria if you take away the purchasing power of salary and wage earners, making them work for less, that lessens their spending power. Remember, these people dispose of all of their income every week or fortnight. If you take away that purchasing power, that impacts on other small businesses and their ability to employ people. So it is a myth that this is going to aid economic growth, especially in regional Victoria.Another myth that I would also like to highlight is the government's claim to be the champion of small business. As I said, before entering this place I conducted a small business—an industrial relations consultancy and a computerised payroll bureau. I dealt with some 40 or 50 businesses from various sectors. I found that the thing that small businesses need most of all is certainty. They have had anything but that over the last three or four years and, under the old state legislation of Victoria in particular, from well beyond that. They like certainty. In the hospitality industry, some of them were a little bit concerned about the penalty rate system, but it was pointed out to them that, if you take the penalty rate system out of the hospitality industry, it is only a matter of time before all the other industries follow suit. When that happens, the people who work in those industries do not have the purchasing power to dispose of to the hospitality industry. That is the first industry to suffer. Once that is pointed out, they seem to understand. Small business need certainty, and they certainly have not got it.Again, the government claims to be the champion of small business. When you have a good hard look at it, the government only represents small business associations. The overwhelming majority of small businesses in Australia are not members of an association. Out of roughly 900,000 small businesses identified in the ABS statistics between 1996 and 1997, around 33 per cent are members of small business associations. The rest of them go it alone. So for the government to claim that it is the champion and representative of small business is just a myth, and one that needs to be exposed.I would like to highlight the impact of this new legislation and the first wave of IR reforms under this government in an industry that you, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, are certainly very familiar with. I refer to the firm of G. and K. O'Connor Pty Ltd, which runs a beef export plant at Pakenham, south-east of Melbourne. The plant employed up to 350 workers, all members of the Australian Meat Industry Employees Union, and for eight years prior to 1999 it has been a closed shop. For the eight years that it had the closed shop, there had been little industrial trouble. The plant had run its affairs under the terms and conditions of two registered enterprise agreements, both of which were negotiated between the AMIEU and the employer without any strike action or industrial bans being used by the workers in support of their claims. It was a great system. There were fair negotiations, no strikes, no industrial bans and agreements were being reached. During the term of these two agreements, wage increases were minimal and the general conditions of leave, hours, penalties and other entitlements had hardly altered from those that applied during the 1980s. Here we have a responsible trade union. It has been negotiating in a cooperative manner with the employer—no strike action to achieve its goals, no industrial bans—and agreement has been reached.In the middle of 1998 Kevin O'Connor, the managing director of G. and K. O'Connor, met with the AMIEU and a number of major meat industry employers to discuss future enterprise agreements. The parties concurred—I emphasise that: the parties concurred—that claims would be modest due to a temporary downturn in the industry but that the status quo would prevail, with a small wage adjustment. That was agreed to. The union was acting responsibly. It realised that the industry was in a downturn—in fact, the beef industry in Victoria, as the honourable member for Corangamite would be well aware, is in about a 30-year low period. And again responsible trade unionism negotiated a deal which was acceptable.What has changed? You will see as I go on that this particular matter has the fingerprints of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business all over it. He has been standing there with that smoking gun. In November 1998 O'Connor served a list of 28 claims for its new agreement against the AMIEU which started with wage cuts of at least 10 per cent to all employees and up to 17½ per cent for slicers. The other 26 items cut back various entitlements such as public holidays, penalties, shift allowances, superannuation and so on.A short time later, notification of a bargaining period under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 was issued specifically for negotiating a new agreement with the union. I emphasise `a new agreement with the union'. A series of negotiations in December 1998 and January 1999 took place, each one of which was characterised by the company refusing to talk about offsets or ways of reaching agreement unless the wage cuts were accepted as a prerequisite. The last such negotiations were in early January 1999. In March, without any further attempt to settle the new terms, the company used the Workplace Relations Act to lock out the remaining 220 workers. By this time many had already left, fearing the consequences of O'Connor's intended use of the act.So you can see there has been a major change in attitude from this employer—from cooperation with the union over a period of almost 10 years, in which agreement was able to be reached, to, all of a sudden, a major change, and enter the minister for workplace relations. At the time of writing, the lockout is in about its 28th week. In stark terms, this means that 220 workers who were employed at the plant at the commencement of the lockout in mid-March have now been without income or work at the meatworks for almost 200 days. You can imagine the hardship that has been placed on them. I understand there have been homes repossessed, marriage breakdowns—all the things you would expect when workers on relatively low wages are deprived of their work via a lockout. It is important to examine the role of the minister's Workplace Relations Act in this dispute and the devastating social effect O'Connor's use of this act has had on the Pakenham meatworkers that I have just referred to. They not only have been denied their livelihoods but have not been paid any of the accrued entitlements owing to them—that is a major factor in this—at the time they were locked out. The minister's legislation has enabled O'Connor to do this. It would be quite reasonable to assume that the minister himself, his department or his legal firm, Dunhill Madden Butler, have advised O'Connor to use the act in this vicious fashion. Normally when a factory closes, be it permanently or seasonally, as is the case with O'Connor under normal circumstances, the employer pays out pro rata long service leave, annual leave, unused sick leave and rostered days off.As I said before, the meat industry is in a downturn—especially the beef industry in Victoria. There are several other large abattoirs in Victoria which have closed seasonally but paid up all of the accrued entitlements as per the norm. But O'Connor is different. And why? Because the stamp of the minister for workplace relations is all over it.Many of O'Connor's workers had up to 20 years service—20 years faithful service—with the company and would in normal circumstances be paid out many thousands. In the legislation a lockout is only supposed to be legal if proper negotiations have preceded it. O'Connor never at any stage sought to properly negotiate dollars for built up leave entitlements; O'Connor's cruel use of the Workplace Relations Act has meant that these people did not receive one cent.Fortunately, fellow unionists, progressive organisations and many individuals have heeded the unions's call to provide assistance to the locked out employees. Thousands of dollars have been collected and donated to the fund set up to assist those in need as a result of the actions of O'Connor and the government. At the start of the lockout the union took legal action to try to force a resumption of work under the agreement. All discussions between O'Connor and the union were prefaced by the company's up-front demands of wage reductions of 10 and 17 per cent before it was prepared to discuss any other matters. It was holding a gun at the union's head. Judge Marshall in the Federal Court found that, because the company had made this claim for wage cuts and it had been rejected by the work force at Pakenham, this constituted proper negotiations and the lockout could continue.This exposes once and for all the real intent of the Workplace Relations Act, which is to destroy workers' wages and conditions and undermine their bargaining position. This is, of course, what was always intended by Mr Reith and Mr Howard. There is a consistent thread behind all their legislation—to make life harder for workers and easier for employers. An example of the hypocrisy of the company and the way the legislation assists these employers to be dishonest can be seen in recent developments in the saga. On the weekend of 14 and 15 August, many, if not all, of the locked out members received a new lockout notice. It should be emphasised that the original lockout notices in March were for the purpose of renegotiating an agreement with the union. That was clearly spelt out when the company applied for the prescribed bargaining period.The new notices over the period 14 and 15 August, however, state that O'Connor seeks to make an Australian workplace agreement. In other words, the reason for the previous 23 weeks of hardship and acrimony has not changed and the company seeks to impose Australian workplace agreements on the employees or recruit new workers under terms and conditions not only vastly inferior to the last enterprise agreement but also vastly inferior to those offered in November 1998. These outrageous developments are subject to legal challenge on a number of well supported grounds, and I understand there was a hearing in the courts in Melbourne today.Nevertheless, this is still a stark reminder of the human distress that callous use of the minister's legislation can effect and a timely reminder of how much worse it could be if the second wave of attacks on worker and union rights is not resisted vigorously in this parliament.18:15:0010795Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I rise tonight to speak to the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 . I could not help but notice the very negative comments by the member for Gellibrand and the member for Bendigo. I draw the House's attention to this because it is the results that prove the assertion. I am afraid that the assertions being made by these speakers are simply without foundation. Today my local newspaper, the Daily Mercury of Mackay, under the heading `Fewer jobless' in the `News in brief' column, stated:Unemployment in the wider Mackay region dropped by 2.2 per cent in August.Queensland government labour force figures show 6.6 per cent (10,800) of people in the Mackay, Fitzroy and central west region were out of work last month.But in July this year 8.4 per cent (13,700) were unemployed.That is an outstanding result in one small region, particularly in view of the fact that we have record low sugar prices, very low coal prices, and a particularly difficult season. I simply say to those on the other side of the House: look to the facts. If you look to the facts you will see that the thing that is driving growth in jobs and in employment is the measures that the government is taking, particularly by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business.When introducing this bill, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business made some important and fundamental observations about the current realities, and they can certainly bear restating. As the minister noted at the time, Australian workplaces operate in an ever-changing and ever-challenging environment. All workers want living standards to improve and there were too many unemployed when we took government. Certainly, nobody would disagree with those observations. What provides a clear difference between the government and the opposition is the fact that the government, unlike the opposition—and in the face of an unrelenting, ideologically driven campaign of blind negativism from the opposition—has produced the most comprehensive, well-integrated and positive response to acknowledged needs and realities ever presented. I only have to look at my own small region to see the truth of that assertion. The difficulties have been great.Upon its election in 1996, the government instituted some major and long-overdue industrial relations reforms. Undeniably, that first reform agenda could not have come a moment too soon, given the fact that the Asian economic meltdown came hard upon its heels. Even the most jaundiced and partisan observer would have to concede that, had the coalition not been elected in 1996 and had it not begun its program of responsible financial management, economic reform and workplace relations reforms, Australia today would be a significantly worse place in terms of employment, growth, stability and future hope.Those 1996 reforms delivered fewer strikes, lower inflation, higher productivity and low interest rates—interest rates that take us back, frankly, to the days of flares, high-heeled shoes and paisley ties. I can just remember those and I am sure many others can. Thank goodness we have these interest rates again in the straitened circumstances that we faced with the Asian meltdown. We have also had improved living standards and protection for the lower paid with real wage increases. We have created more than 400,000 new jobs and reduced unemployment to the lowest levels of this decade.Without any shadow of a doubt, the story overall has been one of achievement and success. Australia has not just weathered the storms of the uncertain, unpredictable and often fragile international economy; it has won the applause of experts and respected observers worldwide. That so much has been accomplished is remarkable. That it has been accomplished in the face of an intransigent and ruthlessly hostile opposition determined to try to maintain the status quo that had scarcely changed for decades is a tribute to the clear direction and commitment of the government, particularly the minister for workplace relations.Last October the coalition went to the people again with a detailed plan for the next stage of our evolutionary workplace relations reforms, under the title `More jobs, better pay'. That document has been faithfully and honestly translated into this legislation. There has been no deceit, no subterfuge and no deviousness in making that translation. What was promised to the people in the 1998 election is now being delivered as an honest and accountable government has a duty and responsibility to deliver. As I mentioned earlier, this next stage of reform is evolutionary; it builds upon the first stage reforms in a logical, practical and sensitive way. This bill deals with a considerable range of workplace relations issues and it is my intention to address two of what I see as the most critical—the effect on the individual worker and the effect upon small business.In their hypocritical and almost hysterical attack on these planned reforms and, indeed, on their already enacted and successful precedents, the ALP and the ACTU have sought to present them as some sort of a brutal attack on the rights of individuals. I notice that all of those in my electorate of Dawson who have obtained jobs in the last few months do not see it as any sort of attack on the rights of individuals. In fact, for the first time, they have a right to work. The assertion that the ALP and the ACTU have made is unfounded. In fact, the reverse is the truth.These reforms recognise that workers are those best able to make decisions about their own working conditions. By providing workers with more choice and more opportunities to make these decisions as individuals, the government has given workers a long-overdue dignity and respect. The days of the all-powerful, all-wise and all-encompassing trade unions are over, and that is the real reason the ACTU and the ALP are so united in their opposition. Fewer than one in three workers are now union members and the ACTU and the ALP can see their once impregnable and ruthlessly disciplined membership and support base crumbling away.Frankly, most workers have woken up to the self-serving motives and tactics of the unions and are voting with their feet. The ACTU and the ALP would prefer all of the machinery of compulsion to remain to keep workers conscripted into unions—closed shops, union membership preference, no secret ballots and the like. For the sake of workers and all Australia, it is good riddance to these industrial dinosaurs. Under the government's reforms, workers will be able to decide whether they want to join a union. There is no compulsion to join and, equally important, there is no compulsion to resign. It is a simple matter of freedom of choice.The government's reforms will ensure that workplaces which freely decide that they do not want any union interference will be protected. The shameful days of sudden and uninvited visits by union officials to conduct snap checks of membership and to extract union fees from non-complying workers are over. Having run a factory for seven years, I well remember the standover tactics of the union organisers. That disgraceful thuggery and intimidation has been consigned to the dustbin of history.However, we must all rightly acknowledge that there are some employers who, given the chance, would try to exploit workers, and the government's reforms specifically address that. The safety net of minimum wages and conditions will not just be continued but the legislation will emphasise the proper safety net role of awards, especially for the lower paid and disadvantaged in the work force. That important provision alone blows out of the water opposition and union claims that this legislation is somehow anti-worker. The legislation will allow powers to be devolved to the workplace so that workers will have rights to make agreements individually or as a group, to withdraw their labour or not, to join or not join unions and to decide just how they want industrial disputes resolved. As I said before, it recognises the real dignity of workers by giving them respect and recognition and by stripping away the current bewildering complexity that has proven for so long to be a feast for lawyers, management consultants and union officials. While a feast for those who for far too long have had a comfortable life feeding richly from the system we will dismantle, it has been little more than a recipe of conflict, failure, bitterness and unemployment for far too many workers who were treated as pawns in a political game.Minister Reith provided a statement of principles in his May 1999 document on the implementation of more jobs, better pay which clearly spells out the benefits and advantages to workers, and it merits a restating. The minister said that the workplace relations system should recognise a more direct relationship between employers and employees and be more relevant to a modern Australia, that it should be a fair go for all, that it should provide genuine freedom of association and choice of representation and that it should provide a simplified and more accessible system that puts workers and businesses first and not the system's institutions. Demonstrably, for workers, these reforms do meet these important principles in a practical, rational and effective way. In so far as small business is concerned, these reforms will also build upon the proven success of the first stage reforms. As I said earlier, one has only to look at the results in regions such as mine to see the effect of those first stage reforms.In the More Jobs, Better Pay policy document presented to the Australian people last year, the coalition announced four initiatives for small business. Again, it is worth recalling what those undertakings were. Small business were promised a decentralisation of the system, streamlined decision making, improved service delivery by government and, importantly, industrial tribunals to cut red tape. They were promised that individual contractors, many of whom are small businesses, would not be regulated as if they were employees. They were promised stronger barriers to prevent unions forcing employers and employees in small businesses into the federal award system when they have already established employment arrangements or pre-existing and settled forms of regulation. They were further promised that time and wage record keeping requirements would be simplified to reduce unnecessary paperwork and red tape.Arising from these general principles, the government's reforms will ensure that small businesses—the engine room of the economy and especially the future of regional and rural Australia—are allowed to negotiate fairly, honestly and directly with their employees to reach a mutually satisfactory workplace outcome.AE4NEHLMr Nehl—No interference.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—Exactly. How very true that statement is. Further to the general principles, the government will con tinue to pursue a specific permanent exemption for small businesses from unfair dismissal laws for newly employed workers and will require that they be given better notice of proposed hearings of union roping-in logs of claims and given broader rights of objection to such claims. I cannot emphasise enough the burden that the unfair dismissal laws place on small businesses. The difficulty is that they have so little flexibility. Every employee obviously counts. They do not have the opportunity that bigger businesses do of having some flexibility and some opportunity to perhaps work with an employee who for one reason or another is unsatisfactory for the task at hand. It is a great burden on small business to retain the unfair dismissal laws.I want to return now to the bill. To achieve a mutually satisfactory workplace outcome for small business operators and their employees, the reforms will ensure less complex bargaining requirements and processes, the streamlining of the Industrial Relations Commission's operational procedures to emphasise simplicity and ease of access, the formal recognition of voluntary mediation services to provide small businesses with more options for resolving disputes, and a more understandable workplace relations framework resulting from simple and more user-friendly legislation.What small business wants is a simple, clear, mutually respectful and fair set of rules that allows for honest, open negotiations, recognising the needs of both sides, the employer and the employee. I commend this legislation to the House. It enshrines all of those aspirations.Sitting suspended from 6.29 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.20:00:0010798Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I rise to support the amendment to the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 moved by the shadow minister for industrial relations, the member for Brisbane. In doing so, I would like to say that there is a certain simplistic approach about the manner in which the policies of this government seem to be arrived at and delivered to this parliament. Firstly, the government attempted to finance aged care by asking older people to sell their family homes, then they created a budget surplus by reducing spending on education, health and welfare, and now they are attempting to create more employment opportunities by reducing wages and conditions of average Australian workers. Simplistic approach, yes; but fair, reasonable and decent, no.Under this legislation many of Australia's lowest paid workers will miss out on safety net wage increases until their awards have been peeled back to a set of core conditions. This second wave legislation comes on top of the existing requirements to reduce award conditions to 20 allowable matters, as set out in the coalition's Workplace Relations Act 1996. This new bill continues this reduction in protection for Australian workers. Whatever happened to the election cry from the coalition that no worker would be worse off under a coalition government? Perhaps many people as yet are not aware of some of the draconian policies in store for workers if this government gets its way with this new bill.These are some of the things that need to be highlighted. Firstly, a mediation adviser is to be appointed by the minister and is to be subject to ministerial direction. How can any worker expect to get a fair mediation from directions determined by Minister Reith? Secondly, all allowable matters will be removed from awards, such as skills based career paths, tallies and bonuses, long service leave, notice of termination, leave for jury service, superannuation and trade union training leave. Look at these matters that I have referred to. What is left is probably only wage rates. And, if there were to be a third wave, wages would be removed also. Thirdly, employers will be allowed to apply for an order that an agreement does not or will not transmit with the sale or transfer of a business. This proposal goes back to the 1970s when so many unions, particularly in the printing industry, were continually fighting for their members' accrued entitlements from companies that sold to others and transferred their businesses. This period was a nightmare for the workers, many of whom fronted work of a Monday morning only to be told that they had a new employer with no responsibilities for their past accruals. This is what the minister thinks is good for the workers, will make our country more competitive and remove restrictive practices. The working people of this nation are entitled to much better, and they are not getting it.In schedule 8, certified agreements will be allowed to be approved by the registrar without formal hearing by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. What protection for working people is provided by this process? Certified agreements will be allowed to be made with any group of employees rather than being required to cover all or a separate part of the enterprise. This creates the possibility of people working side by side but being employed under different conditions. This is bad workplace policy and leads to a discontented work force.In schedule 9 we see the same divisive approach being applied with the removal of the requirement that the employer must offer the same AWAs to all comparable employees. The removal of the requirement that the Employment Advocate must refer AWAs to the commission when unsure about whether or not it disadvantages employees allows AWAs to be made, undercutting a collective agreement even while the latter is in operation. Schedule 13 of the bill limits a union's ability to enter an employer's premises to hold discussions with employees or to investigate award breaches to where the union has a written invitation from the member. It is quite clear that a worker is not going to place his employment in jeopardy by writing to his union on a one-off basis and then running the risk of being singled out by the employer as a troublemaker. Is the same restriction going to be placed on the employer representative visiting a work site? Will the employer have to issue a written invitation to his representatives to visit his work site? Will the union representative be advised of the time and purpose of the employer organiser's visit? I have not noticed any of this even-handedness in this bill.I refer to the use of taxpayers' money to run anti-union advertisements which have been authorised by the employee advocate. These advertisements are designed to discourage people joining a union. They have no other purpose. This is a cruel un-Australian attempt to leave workers unprotected in the workplace. I was rather surprised when I saw these advertisements. It is clear that they can have only one purpose, and that is to try to influence workers into not joining a trade union. For example, the advertisements do not say to employers that they have a free choice as to whether they join an employer organisation. Nor do they mention that doctors are free to join or not to join the Australian Medical Association. In my period in the trade union movement, we saw the Australian Medical Association as probably one of the strongest trade unions in Australia, and we have here the member for Bradfield who was the president of that organisation. He is not here at the moment, but I wonder what his view would be if the government put out an advertisement suggesting that doctors could or could not join the Australian Medical Association.During my period as a trade union official, the act was designed to encourage people to join either a trade union, if they were an employee, or an employer organisation, if they were an employer. This encourages a collective approach to solving the problems of industry, rather than the dog-eat-dog or every man or woman for themselves approach contained in this second wave legislation.The government is not attacking the unions; it is attacking the working people of Australia who have worked hard for their award protections because there was a need for them. The need will again be there in a couple of years time once employers know that it is open slather in the employment market and that the awards simply do not count. Why is there this ongoing belief that the only way for the nation's businesses to prosper is by reducing wages and conditions of the workers? Surely we have learnt something in the past 50 or 60 years that can enable us to move away from the discredited policies of cutting wages and conditions to get a profit for business, but of course it is the workers whom this coalition seems to feel the need to attack.The attack is now focused on one of the really big issues of 1999, and that is the question of job security. We have been told that unemployment is going down, but at the same time that this is happening there is still a great feeling out there in all sections of industry that people are not secure in their employment. This bill will only add to that job insecurity with notices of termination of employment to be removed from awards, with compensation for injured workers to be reduced by the removal of the accident make-up provisions in awards and with long service leave entitlements also under threat by their removal from awards. Why would we remove all of the above items from awards? Were they bad for employees? Did the employees misuse them? Did the employees get the conditions for nothing? Are awards necessary? Certainly a recent case concerning a constituent of mine, Ms Kym Wood, highlighted the need for award protection for working mothers. Ms Wood is a telesale operator who was employed by Steggles chicken at Marsden Park. Ms Wood was directed to start work at 6.30 a.m.—1½ hours earlier than her previous starting time. She declined this direction because she was unable to secure child-care services so early in the morning for her three school-age children. Also to start work at this time Ms Wood would have had to get her children up at 4 a.m. Ms Wood had nine years service with this particular company. The company refused to allow Ms Wood to swap with other employees to more family friendly working hours. The only option allowed by the company was for her to work fewer hours or face dismissal. While some employers are claiming to be introducing family friendly policies, demands on women to work either longer hours or shifts with inconvenient starting times are taking many to the limit. Steggles telesale employees received letters in June directing them to work different shifts. Ms Wood was one of four told to start at 6.30 a.m. Two others were told to start at 7 a.m. and two at 7.30 a.m. Two women with children were forced to resign because they could not work the earlier hours.Changes to working hours reflect the move from award coverage that previously prescribed ordinary hours of work for a whole industry to a system of enterprise agreements where working time could be tailored to the needs of specific employers. These changes were to benefit both employees and employers but, as the Steggles case shows, this flexibility has been to the advantage of employers and has led to a less predictable working life and a disruption to family life for many working mothers. This issue has dominated enterprise bargaining since it began in 1981. Nearly 80 per cent of enterprise agreements deal with changing the times people work. The arrangement covering the number of hours worked each week increase the span of ordinary hours each day or each week, so what was previously paid as overtime is now paid at ordinary time. Enterprise agreements have given management greater control over how hours are worked. This has resulted in the working week becoming longer for many full-time workers.The general question of extending hours of work, as now obtainable under enterprise agreements, was covered in an excellent article by Associate Professor Ron Callus in the Sydney Morning Herald on 3 August, and I quote in part:. . . changed working time arrangements have unintended consequences. The increasing popularity of days of 12 or more hours in the service, transport and mining industries brings potential health & safety problems.Fatigue, mistakes and injuries, stress and ill-health are all dangers when people work longer hours and where their pattern of sleep and their non-working time are changed regularly.Professor Callus concluded his article with these remarks:The changing nature of working time in many organisations in Australia may mean that people are more likely to know when they will see their workmates than their families or friends.Did not employees and their unions frequently provide increased productivity, reduce dramatically classification restrictions and provide many years of industrial harmony in exchange for these improved conditions? The answer is of course the employees and the unions provided all these improvements, but now, if the government has its way, all of these will be swept away as though nothing has gone before. Is there to be any compensa tion to these battlers for losing their entitlements, because lose them they will? If I was a betting man, and I am not, I would put my money on employer-1, employee-0 in any result arising from this charade of second wave industrial legislation from this government.Until these conditions that I have been referring to and many other provisions are removed from awards, no safety net increases will be passed on to low income people, widening still further the gap between the rich and poor in this country. Further safety net wage increases will be paid only when the government's award stripping exercise has been completed. The Australian Industrial Relations Commission has reduced entitlements in a little over 230 awards since July 1998. Again it is the battlers on low wages who are to be further kept down while the commission copes with this stupid legislative attack on the condition of battlers. The coalition will certainly wonder what has hit it when the battlers, whom it now claims as its own, hit back in the ballot box and strike a blow against all the unfair actions that this government has inflicted upon them since 1996.The process of entitlement reduction is still to be carried out on a further 2,000 awards. However, all awards that were peeled back prior to the second wave legislation will again have to be put under the microscope to ensure that the condition stripping exercise has been completed before safety net increases are passed on. This is totally unfair to low income people.It is predicted by some commentators that, at the current rate of award stripping, it will take the commission another two to three years to complete the process. In the Sydney Morning Herald on 6 July, under the heading `Slow award reviews hold up pay rises', Helen Trinca makes these comments:Australian workers could have a long wait for living wage increases because of the slow overhaul of industrial awards by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, according to figures released yesterday.The figures show that in 12 months of intense review, less than 10 per cent of 2,180 current federal awards have been stripped back—a move which the Federal Government wants to be a prerequisite for the safety net increases.In the same article, she says:A commission spokesman said there was no estimate of how long it would take to complete the simplification process. But the great bulk of the awards are still in the pipeline: 1,206 are being simplified and another 508 have yet to begin the process.Another measure that this legislation introduces into the workplace is that secret ballots must be held before unions can take preventative industrial action. If this is a good idea, then surely it is also a good idea to have a secret ballot to decide whether the terms of the settlement of a dispute are satisfactory and a resumption of work should take place.Under this American style legislation we may have fewer strikes, but the strikes will be longer as there is no practical way to obtain a resumption of work. Australian working people have paid a high price for this country's move towards a deregulated financial market and a global economy. Governments should be moving to compensate working people for their sacrifices by providing a more secure working environment and legal protections for their accumulated entitlements. If there was a single industrial issue that needed to be addressed in 1999, surely it was the protection of workers' accrued entitlements in the event of plant closures.We have seen a string of plant and mine closures from Cobar, Oakdale and Woodlawn mines to Austral Pacific buses, Yeppoon and Rockhampton nursing homes and Grafton meatworks, just to name a few. In most cases, workers' entitlements have not been paid. These are some of the more publicised closures, and no doubt there are many more smaller closures affecting hundreds of workers which do not make the headlines. In the past 12 months a number of highly publicised closures have seen more than 3,000 workers robbed of more than $30 million in unpaid accrued legal entitlements. There are probably hundreds of smaller companies that go to the wall and their employees are not paid their full entitlement.This fact has been drawn to my attention by a constituent who left her employment five years ago, leaving her superannuation entitlement in the company's superannuation fund. This constituent was advised by the Australian Taxation Office on 12 March this year that the company had gone into liquidation and that her chances of recovering her superannuation entitlements were nil. I quote from my constituent's letter:I am one of at least 10 employees who did not receive any superannuation (I am as far as I know the only one who made a claim through the A.T.O, the others wrote it off as a bad experience). So if 9 out of 10 people don't make a claim, how many other employers are getting away with this?The honourable member for Prospect, Janice Crosio, has tried for two years to right the obvious wrongs in regard to the payment of accrued entitlements to workers. We have now seen some developments in this particular area as far as the Oakdale miners are concerned. Following a rather traditional industrial campaign—a national coal strike, followed by negotiations—the federal government has agreed to the miners' claim for their entitlement to be paid out of the industry's long service leave fund. It is interesting to note that progress was achieved in this dispute only after a bit of old-fashioned industrial relations with a stoppage, a fair amount of public sympathy for the workers and a negotiated settlement. It is interesting to note that the federal government was a major player in this process that it is trying to destroy.The historical background to the philosophies now being espoused by the coalition are steeped in the history of the fifties and the sixties. Prime Minister Menzies thought it was great to attack all unionists with the blanket allegation that they were all communists who had to be removed from sight and sound. Prime Minister Fraser, with the help of the ambitious member for Bennelong, thought that creating an atmosphere of strikes, division and worker oppression would somehow appeal to Australians. I conclude my remarks by saying I fully support the amendment moved by the shadow minister for industrial relations. (Time expired)20:20:0010802Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—I rise tonight to speak in this very interesting debate on the Workplace Relations Legisla tion Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 . The line taken by the Australian Labor Party is gloom and doom and lack of success. One only has to refer to the recent figures presented by the ACTU, which indicate that incomes of low paid wage-earners have increased by 9.1 per cent since 1996—something the Labor Party never achieved. It is a real increase, above the rise in inflation, and a far better result than was achieved by the Australian Labor Party.The level of disputation is something that the Australian Labor Party never achieved. The record for the lowest rate of industrial disputation since 1913 belongs to the Australian government, and yet the opposition tonight are saying that the workers of Australia are oppressed. They are perpetuating a lie that they hope will frighten the workers of Australia away from that which has produced tremendous results for the Australian people and the average Australian worker. It is time the opposition told the truth. It is time the union movement took up the challenge of a modern, competitive Australia and started to move to advantage their employees and their members.If the Australian Labor Party, the opposition, and the union movement were to do that, Australia would start to move ahead even more quickly. But there is an unwillingness to accept the need for new policy settings, there is an unwillingness to accept that things have changed in Australia and there is an unwillingness to accept that they have marginalised their debate and their contribution so that it has become irrelevant. You will not frighten people. The membership of the union movement is falling because the union movement has become irrelevant. It is time for the union movement to move back to relevancy.What are we debating here tonight? We are debating the continuation of a process that started in 1996. In 1996 the newly elected coalition government said, `We need to change the way in which people work together.' The Hon. Peter Reith produced some changes to industrial relations law. We have seen the effects of that industrial relations law in Australia. After three years, we have seen the fact that lower paid wage earners are earning much more than they would have under the accords of the Australian Labor Party. We have seen that the levels of disputation and time lost through disputes have decreased to the lowest level since 1913, and that is a marvellous thing for the average family. What wife, what child or what husband of a family wants to be out of work for protracted periods while union bosses debate the legal niceties before the Industrial Relations Court? Families like to see that money coming in at the end of every week or every fortnight so that they can survive and reach their goals and aspirations. That is what this government has achieved. This government has changed the ethos.Tonight we are debating the second step in that process. The second step takes the process a bit further. The gloom and doom of some of the previous speakers is quite amazing because many of them, in fact, have been dependent on the union movement and the industrial system we have had in Australia to supply a living for them. I will not say that they are parasites but one could, if one were unkind, describe them as parasites because they have lived off the system. They have lived off the legalities and the complexities of the process that we have had in Australia. We have had people describing the system that we have in Australia today as one that subjugates workers and ignores the needs of workers, and saying that the only good days were the good old days with falling wages and high levels of disputation.But tonight we are looking at further changes. The further changes have been brought into existence by a number of reports that have been available publicly and widely in Australia. The first I would like to mention is the Productivity Commission report which points out that Australia's strong productivity performance and the strong growth achieved implies some possibly major dividends for micro-economic reforms of the early 1990s. What the Productivity Commission has pointed out is that strong productivity performance needs to be maintained. The Workplace Relations Ministers Council has received a report from a Mr Des Moore, which outlined that labour market deregulation would most likely result in a substantial increase in employment and a reduction in the structural unemployment rate. Mr Moore presented that report, which was adopted by the labour ministers of the states and the Commonwealth as being a substantial contribution. Also, the OECD job strategy requires countries to increase labour market efficiency, for example, through greater flexibility in working time, in wage and labour costs and in improved labour force skill.They are three major reports on which the government has based its policy entitled `More jobs, better pay'. What were the principles the government laid down for `More jobs, better pay'? First, to put workers and businesses first, not institutions—not the associations or the union movement but the workers and the businesses; second, to be relevant to modern Australia; third, to build the common interests which exist in the workplace; and, fourth, to provide fair and productive outcomes that reflect national and social goals. The areas that this legislation deals with, following those principles, are agreements, awards, the role of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission on mediation and compliance in industrial action, freedom of association and termination of employment.Those seven major areas are dealt with by this legislation, and I will touch on just a few of the most significant tonight. The first one I would like to draw to the attention of the House is the change that this legislation makes to agreements. It aims to make the agreement between a worker and his or her boss simpler and more accessible and to reduce the costs and red tape to make it more understandable. Both employer and employee organisations support this proposition. Whether it is a union movement or an association of employers, they both agree that agreements should be easier—whether it is an Australian workplace agreement or a certified agreement under the new process—and they say that it is time to start to simplify this process. The real difference in opinion, however, arises between the associations of employers and unions as to what particular items need to be changed to bring about simplification.The key factor that has been raised consistently by the Labor Party is their questioning of the no disadvantage process. They keep saying that the government has claimed there will be no disadvantage in this process but that we cannot be believed, that nobody can take any notice of this government and that we should not be believed when we say that there is no disadvantage to anybody by changing the process of agreements and simplifying them. I will go back to 1995 and Mr Brereton, who was then the spokesman for the government of the day. The minister was talking about industrial relations in response to a dorothy dix question. In contemplating what the then opposition was saying, Mr Brereton said:This is the very same opposition leader who earlier this week assured all and sundry that `no worker would be worse off' under his policy. Well, that assurance is worth about as much as a personal guarantee from Christopher Skase.How would Laurie Brereton know? The proof of the government's commitment can be seen in the results today. Lower paid workers are 9.1 per cent better off, and that is the ACTU's own assessment. No longer are they trapped into a process where, if they want an advance in some area, they have to give up benefits or wage rises. No longer do they have to be locked into the negotiations proposed by the heavies of the ACTU, the Treasury and the minister for industrial relations. No longer are they restricted in opportunities by the shackles of complicated legal systems. The results of the government's commitment in three short years have been wage increases for low paid people and the lowest level of dispute since 1913. Yet we had Mr Brereton again trying to frighten people in the process of industrial relations. There is a long list of Labor speakers in the House tonight, and all of them are going to try the scare tactics. Go back to what Laurie Brereton says: `It is not true that there is low disputation. It is not true that you are better off. Please believe us, even though the facts belie what we are telling you.'The simplification includes a no disadvantage test which has worked to the benefit of employees, because they are now better off. The simplification includes providing for Australian workplace agreements to take effect on the date of signing and removing the requirement that an employee must have a copy of the AWA for a specified time before signing. It simplifies the process which provides for an annual remuneration of $68,000 or less. The employee will be able to withdraw consent within a cooling off period.For certified agreements, the streamlining process involves making provision for agreements, other than those made in settlement of an industrial dispute under division 3 of the act, to be certified by the Workplace Relations Registrar as an alternative to applying to the commission. These are simple and small things, but cumulatively they have a huge impact on the simplification of agreements.If one looks at awards, the government's intention is to continue the process of award simplification and to discourage industry-wide awards for regulating work practices which are relevant to only a limited range of enterprises. People being locked in by sweeping legal requirements right across the board limits the opportunity for flexibility and for people to do better. There is a requirement in the simplification of awards for the commission to have regard to the interests of employees, the primacy of agreement making, the productivity and efficiency requirements of the business, the removal of inefficient work practices, the importance of regulating workplaces to the minimum extent only and the right of employers and employees to make workplace agreements in federal or state jurisdictions.Those are the awards, but I guess what one looks at more than anything else in the simplification of the awards is the removal of matters such as long service leave, jury service, tallies, accident pay and union picnic days from the scope of awards, and the limiting further of the grounds upon which incidental provisions may be included in awards. The allowable matters are coming down in number. There has been comment tonight in the House that defence service ought to be included in those allowable matters. What is significant is not that it should be included in the allowable matters but the length of time—six weeks in one block. Employers, and the Commonwealth, for that matter, are limited in their ability to grant six weeks leave in a block to allow people to fulfil the requirements of the reserves. It just will not work. Six weeks is too long, and I believe that the government needs to refocus on that. Reintroducing it as an allowable matter is not, in my view, the only alternative. The accelerated progress of award simplification by providing for a six-month interim period before non-allowable matters cease to have effect is another benefit of this system. There is a change in the role of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in maintaining the award safety net, certifying collective agreements and helping parties to resolve local disputes. The role of the AIRC is there to the extent that it needs to be there. We do not have to have a major complicated and legal process.Having a proper mediation process will be beneficial, because it is only by mediation that many problems will be solved, rather than by the legalities. Compliance and industrial actions have also been changed. They have been simplified and made fairer. Freedom of association would allow people to either join or not join a union. What a breakthrough that is. The shackles of compulsory unionism on Australian workers is one of the most terrible things that has ever been put on workers in this country. It is a restriction that is placed on people who want to start jobs.Opposition members interjecting—SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—None of you has been down on the building sites to see what the builders labourers will do to subcontractors and people who are proud of their own business but are compelled to belong to a union and to fulfil conditions of employment that they think are irrelevant and hamper them and their families in their goals and objectives. A fair go all round is the basis of the policies of the current government. One has only got to look through what has been achieved to be impressed by what the government has done.I remind the House once more about the scare tactics used by Laurie Brereton in 1995 in the run-up to the elections when he tried to paint the coalition as a bunch of ogres. I refer the House once more to the work done by the coalition in reducing the level of disputation and in increasing salaries.I also refer the House to the draft report of the federal campaign consultative panel of the Australian Labor Party—a panel which was comprised of some existing members of the House and some who have failed. We have had Laurie Ferguson, the member for Reid, and Leo McLeay, the member for Watson. Nobody would have thought Leo was a lightweight in these matters. Let me read to the House from their report about why the Labor government failed to win the election in 1996 and why the coalition won that election:Over time, the Accord forced wage earners to make a disproportionate sacrifice to the process of restructuring the economy. Real wages declined while profits and executive salaries soared. This is a fact workers universally comprehend and understand. The `social wage' concept was little understood by the electorate. The Labor Party and the union movement failed to effectively communicate the significance of the `social wage'.And they go on:The only way wages could be increased during the Accord period was by `offset' bargaining. Being asked to give up something for a wage increase was bad enough for most but having this condition imposed by a Labor Government/union alliance led to significant disillusion. The backlash was felt in the election and in union membership numbers.There we have a summary of how the average person in the Australian Labor Party felt about its government and the way in which it related to wage and salary earners, particularly the battlers whom it pretended to support. There is more in that report, but I need to flag for the Australian Labor Party today the things that were being said by Prime Minister Paul Keating in 1992. Keating said:When we became a nation in 1901, one of the first things we did was to set up a Commonwealth tribunal which could exercise its powers to settle disputes. It was a system which served Australia quite well I think but the news I have to deliver today for those of our visitors who still think Australian industrial relations is run this way, is that it is finished. Not only is the old system finished, but we are rapidly phasing out its replacement, and have now come to do things in a new way.A year later, in 1993, Keating said:Let me describe the model of industrial relations we are working towards. It is a model which places primary emphasis on bargaining at the workplace level within a framework of minimal standards provided by arbitral tribunals. It is a model under which compulsorily arbitrated awards and arbitrated wage increases would be there only as a safety net. This safety net would not be intended to prescribe the actual conditions of work of most employees, but only to catch those unable to make workplace agreements with employers. Over time the safety net would invariably become simpler. We would have fewer awards with fewer clauses. For most employers and most businesses, wages and conditions of work would be determined by agreements . . .What a vision! We are putting that vision into action. (Time expired)20:40:0010806Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—We all know the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. The minister for workplace relations is the battlers' friend—the battlers' friend who wants to slash their wages and social security benefits. Remember that caper? He is the republican who is going to campaign as the Queen's man. He is the advocate for gender equality who tried but fortunately failed to remove the equal remuneration provisions from the Workplace Relations Act. So when the minister tells Australian women that his bill—the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 —will give them greater equity and more opportunity to combine paid work with family responsibilities, like Little Red Riding Hood they should run for their lives.The minister has had the gall to tell the International Labour Organisation that the changes that he made to the Workplace Relations Act in 1996 have benefited employees with family responsibilities. His response to the recently publicised case of an employee of the Steggles chicken company—a single mother who was being forced to start work at 6.30 a.m. in spite of her inability to arrange care for her young children—was to claim that, under his legislation, working hours could be tailored to individual need. Who is he kidding? We all know that, since this government was elected, work has become more insecure and more unpredictable than ever before. The explosion in casual work, the institutionalisation of record levels of unpaid overtime and the virtual impossibility of protecting and improving working conditions through the Industrial Relations Commission have affected all women, probably more than any other group of employees.And what is the minister now proposing? Is he admitting that legislation is desperately needed to protect the most vulnerable sections of the work force? Is he listening to the ILO, which has asked the government to amend its legislation to conform with the conventions we are bound to observe? No, not this minister. With all the effrontery that we have come to expect, he has introduced a bill that we are debating tonight that will make it worse—a bill that will have a particularly savage effect on Australian women.This bill will weaken the award system even further, even though around 30 per cent of employees depend on awards for their wages and working conditions—a proportion which rises to one out of two women working part-time. Awards will be reduced even further to basic minimum conditions, putting at risk conditions like paid maternity leave or additional sick leave. Many conditions will be further removed from awards. Award provisions, for example, setting out fair processes for training and promotion will disappear. Women will be forced to relocate to different work premises without any concern about travel time and the effect on family responsibilities. Teachers, nurses and public servants will lose their right to arbitration when they are unable to reach agreement with federal or state governments as their employer. Most vindictive of all, the minister will turn to a second round of award stripping.But the provision that really gets to me is that workers will not receive their safety net increases until their award has been through the award stripping process, irrespective of whether the commission has the resources to get the job done in a timely way. Unions which exercise their right to argue a case for particular award conditions before the commission will be putting at risk wage increases for those unable to bargain. Let us remember that women earn less than half the overaward payments received by men and that, in work places which make overaward payments, 64 per cent of men receive such payments compared with 36 per cent of women. This means that women are more likely than men to rely on safety net increases if they are to have any wage increase at all.Even though casual employment has soared from 16 per cent of the work force in 1985 to 26 per cent in 1997 and applies to one in three female employees, this bill will make it mandatory for awards to provide for casual employment, even where this is not now the case. How will this help job security?Individual contracts, or Australian workplace agreements, even though they have been shown to disadvantage women, will be made much easier as a result of this legislation. Employers will be able to put them into effect as soon as they are signed and will have 60 days to apply to the Employment Advocate for approval. If the application is not made or approval is refused, the employee will have to go to court to recover the difference between the AWA and what should have been paid. This will now become a huge incentive for employers to roll employees over every 60 days so as to be able to pay them on substandard agreements.Even where there is a collective certified agreement in place, the employer will be able to offer workplace agreements to new and current employees and pressure them into accepting wages and conditions below those in the collective agreement. This proposal means that, where women are covered by collective agreements, they will be able to be picked off one by one, with the discriminatory factors which we know are used to value women's work operating without check.Recently released information prepared for the Western Australian Minister for Labour Relations shows that the gender wages gap for women in Western Australia has widened. In 1991 women earned 82½ per cent of male earnings, but by 1998 this had dropped to 77 per cent. This is the lowest rate in Australia and it points to the effect of a deregulated labour market on those with least bargaining power. Women in Western Australia now earn $20.95 a week less than the national female average. The minister pretends to believe that the high incidence of clauses dealing with hours of work in agreements means that employees, including women, are achieving greater control over their start and finish times. But, as the Steggles example shows, the reality is that enterprise bargaining is more likely to give the employer greater control than employees, particularly in workplace agreements. One in five AWAs contains a provision allowing for the averaging of hours worked over an extended period, giving employers a much greater ability to require shorter or longer days. In New Zealand 62 per cent of women, compared with 43 per cent of men, are on contracts without penalty rates.The independent Industrial Relations Commission has been responsible for significant equity measures for women, including the equal pay decisions, the introduction of supplementary payments and parental leave. This bill aims to destroy the commission's power to take initiatives over time to increase fairness and equity; instead, it will be confined to basic minimum conditions—hardly encouragement for test cases for measures such as paid maternity leave, leave for breastfeeding or other provisions to help balance work and family.The commission's conciliation power has been invaluable for women suffering unfairness or discrimination at work, even where the dispute is not one over which the commission has jurisdiction to arbitrate. A dispute over staffing levels and excessive work pressure, for example, can now be referred to the commission. At present, the commission has the power to compel the employer to attend a conciliation hearing. Even though the commission does not have the power at the moment to make a binding order about these issues, the very fact that the parties have come together with an independent third party can and often does assist in finding an acceptable compromise. This bill will make that impossible, as compulsory conciliation will be confined to allowable award matters, demarcation disputes and exceptional matters orders. In a dispute such as the one I have described, the employer would have to agree to attend conciliation, not to mention come up with $500, in order for the commission to intervene, even though experience has shown over and over that intervention is helpful to all sides.Rather than being about fairness or equity, this bill will facilitate discrimination by removing provisions requiring that comparable employees be offered AWAs in the same terms and that collective agreements not be made with groups of employees in an enterprise where this would not be fair. The repeal of these provisions will encourage employers to exclude women or part-timers and casuals from collective agreements or to offer them AWAs on less favourable terms than apply to other workers. Even if remedies are available under the Sex Discrimination Act, the reality is that these must be pursued after the event. That process can be long and expensive in comparison with the clear requirements which apply at the agreement making stage and which at the moment must be carried out to the satisfaction of the Industrial Relations Commission or the Employment Advocate.The bill also contains a number of provisions designed to make it harder for workers to bargain collectively and to be represented by their unions. This is where we see the true nature of this government's ideological attack. Further restrictions on the right to strike, together with those giving greater priority to individual agreements, will put Australia even further in breach of core International Labour Organisation conventions. With a blatant disregard for international law, the minister has ignored requests from the ILO's independent Committee of Experts to amend our current legislation so that it complies with internationally recognised fundamental human rights.An incident having occurred in the gallery—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Order! I would remind those in the gallery that they cannot participate in this debate.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—The bill is intended to send out a powerful message to employers and employees alike: union membership is illegitimate and undesirable, and encourage ment or advocacy of unionism could have unpleasant legal consequences. If more than 60 per cent of workers in a supermarket, a hospital or an office are union members, the Employment Advocate is likely to pop up investigating a so-called `closed shop'. This can have no other intention than to frighten employers and employees alike into refusing to have anything to do with trade unions.The right of unions to come into workplaces to recruit workers, talk to members and check that awards and agreements are being observed will be severely cut back. I cannot see a migrant woman in the clothing trade or a part-time cleaner, terrified of losing their jobs, being prepared to issue a written invitation to their union organiser to visit the workplace. When employers require union officials to sit in the training room or in the office so that workers wishing to see them are easily identified, will these women be prepared to expose themselves in this way? I do not think so.This bill contains many attacks on workers rights and protections. I want to end by focusing on two provisions which will remove a limited avenue for justice for one of the most exploited groups in our society—tens of thousands of outworkers in the clothing industry, mostly women, working at home sometimes for as little as $2 an hour. This bill removes the ability of the Federal Court to cancel or vary contracts applying to independent contractors, such as where the contract provides for lower wages and conditions which would apply under an award to the same kind of work. Most outworkers are classed as independent contractors. This change would mean that they would have no remedy for exploitative contracts.Similarly, there will be prohibitions on so-called restrictive arrangements; that is, agreements requiring that contractors or their employees be provided with the same wages and conditions as direct employees in the industry. This would make the code of conduct adopted by major retailers in response to the Fair Wear campaign illegal. The code is an agreement to source garments from manufacturers whose outworkers are paid in accordance with legal requirements; that is, they receive the same hourly rates as direct employees in factories.So here we have it: the issue that divides the minister and this government from those in this community—employers, workers and all decent people—who do not believe that it is unacceptably restrictive to demand that migrant women working at home receive the same minimum $11 or so an hour that the award prescribes for factory workers. While no-one here, certainly on this side of the House, would be naive enough to expect that the minister is ashamed of these provisions, I would hope that some on the government benches are. It is time that those opposite who are concerned about the provisions in this bill raise their voices against this divisive legislation that unfairly attacks the working conditions and rights of ordinary Australians.20:56:0010809Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—I would like start my opening address with a quote:We are not going back to the days of industrial warfare, strikes without ballots, mass and flying pickets and secondary action . . . We will keep the flexibility of the current labour market—it may make some shiver, but, in the end, it is warmer in the real world.These are very encouraging words, and words that were spoken not by a conservative or a Liberal member but by the UK Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair, addressing the trade unions congress on 9 September 1997. It is indeed a shame that many of those opposite have not embraced those words of wisdom uttered by Prime Minister Blair in recognising that the world has moved on from the class warfare that is still being fought by those in the trenches opposite.Today Australia has to compete in a world environment, a world economy, and to do so would be foolhardy in the extreme if we were to leave our industrial relations policies in the manner they have been for so many years. Have the industrial changes that have been brought down by Minister Reith in the Howard government worked thus far? There are three clear pointers and indisputable facts: one, unemployment is at a 10-year low; two, there are more people employed in Australia today than any other time in our history; three, productivity is at an all-time high. We are growing faster as a nation at over two per cent productivity growth compared with just over one per cent not so long ago.Finally, perhaps the most telling fact is that those workers in Australia today have real wage increases, something they did not achieve under eight accords and the Labor Party. Eight accords with the unions and the opposition, then in government, did not achieve any real wage growth for the workers of Australia. But that has occurred under the Howard government and under the Reith legislation. This is one of the clear pointers as to why Australia has had such a low number of industrial disputes. As the previous coalition speaker, the member for Mitchell, said, it is the lowest since 1913.These things have not happened by accident; they have happened because there has been good policy. Mr Bill Kelty said that the third world war would be declared with the industrial relations policies that this government was bringing into the parliament. But what has been delivered is increased productivity for Australian companies that is making Australia more productive and enhancing our opportunities for greater exports. This ensured that those many people who had felt deserted by the Labor Party, who had felt there was no chance of a job, suddenly were brought back in from the cold almost disbelieving that there were still real jobs to be had—jobs which could give them the satisfaction of knowing that they were contributing to their community, that they were no longer required to rely on welfare payments and that they could provide for their families. They are the facts on what the coalition's policy has thus far delivered. But for us to stop at this point and to say, `That's good enough,' would be to desert the many people that still remain unemployed.The majority of the opposition members that have spoken on the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 have got up one after another and simply trotted out the line of their particular union. The member for Batman referred to the ACTU's position. Of course, his former position is well known. The member for Lalor referred to the clothing union and the member for Bendigo referred to the meat industry. We heard one after another and we can identify which union props up each individual member in this House, come election time.This bill goes to the core values of individuals and their rights to make decisions for themselves. How does the ALP deal with that? What is the ALP's stance in relation to individual rights? A look into the rules and regulations of their party makes it very clear where they stand on individual rights. If anybody out there listening tonight is contemplating joining the ALP, to join you must belong to a union if there is a union you are eligible to join in your workplace. You do not have a choice. You must do so. Where are the workers' rights? Where are the rights of individuals in that? To go one step further, I have dragged a form for membership inquiry for the Victorian branch of the Labor Party off Steve Bracks's home page on the Internet. In addressing this, the shadow spokesman for the Attorney-General might like to explain to me the rights of the members of the unions and the members of the Labor Party. He asks that, when you fill out this membership inquiry, you make the following pledge and sign your name to it:I hereby pledge myself to the Australian Labor Party to faithfully uphold to the best of my ability its Constitution and platforms and to work and vote for the selected Labor candidates. I am not a member of any other organisation which pledges its members to support candidates for public office. I will forfeit my membership if I nominate against an endorsed Labor candidate.No problems so far. Then the last telling lines are:If I employ labour I will employ union members.You are pledging that you will discriminate towards union members and union members alone. The member for Jagajaga just spoke about women's rights. Do women's rights just get thrown out the window if they are not a member of the union? Too bad about someone having better qualifications—being the right person for the job. If they do not have union membership, according to the Victorian Labor Party they do not deserve to be given the chance.That is simply not good enough. This legislation tries to redress the balance of some of this. Unfortunately we are not in a position today to be able to take the Victorian Labor Party into the courts where they deserve to be, to have them stand up and identify where it is in their constitution that that rule that they state here in their pledge is somehow overturned. The fact is that they do not believe everyone is equal. You are more equal if you are a member of a union.How relevant are they in the workplace today? How relevant are unions and therefore the Labor Party? In August 1998 union membership declined by a further 2.2 per cent, down to 28.1 per cent of the work force. A paltry 21.4 per cent of private sector employees were members of the unions. Almost one in five—four out of every five workers—have abandoned the unions because the unions are no longer working for the working-class man. They are working for the ALP. They are working for the people in this place, the people that in eight accords could not find the time, the heart or the internal fortitude to start to support those workers who had lost their entitlements because people had gone broke. There were billions of dollars of lost entitlements—and what did the ALP do? They said in the eighth accord that, if it were necessary, they would address it in the future. Therefore the 200,000-odd workers and the billions of dollars that had been lost did not warrant anyone doing anything about it. This government is addressing it. This government is addressing it now, not in our eighth accord or in our fifth bill but now, in our second term of government, now that we have many of these issues already put to bed.Many of those opposite have also run away from the need for workplace agreements and enterprise bargaining. The member who spoke last, the member for Jagajaga, complained that workplace agreements were not the way ahead. Where was she when the former Prime Minister Mr Keating was trumpeting it as government policy—as ALP policy? I will quote from the Australian Trades and Labour Council's own publication from 1997, a fairly recent publication, Reforming Australia's unions. It says:It matters little whether Reith's legislation provides `fast' or `slow' labour market deregulation. For most workers, it will be the same kind of change they have had to deal with over the past decade.This has been Labor policy for 10 years, although they have fought with the unions all the way to bring it in. Now that it has been embraced by the public and we are seeing increased productivity, improvements in people's living standards and improvements in real wages, they all run from it. They are running from their own doctrine. The trouble is: where will they run to next?I would like to quote now from a letter from a union member. I am going to read it out in full. It is not glowing about the minister, but this is not an edited version. This is word for word. It is from a lady by the name of Sascha Attwood, from Fitzroy, who wrote a letter to the Age newspaper, which was published on 14 August 1999. It is headed `Still so blokey, still so unrepresentative'. The member for Jagajaga should listen closely to what this woman has to say as she reflects on how unions are not representing women, since that was the argument that the member built upon in her address. She says:I attended the rally on Thursday organised by the Trades Hall in protest against Workplace Relations Minister Peter Reith's proposed industrial relations laws.I attended because I believe that hard-won conditions and rights for workers are under threat. And I marched in order to once again experience the thrill and solidarity of marching down the main street of Melbourne with 100,000 fellow workers.I left the rally dispirited and angry. The ACTU president, Jennie George, was two minutes into her address and a foolish young man held up a freshly scribbled placard with `Show us your tits' written on it, to the amusement and roar from his fellow workmates.The actions of one person carried an ironic and bitter twist to the rally. While I could dismiss his actions as immaturity or misdirected humor, they also spelt out other messages to me, a woman worker.The union movement has failed to embrace women as active and participating union members. I still ask why union rallies are so dominated by men and why do so few women attend?The established unions may be able to attract the biggest slice of media attention and public sympa thy, but when you look at Mr Reith's agenda you will see that the workers under-represented, marginalised and discriminated against will suffer in silence. For these workers, the industrial fall-out will not be fought in the public eye but, I sadly predict, fought each day, worker-by-worker.I long for the day when a union rally attracts a more equitable turnout of both male and female workers, when ethnic workers, lesbian and gay workers, disabled workers and young workers feel represented and included.I will support the Trades Hall and ACTU fight against Mr Reith's legislation and support forthcoming actions, but I urge both marginalised workers and the union movement to work together to make the movement more relevant, responsive and representative.You need no other understanding than to hear the words of Sascha Attwood to understand why union membership is down to 21.4 per cent. The unions do not represent the women; they do not represent the average worker. They represent the people in this place, and that is all. I quote again:I left the rally dispirited and angry.I had the misfortune to be at a union rally recently as well. I was representing Minister Reith down in Melbourne at an area consultative committee initiative which was designed to do one thing: to get more jobs for the people of Melbourne by export enhancement, replacing imported products with Australian made products. We had about 60 union members arrive. They broke the front gate, and came into a place which had one purpose in mind, and that was to create more jobs for Australians.Much to my horror, I found out that these people were not there out of choice. They did not say, `We want to stand up against Peter Reith and the coalition.' They were bussed there after union members had rung employers and demanded that they send people to the rally and pay them—against their wishes. These union members did not know what they were doing there. They did not know what bill it was that they were supposed to be opposing. They were forced to be there. When some of these employers rang the minister's office to complain and were advised that they were in fact breaking the law—it is against the law to pay people when they are striking illegally, and against their will, I might add— the employers said, `I have no choice. The union pressure on me will ensure that if I do not pay these people then I will be black-banned.'You wonder why it is necessary to have the bill before the House. It is because this government, the coalition government, believes that you must have equal rights, that it does not matter whether you are in a union or not in a union: you should both have equal representation at the workplace. It should not matter whether you are a member of the Victorian Labor Party. If you are a member of the Victorian Labor Party, as I said earlier, you are forced by your pledge to the Labor Party to employ union workers, not non-union workers. Where are the rights of the individual in that? You take away the rights of the individual member who was an employer and you take away the rights of the individual who is there thinking that they have a real opportunity at a job when the reality is: `No membership, no work', just like `No union ticket, no work'.These are the reasons the Labor Party will never embrace the words of Tony Blair. The Australian Labor Party will never be able to see that in fact the dim dark ages have gone, that the necessity for some sort of tribal warfare, employer against employee, should be a thing of the past. The fact is that Australia is part of a global economy, whether we like it or not. We compete each and every day with workers in Taiwan, the US, the UK, Europe and South Africa. We have to deal with them by having a greater level of productivity. We can only do that by ensuring that the workplace is a cohesive workplace which sees both employers and employees working together.The member for Jagajaga made two telling points. She referred to the right of entry of union officials and said that they should be able to come in any time. The fact is that unions in the past have come onto workplaces where there are zero members of the union and demanded to look at the books of the employer, take up his time—when these unions are not even welcome in that business; they have no reason to be in that business. Why? Because they are there. They are no different from a hawker looking for business. They are touting for the hard-earned cash out of the workers' pockets, and each and every day more workers desert them. Two point two per cent left at last call, down to 21.4 per cent.When are those opposite going to wake up to themselves that workers demand simple things. They demand the right to have a secret ballot when they want to go on strike. You see, it is not in fact the union bosses who lose the wage, because they do not; it is the worker. It is the worker that decides when a union boss says, `You're going out.' You have lost a day's pay—end of story. The point is this: let us empower the worker to be able to make the choice for himself. The member for Jagajaga stood in this place and said that when the unions come in they have got to be assembled and the boss is going to be able to see them. Wow! Let us at least look at the other side of this flip coin. What occurs now is that if someone wants to come in and deal with these people the employer has no say. If these workers want to go on strike, it is a show of hands. What happens to people's individual rights if they want to work against, they do not believe it is their best interests? Is that intimidation in the work force? I will tell you right now you cannot dispute it, can you—VU5GRIFFINMr Griffin—They take the benefits.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—The member opposite, who is sitting at the dispatch box, says, `They'll take the benefits.' The fact is that they also take the discrimination and the incrimination of their fellow workers if they stand up for what they believe in. This party simply wants to do one thing, and that is, give every worker the right to choose whether they want to be a member of a union, the right to choose secret ballots and the right to be able to negotiate with their employer so that they have job security and improved living standards.I conclude by asking those opposite to challenge whether or not the quotes that I have made in this House are incorrect. Is it incorrect that the Victorian Labor Party has in its membership inquiry form the pledge that if you employ labour you will employ union members? Is that a requirement—yes or no? Is it a fact that there are more people employed in Australia today than ever before? Is it a fact that productivity is higher today than it has ever been? Is it a fact that living standards and real wages have increased under a coalition government and that, in fact, they went backwards under eight consecutive agreements between the unions and the Labor Party? This legislation is another important step in ensuring that workers have not only good, strong rights but also a future in Australia's burgeoning economy and that they can all play a role in being part of Australia's future.21:16:0010813Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—The conviction with which both sides in this debate argue the case as being so black and white and non-negotiable only serves to underline the disillusionment of the electorate with the major parties. The Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 will be amended; it will be put under its proper focus and moderated, as it should be. It is a pity the document before us was not so framed in the first place. Why foster so much ill-feeling through provocation? That, unfortunately, was the policy on the wharves that we saw last year from the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business.There are two schools of thought when it comes to industrial relations in this country, and I suspect one school—the one supporting a fairly regulated workplace—far outnumbers those who believe the marketplace should operate in the workplace in exactly the same way as it does elsewhere in the economy. This latter viewpoint is neatly summed up by no less an authority than the H.R. Nicholls Society in its submission to the Senate inquiry into the first wave of industrial changes introduced by this government in 1996. Quite unashamedly, the society proclaims the marketplace is no different from any other market, and all successful attempts to replace the market price with arbitrarily determined prices will, in the medium- to long-term, lead to unemployment and severe misallocation of human capital and other resources. It says further that the Industrial Relations Commis sion is at the heart of the problem; it is not the solution. The submission goes on to say:. . . public choice theory predicts that an institution whose status and income is derived from adjudicating disputes in a particular sphere of life will, albeit ever so subtly, do everything it can to ensure that the amount of disputation occurring under its aegis will never diminish.The former viewpoint, which supports a fair, regulated workplace, is represented by a paper prepared by 80 of Australia's industrial barristers and solicitors—called `A critical analysis of the Reith proposals'—looking at this second wave of industrial relations and workplace reforms contained in the bill before us. The H.R. Nicholls school might say the industrial barristers are also part of the problem, but it can be more strongly put that, without the intermediary, there can be no fairness. The industrial barristers' analysis talks of an industrial relations system prior to 1996 that had, by and large, produced fair and equitable outcomes for employers and employees alike. It says that there was a critical balance between the interests of employers and employees, and that:. . . critical to the maintenance of this balance was the pivotal role played by the Industrial Relations Commission. It (the commission) restrained the powerful and protected the weak.These two viewpoints represent the two camps in the industrial relations debate in this country. In the first wave of reforms in 1996, I spoke out against any diminution of the role of the Industrial Relations Commission, but I was prepared to accept other reforms. However, I see very little merit in most of the reforms contained in this legislation.Apart from a renewed attack on the Industrial Relations Commission's role—and the obvious attempt of the bill is to virtually neuter that industrial referee—this bill, to all intents and purposes, abolishes the right to strike. Most fair-minded people would have little problem with secret ballots of union members to authorise industrial action. It is a democratic right. Postal ballots of union members also seem fine, especially when supervised by the Australian Electoral Commission. Referral of disputes to the IRC for a negotiated settlement is also highly desirable. But to require all three steps before industrial action can take place—telegraphing the length of the dispute and the type of action to be taken—completely disarms the right of workers to withdraw labour and to seek fair judgment of their claims, with suitable penalties should such action be frivolous or a threat to safety or security—and again there is no problem with that.The Workplace Relations Bill 1996 stipulated that all employees have the right to be represented by unions if they so choose, but they also have the right not to belong. This bill goes that step further and, while paying lip-service to the right to strike, it effectively removes from unions the means by which they can mount an industrial campaign. It is not as if the business world is crying out for this new wave—apart from the Business Council perhaps.The Australian Industry Group is very nervous about requirements that would force it to reduce union influence when more than 60 per cent of its workers belong to the same union. The group's director of industrial relations is on the record as saying that many employers knew they had closed shops, but they would be reluctant to light a fire under the issue because completely unionised sites do not necessarily impede business. In fact, I am told by senior management in one leading Australian manufacturing company that the closed shop provisions in this bill are unenforceable and clash with the freedom of association provisions that are incorporated in the existing Workplace Relations Act.While much of this 1996 legislation did not go down well with unions, it did provide for an even-handed treatment in the workplace. This bill does not. Companies with good relationships with their work force and unions are not prepared to upset the harmony of their workplace for some ideological bent of a minister who seems out of touch with reality and the sentiments of Australians for a fair go. This provision is not a fair go all round. And the irony is that the first raft of workplace reforms, modified as they were by the Australian Democrats, retaining much of the crucial role of the IRC, has led to more litigation. Rather than its decreasing the intervention of third parties like the commis sion or the courts in industrial matters, the courts have become the de facto commission in many cases. And, if ever this bill were to be passed, even more litigation would ensue. And the first bill has been condemned by the ILO. I wonder what its reaction to this will be.The minister also wants to break down industry-wide awards. The minister's flexible and adaptable workplace is one broken down to a site by site arrangement where the employer can be a major nationwide one, its management can be national but the work force is expected to be segmented into site agreements. It sounds great in theory. Simplification is the word, but again it is unworkable and divisive. Email, a major national company with an important production unit in my electorate, in fact has rejected the minister's model by striking a national deal with its work force and their unions. The Orange work force decided it wanted to strike its own agreement, and this is being registered with the commission. That is the sort of flexibility there should be, not a model forced on industry. In Email's case there are 32 sites, with 31 involved in the national agreement and one with its own.We hear that the minister wants to turn his attention to the building industry, having failed in his attempt to break the Maritime Union after a protracted clandestine operation that involved the use of dogs to break up pickets. No Australian defends bloody-minded unionism, but equally no Australian defends storm-trooper tactics or reactionary laws that go to the basis of our democratic rights of freedom of association and the right to demonstrate. It is interesting to see comments from the Master Builders Association General Manager Greg Quinn, who told Business Review Weekly that workplace change will come gradually, not with a Patrick style solution. Management consultants have reported in the same article that the Australian building industry is close to world's best practice, standing at about 95 per cent of US levels and more than 25 per cent ahead of Sweden and Japan.The Productivity Commission, at the behest of the government, no doubt urges individual subcontractors to negotiate separately on pay and conditions within that very same industry. But, as industrial relations director of the MBA Alan Grinsell-Jones says, when you have a strong, well-organised union that is going to negotiate on behalf of employees it makes sense to have an industry association, no doubt also strong and well organised, to negotiate for employers. So why this unholy rush to implement these changes, except to pursue some ideological bent that is not about micro-economic reform but macro societal change aimed at settling age-old scores with unions.The government was embarrassed into the Oakdale legislation. It now wants to build any protection of workers' rights into this legislation. It wants to sprinkle this unpalatable legislation with the sugar of Oakdale type provisions when such protections should rightfully be part of amendments to Corporations Law. If the minister is really concerned about the plight of the 20,000 employees dudded, as he says, out of their entitlements by corporate insolvency each year, he should not make provision of worker entitlements dependent upon passage of this legislation or any legislation that is introduced in tandem with this.One cannot escape the fact that, without strong, responsible and representative unions, the individual worker is at the mercy of unsympathetic employers. Kym Wood is the classic example. As the member for Jagajaga told the House earlier, she was the lady who stood up to Steggles. As Adele Horin pointed out in one of her provocative and thoughtful articles, some companies cannot tell a worker from a battery hen. Kym Wood had been threatened with dismissal when she could not get baby-sitters at 6.30 a.m. and could not meet her boss's new roster. She had nowhere to go for a sympathetic hearing except her union and the Industrial Relations Commission. Where do she and the millions of part-time, casual and temporary workers go in the brave new world of workplace only negotiation?The member for Mitchell should not crow about his government's ability to represent the battlers. The battlers know they are not feeling warm and comfortable, despite the alleged benefits of micro-economic reform: a big surplus, low inflation, low interest rates and good GDP. Why isn't everyone happy? Apart from the insecurity caused by economic rationalist policies of downsizing, competition policy, privatisation and competitive tendering, the rampant insecurity that exists out there, particularly in the regional work force, I would suggest it is because the great growth in employment opportunities is occurring in the casual employment market only, where women especially have no will nor skill to negotiate. This is where the level playing field is tilted uphill for the employee, and this bill tilts it ever so much further away from the worker and away from the award system. This is more about employees being units of cost rather than partners in the productive process.I supported the changes of the first raft of industrial reforms after the welcome amendments in the Senate. I support the logic of unfair dismissal processes not applying to employers with 15 or fewer employers. I think we can do without that wedge being driven between an employer and a relatively small work force; and that comes after a lot of anecdotal interchange with small business in my electorate. But there is absolutely no way I can or will endorse this legislation as it stands currently before the House. I commend the opposition second reading amendment to the House and look forward to substantive amendments before this bill becomes law.21:29:0010815Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—I take great pride in standing here tonight to speak on the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 because, as a working-class individual who spent the early days of his life working in the meat processing industry and who worked in that industry for in excess of 30 years, I am well aware of the problems related to my right then and other people's rights now to work. I went into the meat processing industry at 14 years of age. I started as a labourer in a very small country abattoir and over a 30-year period became proficient as a slaughterman, a boner, a leading hand, a foreman, a production manager and then a works manager. During that time, as a member of the Australian Meat Industry Employees Union, I was deprived of my right to work time and time again. As a young man wanting to work, to save and to achieve something in my life, I found myself being deprived of that right by being asked, on a regular basis, to go on strike, to such an extent that in many instances I was out on the street with no pay for up to five or six months of the year, because in those days we worked in an industry that was centred solely around the export trade.I was interested to hear in the last three or four days of the decision of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to do away with the tally system. It has been interesting for me to listen to some of the comments made by members in this House, particularly by the member for Calare, because many people such as the member for Calare would not know what it is like to work in a tally system and to work in an industry where one wanted to work but was deprived of that privilege and, more specifically, deprived of the opportunity to make a better life for a young family, as I was. Over the years I was forced to move outside the trade that I took great pride in to look for a job within the companies as a staff member.I well remember working on the chain system, which classically illustrates just how wrong the tally system is. Trade union officials forced management to turn the speeds of the chain up to the extent where we were working from 7.30 in the morning until about 11 o'clock in the morning and cutting out an 80 tally, for example, on mutton. As a trade union member, I enthusiastically took on the decision at the time, through the AMIEU, to fall in line with the object of doing your tally quickly and getting out to go about doing what we all wanted to do outside work hours, and that was to participate in our leisure lifestyles. In my case, that was to do a bit of fishing. I thought that was terrific. But, of course, as you get older your body becomes a little less resilient to the pressures that are placed on it in that environment, and I found that I did not really relish the thought of doing my tallies in a very short period of time. I believe that what I was doing was wrong for myself and for my family, because I was going home from my job in my mid-20s physically exhausted from the work I was doing.I can remember the companies trying to talk the Meat Industry Employees Union into doing piecework and into changing the system of tally work to the extent where we were asked to work longer hours, do the same amount of work, but still be beneficiaries of the overs that they were offering us to compensate for the longer hours. Today I stand in this House as an individual who, having worked through a tally or piecework system, has some physical problems with his shoulders, back and arms that are a direct legacy of the types of pressures that were put on him by trade unions in his role as a slaughterman during those early days in the meat processing industry. I have what you call dry sockets. I do not have any fluid in my shoulders because of the pressure on my arms from lifting sheep when I was a solo slaughterman and from the extra exertion that was placed on my body as a slaughterman trying to keep pace with the ever demanding speed requests by unions of management so that we could get out earlier and earlier during the day.In my period of time in the meat processing industry I saw men who looked physically strong having to give away their careers as slaughtermen and boners because they could no longer physically keep up the pace that was forced upon them. So I was pleased to hear yesterday that the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in Queensland is going to do away with the tally system. The tally system is outmoded, it is antiquated and we should be looking at some other method of work related practices which will allow the industry to survive and allow people the opportunity to go into a negotiated agreement with regard to hours of work and the numbers of animals that they process so that they can continue on in their trade until they reach retiring age without some of the physical impositions that are placed on them because of the pressures of the tally system.The decision by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission was made as a result of the evidence that they heard from all sides with regard to the antiquated system of tally. I quote from paragraph 11 on page 8 of 68 of the document put out by the commission:The simple effect of the unit tally (as specified in the FMIPA 1996) is to increase unit labour costs as output exceeds minimum and then maximum tally. However, the extent to which this feature of the tally constrains capacity utilisation and the level of output on a given shift depends also on a number of other factors, such as stock availability on the day and chiller capacity.All of those issues affected my right to work during the long years I spent in the meat processing industry. It goes on:Both head and unit tallies are based on inputs—such as the number of heads—rather than a measure of output, such as weight processed, yield per animal, or any other measure of quality. This has implications for the impact of the tally on incentives facing both employees and management. Unit tallies in particular are complex and prescriptive. The FMIPA 1996 tally provisions are over 50 pages long.Here they are, talking about the tally provisions of an award being 50 pages long. What I have not had time to read about, which would no doubt be part and parcel of the evidence that was received by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, is the effect the time pressure on people to perform their tasks to obtain those tallies had on the quality of the processing of the animals. I hate to think of the wastage that occurred as a result of the inability of those men to process animals effectively enough and of sufficient quality for the company to present to its customers to maintain local or export contracts.I have seen export rejections caused as a result of this. I have seen abattoirs faced with financial ruin because of the way in which animals had been processed and the poor quality control leading to the way animals finished up on the slaughter floor and inside the chillers. I have seen on various occasions—indeed, in my later years I attempted to do it—how meatwork employers tried to slow down the tally process. They were operating in an environment where meat processing in Australia was under extreme pressure from its overseas clients due to the lack of quality control within the abattoirs. This came about as a result of the tally system and the speed at which chains were operating to satisfy the demand of the slaughtermen in those days to get out of the place as quickly as they got into it.So I applaud the Industrial Relations Commission for the commonsense approach they have taken with regard to tallies. Some people will ask what is wrong with tallies. I will once again read from page 40 of the Industrial Relations Commission evidence on this issue:As previously stated, employers claimed that a move away from the tally system to time work in the processing sector would lead to improved productivity and efficiency. We have already decided that in principle sufficient flexibility should be allowed in awards of the Commission to allow enterprises to determine their working arrangements. We are prepared to adopt this approach to the application of tally systems in the industry for a number of reasons.First, tally systems in existing awards are in need of review and the incidence of plant arrangements outside the award system is high.Second, a significant number of operators in the industry have indicated that they wish to continue to conduct their operations with a tally system.Third, we believe that neither the parties nor the Commission should stand in the way of employers and employees willing and able to implement time work.Further, we are satisfied that employers and employees should be encouraged to focus on their individual operations and on appropriate measures to enhance efficiency and productivity at the plant level, that no universal tally system appears to be acceptable and that the appropriateness of any particular system depends on factors such as flexibility of production levels, plant design, manning levels and the extent of mechanical aids. We are also satisfied that there are alternative incentive payments schemes which do not have the historical limitations of the tally systems and that consideration of them should be encouraged.In any new scheme care will need to be taken to ensure that unjust or unreasonable demands are not made on employees.I thoroughly concur with those sentiments, but the reality is that, despite the fact that the meat processing industry spent millions of dollars upgrading its plants and putting in mechanised pieces of equipment, it was faced with a burgeoning tally system that stopped it from recovering the costs needed to ensure the profitability that would allow it to continue to operate.I listened today to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services talk about the previous government's attitude to tallies. I will read to you an extract from the 1991 AIRC meat industry inquiry. The Commonwealth government of the time said:The Commonwealth noted that the operation of tally systems was a major source of disputation in the meat industry, with data collected by the Department of Industrial Relations attributing 25% of disputations between May 1988 and May 1989 to these systems. It also noted that extensive criticisms had been levelled at tally systems, particularly by livestock producers and processors, principally on the basis of:- limitations of plant capacity utilisation;- disincentive to technological development and investment as benefits flow mainly to employees.- adverse effect on end product quality;- limitation on labour productivity;- increased occupational health and safety risks due to emphasis on speed of operations; and- restrictions on workforce multiskilling prospects.It goes on to say:. . . following the recent tripartite overseas mission which examined meat industry operations in a number of other countries, the Commonwealth Government believes that it would be preferable to move away from the tally altogether, and introduce alternative payment systems in the industry, along with a move to permanent rather than daily hire for its employees.What the then Commonwealth government said was right. I am absolutely amazed that the opposition would be moving away from the very sensible approach it took when in government in 1991. I am disappointed that it is doing that, because some of the points that I just mentioned were very relevant, including the limit on labour productivity and increased occupational health and safety risks. I spent numerous hours being stitched up by doctors and I was out of work at a time when the basic wage was about £25 per week. I was trying to live on compensation of £8 a week as a young married man, and I was paying eight guineas a week for a flat.Some people talk about the right to strike, but I am constantly reminded—and indeed I remind myself on a regular basis—of the right of people to work. What about their right to support their families? The Australian Labor Party constantly denies that there is any such thing as compulsory unionism. I was a card-carrying financial member of the Australian Meat Industry Employees Union, and I had to write to my union executive, which was in Victoria at that time, requesting their permission to resign from the union. If I had not done that—if I had moved away from the industry and was still a financial member of the Australian Meat Industry Employees Union—I would have been legally responsible for paying union dues, even though I did not want to be a part of it.I have a great deal of pleasure in standing here today, as a former meatworker with a working-class background, to support the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 . There is no doubt in my mind that, in the meat industry alone, a change to the tally system will create more jobs and, in the long term, will ensure that there is better pay for the people who work to keep the industry together—the men and women who work in the plants at the slaughtering level, at the boning level and at the labouring level. I commend the minister for trying to ensure that men and women not only have a rightful level of remuneration for their labour but also—more importantly in his visionary approach to the subject—have some concern for their health and wellbeing in the latter years of their lives, which the tally system, as it was operated in the meat processing industry, did not allow them to do.I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to say those few words tonight on an issue that I feel very strongly about. As I said, I have been down that path and I am living with the legacy of that type of system. (Time expired)21:49:0010818Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—Unfortunately, I believe that, in the long term, people who are involved in the meat industry and many other industries will be far worse off under the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 than under any previous arrangements. At the outset, I have distinct concerns with the potential outcomes of this bill. Its possible inception leads me to review the famous utterance from Higgins J. when he said that the freedom of contract between an employer and an employee is akin to the freedom of the wolf and the lamb.This bill seeks to accomplish two objectives: it seeks to liberalise the capacity for management to handle industrial disputes and it seeks to establish a regime in which the union movement is marginalised. Members need to think very closely about the bill before the House. It is essentially flawed because it has been designed primarily to fit an ideological position favoured by the current Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and not with regard to the benefit of either the business community or the unemployed. It is deficient on three counts: it lacks fairness for workers and is not a balanced piece of public policy, it delivers a blow to those who believe the government would not try to destroy the standards enjoyed by workers, and it attacks the independence of the industrial relations system and abolishes the Office of the Employment Advocate. Unfortunately, it is an exercise that will affect the lives of thousands.This bill, along with other measures this government is trying to introduce, must also be considered to hit the less well off, the less well skilled and the young. All of these measures serve to remove the bargaining power of workers and undermine wages. The minister has very favourably promoted the bill and, to add insult to injury, has even given it the name `More Jobs, Better Pay'.The minister's speech, however, masks a number of issues that the government needs to understand. The government needs to understand that workers represent much more than cost to the employer; the employee is in fact an investment. The minister needs to understand that simply removing obligations enshrined in Labor's more equitable legislation will not improve the business community's willingness to employ. He needs to understand that we need a willing work force, not a subjugated work force. He needs to understand that, ultimately, investment in the work force will have its own rewards and that that investment is underpinned by the legislative framework of an unbiased and representative agency—the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.In an article by Green and Burgess entitled `The policy program for growth, jobs and the current account', the authors reflect on the current government's performance. They state:The present Coalition Government has put its faith in the alleged self-regulating properties of the market. The result has been a slowdown in real investment and an economy living on increasing debt with declining household savings, coupled with widening disparities between high growth and low growth sectors.Add to this the strategy outlined by this government to deal with industrial relations. The strategy of the government is one of short-sightedness cloaked in a facade of improvement. If passed in its present form, it will bequeath the community three things: an underclass of unprotected and poorly paid workers, a legacy of thousands of workers suffering from employment insecurity, and a failure to address the real issues behind the reasons for business problems—that is, a lack of skills in production, marketing and planning.Let us look at just how the current arrangements for industrial relations stack up. The government uses the arguments that business would be a beneficiary of this legislation—that the business community would spend less time dealing with the arbitration system, and that it would create more employment. Given that there is such a heavy rhetorical emphasis being made on behalf of the small business community it is sobering to reflect that, although the economy has established a reasonable growth platform—due to Labor's policy diligence when in office—employment growth has depended on foreign savings and consumption. In spite of this growth, employment growth is barely one per cent.Secondly, the minister must understand that the majority of Australians are not big wage earners. The average wage is $36,000 while the median wage is less than $30,000. In my electorate of Swan 70 per cent of the working population do not receive the average wage. Thirdly, and most disturbingly, the real issue that the minister should be paying attention to is that Australia's economic development is now firmly locked into a path of new technology and elaborately transformed products. These industries require adaptable, diligent and educated workers, not the underpaid drones this government wants to create.Moreover, what exactly is wrong with the current system of industrial relations? The length of time for settling disputes is generally short. There are well-respected mechanisms in place for disputation and conciliation. By any standard, the level of disputation has fallen over a number of years and labour productivity has also risen. These figures highlight the fact that, contrary to the government's beliefs, our industry is not stricken to paralysis by either high wages or industrial disputation. Other compelling evidence that needs to be considered is in the 1995-96 Industrial Relations Court annual report. This report concluded that only 12 per cent of cases need final arbitration and, interestingly, that:Contrary to some suggestions, people who bring unfair dismissal claims represent a fairly normal cross-section of the work force.I think that, given these sorts of comments and statistics, we need to look further than the rhetoric as to why this government would like to implement this legislation. As an alternative, we advocate policies that will lead to an outcome of improved business operations. We can do this by improving staff productivity and by a commitment to management excellence. This is the future for industry.This bill, however, ignores these issues. The government's strategy is premised on lowering costs and on contracting by stealth. The legislation will allow this degeneration to occur, as the role of the umpire will be stifled. The whole strategy was condemned in a recent publication. In the abstract for an article on employment relations, and speaking about the conservative mantra of reducing employment costs, David Card, writing in the International Labour Review, illustrates an important point:Although the theoretical arguments underlying this consensus are simple and compelling, the empirical evidence is surprisingly limiting.If this bill is passed, it will mean a dramatic impact on the lives of thousands of working people but, importantly, it will also impact on the effective operations of thousands of businesses that have operated and depended on the Industrial Relations Commission speedily resolving issues and establishing an industry recognised framework from which to operate.Let us look at the evidence before us. Inevitably, one draws the conclusion that the coalition's position is unabashedly neoclassical in its analysis. What is particularly disturbing is that we can still pursue these simplistic notions even after years of experience tell us they are bound to fail. They fail simply because they premise all outcomes on a particular assumption: that all transactions are a simple product of the function of price and quantity. This is incorrect. The coalition misses a number of issues in the translation to plausible public policy. The alternative arrangement is that the employee-employer relationship should be one born of trust and mutual profit sharing. It is apparent that any bill instrumental in destroying this cooperative environment will be disastrous to the Australian economy. In the first instance, contrary to the minister's belief, the bill will have a detrimental impact on business and the economy. That is for two reasons: firstly, that unemployment will not be reduced by making employees easier to dismiss or, as we have seen in other legislation, by reducing wage rates; secondly, what we need is a series of policies that create the type of environment for work, by instilling an arbitrator with powers.Let us examine these points in further detail. The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, the member for Flinders, simply believes that if you make it easier to fire an employee you will lift the performance of the firm. I suspect it is also a belief, as it is the mantra of the Right, that if you cut the price of labour, more labour will be hired. He certainly does not want an effective arbiter to stifle his vision of a non-unionised subservient work force. Of course, as some of us realise, the labour market is a more complex beast. A number of factors need to be considered. Among the most important are the level of demand in the economy and the level of market share that a firm can command. It is necessary to think beyond an analysis based on the cost of labour. What we need to consider is the contribution the labour force can make to industry. It is what the employee will bring that will determine the ultimate success or failure of a business. All this, of course, is elementary. This serves to make it even more preposterous to accept blindly the arguments put forward by this minister.This brings me to my second main point. We need a series of policies suitable to solve unemployment, not merely to penalise those on the lowest wages or with the least experience. There is an interesting comparison that needs to be made—that is, however you look at it, the previous Labor administration was very effective in creating employment. In fact, figures suggest that, in the last 26 months of the Labor administration, over 330,000 full-time jobs were created. The Howard government's record after a corresponding period stands at less than 120,000. This is even after the enactment of the Workplace Relations Act.When this nation faced a surge in unemployment, the Labor government instigated novel and effective programs under the Working Nation banner. The aim of these programs was to provide those unfortunate enough to be unemployed with the opportunity to undertake some vocational training. It also meant that special attention could be given to the long-term unemployed. The Working Nation programs did not exist in isolation. The Working Nation plan allowed different programs to supplement each other.I think the minister fails to appreciate concerns regarding the inherent need for business to have the appropriate staff for tasks. There is a central role in this for an industrial commission: setting standards, offering advice to parties and maintaining a predictable outcome for the community. In a globalised economy, we know that the only way we can compete with lower wage econo mies is to use our resources of intelligence and ingenuity. It will be the clever firms that survive. Of course, those clever firms will be sufficiently structured to be able to cope with business in the new millennium, and they will have sufficient capital and good overall management. They will know how to penetrate markets and develop new products. Most importantly, they will know how to recruit the best staff, they will know how to keep staff, and, with forward-looking human resource policies, they will know how to develop people's potential.As further evidence against the general nature of this bill, I quote from a document by Dr John Phillimore of Murdoch University. Dr Phillimore explains:In contrast to the familiar rostrums of neo-classical economics about labour market reform, these may, in the long run be harmful to innovation and economic performance.Dr Phillimore concludes that his analysis is based on three underlying principles:One, that it can lower the rate of labour productivity which in turn can slow income growth and reduce an economies technological capacity.Secondly, reduced wages interfere with the proper workings of restructuring, allowing less efficient firms to compete, which lowers the level of entrepreneurship.Thirdly, lower wages reduce the size of effective demand, which discourages innovation, particularly for small firms.Having outlined these arguments, I feel it is necessary to address another important issue, and that is the welfare of many members of the community. It is inherently unfair to suggest that the least powerful in the economy will still be protected under this legislation. The potential exists in this legislation for extensive abuse. It has the potential to create an even larger pool of casual workers. Unable to secure tenure, they do not qualify for mortgages or loans. This pool will be fighting for employment and be willing to accept declining terms and conditions.Evidence from that paragon of deregulation, the United States, illustrates a point. Earnings for the median worker actually fell 3.1 per cent when they introduced similar policies. Real hourly wages fell for those in the bottom 60 per cent of earnings, and those in long- term employment fell from 41 per cent to 35 per cent over the last decade. It would be nice to pretend that this is not the case—that the minister is just plainly incorrect about his assumptions and the outcomes. I suspect not. We know from evidence in other nations that these sorts of policies have been deliberately manufactured to suppress the rights of workers. Legislation of this sort makes bargaining particularly difficult. It reinforces insecurity and reduces a worker's ability to confront abuse or poor conditions in the workplace.In conclusion, we are given an opportunity to comment—not only on the bill before this House but about a prevailing ideological position. We need to actively consider the impact on both business and workers. In doing so, we will be making a contribution to an analysis of the bigger picture of the economy, industry and unemployment. What I have tried to illustrate is that we should look beyond what appear to be very simple solutions to the problem of unemployment. Industry requires much more than an unfettered right of hire and fire; it needs a good, effective work force. These workers need to be educated, skilled and conscientious. This will not come through this legislation. This legislation is not a progressive concept. It will simply mean that many people will be subject to more punitive action. These workers will not embark on the journey of education and innovation necessary to assist business.If the government were sensible, it would develop different legislation—legislation that would serve the community by instilling better business practices and human resource management. It would do this by supporting an ongoing role for the Industrial Relations Commission. Evidence from the statistics available illustrates that the current arrangements are certainly not prohibitive. There is not an abundance of disputation and, furthermore, the process seems to be well managed.22:06:0010822McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I support the second reading amendment moved by the shadow minister for industrial relations. This Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 is unique in that, probably for the first time in Australia's history, the government has stepped a long way ahead of what employers want. For instance, the Business Council of Australia has said that, in many areas, this bill goes much further than what is required to achieve the government's philosophical objectives—or, more specifically, the personal ambitions of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Underneath all of these proposals, one cannot ignore those personal ambitions; otherwise, there is no logic in what is being proposed. The bill is a fundamental assault on the living standards of ordinary Australians. The terms and conditions of their employment will be undermined, and their livelihoods will be made more insecure.We have had a uniquely Australian system of industrial relations that has existed since the turn of this century. The Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 was one of the first pieces of legislation in our parliament. It arose out of massive industrial unrest in the 1890s when those involved in industry, representing both labour and capital, saw the tremendous devastation, both economic and social, that industrial unrest had. So our constitutional founders said, `Something has to be done about this. Rather than having Australians fighting Australians, let's bring together rationality and calm arguments and establish a tribunal where both sides can come together and put their arguments and they can be determined on their merits.' So for the best part of 100 years we have had a uniquely Australian, rational, calm and considered industrial framework to address the very complex structural changes that have taken place in just about every Western economy as we approach the year 2000. We have been able to have some pride in this uniquely Australian arrangement.There have been very significant productivity gains achieved as a result of that system. Through the 1980s and 1990s there were very significant structural efficiency changes and productivity improvements. Indeed, in a number of national wage cases, it was determined that pay rises could not be obtained until the commission was satisfied that those efficiencies and those structural changes were made. But they were done in a cooperative fashion. Workers had the opportunity to be heard with respect to each instance where their entitlements were being changed. They had the opportunity to put before an impartial umpire their argument as to how it was going to affect them. The umpire—being trained in economics and/or industrial relations—considering the effect that those changes would have in enhancing productivity and enhancing the economic benefit, was able to balance those considerations against the effect on workers' lives and their families.In fact, the member for Mitchell perhaps gave the best endorsement of that system when he referred to a major report of the Productivity Commission which referred to the significant productivity gains in the early 1990s that occurred under this system. The Productivity Commission found that those productivity enhancements which occurred at that time have been a significant factor in underpinning Australia's economic growth. I remind all members of the House that those significant reforms were obtained in an atmosphere of cooperation, consultation and not the confrontation that this government is about.We could be enthusiastic about those results. When this government came to power there was over four per cent economic growth—the fastest growth in any of the OECD nations—which was based on sound productivity improvements. That growth tailed off for a while as a result of the severe budget cuts of this government but is now picking up due to the underlying strength of those productivity improvements that occurred throughout the 1990s. I do not think anyone on the other side would be foolhardy enough to say that that fundamental structural reform necessary to achieve such a high rate of productivity improvement could be achieved in the short duration of their government. It is as a result of at least a decade of hard work on the part of workers and employers and their representatives, both at employer level and at worker level through trade unions.I refer again to the effect of the personal ambitions of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. What he is about is undercutting and undermining the conditions of employment of Australian workers without giving them the opportunity for properly venting their arguments and properly expressing their concerns. In the 1996 Workplace Relations Act, awards were stripped back by legislative prescription to 20 core matters. In that stripping back exercise, hard fought and fundamental conditions were lost, perhaps the most significant of which were the redundancy and retrenchment provisions which came out of the 1984 termination change in redundancy cases before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. Those provisions required employers to consult with their workers before introducing significant technological change that was likely to lead to redundancy and before attempting to redeploy workers or find alternative employment for them. That requirement is fundamental to the security of not only workers but also workers' families, and was stripped by the 1996 amendments. These amendments go even further. The minister is proposing to further strip back awards. Workers are going to lose such things as long service leave. The requirement to receive notice of termination of employment will be removed. The requirement for the keeping of employees' time records will be removed as will relevant superannuation provisions.What is the significance of awards being stripped back? It is very significant because awards constitute the negotiating base for further improvement, whether that be through negotiation of a certified agreement or an Australian workplace agreement. If in the course of negotiations—as inevitably occurs—the employer says to the worker or the worker's representative, `I'm not quite happy with all this. I have discussed matters with other people who are prepared to cop lesser conditions. But if I don't accept your demands what are you going to do about it?' all the employee has to fall back on is awards that have been gutted by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business through legislative prescription. This bill fundamentally undercuts the terms and conditions of Australian workers. Indeed, Australian workers will not even get minimum safety net pay rises unless their awards have been gutted. So, no matter the timetable of the Industrial Relations Commission, unless and until their awards are gutted, they will not even be considered for a pay rise.With the passing of this legislation, employees will be working in an environment where they will not be able to achieve their additional benefits through the process previously available to them of presenting their arguments to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. Instead, they will be obliged to confront their employers to negotiate, either through representatives or individually, to improve themselves. After the 1996 act, workers had one arm tied behind their back. If this bill goes forward, they will be forced to negotiate with both arms tied behind their back.In theory, yes, it is recognised that workers can negotiate, but the reality is otherwise. One recalls that, under the former government's provisions, all workplace negotiation was carried out in an atmosphere where the commission had a specific power in the legislation to compel the parties to negotiate in good faith: to properly exchange information, not to undermine the negotiating position of the other side, not to withdraw from offers that had been put and, of course, to genuinely attempt to reach an agreement. Indeed, most other Western countries have similar provisions in their industrial relations framework.But that has gone, the ability for the commission to direct parties to negotiate in good faith has gone, and we have been left with the law of the jungle. Workers will face almost insurmountable hurdles in achieving an improvement in their conditions. If changes are proposed to work practices, perhaps through technological change, or there is the prospect of dismissal or retrenchment and the workers want to stop work and meet for half an hour, 15 minutes or whatever to consider what is going on, section 187AA of the proposed act provides that they will be docked—and not just the 15 minutes, half an hour or hour of the duration of the meeting, but the employer will be committing an offence if it does not deduct the entirety of the worker's pay.So Peter Reith, irrespective of the competing merits of the reason for that stoppage, is intervening in each and every instance and saying, `Hit these workers, kick into them for the full day's pay, irrespective of the length of the stoppage.' That is quite clearly contrary to principles in many cases which say that an employer or a party to a dispute cannot itself determine the damage arising from a short-term stoppage. But this minister is arrogant enough to step in and impose penalties for not doing precisely that.So, with it being as difficult as it will be to consider changes in the workplace, what happens then? The minister will say, `But there's a right to take industrial action, there's a right to strike. All you have to do is go through a ballot, give notice of what you are intending to do and, if your members agree, you then can take industrial action.' But many commentators have analysed these provisions. They have been found to be bureaucratic and, quite frankly, they are a nightmare. They involve ritualistic incantations more than any rational procedure. At best, it will take a month to get these procedures in order, more likely six weeks. Even then they will be open to many technical challenges on the way, as we have seen with many ballots in this area or in respect of other organisations.The reality is that the secret ballot provisions will have a nullifying effect and make industrial action all bar irrelevant; they will make all industrial action virtually illegal. If it is not illegal, workers will be locked in, a month away from the dispute, to the course of action they propose. They will not be able to consider any compromises and they will not be able to revise what they plan because, if they do, they will have to go back to the drawing board and start the month-long process once again.But looking at the concept of protected action, which again has very many technical requirements to it in the context of this bureaucratic procedure about secret ballots, we can see many other draconian provisions. Amendments proposed to section 127 of the act, which enables the commission to make `no strike' orders, also show a much greater tightening of the law against the interests of workers and their right to take action to pursue or protect the terms and conditions of their employment. The amendments mean that, if the case cannot be heard and determined within 48 hours, the commission then is required to make orders, unless the workers can discharge an onus of proof that it will cause any undue prejudice to them. That reversal of the onus of proof significantly changes what applies in just about any area of the law where the applicant seeking an order must prove their case.In addition, the commission will not be able to consider the merits of the case as it has done in numerous cases, such as Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v. AMWU. There, clearly what the employer was doing was considered to be provocative. Indeed, proposed section 127(1A) of the act will require the commission to outlaw an industrial stoppage if one has occurred in the previous three months and it is `reasonably possible'—as stated in the proposed legislation—that further unprotected action will occur. So the commission is required to make these orders, even though it does not know the nature of the proposed action, if action is contemplated. So the framing of an order will be in a virtual vacuum. This is quite contrary to accepted law where, if a court is making any order which exposes an individual or an organisation to a penalty, and if they are in contempt of that order, the order has to be precisely framed and directed and targeted at specific conduct. In addition, because of the minister's contempt for the Federal Court after it hit him over the head on a number of occasions—most notably in the waterfront dispute last year, even though the High Court endorsed the decision of the Federal Court of Australia—it is this minister's intent to discredit the Federal Court by proposing that these orders now be extended to state supreme courts. But both the Supreme Court and the Federal Court in applying this legislation will be required to impose these no strike orders regardless of considerations of balance of convenience. Indeed, they will be required to make interim orders if they are unable to resolve the matters promptly. The whole emphasis of these no strike orders is left very much at the hands of the employer, irrespective of the number of instances where the court has found that the employer has been responsible for the disruption occurring.There are many areas that this legislation seeks to further undermine. Even if all these procedures are gone through and by some miracle a reasonable certified agreement is achieved, as a result of proposed section 170MX, it can be undermined by the employers picking off individual workers and entering into individual agreements to specifically exclude the operation of those certified agreements. If a worker is concerned that their conditions of employment are being undermined because other employees are being employed at lesser rates of pay—making it more likely that, if they do not compromise, they will be the first on the unemployment queue—and they wish to call in their union, they will first have to face the reality of sticking their head on the chopping block. A union will not be able to come into a workplace unless they receive a specific invitation from one of their members and, even then, the union will not be able to inspect any document other than a document relating to one of their union members.There are many other draconian measures in this bill. For instance, there will now be a requirement that employers not allow their workplaces to become, as the legislation defines, closed shops. Is that 100 per cent union membership? No, it is just over half at 60 per cent. So employers have a positive obligation not to allow their workplaces to have more than 60 per cent union membership. Indeed, to achieve that, they are allowed to victimise their workers with impunity for their union membership.There are many other areas which cause alarm and concern such as the right of independent contractors to seek a review of unfair and unconscionable contracts will be removed, the right of workers to seek redress for unfair dismissal will be further watered down and the automatic flow-on of terms and conditions of employment in the event of transmission of business will now be removed. This legislation is—as a result of one man's personal ambitions—an unprecedented assault on the terms and conditions of employment of ordinary Australian workers and their families. (Time expired)22:26:0010826Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—I am pleased that I have finally been given the opportunity to speak against the legislation and I will be doubly pleased to be able to continue my contribution on this debate tomorrow. However, in the short time available to me tonight, I am pleased to speak against this bill. I refuse to name it by the title the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has given to it because that title is grossly misleading. This is a piece of legislation which continues this minister's systematic attack on workers, on workers' rights and on trade unions. There is nothing in this legislation which remotely resembles anything close to providing more jobs or better pay.Possible future legislation containing this particular title could include bills providing more funding to our tertiary institutions so that more Australians can further their education, or providing more funds to research and development, or reintroducing and enhancing employment and training schemes for the unemployed, or encouraging our young people to have hope and enabling their development, or investing in high-tech clever industries, or encouraging local industry development and enhancement of local regional infrastructures, and having a fair and equitable tax system which does not include a GST. This bill says nothing about any of these things.It mentions nothing about investing in our children, investing in technology or investing in our regions—these are the things which would help create more jobs and better pay. The bill mentions nothing about how a systematic stripping of awards will create more jobs or better pay, nothing about how downgrading the role of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to its eventual elimination will create more jobs or better pay, nothing about making it too hard for workers to be represented by the union of their choice or how having the freedom of association will create more jobs or better pay. In fact, there is not one aspect of this piece of legislation which is reflected in that title at all.The bill in its current form was introduced into the parliament prior to the winter recess. The minister delivered his second reading speech on 30 June 1999. Since the winter recess we have seen the debate on this bill pushed further and further down the government's program. The parliament had sat for a whole three weeks before the shadow minister was able to participate in this debate, which was over two months since the minister's second reading speech.I may be a little cynical but I think it is appropriate to reflect on a couple of parliamentary events which occurred around those two dates: first, just prior to the minister's introduction of the bill, we all saw and the electorate saw the government secure the passage of the GST with the assistance of the Democrats in the Senate; second, the government agreed to the changes put forward by the Democrats in relation to the question for the referendum on the Republic; third, with the assistance of the Australian Democrats, the Prime Minister agreed to changes in the proposed preamble question—after seemingly extensive and comprehensive consultation with the community, the Prime Minister sat down with the Democrats and reworded the final draft.The fourth event relates to the Prime Minister's so-called apology—or should I say statement of regret—for past injustices and atrocities inflicted on Aboriginal people by past governments. Again, who was the main broker in this deal? The Australian Democrats. As I said, I may be cynical to think or to suggest that these deals were sweeteners. They were deals to sweeten up the next bitter pill that the Democrats would be asked to swallow; that is, allowing the unfettered and swift passage of this anti-worker and anti-union legislation through the Senate.Debate interrupted.Adjournment1082610000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn. 1082722:30:0010827Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—I have never claimed to be an expert on sport, but I do take notice when something is threatening the heritage that my constituents hold dear. The move to reduce the number of teams in the Rugby League is such a threat. Souths have a long, proud tradition in a community that supports them wholeheartedly. I, for one, do not want to see that tradition end. Souths are a working class team representing a working class area and they have been for almost a century. Their name, the Rabbitohs, comes from having two players in their early years who supported themselves by selling rabbits door to door, in the days when rabbit meat was pretty much the only meat that working class families could afford. So Souths boys are tough. There is a saying about Souths footballers that they would play footie with a house brick in the middle of the road if they had to.The area that I represent is an area which has changed a lot, but the working class parts of the electorate hold their traditions very dear. Their support for the Souths Rugby League team is one of those traditions. At the moment, there is a group called the Number 14 Group which includes a number of high profile people defending the Souths Rugby League team. They are organising a `reclaim the game' rally on 10 October at 11 a.m. However, more important are the tens of thousands of ordinary fans who support this team. More important are the kids involved in Souths Juniors, which has 160 teams competing, starting with under-6s. Whole families support this club.Albert Clift is an example of such a person. He was interviewed in a recent Australian Story episode. Albert is 95 years old and he joined the club on 15 June 1922. Albert said:What upsets me is the Rugby League was for the working class people and now they're trying to put these teams out of the competition for the silver tails.Volunteer Eileen McLoughlin also appeared on Australian Story . She said:I've been a Souths supporter since I was a little girl. I'm red and green. I'm one eyed. And I blame Mr Murdoch for all of this. I'll never buy his paper again—and I'll never take Foxtel.These are just two examples of the type of supporter that is a diehard Souths supporter.Because they are a team connected to their community, they take their responsibilities to the community seriously. They provide an inspiration for local kids—and it is not always easy being a kid growing up in the inner city. There is not a lot of space to play. These young people face the same problems that young people throughout the country face—unemployment, disillusion and so on. Souths play a very important role in visiting local schools. They also visit Long Bay jail and boys detention centres, where they provide inspiration to the inmates. Souths is a club with a history. It has a very strong local following. I think it is important to remember this and remember the true values of the sport rather than just focusing on the dollar.In the minute that remains to me, I would also like to mention another issue that is very important in my electorate at the moment. McDonald's is proposing to build a restaurant in Moore Park. This proposal has been opposed not just by residents and the local council but by residents throughout Sydney. Moore Park is a historic park. It is the home of Federation. There is a proposal at the moment to refurbish the Grand Drive. In fact, $11 million has been granted from the Centenary of Federation Grants Scheme to refurbish the Grand Drive in preparation for the Centenary of Federation, and also in preparation for the Olympic Games, given that the proposed marathon and cycling routes will extend down the Grand Drive. What sort of message are we sending to the world if the images that are flashed out which should be the quintessential images of Sydney are instead the golden arches? I do not know if that is the sort of image that I want to have beamed around the world as quintessentially Australian.1082722:35:0010827Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I am pleased to follow on after the words from the member for Sydney, because I rise tonight to express my concerns about media reports that the National Rugby League have confirmed that foundation Rugby League clubs South Sydney and North Sydney will not qualify for next year's 14-team premiership. If these reports are true, this will further alienate thousands of traditional rugby league supporters—the men, women and children who have supported these two Rugby League clubs for many years. The real tragedy of this decision—if it is to be confirmed—is that the general public, the people who support rugby league, have had no say in the decisions. The decisions have been taken by the faceless men of the NRL board, with no input from the rugby league supporting public.Most honourable members would be aware of the much publicised move by North Sydney to my electorate on the Central Coast of New South Wales, a decision that was supported and encouraged by the NRL, a decision that was difficult for the North Sydney club to take, but a decision that was warmly welcomed by the thousands of rugby league fans on the Central Coast. This decision was meant to be the rebirth of the North Sydney Bears. It was a decision that was influenced greatly by the building of the Grahame Park Multipurpose Stadium, a magnificent facility which will provide seating for up to 30,000 people, which is almost complete and will be in use before the end of this year and which I am proud to say was only made a reality by the provision of $12 million from the Howard government with a matching grant of $12 million provided by the New South Wales government—a huge amount of funding for a sporting facility in anybody's language.There were many months of hard negotiations with the federal government and cabinet to ensure that the $12 million was allocated to Grahame Park. There is obviously a great deal of competition and need throughout Australia for the provision of sporting facilities, and Grahame Park was only one of a number of many outstanding applications. I know that one of the deciding factors in allocating the money to Grahame Park was that it would enable the North Sydney Bears to relocate to the Central Coast, to give the Central Coast its own identity—its own rugby league team in the Sydney competition. If the NRL are now going to walk away from this magnificent facility, it will be not only a tragedy for the Central Coast but a slap in the face for the faith of both the federal and New South Wales governments in Rugby League in New South Wales. One would think that it would be a very long time before either the federal government or any state government would consider contributing that sort of money again to a facility to be used for rugby league.If the NRL does proceed with the scrapping of South Sydney and North Sydney, it will alienate hundreds of thousands of people. I know in my own area of the Central Coast there is a population of 300,000, a population that was looking forward to having a first grade rugby league team. Hopefully that will still happen in the form of the North Sydney Bears or, at the very least, an amalgamated team of North Sydney and Manly.There is one last opportunity for rugby league supporters from both Souths and Norths to show their anger and their frustration at the possible decision that has been taken by the NRL. A march will start at 9.30 on Sunday, 10 October at Redfern Oval and there will be a rally taking place at the Sydney Town Hall at 11 a.m. Also on that Sunday I understand that the rally will proceed through the city of Sydney. This will be the last opportunity that South Sydney and North Sydney rugby league fans will have to show their support for their clubs and to show the NRL that what rugby league is all about is people, not corporate boards and not making huge profits out of rugby league.If the NRL does not play first grade rugby league at Grahame Park, Grahame Park will still be a magnificent attribute to the city of Gosford. I know there are many other sports that are very keen to adopt Grahame Park. I understand that first grade soccer clubs are looking at Grahame Park. I know that baseball will be played at Grahame Park. Cultural events will also be held there. I understand that the Sydney Symphony Orchestra will be playing there. The very first event at Grahame Park will be the annual carols by candlelight festivities in December. Also, next year the Pacific island nations rugby union tournament will be played at Grahame Park. So whether or not the NRL games are played there, Grahame Park stadium will be a great success and will be a great asset to the city of Gosford. I am proud to have been able to play my part in making it a reality. It would be sad if one of the few ovals which meets the NRL requirements and standards was rejected by the National Rugby League. Certainly the people of the Central Coast will not forgive the NRL if in fact this is the case.1082922:40:0010829Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—In this place we have debated the protection of workers' entitlements many times. Tonight I provide another example of just how necessary it is to legislate on this issue. There is a meat supplier in my electorate, Parrish Meat Supplies, at Yallah, which has been placed in receivership, with over 100 people losing their jobs. A report in the Illawarra Mercury on 18 August said:. . . it was hopeful the closure would not create another `Oakdale' and that employees would receive all of their entitlements.Members will recall that the closure of Oakdale involved the loss of entitlements worth $6.3 million to 125 workers and that, after significant public pressure and an unnecessary coal strike, which the government provoked, legislation was rushed into this place to ensure the full payment of all entitlements. At Yallah today over 100 workers with families are owed their just entitlements. When companies are placed in receivership, workers are left to wonder just where their next payment will come from to pay the mortgage, pay for the food on the table, pay for the clothes, pay for the power, pay for the water and pay the local council rates.This morning four of the workers owed money by Parrish Meat Supplies came into my electorate office. They came to brief me on the situation in regard to the negotiations to come up with enough of a bottom line for the company to meet its legal obligation. Here is a summary of the offer that is being put to these workers by the receiver. There are three options being put to the workers. The first option involves the payment of superannua tion under the liquidation scenario. This proposal would ensure the payment of $78,828 in superannuation obligations, and that is it. In the second offer, the annual leave and long service leave entitlements are put in, but not the superannuation obligation. Under this scenario, in liquidation the workers would receive just six cents in every dollar, which is the worst-case scenario. That would realise a miserly $21,172. Under the proposed deed arrangement, the annual leave and long service leave entitlements would be fully funded to 100 cents in every dollar, realising about $330,914. Option 3 includes a third-party ordinary unsecured claims estimate of $1 million, and an estimated redundancy claim of $265,163, an employee breach of contract claim of $123,649 and superannuation obligations of $78,828. This option pays out the full entitlements to the Yallah Parrish Meat Supplies workers, an amount of just over $1.4 million.The Parrish Meat Supplies workers will be forced to accept option 2, ensuring the payout of their long service leave and annual leave, but they will lose out on their superannuation and any redundancy package they are entitled to receive. These situations are becoming more commonplace every day, and we sit here releasing discussion papers and involving ourselves in endless consultation. It is even more delinquent when the contributions of workers go missing. Why and how will be questions the Australian Taxation Office must now answer following its investigations.As in the case of Oakdale, the Parrish Meat Supplies workers deserve the full payment of their legal entitlements, but the success of this campaign must also be provided by leadership from the union, in this case the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union. I know its officials have been involved in negotiations with Parrish Meat Supplies, and they have my total support, but they and other unions—as well as I—need to put incredible pressure on Parrish Meat Supplies to meet their obligations to their workers to the full cent.The option that these workers are being asked to accept is not good enough. They deserve every last cent of their legal entitlements. We in this parliament must stop talking and start acting to protect workers' entitlements. It is bad enough that workers are losing their jobs because of insolvency; it is totally unacceptable that they lose money legally theirs too.Today, following my meeting with these workers, I have requested that the Australian Taxation Office in Wollongong investigate the whereabouts of employee contributions to their superannuation. I am advised that Parrish Meat Supplies have not paid their legal superannuation obligations to their employees since at least January. But, worse than this, employees' own superannuation contributions appear to have gone absent without leave. Superannuation obligations are to help prepare workers for their retirement. It is something we encouraged when we were in office and it is a practice that continues to this day. It is unacceptable that any employer denies these obligations when there is a clear legal duty to provide such payments to their workers. I will continue to fight to make sure that the workers at Parrish Meat Supplies get their just entitlements. We must put a stop to this nonsense that is happening far too often, requiring us to come in here and make speeches such as this. (Time expired)1083022:45:0010830Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—It is not generally my practice to target individuals rather than the issue, or to look at the person rather than the policy. However, like the old feminist slogan `the personal is the political', there are occasions when the persona is so much a part of the political craft that one cannot be examined without the other. Tonight I refer to the honourable member for Dickson, the opposition spokesperson on transport and regional services. Yesterday she gave what turned out to be a truly remarkable media conference. Undeniably, the announced subject—safety issues in the long-distance trucking industry—was, and is, of critical importance.Surveying the outcome today, Labor Party strategists must be reflecting that there is an awful irony about a media conference about road safety that turned out to be the public relations equivalent of a multiple heavy vehicle wreck. Instead of the media conference selling what should have been a positive message and a policy initiative, it turned out to be a self-justification as to why one could not spend more time in one's electorate, why one could not spend more time in regional and rural areas, and why one could not spend more time developing relevant policy.Media coverage today ranged from `Kernot profile suffers from her heavy load' in the Sydney Morning Herald to `Ticking off for busy Kernot' in the Daily Telegraph and to `Kernot told to quit frontbench' in the Courier-Mail, her home town newspaper. All of this could be written off as simply media hype, except for comment which does bear further examination. In response to one question, the honourable member said:I think we don't need to have another bush summit—apparently the Labor Party does not want to have another bush summit—we don't need to have regional forums going around the country listening, and listening, and listening as substitute for action, like the Coalition's doing. We're actually working on delivering things and the policy detail of delivering things, which I'm enjoying.That bears some examination. On 26 February last, the honourable member issued a media statement calling on the government to bring forward its rural summit, which is scheduled for next month. That statement was issued after the release of the Bush Talks report by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the honourable member stated quite firmly that the rural summit should be brought forward. Yesterday she said that we did not need a summit. This raises the question of why the honourable member would want a summit to be moved forward and then want to cancel it at the end of September. I am sure that rural and regional people, whose representatives are preparing for it, would be interested to know what event, or events, in the past seven months has rendered the rural summit from an urgent and overdue priority to a complete waste of time, presumably, in the Labor Party's eyes.Perhaps this utter disdain for the very idea of listening to rural and regional people is the real reason the honourable member has been so conspicuously inconspicuous in the areas which demand attention in her portfolio. Or maybe the Labor Party has suddenly realised that it has been the coalition that has been delivering. I would like to think that the Labor Party has realised that it is the government's programs and policies that are so effective, so on the mark and so popular in rural and regional areas that we do not need to listen any more. It is certainly a nice compliment but it is simply not so. We have a long way to go to make up for the appalling legacy of neglect that we inherited from Labor in 1996. But a willingness to listen puts us in sharp contrast to those on the other side of the House.I, for one, will never let rural and regional people forget that the opposition spokesperson for transport and regional services believes that talking with them is a waste of time. We in the government believe that rural and regional Australians need to be heard; they need to be consulted. We look forward to the rural summit which is coming up in November as a great opportunity to further ensure, as the Deputy Prime Minister has said, that services are delivered in rural and regional areas, that there is a future for young people in rural and regional areas and, furthermore, that we are able to put new industries into rural and regional areas. I am disappointed that the opposition believes that it is not even worth listening to those who live outside our metropolitan cities. Such an attitude in opposition is merely alarming; in government it would be catastrophic.1083122:49:0010831Gerick, Jane, MPMs GERICK83WCanningALP00—I hope that the member for Dawson informed the member for Dickson that she was about to make those comments. This Sunday, 3 October, marks the first anniversary of a number of members entering federal parliament for the first time. Tonight I would like to take the opportunity to thank my family, friends, volunteers and the many wonderful volunteer groups in Canning who have made my first year so pleasurable. It has been a year in which I have met many wonderful volunteers and seen how they have worked to overcome the lack of resources by the federal government, particularly in the rural segments of my electorate.The first group that I would like to mention are the volunteers who work on the boards of senior age places in Canning. There are three main centres: Bedingfeld Park in Pinjarra, Amaroo in Gosnells and Dale Cottages in Armadale. Each of these boards works tirelessly to raise money to improve the conditions of their residents. But what we really need is more money for nursing home beds. It hurts every time I go to an aged care facility, particularly in Pinjarra, and hear of residents who are having to face the horrible decision to move away from the place where they have spent their entire lives. This needs addressing. It does not need listening; it just needs action.In the city area, there are two groups who do superb work. The first is the Armadale home help group. They help senior citizens who want to spend longer in their own homes. They provide help in catering, gardening and taking people shopping if they need it. Again, they are volunteers and they are constantly under pressure for extra funding. Last week a number of us had the opportunity to see the older women's network perform at Parliament House. I was extremely proud of the performance put on by the Perth group and, in particular, the number of women from Gosnells in my electorate. These women sang wonderful songs that pointed out the failings of a GST, privatisation and lack of transport. Again, more action is needed. As I move around the electorate, I meet many councillors who work very hard and are dedicated to making our area a better place to live. They are to be commended for all the work they do.Another area where we have a number of problems is with young people. There are two groups, Armadale Youth Resources and Emergency Accommodation in Armadale, whose staff work so hard and long to help young people get their lives back on track. This area is one where we need to be putting resources into helping young people find work. They need to be encouraged and they need to be provided with the training that is going to lead to employment.Recently I attended the small business awards in Canning. This group encourages business people to further improve their efficiency. I was pleased to see a number of young people embarking on the adventure of business, something I did in my own youth. It is a wonderful way to learn. It is, of course, a difficult life and one that is not going to be made any easier with the burden of a GST and the proposed changes to the collection of taxation. This is going to put huge pressure on cash flow and demonstrates that the government does not really understand small business. We should be putting more work into this, because obviously small business is where employment is to be found.One of the groups I have met is Kincare. They are families with children with disabilities. They provide support for each other. Again, they need additional funding. I am looking forward later in the year to being adopted by a family with three children, two of whom have disabilities, to help me better represent that group in my electorate.Finally, I am sure it is a joy for all of us to visit schools in our electorate, to see young children growing up with wonderful standards, enthusiasm and skills. I am going to have fond memories of the Yale Primary School, where they did a rousing rendition of She'll Be Coming Round the Mountain, complete with actions, for a long time to come.I thank each one in my electorate for making my first year so good. I note with sorrow that two volunteers, Mr John Wright and Mr Dick Keegan, will not be available for future work. Sadly, they passed away recently. I extend my sympathies to their families. I look forward to working in Canning for a long time to come.1083222:54:0010832Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—Tonight I wish to comment briefly on the position with the reform of the petrol industry, the fuel industry, in Australia. I refer to it as the hydra-headed monster. It is made up of a number of very strong, powerful vested interests, all entitled to push their interests, as they have done. It is a body made up of major oil refineries, which also distribute fuel through wholesalers, generally owned or controlled by them, and retailers, generally controlled by major oil companies, some of them operated by small businesses. Those small businesses might in very rare cases own their own property and operate the business themselves under some contract with the major oil companies. In many cases also you will find that small businesses have actually leased their freehold to the oil companies and the oil companies then sublease the premises back to the owner of the freehold or an associated family entity. The small business carries on the business on their own property under an arrangement where the major oil company has become their landlord. Is it any wonder that the price of fuel in Australia, particularly in the bush, is subjected to some rather extraordinary mechanisms?The Howard government has had the courage—I might say it is the first federal government for 30 years to do so—to set out a plan to reform the fuel industry, the hydra-headed monster, and to try and provide some more equity, particularly for the motorists, the consumers, the forgotten people in this equation, living in regional Australia. The problem in Australia is that the fuel distribution system provides huge inequities to people living in rural Australia, and the gap in retail fuel prices between regional Australia and metropolitan Australia is extraordinarily large. In fact, it is not unusual to see the price of fuel sold by one of the major oil companies in regional Australia being 12c, 14c and 15c a litre higher than the price of fuel sold by that same major oil company in metropolitan Sydney or Melbourne. It is coming from the same refinery and is conveyed at the cost of 1c or 1½c maximum per litre in cartage, yet the price is so different, the gulf is so large.The government has set about a plan to try and provide more justice and equity in the system and to provide more competition. Sadly, despite the government's efforts, which we will continue to pursue, the vested interests have failed to reach agreement amongst themselves as to how the fuel industry should be reformed. For literally two years now the vested interests have attempted to reach agreement on a code of conduct which would provide justice and equity between all the various players in the oil distribution system in Australia and provide a fairer deal to consumers. Those negotiations have broken down, and as a result of that Senator Minchin, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, has announced that the government's proposals to proceed with the repeal of other legislation involved with the reform of the fuel industry cannot now proceed. In fact, the Senate will not pass it; the repeal cannot be passed.This is very sad, because the Howard government has had the full support of the motoring organisations in Australia, the RACV and the NRMA. The reforms announced by the Howard government in 1996, which we still stand by, were fully supported by the motoring organisations as a breakthrough. The fact is that at this moment as I speak the reform that is so desperately needed in Australia is held up because the Senate has decided to support the vested interests, to endorse their lack of cooperation and to actually condone their lack of cooperation and to say to the government, `Despite the fact that we know the reforms are needed, we are not going to let you pass those reforms, knowing full well that the vested interests in the fuel industry have all agreed to disagree.' As a result of that, the Democrats and the Labor Party in the Senate have appeared to put the government in hold position. (Time expired)1083322:59:0010833Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—The member for Dawson, instead of attacking the member for Dickson, should be concentrating on her own party's inadequacies. Her party has been rejected in the Queensland election, in the New South Wales election and recently in the Victorian election. Regional Australia say that the National Party are not delivering.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted.House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices10833The following notices were given:Mr Laurie Ferguson to move:That the House:(1) welcomes the UN-OAU progress in the organisation of a free and fair referendum in Western Sahara, to enable its people to exercise their right to self-determination;(2) calls upon Morocco to fully cooperate with the UN-OAU and abide by the agreements and UN resolutions setting the referendum date for 31 July 2000;(3) urges the Government to extend all its assistance to the UN mission for Western Sahara (MINURSO); and(3) establish official contacts with the Sahrawi Independence movement the Polisario.Answers to Questions in Writing10834The following answers to questions were circulated:10834(Question No. 661)66110834Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 1 June 1999:(1) Has the Minister or a department or agency administered by the Minister provided grants to the National Farmers' Federation (NFF) or bodies related to the NFF since 2 March 1996; if so, (a) in each case, (i) what was the nature of the grant and (ii) for what purpose was it provided and (b) what total sum was provided.(2) To what boards, committees or other bodies for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility have (a) Mr Donald McGauchie (b) Dr Wendy Craik or (c) other officers or staff of the NFF been appointed since 2 March 1996.(3) What sums has the Commonwealth paid in (a) sitting fees, (b) board fees, (c) travel costs and (d) related expenses with respect to each appointment referred to in part (2).10834Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:1.(a) each case(i) nature of the grant(ii) purpose it was provided for(b) total sum providedPayments made by the Australian Wheat Board to the Grains Council of Australia (a commodity council of the National Farmers' Federation (NFF))Under the consultation provisions of the Wheat Marketing Act 1989$997,704Payments made by the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) to the Grains Council of Australia (GCA) (a commodity council of the National Farmers' Federation (NFF))Under the consultation provisions of the Primary Industries and Energy Research and Development Act 1989$444,727 (1995/96—1998/99)Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) provided funding for a number of projects conducted by the Grains Council of Australia (GCA) (a commodity council of the National Farmers' Federation (NFF))Implementation of Grains Industry Strategic Planning Research$120,000 (1/7/1995-30/6/1999)Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) provided funding for a number of projects conducted by the Grains Council of Australia (GCA) (a commodity council of the National Farmers' Federation (NFF))International Federation of Agricultural Producers (IFAP) Conferences, International Grains Council and visit to the International Rice Research Institute$16,491 (1/7/1995-30/6/1999)Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) provided funding for a number of projects conducted by the Grains Council of Australia (GCA) (a commodity council of the National Farmers' Federation (NFF))On-farm Quality Assurance System for Australian Growers$149,800 (1/7/1995-30/6/1999)Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) provided funding for a number of projects conducted by the Grains Council of Australia (GCA) (a commodity council of the National Farmers' Federation (NFF))Grains Week `99 Major Decisions and Conference Proceedings Book$10,300 (1/7/1995-30/6/1999)Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) provided funding for a number of projects conducted by the Grains Council of Australia (GCA) (a commodity council of the National Farmers' Federation (NFF))Joint Grains Industry Submission to the NRA Review of Chemicals$5,000 (1/7/1995-30/6/1999)Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) provided funding for projects conducted by the Queensland Graingrowers Association(which is a State affiliate of the Grains Council of Australia (GCA), a commodity council of the National Farmers' Federation (NFF))Communication Facilitator—Northern region$28,004 (1/7/1995-30/6/1999)Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) provided funding for projects conducted by the Queensland Graingrowers Association (which is a State affiliate of the Grains Council of Australia (GCA), a commodity council of the National Farmers' Federation (NFF))Queensland Grain Expo$15,000 (1/7/1995-30/6/1999)Cotton Research and Development Corporation to Cotton Australia (a commodity council of the National Farmers' Federation (NFF))A one-off grant to facilitate the employment of a `Best Management Practice' Co-ordinator for the Australian cotton industry$23,222National Landcare Project/ Natural Heritage Trust payment to New South Wales Farmers AssociationDelivering Nature conservation and Resource Management Options$64,950National Landcare Project/ Natural Heritage Trust payment to Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) Landcare Unit/Policy SectionCooperative Landcare Projects on a Catchment Basis$21,597National Landcare Project/ Natural Heritage Trust payment to Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) Corangamite Salinity Implementation GroupLocal Link People for the Corangamite Salinity Region$30,000National Landcare Project/ Natural Heritage Trust payment to Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) Corangamite Salinity Implementation GroupRural—Urban Community Coordinators$89,320National Landcare Project/ Natural Heritage Trust payment to Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF)VFF Landcare Industry$85,000National Landcare Project/ Natural Heritage Trust payment to Murrayville Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) Landcare GroupControlling Land Degradation in the Murrayville Region$20,600National Landcare Project/ Natural Heritage Trust payment to Murrayville Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) Landcare GroupCoordination and Promotion of Landcare in the Murrayville District$12,000National Landcare Project/ Natural Heritage Trust payment to Murrayville Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) Landcare GroupMonitoring the Effects of Irrigation in the Duddo$6,190National Landcare Project/ Natural Heritage Trust payment to Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) Victorian Catchment and Land Protection CouncilLandcare Exchange Program$46,000National Landcare Project/ Natural Heritage Trust payment to Queensland Farmers FederationDeveloping Good Farm Management Guidelines$37,691National Landcare Project/ Natural Heritage Trust payment to United Graziers Association of Queensland (UGA)UGA Property Management and Planning (PMP) Project Officer$174,375National Landcare Project/ Natural Heritage Trust payment to State PMP Coordination Committee—Cattlemen's UnionPMP Cattlemen's Union—Future Profit$126,642National Landcare Project/ Natural Heritage Trust payment to Clermont Branch—Cattlemen's Union Landcare CommitteeLocal Pasture Awareness in the Clermont Area$1,430National Landcare Project/ Natural Heritage Trust payment to Queensland Grain Growers' Association (QGGA)PMP—QGGA Marketing Officer$115,350National Landcare Project/ Natural Heritage Trust payment to Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association (TFGA)TFGA Landcare Officer$83,932National Landcare Project/ Natural Heritage Trust payment to Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers AssociationTFGA Environmental Program$99,025National Landcare Project/ Natural Heritage Trust payment to Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers AssociationTFGA Landcare Awareness Officer$95,372Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) to NFFTo support travel by Mr Lyall Howard to attend WTO High Level Meetings on Trade and Environment, and Trade and Development, Geneva, March 1999. $4,210Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) to NFFA Prefeasibility Investigation of Biotechnology Commercialisation for Agriculture and Veterinary Chemicals$2,242Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) to Farmwide Pty Ltd (a NFF related body)Assessment of the demand for online services in rural AustraliaAssessment of the capacity of the existing infrastructure to meet the demand for online services in rural and regional Australia$92,080Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) to Farmwide Pty Ltd (a NFF related body)A guide to the Internet for farmersCoordinator of Australian Rural OnLine services$141,705Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) to Farmwide Pty Ltd (a NFF related body)The Australian Farmer's Guide to the Internet updates and web site$24,000Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) to Farmwide Pty Ltd (a NFF related body)The Australian Farmers Guide to the Internet—Second Edition$45,000Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) to NFFCommunications in Regional Australia Conference 8-9 July 1998$10,000Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) to NFF11th International Farm Management Congress—Julie Austin$3,125Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) to NFFFor consultation prior to implementation of its current Five Year Plan which commenced on 1 July 1997 (as required under Section 24 Primary Industries and Energy Research and Development Act 1989).around $2,000 and covered the direct travel costs for three NFF representativesWool International (WI) paid money to Wool Council of Australia (WCA) in accordance with section 11 of the Wool International Act 1993To cover the costs incurred by WCA in engaging in consultations with WI on industry issues$38,185 in May 1996 $82,034 (96/97)$48,000 (97/98)Australian Wool Research and Promotion Organisation (AWRAP) paid money to Wool Council of Australia (WCA) in accordance with section 72 of the Australian Wool Research and Promotion Organisation Act 1993To cover the costs incurred by WCA in engaging in consultations with AWRAP on industry issuesCalender year 1996 $246,104Calender year 1997 $256,739Calender year 1998 $250,986Calender year 1999 $ 77,886 (as at 30.6.99)Under the National Component of the FarmBis Program, NSW Farmers' Association was provided a grant towards the Farmers Toward 2020 forum held on 8-10 September 1998.The Farmers Towards 2020 forum aimed to bring together a diverse cross section of younger agricultural members to discuss key challenges facing agriculture in the future with the aim of encouraging the development of leaders in the agricultural sector.$40,000Under the National Component of the FarmBis Program, NSW Farmers' Association was provided a grant towards costs associated with the NSW Drought TASK (Training and skills) project in August 1997The NSW Drought TASK project was a pilot project trialing a more effective training and education scheme for the rural sector with a particular focus on delivery of training in drought affected areas.$232,000The Victorian Farmers' Federation (VFF) Disaster Relief Fund was provided a grant on 22 August 1997 to assist farm families in south and west Gippsland. To assist farm families who had been affected by the Exceptional Circumstances events to meet personal expenses such as food and utility bills.$50,000The Victorian Farmers' Federation (VFF) was provided with a grant on 22 September 1998 to assist with the transportation of fodder to East Gippsland.To assist the VFF's program of transporting fodder which had been donated from other parts of Victoria and southern NSW. The VFF used these funds to meet 75% of the transport cost with the farmers contributing 25%.$100,000A grant was made to Farmcare Australia Farm Chemical User Training Program IncorporatedTo fund the communication of and further development of the farm chemical user training program.$50,000.NFF Millennium 3 project—to examine non-rural perceptions of agriculture and its management of environmental and other key issues and to compare these with perceptions held by farmers. The project particularly will be directed also at schoolchildren as well as a wide cross-section of the urban communities.$10,000Australian Dairy Corporation (ADC) to Australian Dairy Farmers' Federation (ADFF) (a member of the National Farmers' Federation)Fund travel costs of the Executive Director, ADFF, when he has made trade policy representations on behalf of the Australian dairy industry in overseas countries.$15,900Australian Dairy Corporation (ADC) to Australian Dairy Farmers' Federation (ADFF)Advancing Dairy Australia project—undertaken to assist farmers in understanding and adapting to the problems and opportunities which will flow from the possible removal of regulatory arrangements in the Australian dairy industry. The funds were used to fund the travel costs of an overseas research tour, undertaken as part of the project.$7,000Dairy Research and Development Corporation (DRDC) to Australian Dairy Farmers' Federation (ADFF)Project support for Australian Dairy Herd Improvement Scheme (ADHIS)$1,344,117Dairy Research and Development Corporation (DRDC) to Australian Dairy Farmers' Federation (ADFF)Support for key Australian Dairy Herd Improvement Scheme (ADHIS) project staff to attend ICAR and INTERBULL conference$20,000Dairy Research and Development Corporation (DRDC) to Australian Dairy Farmers' Federation (ADFF)Australian Dairy Farmers' Federation New Zealand study tour—professional development of dairy farmers$50,000Dairy Research and Development Corporation (DRDC) to Australian Dairy Farmers' Federation (ADFF)Australian Dairy Herd Improvement Scheme (ADHIS) software development$170,156Dairy Research and Development Corporation (DRDC) to Australian Dairy Farmers' Federation (ADFF)Australian dairy farmers Federation (ADFF) Research Committee Meeting—support for industry consultation on R&D$57,009Dairy Research and Development Corporation (DRDC) to Australian Dairy Farmers' Federation (ADFF)Project support for Australian Milk Harvesting program$276,722Dairy Research and Development Corporation (DRDC) to Australian Dairy Farmers' Federation (ADFF)Strategic research project-a deregulated dairy industry: problems and opportunities for dairy farmers$300,000Dairy Research and Development Corporation (DRDC) to Australian Dairy Farmers' Federation (ADFF)Australian rural leadership program—participant support$490Dairy Research and Development Corporation (DRDC) to Australian Dairy Farmers' Federation (ADFF)Project support—Dairy Research and Development Corporation (DRDC) Milk Harvesting Fellowship$794Dairy Research and Development Corporation (DRDC) to Australian Dairy Farmers' Federation (ADFF)Australian Mastitis Advisory Council (AMAC)$380Dairy Research and Development Corporation (DRDC) to Australian Dairy Farmers' Federation (ADFF)Millennium 3 research project—survey of community attitudes to agriculture$20,0002.3. (a) sitting fees(b) board fees(c) travel costs(d) related expenses (a) Mr Donald McGauchiePrime Minister's Supermarket to Asia Council and Steering Committee for the Review of the Supermarket to Asia StrategyNilNil$628 to travel to Canberra for a meeting of the Steering Committee on 22 December 1997Nil **Chairman of the Wool Interim Advisory Board (IAB), which developed a business plan for WoolStockNilAn annual salary of $55,200 (paid pro-rata for the period 1 January 1999 to 30 June 1999)$12,525 to 25 June 1999The cost of providing management support for the IAB to 25 June 1999 has been $119,875**Chairman of WI, for the period 20 May 1999 to 30 June 1999 in preparation for the conversion into WoolStock Australia Limited on 1 July 1999NilAn additional loading of $22,300 per annum (paid pro-rata for the period 20 May 1999 to 30 June 1999)Approximately $7200 to 25 June 1999Nil**Chairman-designate of WoolStock, to take office as Chairman from 1 July 1999.NilNilNil to 25 June 1999Nil(b) Dr Wendy CraikAustralian Landcare Council$2,205-$504$130Prime Minister's Supermarket to Asia Council's Business Competitiveness Working GroupNilNilNilNil(c) other officers or staff of the NFFAustralian Landcare Council$3,914Nil$4,985$1,745Mr Ian Macfarlane—Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) Selection CommitteeNilNilTravel fees were paid to Mr Macfarlane by GRDC in accordance with a determination by the Remuneration TribunalNil Mr Wayne Cornish—Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Council (RASAC) from 1 April 1999 to 31 December 2001$2,766—Monthly remuneration payments since 1 AprilNil$690 since 1 April.NilMr John Watson—National Rural Finance Summit Activating Committee in 1996.*Sitting fees and travel allowance total $4,467Nil*Nil** Mr McGauchie's fees and expenses in each case will ultimately come from moneys obtained from the sale of the wool stockpile, and will not be met from Commonwealth funds. His fees and travel costs as Chairman of the IAB were initially paid by the Commonwealth, but are to be recovered from WI/WoolStock. His fees and travel costs as Chairman of WI are paid by WI.10843(Question No. 697)69710843Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 7 June 1999:Has a Department or agency for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility entered a contract with or made a grant or payment to an organisation registered under subparagraph (a) 188(1)(a) or (b) 188(1)(b) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996; if so, in each case, (i) which organisation, (ii) what sum was received and (iii) in what State or Territory is the organisation located.10843Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(i) Organisation Name(ii) Amount(iii) State/Territory where organisation is locatedVictorian Employers' Chamber of Commerce and Industry (trading as VECCI ATWork)*The precise value of the contract will not be determined until the contract has ended as payments are based on outcomes. The funds have been provided for employment services contracts.VictoriaThe Australian Retailers' Association (ARA)—formerly the Retail Traders' Association of New South Wales (trading as Retail Apprentice and Trainee Employment Services) *The precise value of the contract will not be determined until the contract has ended as payments are based on outcomes. The funds have been provided for employment services contracts.New South Wales Victorian Employers' Chamber of Commerce and Industry$39.00 for the purchase of publications.Victoria* These organisations are contracted to provide Entry Level Training Support Services (ELTSS) under Job Network to 30 November 1999. From 1 December 1999, the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs will be managing contracts for the delivery of these services (to be known as New Apprenticeship Support Services).A separate tender process for the delivery of New Apprenticeship Support Services is near completion and an announcement of the successful organisations is expected by the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs in late September/early October 1999.The response does not include organisations that are:. Part of a consortium that is a Job Network member; or. Subcontractors of Job Network members.10844(Question No. 792)79210844Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KerrRH4DenisonALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 9 August 1999:(1) Did the Coastal Surveillance Task Force chaired by Mr Max Moore Wilton present 18 recommendations to the Government.(2) Were certain recommendations based wholly or in part on material prepared by Air-Vice Marshal Alan Heggen (Ret); if so, (a) which specific recommendations and (b) what findings supported each recommendation.(3) Did the Coastal Surveillance Task Force consider Auditor-General's audit report No. 32 of 1997-98, a performance audit of the management of boat people.(4) Did the first recommendation of report No. 32 propose that a memorandum of understanding be signed between Coastwatch and the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.(5) Is it fact that the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs continues to oppose the negotiation of a memorandum of understanding with Coastwatch.(6) Did the task force consider the first recommendation of report No. 32 but fail to recommend that it be followed; if so, (a) why and (b) was the recommendation mistaken in proposing a memorandum of understanding as a means to improve the efficiency of surveillance operations against boats carrying illegal immigrants; if so, how.(7) Did the task force recommend the establishment of an Information Oversight Committee; if so, (a) what agencies are to be represented on the committee, (b) will the focus of the committee be strategic or operational, (c) what role will constituent agencies play in deciding the committee's program, (d) which agencies will (i) determine the objectives of the committee's intelligence program, (ii) plan its annual work program and (iii) evaluate its performance and (e) will mechanisms exist to enable Coastwatch to direct the committee's intelligence programs to support operations which are planned or under.(8) Did the task force recommend the provision of $2 million in assistance towards controlling potential illegal immigrants transiting Indonesia and Papua New Guinea; if so, (a) will the funds (i) come from a new appropriation or (ii) be diverted from assistance programs which have already been approved and (b) have the governments of Indonesia and Papua New Guinea been consulted about the recommendation; if so, what was their response.(9) Was National Jet Systems awarded a contract in 1994 to provide aerial surveillance capacity to Coastwatch for a nine year period at a cost of $300 million; if so, (a) what is the current annual cost of the contract, (b) what performance requirements did the contract impose on National Jet Systems in terms of (i) total flying hours per annum, (ii) equivalent surface area to be covered per annum, (iii) average availability of aircraft per month and (iv) average systems malfunctions per sortie and (c) has the contract been altered; if so, in each case, (i) what was the nature of the alteration and (ii) what change in performance was specified.(10) Did the task force recommend the addition of two aircraft and an IFR rated helicopter; if so, what will be the contract specifications in terms of (a) total flying hours per annum, (b) equivalent surface area to be covered per annum, (c) average availability of aircraft per month and (d) average systems malfunctions per sortie.(11) Was approval given to Coastwatch during 1997-98 to replace its information technology systems to eliminate obsolescence and achieve Y2K compliance; if so, (a) what functions were approved for the new system, (b) what was the cost of the approved system and (c) when was the new system implemented. (12) did the task force recommend the creation of a National Surveillance Centre; if so, (a) what information technology functions additional to those approved for Coastwatch in 1997-98 will be implemented, (b) what is the estimated cost of the additional functions and (c) when will the additional functions become operational.(13) Did the Intelligence Branch of the Australian Customs Service receive additional funding in 1997-98 to improve its ability to securely exchange information with other Commonwealth law enforcement agencies; if so, (a) what functions were approved, (b) what did they cost and (c) when did they become operational.(14) What use will be made by the National Surveillance Centre proposed by the task force of the Intelligence Branch's improved communications links .(15) Will additional communication functions be provided for the National Surveillance Centre; if so, (a) which functions, (b) what will they cost and (c) when will they become operational.(16) What will be the relationship between the intelligence function of the National Surveillance Centre and the Intelligence Branch of the Australian Customs Service.(17) Will functions be transferred from the Intelligence Branch to the National Surveillance Centre; if so, (a) which functions and (b) how many staff will be transferred.(18) How many additional staff will be recruited for the analytical function of the National Surveillance Centre and what is the estimated cost.(19) Did Coastwatch conduct trials of satellite communications equipment during 1997-98; if so, what was the result.(20) Did Coastwatch write an operational specification for the equipment; if so, (a) when was the specification completed and (b) when did Coastwatch first propose purchasing equipment based on the specification.(21) Did the task force recommend that the position of Director General, Coastwatch, be filled by a seconded Australian Defence Force (ADF) officer; if so, (a) on what grounds, (b) for what term of appointment and (c) what criteria will be used to select suitable ADF officers.(22) Will additional ADF personnel be seconded to Coastwatch; if so, what will be their roles.(23) Did the task force assess the effects of various levels of seconded ADF personnel on the functioning of the Australian Customs Service chain of command.(24) Did the task force assess the Department of Defence's claims that the Jindalee Operational Radar Network (JORN) will be useful for detecting boats which might be carrying illegal immigrants; if so, (a) did the task force determine the suitability of the existing JORN search arcs for meeting the requirements of the task force's eleventh recommendation and (b) what recommendations did the task force make to the Department of Defence on the matter.(25) Did the task force assess the requirements for liaison between Coastwatch and (a) the Australian Fishing Management Authority, (b) the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, (c) the Australian Federal Police, (d) the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and (e) Environment Australia.(26) What are the existing liaison arrangements between Coastwatch and each agency referred to in part (25).(27) What was the task force's assessment of each arrangement referred to in part (26).(28) What proportion of (a) aerial surveillance hours and (b) Coastwatch's 1998-2000 appropriations are devoted to (i) illegal immigration control and (ii) other Coastwatch functions.10845Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) See my answer to question No.1154 (2), which appeared in the Senate Hansard on 25 August 1999, page 7549.(3) See my answer to question No.1155, which appeared in the Senate Hansard on 25 August 1999, page 7549.(4) See my answer to question No.1155 (2), which appeared in the Senate Hansard on 25 August 1999, page 7549.(5) See my answer to question No.1155 (3), which appeared in the Senate Hansard on 25 August 1999, page 7549.(6) See my answer to question No.1155 (4), which appeared in the Senate Hansard on 25 August 1999, page 7549.(7) Yes. Also see my answer to question No.1156, which appeared in the Senate Hansard on 25 August 1999, page 7549-7550.(8) See my answer to question No.1157, which appeared in the Senate Hansard on 25 August 1999, page 7550.(9) See Senator Vanstone's answer to question No.1158 (1)-(4), which appeared in the Senate Hansard on 1 September 1999, page 7826-7827.(10) See Senator Vanstone's answer to question No.1158 (5), which appeared in the Senate Hansard on 1 September 1999, page 7826-7827. (11) See Senator Vanstone's answer to question No.1159, which appeared in the Senate Hansard on 1 September 1999, page 7827.(12) Yes. Also see Senator Vanstone's answer to question No.1160, which appeared in the Senate Hansard on 1 September 1999, page 7827.(13) See Senator Vanstone's answer to question No.1161, which appeared in the Senate Hansard on 1 September 1999, page 7827-7828.(14) See Senator Vanstone's answer to question No.1162 (1), which appeared in the Senate Hansard on 1 September 1999, page 7828.(15) Yes. Also see Senator Vanstone's answer to question No.1162 (2), which appeared in the Senate Hansard on 1 September 1999, page 7828.(16) See Senator Vanstone's answer to question No.1163, which appeared in the Senate Hansard on 1 September 1999, page 7828.(17) No. Also see Senator Vanstone's answer to question No.1163 (a), which appeared in the Senate Hansard on 1 September 1999, page 7828.(18) See Senator Vanstone's answer to question No.1163 (b)-(c), which appeared in the Senate Hansard on 1 September 1999, page 7828.(19) See Senator Vanstone's answer to question No.1164 (1)-(2), which appeared in the Senate Hansard on 1 September 1999, page 7828-7829.(20) See Senator Vanstone's answer to question No.1164 (3), which appeared in the Senate Hansard on 1 September 1999, page 7828-7829.(21) Yes. See my answer to question No.1165 (1)-(3), which appeared in the Senate Hansard on 25 August 1999, page 7550.(22) See my answer to question No.1165 (4), which appeared in the Senate Hansard on 25 August 1999, page 7550.(23) See my answer to question No.1165 (5), which appeared in the Senate Hansard on 25 August 1999, page 7550.(24) See my answer to question No.1166, which appeared in the Senate Hansard on 25 August 1999, page 7550.(25) See my answer to question No.1167 (1), which appeared in the Senate Hansard on 25 August 1999, page 7550-7551.(26) See my answer to question No.1167 (2), which appeared in the Senate Hansard on 25 August 1999, page 7550-7551.(27) See my answer to question No.1167 (3), which appeared in the Senate Hansard on 25 August 1999, page 7550-7551.(28) See my answer to question No.1167 (4), which appeared in the Senate Hansard on 25 August 1999, page 7550-7551. 10846(Question No. 819)81910846Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 August 1999:Has Australia undertaken negotiations to establish international agreements regarding the collection of indirect taxes from the exchange of electronic commerce: if so (a) what action and (b) what progress has been made.10846Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:For the purposes of this response, indirect taxes includes both wholesale sales tax and GST.The Australian Government actively promotes the discussion of electronic commerce issues in the international arena.The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) provides a major forum for international debate and consensus on indirect taxation issues. The Australian Taxation Office (ATO), together with other Australian Government representatives, participates in the OECD's Committee on Fiscal Affairs and its subsidiary bodies.At a meeting in Ottawa in October 1998 OECD Ministers, including Australia's, welcomed the OECD report entitled Electronic Commerce. A Discussion Paper on Taxation Issues. The report sets out a framework of taxation principles that should apply to electronic commerce and proposes a range of implementation options. ATO officers took a lead role in developing the framework.The approach adopted by the OECD uses the taxation principles relating to conventional commerce as a guide and the Australian Government supports this approach. While not precluding new administrative or legislative measures to assist in the application of existing taxation principles to electronic commerce, the Australian Government has made it clear that it has no intention of imposing a discriminatory tax regime on electronic commerce.Earlier this year, the OECD established a consumption taxes Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to further the debate on issues relating to consumption taxation of electronic commerce.The TAG's membership is drawn from both government and business. Australia was recently accepted as a member of the TAG and ATO officers are currently representing Australia in this forum. 10847(Question No. 849)84910847Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 12 August 1999:(1) Has the Commonwealth purchased a piano for the use of the Australian Consul-general to New York; if so, (a) what sum did the piano cost, in Australian dollars, (b) what type of piano is it, (c) when was the piano purchased, (d) is the piano located in the Consul-General's office or in the Consul-General's private residence.(2) Was the piano purchased for use by visiting Australian pianists when giving recitals for guests of the Australian Consul-General to New York; if so, (a) on how many occasions since the piano was purchased have visiting Australian pianists performed with it and (b) who were the pianists; if not, for what reason was it purchased.(3) Does the Consul-general to New York or his wife use the piano.10847Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question as follows:(1) No. The Commonwealth has however purchased a piano for representational purposes, which has been placed in the joint function area of the Australian Consulate-General and the Australian Mission to the United Nations in New York.(a) The piano cost $A 31,820.(b) A Yamaha 6'7'' C5 series, concert quality, grand piano.(c) April 1999.(d) Neither, see (1) above.(2) Yes. The piano is also used by accompanists of singers and instrumentalists, to showcase Australian musical talent, and to provide background music at official functions.(a) Visiting Australian pianists have performed on the piano on four occasions since its delivery in May 1999. The piano has also been used to provide background music at official functions, including the playing of the Australian National Anthem.(b) Lisa Moore, Ray Hartley, Judith Olson and Hideko Ubegawa. Following the northern summer break, a considerable program of performances has been planned.(3) No.10847(Question No. 851)85110847Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 12 August 1999:(1) Will Goods and Services Tax (GST) be levied on funding provided to Lifeline Youth Services Queensland from the Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services, the State Department of Youth and Community Care or other sources; if so, will Lifeline Youth Services be compensated; if so how.(2) Will recycled clothing sold through markets and shops by Lifeline Youth Services Queensland be subject to a GST.10847Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Generally, GST will apply to grants that are paid to registered bodies, where the grant is consideration for a taxable supply. Where the grant is a payment for goods and services by the grantee, GST will apply. Similarly in the case of financial assistance with performance criteria attached, or where an undertaking is given to perform particular services or functions in return for the grant, the Commissioner for Taxation is likely to rule that the grant is consideration for a taxable supply, and that GST is payable. It should be noted that the supply does not have to be made to the provider of the grant. For example, it could be a supply to a community sector.GST will not be payable on government grants that are in the nature of donations or that are paid to bodies that are not registered for GST. For non-profit organisations, the threshold for GST registration is $100,000 per annum.Where GST is payable on a grant. the funding organisation will be able to claim an input tax credit for the grant, and so the funding organisation can increase the level of funding to cover the GST payable by the grantee with no additional net outlay. If this occurs, the organisation receiving the grant will derive a cash flow benefit as it is entitled to retain the GST until 21 days after the end of the tax period in which the grant is received.As part of the first phase of the GST rulings program, the Australian Taxation Office vs ill issue a comprehensive ruling on grants in November 1999. This ruling will explain the correct treatment of funding grants both by the agency which makes them and by the recipient.(2) Supply of recycled clothing that is donated second-hand goods is GST-free when sold by a charitable institution a trustee of a charitable fund or a gift-deductible entity (a charity). Where a supply is GST-free then no GST is payable on the supplier is entitled to input tax credits on the creditable acquisitions that relate to that supply.The supply of donated second-hand goods will remain GST-free no matter how many charities the goods have been supplied through since they were donated, provided they retain their original character.Where the charity has reprocessed these goods so that they no longer have their original character, the supply is not GST-free and GST is payable, for example, where donated second-hand clothing is cut up and sold as cleaning rags. If the donated goods are merely cleaned or repaired prior to sale they will be GST-fee.10848(Question No. 854)85410848McFarlane, Jann, MPMs Jann McFarlane83CStirlingALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 August 1999:(1) How many full-time equivalent staff positions existed in the Cannington and Perth Tax Offices in (a) 1997-98 and (b) 1998-99.(2) How many full-time equivalent staff positions will be in the Cannington and Perth Tax Offices in 1999-2000;(3) Are positions being transferred from the Cannington and Perth Tax Offices during 1999-2000; if so, (a) how many and (b) where will those transferred positions be placed.(4) Are redundancies planned for the Cannington and Perth Tax Offices in 1999-2000; if so, how many.10848Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) (a) 1364.47 full time equivalent (FTE) staff were employed in the Cannington and Perth branches of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) in 1997-98.(1) (b) 1323.13 FTE staff were employed in the Cannington and Perth branches of the ATO in 1998-99.(2) 1236.79 FTE staff will be employed in the Cannington and Perth branches of the ATO in 1999-2000.(3) There are no plans to transfer any positions from the Cannington and Perth branches of the ATO during 1999-2000.(4) There are no planned redundancies for the Cannington and Perth branches of the ATO in 1999-2000.Please note: The figures provided in (la), (lb) and (2) are based on the FTE figures available as at pay period one in each financial year. This accounts for the variation between the numbers of positions filled during the years, as some redundancies and natural attrition will have occurred between these periods.