1999-09-293914REPS1084901999-09-29Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills10849r65310849Consideration resumed from 28 September.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, items 55 to 58, page 11 (line 24) to page 12 (line 13), omit the items.(2) Schedule 1, items 60 to 63, page 12 (lines 16 to 23), omit the items.(3) Schedule 1, items 64 and 65, page 12 (lines 24 to 29), omit the items.09:31:0010849Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That the House:(1) agrees to amendment No. 21 insisted upon by the Senate;(2) does not insist upon amendments Nos 1 and 3 disagreed to by the Senate; and(3) agrees to the consequential amendments made by the Senate to the bill.Honourable members on both sides of the House may well note that the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 has had a relatively long, interesting and colourful debate in both chambers—some would say it has been an exercise of democracy at work. It is worth noting at the outset that the government's intention, in amending the electoral and referendum provisions arising from the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on the 1996 election, has always been to improve the integrity of the enrolment and voting process.On 12 May 1999 the House agreed to all but two of the Senate's amendments of 18 February 1999. The two amendments not agreed to by the House of Representatives were Senate amendments Nos 21 and 26. The Senate has insisted on amendment No. 21, and the government is prepared to accept that. Also, the Senate did not agree to government amendments Nos 1 and 3, which related to assisted voting provisions. As a consequence, the opposition moved further amendments in the Senate, which received support from the government, to reverse the anomaly created by the Senate's acceptance on 18 February 1999 of the assisted voting amendments to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984. This will ensure that the assisted voting provisions of both acts remain consistent.In short, the assisted voting provisions of both acts will remain unchanged. The government obviously preferred its original amendments, but it does not intend to pursue the matter of assisted voting at this time as it is a matter currently under consideration by the inquiry of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters into the 1998 federal election.I ask that the House accept the Senate amendments in order to ensure passage of the remainder of the bill. Much work and discussion has taken place among all political parties in both houses to secure the passage of this bill, which includes important reforms and important amendments. This is commendable, and I commend those amendments to the chamber.09:34:0010849Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—The opposition strongly supports the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 as amended by the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills10849r84210849Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for requested amendments announced.Bill returned from the Senate with a request for amendments.Ordered that the requested amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's requested amendments—(1) Schedule 2, item 16, page 29 (line 12), omit "1 July 1999", substitute "the commencement of this item".(2) Schedule 2, item 16, page 29 (lines 13 and 14), omit "1 July 1999", substitute "the commencement of this item". (3) Schedule 2, item 16, page 29 (lines 30 and 31), omit "1 July 1999", substitute "the commencement of this item".(4) Schedule 3, item 21, page 37 (line 17), omit "1 July 1999", substitute "the commencement of this clause".(5) Schedule 3, item 21, page 37 (line 19), omit "1 July 1999", substitute "the commencement of this clause".(6) Schedule 3, item 21, page 38 (lines 5 and 6), omit "1 July 1999", substitute "the commencement of this clause".09:36:0010850Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—I move:That the requested amendments be made.In so doing, I would just like to make a couple of points. The amendments are necessary only because the opposition in the Senate failed to agree to the bill being classified as noncontroversial, which would have allowed it to have had passage in June of this year, and the implementation date of 1 July 1999 would then have been able to have been met. The opposition chose, however, to not give this status and, indeed, to move amendments to the bill which were all defeated in the Senate.It is necessary to have a new commencement date in order for elderly Australians who are in residential care to have those new protections that are afforded by the bill. Perhaps it is well to recap on precisely what this means. The government amendments to the bill, as I said, simply change the implementation date. The bill itself amends the Aged Care Act of 1997 and the Aged Care (Consequential Provisions) Act of 1997 by introducing a number of measures to aged care structural reforms and by addressing some administrative and procedural issues that had become apparent since the implementation of that legislation on 1 October 1997.The bill introduces a range of resident protection measures and addresses anomalies in the act in relation to the revocation of approved provider status and the imposition of sanctions for breaches of provider responsibilities under previous aged care legislation. This bill also implements the 1999 budget initiative to exempt from paying an accommodation charge those nursing home residents who were in care at the commencement of the Aged Care Act in 1997 and who would otherwise be liable to pay an accommodation charge on moving to another aged care facility. The implementation date for the budget initiative was, as I said earlier, 1 July 1999; and those people who would have had a refund as of that date have in fact been penalised by the opposition's failure to let the bill pass by 30 June 1999.The bill was introduced into the House on 10 June 1999 and was passed by the House on 23 June and, despite acknowledging the desirable nature of the resident protection and the charge repayment measures included in the bill, as I said, Labor refused to grant the bill noncontroversial status. I might add that, at the time, I did point out that the shadow spokesman Senator Evans had put on the record that he thought the bill was implementing good measures and that he would help it through. That did not turn out to be the case. Due to that occurring, the bill could not pass by 30 June and allow the starting date of 1 July. This means that people who were in nursing homes when the Aged Care Act was introduced can still be asked to pay an accommodation charge on moving to another facility after 1 July 1999. People should recognise that this is simply because of the refusal of the Labor Party to acquiesce in having the bill declared noncontroversial and in fact moving amendments which were all defeated.In addition, repayment of charges already paid by qualifying residents is delayed, pending the passage of the legislation. The government amendments are therefore necessary to ensure that elderly Australians do not suffer as a result of delays in passing the legislation. The government amendments ensure that people who become charge-exempt residents after 1 July 1999 but before the passage of the Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999 are covered by the provisions exempting the principal home, and rental income earned on a principal home to pay for accommodation charges, from the pension income and assets test.These amendments merely change the date from which the bill will become operational. It is a regret that it was not able to be done as from 1 July 1999, for the reasons I have just outlined.09:41:0010851Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—The minister certainly does have a hide coming into the House and complaining about the timing of the Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999 . The whole bill is necessary because of the mess that the government made of its so-called aged care reforms which were introduced in the 1996-97 budget. If you want to know what has gone wrong with aged care in this country, you have simply to look at the bill and go through the provisions, because each of the provisions is there to fix the government's mistakes through its mishandling of aged care.The biggest element of all of that is that the government's problems came about because they cut $0.5 billion out of aged care in their first budget, at the time that they were talking about reform. That was a so-called reform which did nothing to benefit older Australians and did everything to benefit the government's friends in the industry. The requested amendments that are coming back from the Senate are the government amendments that are required because the bill was not passed by 30 June 1999; but you have to look at why that was not the case.We even have the extraordinary suggestion by the minister that somehow the Australian Labor Party did something wrong because we moved amendments. It is an interesting view of parliamentary scrutiny and democracy in this country when we have a minister who is prepared to go to the box in the House of Representatives and say that the opposition dared to move amendments to try and make the Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999 a more satisfactory bill.You have to look at the whole timetable of what this government did. In 1996-97, we saw the reforms introduced. For day after day in this chamber, the former ministers—the member for Pearce, Judi Moylan, and the member for Bass, Warwick Smith—said that there were no problems. They said that aged care reform was going well. But, after much agitation and campaigning from elderly Australians themselves, and with leadership shown by the then shadow minister, the member for Jagajaga, we finally saw on 5 March 1998 an aged care amendment bill come in to try and fix some of these problems. The second reading speech was given in the Senate on 26 March 1998, and then the bill simply disappeared. The government chose not to pursue it—because to pursue it in the lead-up to the October 1998 election would have been to acknowledge the mess, the difficulties and the confusion that were being created by the government's reforms. So they put political expediency before good public policy by not pursuing those changes prior to the last election.They had a number of other changes as well at that time, one of which was the problem of the move to coalescence. As 1 July 1998 was approaching, it appeared that there needed to be a response there, and the government announced that the Productivity Commission would have an inquiry which was to report to the government by 13 January 1999. The commission report was finally made public on 31 March 1999, but we still did not see, in a whole range of areas, any real move by the government to pursue change. This bill was tabled in the House only on 10 June 1999. It was debated only in this chamber—the opposition at the time had not even had time to consider the bill in appropriate detail and to move amendments here. That is why we had to move them in the Senate, and we foreshadowed that at the time. There is no surprise in that. (Time expired)10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The question is that the requested amendments be made.Question resolved in the affirmative.R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have put the question. If I have failed to recognise the member for Grayndler, I apologise to him. There was no intent to do that. In fact I did the normal thing and looked for someone to rise on the other side. I have now put the question. There is no opportunity for the member for Grayndler to continue because the question has been put and passed.Bills10852r89410852Debate resumed from 28 September, on motion by Mr Reith:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr Bevis moved by way of 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.09:47:0010852Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—As I was saying last night before the adjournment debate interrupted this debate, in my cynicism I believe that some of the deals we have seen being made over the past few months between the coalition government and Democrats have only paved the way for the Democrats to support this legislation in the Senate.I want to examine a couple of the main aspects of the bill now before us. With this amendment bill, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business is seeking to destroy the effectiveness of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in order to pave the way for the commission to be totally replaced with his hand-picked Employment Advocate. For nearly 100 years, the AIRC has fulfilled the role of an independent umpire in any industrial disputation or worker negotiations. It has operated independently of governments and trade unions over that period. The AIRC has provided a comprehensive and transparent process of conciliation and arbitration, and this will be all but destroyed if the Democrats in the Senate pass this legislation.This bill will restrict the IRC's role of compulsory conciliation to only those disputes which involve allowable matters, and I will talk further about how those allowable matters are being diminished to zero. If workers or employers want to engage the IRC to conciliate or arbitrate in any other disputes, then somebody will have to pay. We have here the introduction of a user-pays system for a service which for nearly 100 years has provided practical benefits for governments, employers and employees. The minister also plans to introduce seven-year terms for commissioners. This step would take away any last vestige of independence. It means that the hire and fire of commissioners will depend on the political colour of the government of the day.As well as stripping away the independence of the IRC, this bill also seeks to further strip awards to a bare minimum. This bill will ensure that awards contain only basic minimum wages and conditions. Under the terms of allowable matters, we will see awards stripped of skill-based classifications, tallies and bonuses, long service leave, notices of termination and even jury service. Awards will be stripped further and workers' rights eroded further by disallowing from awards transfers between locations, training or education provisions, record keeping of hours of work, make-up pay for accidents and union picnic days, and transfer rights of employment. We will also see the abolition of maximum or minimum hours of work for regular part-time employees.What security does this provide? How can part-time workers plan their lives when the hours they work are at the whim of the employer? What about when a worker reports for jury service or takes up military reservist training? What happens to their jobs? They do not know, we do not know, but I will bet the minister pushing this legislation knows. What kind of working environment is this government providing for workers? One that is steeped in insecurity and uncertainty without the conditions of employment which they and generations of workers before them have struggled for and have achieved.I turn now to workers' rights to organise and to unionise, their rights to be represented, their rights to a fair go. Employees, whether or not they belong to a union, do believe that unions are needed and are of benefit to workers. Employers recognise and appreciate the role of unions. Most employers enjoy the good relationship they have with the union representing their own workers. The only person with an apparent ideological bent for destroying unions and their role is this minister. He is even trying to outlaw any workplaces which have a work force with union membership greater than 60 per cent. If this bill passes through the Senate, it will pave the way for Reith's mates in Patrick and Rio Tinto to sack 40 per cent of their unionised work force and to replace them with non-union scab labour. They tried to do this under the existing legislation and they failed. Now Reith is providing more tools but they will fail again, not in spite of this legislation but because the Australian community—the wide and diverse group in the Australian electorate—believe in fairness and a fair go. The whole community mobilised against Corrigan and Reith and their tactics before and they will do so again.Another attack on workers and unions which will be enshrined in this legislation is the extension provided for individual agreements—those secret contracts which alienate workers from their traditional award and union coverage. These agreements will be made even more secretive as they will be able to be implemented from the date they are signed rather than from the date they are approved by Reith's mate, Jon Hamberger, as the Employment Advocate.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Charlton has an obligation to refer to the minister by his title.83YHoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE—The agreements will also be legally able to undercut collective agreements even though those collective agreements are still in place. Another dire, unheeded warning which was given by the trade union movement at the initial discussions on the implementation of individual contracts will have been warranted if this bill is passed. It will allow worker to be pitted against worker. In this bill, the minister proclaims the right of employers to discriminate between employees. For two workers performing comparable tasks, an employer will be legally entitled to offer each of them different individual contracts with different pay and different conditions of employment.In the last week we have seen in relation to the East Timor dispute how that is happening in Telstra with the support of the government. We have seen Telstra workers under award coverage being offered different consideration for their military reservist leave than those who are on individual contracts. Those on individual contracts are being given more leave and more entitlements than those who are staying under their award coverage. It is a disgrace that two workers in the same government owned corporation should be pitted against each other like that.The minister's continued ideological attack on unions is also included in this legislation. This bill will severely limit a union's ability to enter a workplace. For the workers' representative to enter an employer's premises to hold discussions with employees or to investigate breaches of awards or agreements, the representative must have a written invitation from an employee union member and that invitation cannot be more than 28 days old. This legislation will also severely impede the unalienable right of workers to take industrial action.I would now like to talk for a moment about the kinds of workers, the kinds of people and the kinds of organisations that the minister is seeking to attack and destroy with this legislation—the trade union movement and those workers within the trade union movement who have taken strong stands in our local and national communities as well as in our international community. In the early 1940s we saw the waterfront workers take action on the waterfront by refusing to load on the boats pig-iron that was headed to Japan to be sold. At that time Japan had already invaded Manchuria, and its aggressive militarism and its expansionist intention were all quite clear. The Waterside Workers Feder ation at that time said that the pig-iron that was being sold to the Japanese would come back as bombs, and they refused to load it.Further on from that, the MUA in the most recent conflict in East Timor was one of the first groups to mobilise and take action to enforce sanctions against the Indonesians. In Newcastle the MUA mobilised and refused to load two vessels bound for Indonesia which were in the port of Newcastle. The loading of these vessels was delayed for about two weeks. The Cape Moretan had a regular route around Indonesia and South-East Asia. There was an agreement with the shipping company that all non-Indonesian cargo would be loaded but that the Indonesian cargo would not be moved, and the ship departed without the cargo. This was due to the actions of the MUA in Newcastle. Another ship, the Arktis Fantasy, had a regular run to Freeport in Indonesia. This vessel had been loaded up primarily with Indonesian cargo. It remained neither discharged nor loaded for about 10 days.A point that was made at various public meetings around Newcastle in relation to the East Timor conflict was that Patrick—the same company that the minister employed to enforce his workplace relations legislation previously—said to its unionised work force during that time that, if any Patrick workers on the waterfront took part in any sanctions against any Indonesian vessel as part of industrial action to send a message to the Indonesian government, they would not be penalised under the minister's current Workplace Relations Act. I commend Patrick for that stance, and I would encourage Patrick to take further such stances in light of the minister's encouragement for them to use the tools that he provides to destroy the unions.I might also say on that point that had the minister and this government been successful early last year in the waterfront dispute in their total push to destroy the MUA then the action that the MUA took on the waterfronts across the country and in Newcastle in relation to not loading Indonesian vessels would not have been able to occur. Those Indonesian vessels would have been loaded in Australian waters and would have passed through unfet tered, and the Indonesian government and the Indonesian military would have seen that as a sign of concurrence with their actions at that time.In the short time I have left I would like to mention another person. This person is one of the people who will be destroyed if this legislation is allowed to pass unfettered through the Senate. We are talking about people here who have given their lives to the rights of workers—fighting for conditions and entitlements for workers in their particular industry. The man I want to refer to is Mick Watson, the northern district president of the CFMEU. He is based at Cessnock, and he has spent his entire life in the mining industry.To give an indication of the kind of person Mick Watson is, when you go into his office on the wall there is a photo of him with Nelson Mandela, taken when the international trade union movement held a meeting in Johannesburg in South Africa. They are the kinds of people that Mick Watson attracts—people like Nelson Mandela, people of integrity. Mick Watson is a man of integrity. In an article recently published in the Newcastle Herald, Mick said:It's been a tough four years; with the industrial relations campaign waged by the Federal Government's Peter Reith and the flagging state of the coal industry.He said the coal industry is the worst it has been in the 31 years that he has been in it. Over the past three years, 3,500 jobs in the mining industry went in the northern district. The article also went on to say:Where other union memberships have crumbled, the miners have been the strength.Mick Watson boasts that he has lost only 30 people to individual contracts out of 5,000. The workers and the employers place their trust in the trade union movement. It is a trade union movement which supports its workers; it is a trade union movement which works well with employers.He also makes the point that the workers in the mining industry had a victory over the federal government's handling of the financially stranded Oakdale miners. He said that:`It was just unfortunate that we had to shut the pits for 24 hours to prove the point' . . . And he added:`We were arguing for $6 million and it cost the industry $24 million.'That was all because the government could not and would not take the necessary measures earlier on to provide the correct entitlements for those workers.Mick Watson said that he is going to stay in this game. He is going to stay in the industry, he is going to stay representing workers' rights. If the minister's legislation is allowed to pass through the Senate, then it is going to destroy people such as Mick Watson, people of the integrity of Mick Watson. These are the people who keep up the fight against conservative governments, who have done so over the past decades and who will continue to do so.The minister did not win in April last year on the waterfront with his existing workplace relations legislation. With the second wave of industrial relations legislation that he is proposing now he is not going to win while the trade union movement is as strong as it is and, while it has people such as Mick Watson, the workers will always succeed. (Time expired)10:03:0010855Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—The self-proclaimed prince of power has paraded before this parliament pronouncing `More jobs, better pay'. Let me say here that the people I represent, the people of Paterson, do not see him as a white knight with a key to the future. In our region, where unemployment is twice the national average, people see him as the politician who uses dogs and thugs in the name of reform. This is a government that spent $350 million to get rid of over 1,000 jobs on the Australian waterfront. They claimed it was reform. The benefits would be immense, they said. They spent $350 million when everyone knew that what was needed on our waterfront to achieve efficiency was investment in equipment and infrastructure to modernise our docks.The short title of this legislation is an illusion. It is not only an illusion but a slap in the face to workers and their families, the people in my electorate. This legislation is a personal and ideological vendetta for Peter Reith, the Minister for Employment, Work place Relations and Small Business. The Reith vendetta will see workers in my electorate compromise their basic working rights in a thinly veiled disguise of what he calls reform.The Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 reveals the illusion of reform that the Howard government is intent on trumpeting. This legislation is put forward by a government that stood opposite us thumping the table saying, `If only the opposition would allow us to make it easier to sack people we would employ more.' How easy do they want it to be to sack people? What a cynical approach to the development of Australian society. Where is the vision in this approach? How on earth can you fabricate a positive title like `More jobs and better pay' out of a negative? And that negative is retrenchment, and the word `retrenchment', as it echoes around the Hunter Valley today, strikes fear into the thousands of families where there is no breadwinner.This minister has not been there since BHP announced its closure, since the mines have shed 2,000 jobs, since the Aberdeen Meatworks closed shedding 400 jobs, and he has the audacity to come in here and say, `This legislation is more jobs, better pay.' How can you respect a minister that has such audacity? To me, my colleagues and the workers of the Paterson electorate, this negative focus on retrenchment makes this legislation an ideological joke.The title of this legislation belies the real push of this government. That real push is to do away with awards, to do away with penalty rates and to increase the competition between workers for the few full-time jobs that may exist. Obviously, this becomes a cut-throat world very quickly and, quite frankly, I think it will come as a surprise to the government that Australian workers do not want this type of dog-eat-dog world. They want job security, they want a valued lifestyle for their families. The workers of Australia believe they live in a community, not an economy. And how can an individual worker demand a fair go when there is such a large pool of unemployed?We have seen reports from the transport industry in the last week that drivers are being forced to work longer hours to guarantee that they have a job. This cutthroat approach has led to increased accident rates and a transport industry that not only threatens workers but threatens workers' lives. It threatens the lives of all people who use the highways if we overwork our transport drivers, but this government would claim that is a small price to pay for the supposed reform they have brought about.This week in question time I have listened intently as both the minister for workplace relations and the Deputy Prime Minister have praised the decision to do away with tallies in meatworks. In northern New South Wales these days you have to look pretty hard to find a meatworks—they are virtually all closed. Since the Howard government came to power, they have closed the meatworks at Gunnedah, they have closed the meatworks at Macksville, they have closed the meatworks at Grafton and earlier this year they closed the meatworks at Aberdeen. Well over 1,000 regional jobs have gone, jobs that will not return. The economy of those towns and their communities will face an undeniable and irrevocable downturn because those sorts of jobs do not come back to those communities.The Deputy Prime Minister claimed that these reforms would yield greater efficiency and cheaper costs to the producer. There was no mention of workers and no concern shown for the 400 families at Aberdeen—in an area adjacent to his own electorate—where jobs are certainly at a premium. They do not exist. The associated mining areas in that part of the Hunter Valley have also shed over 2,000 jobs in the last couple of years. How about the efficiency and the cheaper costs that the Deputy Prime Minister refers to? Meat producers in the Hunter Valley, the cattle growers, are now paying $80 a head to have their cattle shipped live to Dinmore in Queensland for slaughter. Is that efficiency? Is that the reform this government is driving—driving jobs out of rural and regional Australia into our metropolitan areas? If that's efficiency, if that's reform, Australia can do without it. There is not a single export abattoir in the Hunter Valley today. Workplace relations such as those being proposed by this minister will ensure that not another one will take its place.I also noticed in today's media that Justice Michael Moore has ruled that employers have a legal right to make the signing of Australian workplace agreements a condition of employment. This is a further push to oust the unions as representatives of workers' rights. Perhaps this was envisaged by the minister when he introduced this legislation a few months ago because he said:These reforms will continue to give workers and employers at their workplace more choice and more opportunities to manage their relationships without the forced interference from unwanted parties.The unwanted party that he refers to is the union—unwanted by this government, unwanted in the case of some employers. But in the case of many workers I know it remains the only organisation that they can turn to for a fair deal and that understands their needs—the needs of their family and of their community. This government has shown by many pieces of legislation, by the slashing of services to communities, that they do not particularly care about workers and workers' families.I would suggest to the minister that there is no way he would have budged for the miners at Oakdale if it had not been for the strength of the CFMEU. The continual confrontation with the CFMEU to ensure that those workers got their just rights made this minister back down. But how many other thousands of workers out there are waiting for their rights? Many of them do not have a union to represent them. This minister would say that is good. He also knows that because they do not have a union to represent them they will not get their rights. They will never see their long service leave, their holiday pay, their sick leave. All those entitlements they contributed to while they were employed they will never get. This government will not ensure that they get them.The Howard government has a perverse and tedious paranoia about unions. I am proud that I come from an area where union strength is a major part of the community. It is about the brotherhood of people. This legislation is all about reducing the power of the unions. Would the minister like to tell us how much his department has spent this year to advertise and promote a non-unionised work force? How eager he and his department are to tell workers, `You don't have to belong to a union; the government will look after you.' We are seeing how the government will look after workers.The vendetta by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, the Hon. Peter Reith, against unions involves a worker negotiating their own workplace agreement and in the event of a dispute appealing to the new conciliation commissioner, for a flat fee of $500. When there is a dispute because somebody does not like some of the conditions and they appeal, they have to front up and pay $500. Five hundred dollars may be a minimal amount to the minister or an employer, but to the breadwinner of a family $500 can be a month's repayment of the mortgage. It can mean being able to eat that month or not, it can mean the family having a holiday at Christmas or not and it can mean having something in the Christmas stocking or not. Five hundred dollars may be a nominal amount to a minister, but it is a gigantic amount to a worker simply to register a dispute. Once he does that, what happens to his job? His job is placed in jeopardy. The employer is aware that the worker is not content with the workplace relations, so how long will that job last?In June the minister said that workplace relations does not only involve economic considerations; it is also about fair dealing between employers and employees and about social considerations. Australian workers are not stupid, Minister. Australian workers know full well where you stand and what you believe in. The same minister made the following statement when addressing a luncheon in Perth this year:. . . let's not forget whose side we are on . . . let's not forget we are on the side of private capital.This is a statement by a minister who does not realise that our society should be, and can be, a symbiosis of workers and employers. That is the ideal and that is what any minister should be promoting. But this minister is not doing so. This minister would rather promote conflict than consultation. This minister does not want peace in the workplace. He wants competition, because he knows that when there is competition between workers for the thing they value most—a job—that will drive wages down.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—It hasn't. Their real wages are up, Bob. They never achieved that in all the time you were in office.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—The minister opposite might like to come to the Hunter and explain that to the 1,500 who will walk out of the gates of BHP for the last time with no job and no job prospect. That is the situation and it is something the Howard government will always be condemned for in the Hunter region. It took no step to stop BHP closing that steelworks—a steelworks that has been seen as the lifeblood of the Hunter region for the past 80 years and more.The rhetoric of this government about work, family life and social consideration means absolutely nothing, and Australian workers will not be fooled. The Hunter region has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, with a skills drainage out of the Hunter. The shameful thing is that most Australians like to consider that we have a family way of life. If you have a family that lives in the Hunter, be prepared that as soon as your children get to workable age, they will leave the Hunter. They will go to one of the capital cities because there are no jobs in the Hunter. That is a shame because the Hunter is diverse and it is one of the most productive regions in the whole of Australia. It has a larger population than has Tasmania and it is the biggest coal port in the world. It produces 85 per cent of the state's electricity, yet it cannot provide jobs for its own young. And the minister says, `Well, that's part of the small price of reform that we have to pay.' As I have said, this is an ideological vendetta at the expense of thousands of workers in my electorate. I have no shame in claiming I represent workers. I represent the workers of my electorate. The people of Paterson have one important and indispensable asset to barter with—SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—As long as they don't work for the forests. You will not look after forest workers. You won't vote for the RFA when it comes back here.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—I find it interesting that the minister opposite wishes to interject. I am quite happy to stand on my record of supporting forest workers. I also find it interesting that the minister, who has known that the New South Wales government signed off on the RFA for the North Coast last November—it has been with the minister opposite since last November—will not sign off. I can tell the minister that already they have stopped taking woodchip from the sawmills because they will not allow a carryover from 1 January. Until the minister signs off, that woodchip cannot be exported. Already there is a downturn in employment in the timber industry because of the action of the minister sitting opposite. Minister, your leader said the other day that you were the champion of blue-collar workers. All I can say is that you need to get your act together and realise that 10 months is a long time to sign off on state legislation.The workers of Paterson have only one important and one indispensable asset to barter with—and that is their skills and their labour. This asset not only feeds their families and creates a valuable and enjoyable lifestyle but also benefits the whole of the country, as we develop our regions and our productivity. This government shuns this asset. It regards it as a commodity to be devalued and dishonoured. I support the amendment that this government should be condemned because of the stance it takes on Australian workers.10:22:0010858Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Does the minister claim to have been misrepresented?SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—I most certainly do.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Please proceed.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—There is no completed regional forest agreement for New South Wales, other than the Eden agreement that has been signed. There has never been a document delivered to me that would meet all of the regional forest agreement processes. The process continues up there. It was delayed dramatically by the New South Wales government. I challenge the member to prove his claim, because he has misled the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The minister has made his personal explanation. He will not debate the issue any further.10:22:0010859Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—Like the two previous speakers, I come from the Hunter. On a daily basis, I see the impact of this government's attack on workers and on ordinary Australian people. Nowhere in this country have the workers and the people of an area felt the cruel changes brought upon them by this government more than in the Hunter. Each day in every way this government attacks the workers and the people of the Hunter and Australia.The Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 —`More Jobs, Better Pay' is a most inappropriate name for this bill as it is a blatant attack on all Australian workers—is about reining in the pay and conditions of workers which will result in the disempowerment of workers and workers working long hours with reduced benefits and conditions of employment. There is also a more subtle decline in workplace safety which will result from the workers being forced to work long hours to earn a survival wage and avoid being sacked.It really is disgusting that workers are working in conditions where every day their safety is put at risk. This will increase with this legislation. There is now a disincentive for employees to report any breaches of occupational health and safety rules. I know of one place in the Hunter where they employ contract labour. Let us face it: this legislation increases reliance on contract labour. It leads to a further casualisation of the work force. At the workplace I referred to, if a contract labourer actually reports an accident, they are not brought back the next day because there is such an oversupply of labour that an employer has the choice of terminating that worker's employment. That worker stays at home and waits until maybe the labour hire company decides to give them a call and offer them employment in another workplace.I know of an instance where a worker had a steel pole go through his leg. Instead of calling an ambulance for the injured worker, the employer insisted that he be taken to a doctor who immediately said, `Why wasn't this worker taken to the hospital?' The reason the worker was not taken to the hospital was that it was the second accident at the company that week and they would have been investigated by the WorkCover Authority.This is hardly a pleasant picture of workplace safety and what we have to look forward to in Australia. This is not pleasant legislation either. It is going to lead to a worsening situation. It is driven by an anti-union philosophy and a sheer hatred of unions. It does not recognise that workers or unions have a role to play in the workplace and stopping employers using unsafe practices. Under this legislation, a worker has to give a written invitation to invite a union into the workplace with 28 days notice. By the time that union gets into the workplace, the employer will be able to give a picture of being a model employer doing all the right things. When the union goes, they do the wrong thing again. Then 28 days later they have cleaned up their act again, but the employee has probably gone because the name of the employee who invited the union in must be written on the invitation. It is a very unpleasant picture.The government in this parliament believes that the employer is the boss and the boss is supreme, and whatever the boss says goes. They are setting up a situation that totally disempowers workers, where the workers and the boss are against each other. That creates division within the workplace. The idea is to force the worker into submission, rather than have a healthy scenario of the workers and the employers all working together for the good of the business and for the good of the country. The government will not achieve harmony in the workplace or increased productivity with this 1950s style industrial relations. Employers need to appreciate that workers take pride in their work. They are there not only because they need to earn an income but also because they are Australian and want to see our country thrive. I believe you can only achieve that in an environment of harmony, respect and safety.This legislation will make fundamental changes to our industrial relations system, changes not only to the pay and condition of workers in Australia but to the face of our entire society. It undermines the system which has developed over many years to address the inequities that arose out of the industrial revolution. It is always important to adopt a historic perspective when you look at new legislation. In this case, it would seem that history is repeating itself.As we all know, Australia was settled in 1788, and that was because British jails were overflowing. Why was that? To answer that question, we need to look at Britain at that time. It was as a result of the Industrial Revolution. Parents were unable to feed their children. They worked long hours under appalling conditions and lived in absolute poverty.There was a breakdown of the family. There were Oliver Twist type workhouses where children were living, separated from their families. There were orphans and children of the street. The children themselves were chimney sweeps and going down the mines. It was a really appalling situation and a sad society—a society falling apart at the seams. It was a society not coping with change, a society that had no hope for the future. It was a society where crime raged, where jails were full and where people lived without security.We must compare that to Australia today. We have a country of haves and have nots. We have a country where children today go to school with empty stomachs and where the schools have to feed the children. Children live in abject poverty in conditions that those on the other side of this House would not understand and could not understand in their wildest dreams. The incidence of family breakdowns is at an all-time high. Kids work. Nowadays you have children finishing school and then going to their job at McDonald's or Coles and working long hours just to survive.We have a society where drugs are rampant and where young people look to the future and wonder what hope there is. What is the government's answer to this? This second wave of industrial relations reforms, reforms that are going to lead to less hope, poorer working conditions and a further breakdown in our society. We need to look at crime. Crime is at an all-time high. Our jails are full. People in Australia feel very insecure. We are always hearing about how people are feeling unsafe in their homes. Why is this? People in Australia have no hope. They do not have the security of knowing that they have jobs and that they will be able to get good pay, or that the jobs they have will survive and that there is hope for the future.This legislation is unfair and un-Australian. It moves to strengthen the minister's first wave of industrial relations reforms—or so-called reforms—and create the society of post-Industrial Revolution Britain. The Labor Party was born as a result of the changes forced on society because of that industrial revolution. It came about to redress the imbalance of power that existed between employers and workers and situations where the employer was supreme and could just dictate to workers what they did, how they did it and under what conditions. It also looked at reducing the working hours. Over a period of time, since the Labor Party has been on the political scene, there has been a reduction in working hours. There is fair pay for a fair day's work. There have been improved working conditions and job security. These are all things that have evolved because of the union movement and because of the fact that the Labor Party has been on the political scene moving in there to see that the bosses do not have all the power.The first wave of industrial relations legislation actually led to an increase in working hours. Anyone who listens to the news or reads the newspapers will see that the number of unpaid hours being worked by workers has never been greater. This is a legacy of the first round of industrial relations changes that have taken place. Executive workers are getting an increase in their working benefits, their conditions and their pay while on the other hand workers—ordinary, average Australians—are being attacked. Their working conditions are being eroded. They do not have the security of knowing that they will go to work and that their job is going to be a full-time job. As the previous speaker said, we are faced with the closure of BHP, which is devastating for the Hunter region.I, along with all Australians, was brought up to believe that it is right to share and that it is wrong to succeed or benefit by exploiting someone else. I think that that underpins our society. As a child, if you had some lollies, you shared those lollies with your friends. You did not keep them all to yourself or go into a little corner and eat them all. It is all about sharing and making sure that there is enough for everyone—that the wealth of the country goes around. Even our religious philosophy in this country has always encouraged us to care for other people, to share with other people and not to succeed at the expense of somebody else.In Australia we have a philosophy of fairness. I believe that we have always been committed to fairness. But this second wave of industrial relations legislation will lead to a winner-take-all mentality. In Australia we are part of a society. Australia is composed of states and territories, communities and individuals living in those communities. That is our strength. Our strength is in our sense of community, with everyone working together and everybody caring for each other. We thrive because we are a caring society. We thrive because we care for each other. We thrive because we stand together. We will not thrive if we are a divided society. That is what this legislation does—it divides us. It puts the employers against the workers.The economy supports our communities and our society. The society and the communities are not there to support the economy. In this country we could be forgiven for believing that we are all about the economy, and that the economy is not about us. Businesses, workers and pensioners are all part of a community, and we all have a role to play and all those roles are important. Unfortunate ly, Minister Reith and the Prime Minister and his government do not recognise this. If they did, we would not be considering this draconian, anti-worker legislation today. This legislation is designed to create division and to erode the independence of our industrial relations system. Minister Reith has built his reputation on attacking workers. We have only to look at the maritime dispute and at how he supported Patrick's and the mass sacking of workers and at his reforms that have delivered nothing to Australia. It is symbolic of this government's approach to industrial relations.This second wave legislation attacks workers and their opportunity for security and career development. That is a very important aspect, because if Australia is to succeed in the world arena we must be a knowledge based society, a society that is at the cutting edge in the area of technology. We must have a highly educated and highly skilled work force. But part of this legislation actually affects the skills based career path of workers. This will affect the progression of workers within a company and it will also lead to a lower skilled work force. Instead of us being out there at the cutting edge of society, out there on the world market with this highly educated and skilled work force and with our Australian know-how and our ability to bring innovation and new ideas to the world scene, we will be left behind because this government is offering a disincentive to workers to better themselves through a better education and more knowledge.We are going to end up with a divided, two-tiered society, and that can lead only to social destruction and a society that we do not want here in Australia. We do not want to go back to the post-Industrial Revolution era. We do not want to go back to the time when Australia was settled. We do not want to have our jails bursting at the seams. We want to have a caring, inclusive society where every member of our society is as important as any other member.I think the Treasurer understands a little better than the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business that there is this two-tiered society developing in Australia. In the Financial Review over the weekend he pointed out that there are workers in Australia living on $15,000 a year—not $15,000 a week like some CEOs. It is important for employers and those in big business to understand that there are a lot of people out there struggling to survive. If we go through with this legislation, if this legislation is forced on Australian workers, then it is going to be a sad day for Australia. This legislation does not recognise the value of workers. It seeks to take Australia back to the days of the Industrial Revolution. It seeks to pit worker against boss and it seeks to destroy our society. That is what it is going to do. It is going to lead to the disintegration of our society as we know it here in Australia. We need to have an inclusive, caring society where every person is part of that society and we can all embrace the new millennium with open arms.10:42:0010862Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—I rise today to speak on the amendment to the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 , a bill which demonstrates this government's duplicity and its cleverness with words because the legislation is called the `More Jobs, Better Pay bill'. We now have this peculiar situation in parliament where all the legislation coming forward has trick titles—the title is opposite to the actual legislation. We all on both sides of the House know that the idea that this is actually about more jobs and better pay is an absurdity. But, from this minister who deals in mirages or nightmares, this is perhaps not surprising.We have the Employment Advocate whose main job seems to be to try to get stuck into unions and fine union activities on job sites—it has nothing to do with employment at all. This is the same minister whose cleverness with switching from being a monarchist to a republican to a monarchist to a republican almost monthly is famous nationwide. We sat here week after week while he denied any knowledge of what was occurring at Patrick's or in Dubai. We heard those protests. We knew he was not being honest with the House. The legislation now has quite other objectives. It is not about more jobs and better pay; it is about gutting the functions of the unions in the workplace and about disempowering—DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—What about the workers?FI4Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—The minister from the North Shore has a really good knowledge of shop floors around Australia! This is what happens here—these guys come out of the North Shore of Sydney and sit here and tell people how to run their businesses. This legislation is about war. In a place like Newcastle, this government is trying to get my employers to go to war with their workers. This is about trying to incite war between employers and workers.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—That is ridiculous.FI4Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—Minister, you go back and tell your friends on the North Shore that the employers in Newcastle do not want a war, they just want to work with their work force. They want to work with them cooperatively because they know they will get the best that way. That is no better demonstrated than in recent times at BHP. So go back to the North Shore and learn a bit about what is happening on the shop floors.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—What have you ever done in Newcastle?FI4Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—I have spent the last four years trying to fend off what you are doing in Newcastle. This minister has helped cut 500 jobs from the federal payroll in Newcastle. The government has cut services. I have got 1,500 people being retrenched tomorrow. For the first time in history, those men will not have access to income support and most of them will not have access to job placement support from the government. It is the first time for many decades. Who is that done by? It is by this minister, sitting here rabbiting on that he knows what it is about and about what is happening in Newcastle.These guys should hang their heads in shame. What they have done to my community is absolutely appalling. They pay lip-service to involvement. Go to Newcastle and talk to the employers. Ask them whether they want this legislation. The fact is that they do not. This government is going to heavy employers to make them do it. This govern ment wants employers to go to war with their workers. Why? Because of its ideology. We are back to the dear old days of Thatcherism when there is no community, just individuals. Put them against each other, put them to war with each other and it is much easier to control them.This is about ideology. We have watched here month after month while this government gets caught up in its ideology versus application. Its view of the world is so warped and twisted, as shown by the title of the bill—`more jobs, better pay': what a warped way of putting forward legislation. The government's view of the world is so distorted by its 1960s ideology that it really has lost the plot. The tragedy is that in the process it has damaged this country enormously. We have seen events in recent weeks in other spheres of government activity which are so damaging to this country, to its work force and to all of its people. Who is going to pay for all that? The BHP workers who have just lost their entitlements. Entitlements to income support have been given to people being retrenched for decades and decades, but that is now gone. Where has it gone to? To make up the surplus which the Treasurer boasts is his surplus. It is not his surplus; it is paid for by the workers of this country. Now it is going to pay for the fiasco in foreign policy.This legislation being debated today is timely in the sense that it does contrast the real world and the government's world, the nightmare that they live in: the demonising of unions, the demonising of workers and the whole attempt to divide our community and our employers. Tomorrow we are going to see 1,500 people retrenched at BHP Newcastle with the cessation of steel making. That is going to be a very difficult period for those people and for our whole community. But make no mistake, we will soldier on through that. We are a tough community, we are tough people, and we adapt. The question is whether we should have needed to and whether what is being done in terms of that is appropriate.The great lesson out of this last two years—one is now seeing it mentioned in the media increasingly—is the level of cooperation between that work force and their management. The figures demonstrate that the reliability, the productivity and the safety record of the plant in the last two years have never been better. It is absolutely astounding. BHP management have been quite stunned to find that the more they deal with their people on a close and personal basis the better results they are getting.There was an annual dinner just a few weeks back in Newcastle of the Australian Industry Group, the old MTIA but now called AIG. The guest speaker at that dinner was Mr Bob Every, President of BHP Steel Australia wide. His speech was quite riveting in that he gave an outline of the history of Newcastle and BHP Newcastle which was both germane and beneficial. Then he stopped speaking and brought on five workers from BHP to finish his speech for him. The five workers went through the events of the last two years within their own personal working lives. What they conveyed to a dinner of 400 of Newcastle's leading industrialists and businesspeople, particularly in the engineering and metals field, was that they have, like never before, learned to cooperate and work together. Apparently these five people gave a presentation to all of BHP Steel management a few months earlier—some 60 of the senior management—and got a standing ovation. The message they gave was that, by working together and cooperating, staff and management had actually all improved their performance and, what is more, they had enjoyed their work more.The stories they told were absolutely fascinating. One man said he had been taken ill at work and when he woke up in hospital the first face he saw was his supervisor's. He said, `That never used to happen. The idea of a supervisor coming in to see me in hospital was unbelievable. He actually cared about me. I couldn't believe he actually cared.' He said, `I then found out that not only that but he had actually arranged for a taxi to bring my wife in as well.' Another worker talked about the birth of their first child and the flowers that arrived from the work group in the plant. In other words, there was actual caring for each other across the demarcations. The staff- worker divides and all those things have actually been forgotten in the last two years. The results are phenomenal. They went through story after story of improvement, of change, of their self-esteem, of their confidence and of their greater satisfaction—all the things one looks for in a working life these people talked about. The response they got at the end of the performance was truly amazing.The tragedy of that speech that night was that it took a closure of steel making to bring that lesson forward. What BHP are actually saying now and what was said publicly that night was that they have learned more about industrial relations and about management of their work force in the last two years than ever before in the previous 83 years. What is more, they are applying it and will be applying it into the future. Talking to the people at the dinner later that night, it was obvious to me that the lessons had not been missed. The people who were there, managers and owners of businesses right across Newcastle and the Hunter, were all applauding the comments that had been made but they were also endorsing the sentiment. The way to greater productivity, the way to better quality and the way to improve economic performance in a company is by better utilising your greatest asset.As one of the people said that night to BHP, `You invest in us and we'll look after your business.' That was coming from a person, a straight BHP worker, who understood a very simple thing that the government has not even thought about and does not want to hear about. The message that was coming out that night was so powerful, and it is a shame that the ministers of this government do not go and listen to those kinds of people because that is where the real issues are.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Oh?FI4Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—They are not on the North Shore of Sydney but on the shop floors and in the meeting rooms. The dialogue between workers and management has been taking place across this country for the last 20 years. In Newcastle we actually have a quite unique industrial history. Back in August 1982, when the current Prime Minister was then Treasurer in the Fraser government, BHP announced the retrenchment of 5,000 people overnight. We dropped 5,000 on-site jobs overnight and as many jobs off-site within months.The government would not even come to Newcastle to talk to anybody. We tried to get to Newcastle a minister who would actually talk to us about it; no-one would even come. Some ministers in the government now, like the Minister for Defence and the current Prime Minister, were ministers in that government in those days and they would not come near us. We could not get anybody to even think about it. We had to do it all by ourselves. We had to work our way through the most difficult and challenging problems faced by industrial areas that this country has ever seen, and we did that.We changed faster than anybody in the world. I have been to other steel centres. I have been to Liverpool, Birmingham and Dusseldorf. I have looked at steel centres around the world and our adaptation in Newcastle was faster than that of any of those steel areas. So my community responded to that challenge with no help from those opposite. When Labor came into government in 1983 we instituted a program to help retrain people, to help companies to restructure and to help shift the focus away from price and across to quality, performance and marketing. How come we are exporting? How come our manufacturing exports have gone up so much? Was it because of those opposite? Of course it was not; it was because of the workers and the managements of our companies who learnt how to compete in manufactured products in world markets.The performance of our companies, particularly the ones in the Hunter, has been absolutely staggering. All through that period of adaptation, multiskilling and the dropping of demarcation, the whole process of adapting and making our work force more productive was based on cooperation. It was based on the need for the workers and the management of an organisation to work as a team and to work together for common objectives. We have done that like you would not believe. And what happens now? The government brings in legislation to remove all that, to remove all the underpinnings. All the sense of equality, all the sense of inclusiveness and all the sense of ownership are being taken away so what we have in fact is back to the battlefield.We are going back to the 1930s, not to the 1960s. This is back to the 1930s stuff, when ideology ran rampant. This has nothing to do with reality—this does not relate to the real world. There is no serious manager in Australia who wants this legislation. The government is forcing it on the community and on management and it will then try to force companies to actually apply it and generate the kinds of scenes it wants to see. It wants the nightly news to have footage of workers and management at war in a pitched battle of some form.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Oh?FI4Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—We have already seen it on the damn docks, for god's sake, Minister.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Really?FI4Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—Don't go into your fantasy for the North Shore of Sydney. Go back up there and tell them all that stuff. They might believe you; we in the real world don't.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—You're in the real world?FI4Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—We are faced daily by the issues of industrial relations, of workers working together, of getting our quality right and of getting our performance right, and you lot opposite simply sit there and pontificate about nonsense. This is nightmare stuff. This legislation is a waste of money, it is a waste of time, it is a total distraction to the country and it pushes us in exactly the wrong direction. It goes all in the wrong direction.Mr Hockey interjecting—FI4Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—Productivity and profitability are not about this legislation. They are about performance. They are about investing in your work force and making it the best it can possibly be and telling it that it is the best.The conversion of our work force more and more into casual, part-time, body-hire processes—and the escalation of that in recent years is quite staggering—undermines the skill base and the long-term continuity of organisations and simply puts us on a price performance-only basis. We will never be the cheapest at anything; there is always someone cheaper. Any country that focuses itself on price alone is being absolutely suicidal.This government is ratcheting down wages, step by step by step, by undermining the basis for negotiations between workers and their management. If you look at the European economies of Sweden and Germany, they are not the world's cheapest; they are the world's best in a whole range of issues.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Why?FI4Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—We were getting to be the world's best in a range of products.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Yes, but why?FI4Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—Look at the export of electronics, Minister. Where did that come from? Did you generate that? You had all those years in government before we came in. In 1982, in that one year alone, our manufacturing work force dropped by 10 per cent. With John Howard as Treasurer, in one year our manufacturing work force dropped by 10 per cent. Why did that happen, Minister? Why was that? Because of the mentality in this legislation. Because you generated a wall between the work force and their management. Who suffers? We all suffer. In those wars there are no winners: we are all losers and we are all victims.What we have here now is not a government on the sidelines as a cheer-squad like it used to be. Now it is right in the battlefield. There is a wonderful irony here. We have the architect of Dubai and the Patrick's scam of shifting a work force into a shell company with no capacity to pay its entitlements. We have the great scheme that was put forward in the Patrick's exercise engineered by the minister, yet the same minister brings in, a few weeks ago, legislation while trying to tell us he is actually going to protect entitlements. Jekyll and Hyde have nothing on this guy! Jekyll and Hyde are kindergarten stuff while these people are seriously schizoid, and malevolently so. They are manipulating the Australian work force for ideological ends, because they think there are still votes in that old 1930s hysteria. The fact is that not only are there no votes, Minister, but there will be disaster for the country. After tomorrow we will stop exporting a billion dollars worth of steel a year.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—That's rubbish.FI4Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—A billion dollars worth of steel will be stopped from being sold by this country.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—That is just rubbish.FI4Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—Where is the government at?DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—That's rubbish.DK6Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—That is how much he knows. Go back to the North Shore. We currently export over a billion dollars worth of steel a year from Australia. After tomorrow, we stop making a billion dollars worth. The steel is no longer made. We drop production of steel by 1.7 million tonnes a year; therefore we will not have it to sell. Where is the government? Sitting on the treasury bench whipping up a war. When the real war is taking place in the marketplaces of the world, these guys are here trying to have a little war at the shop floor level by bringing in legislation to massively empower employers who do not want the power—to virtually force them into war. This legislation is not just irrelevant. It is not just a distraction. It is absolutely dangerous, because it puts us back to the mind-set that we worked so hard to get away from.Tomorrow I talk to those people at BHP—the management, who are also losing their jobs, and the workers. It is not just one side or the other. There are no winners there. They are all going to lose their jobs. The message that will come across from those people is, `Give us hope. Give us positiveness. We work together, why can't you?' The Prime Minister came to town a few months ago. Who did he talk to? Not to me. Not to the Lord Mayor. Not to the state members. He talked to a private group in a private meeting. This was the first time that I can recall a Prime Minister being in Newcastle and not talking to the Lord Mayor of Newcastle. These people are seriously partisan.My workers and my management from my companies who are facing enormously difficult times want to see some constructive governing. They want to see some positive things happening—not gutting awards and not inciting war between unions and management. They want to see governments governing for all of us. Remember the slogan in 1996—`For all of us'? What happened to that? This legislation is not about all of us. It is about a very small few. But the tragedy is that if it is carried in its current form it will damage all of us. That is perhaps what Mr Howard means by `governing for all of us'—to hurt all of us. It is only by his ideology they actually can do that.This legislation should not just be amended; it should be tossed out. It should not be on the Notice Paper. There are much more important things to be dealing with in this country. We have some real major crises. Industrial relations is not one of them. It is no longer an issue. Unions are part of the solution, not part of the problem. The sooner the government realises that and gets down to governing properly the better off we will all be. If the government has any sense at all, it will get it off the agenda. At this time and place, this is not appropriate. (Time expired)23:02:0010866Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—This legislation, with its laughable title, `More Jobs, Better Pay', represents the basest of motives in stripping the rights of Australians at work and returning us to the struggle between capital and labour. It is a bill that is ruthless in its attempts to diminish the conditions of Australian workers as well as destroy the impartiality of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.Unlike the conservatives, we on this side have adapted to change. We do not take the view that employers are the enemy. We support the new attitudes we are finding in workplaces across Australia where teamwork and intelligent approaches to doing the job are valued by business and employees alike. We support the new partnerships being established where problem solving is shared to the mutual benefit of both parties. We were the party that introduced a corporatist approach to industrial relations under the Hawke and Keating governments, most notably the introduction of enterprise bargaining.We have come a long way since the 19th century. It was Labor that in 1904 fought for a system of conciliation and arbitration which has served Australia well for the best part of the century. It was Labor that in recent years restructured the Australian work force to embrace the new era of globalisation. It was painful, it was difficult, it was bold, but we did it in such a way as to minimise as much as possible the impact on working Australians. The fruits of Labor's work are about us today. The government might be claiming the credit, but many economic analysts will contend that the reforms of the Hawke and Keating governments in the 1980s and 1990s brought about the economic growth that the Howard government crows about today.I really have a problem understanding why this government and, in particular, this Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business are so hell-bent on destroying the social fabric that Australia has embraced for a century. Sure, there have been a number of bitter industrial disputes over the years, but the commission through its various forms has contributed greatly to the settling of these disputes. A study by the ABS found that management was five times more likely to be the cause of industrial disputes than employees. The finger points to incompetent management, a problem that I would suggest is much more pressing than bashing unions. To work smarter, employees today rely on good management and communication. Bad management does not anticipate problems, does not communicate objectives and does not value the contribution by its most valuable resource—the people who make it happen.Unions have been playing the liaison role when management fails. Again, we have a partnership and it is a partnership recognised by progressive businesses as productive, necessary—even desirable. No sound business wants to return to battling with its workers. No good business today will tell any of its people that they are paid not to think but only to work. Good business wants all of its people to think all of the time. However, this government is willing to legislate in favour of poorly managed businesses. It is willing to exacerbate fear in the workplace. Who on the minimum wage, with a mortgage and a young family, is going to risk everything by raising concerns with their employer? What low skilled employee is going to be able to negotiate with their employer a pay rise or improvement in their working conditions? The answer is: very few. All bargaining power is with the employer. This is a very foolhardy approach by this government.I gather there are a few modern historians in this government's ranks. They would know that this aggressive approach provokes a reciprocal response. The last conservative government in this country that attempted to embark upon such a radical program of worker bashing was the Bruce Nationalist government of the 1920s. S.M. Bruce, ironically, held the seat of Flinders. We all know in this chamber who now holds the seat of Flinders; it is held by the Hon. Peter Keaston Reith. Very interestingly, S.M. Bruce is still the only Prime Minister to have lost his seat—a direct consequence of his manic attempts to repress Australian workers.This legislation is regressive. Days lost through disputes are very low. We have a system with the lowest level of industrial disputes in 80 years. Why? Because of the cooperative approach Labor put into place. We did not have ministers that blatantly took sides in disputes. We did not have ministers conspiring with an employer to breach their own legislation so as to sack an entire work force. The minister believes working Australians cannot be trusted—that they are shirkers, malingerers, a bunch of bolshies seeking world domination through collectivisation under trade unions—much like Bruce did. They think bosses need a firmer hand. This is retro stuff. It is a conspiracy theory fantasy which seems to be inherent in conservative ideology.You see, Mr Deputy Speaker, Labor developed a value of trust in the workplace. Employers trusted their employees, and the other way around, more so than ever before. They have to because it is not economic or productive to employ goons with balaclavas and dogs. Indeed, you would be a pretty backward employer if you resorted to such measures.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—The Liberal way; get in the rottweilers.83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN—The shadow minister is correct. What this government should be concerned about is the sorry situation which arose with the Cobars and the Oakdales, where employees' funds were not secured.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Oh! What did you do? For 13 years, you did nothing.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Order! I call the minister to order.83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN—The minister at the table does not like to hear the truth; you know it is true. There was no outrage and no sympathy at all from the Prime Minister or the workplace relations minister. It took talkback radio to get a change of mind after more than a month of sidestepping the issue. In regard to Oakdale, when decency and fairness demanded action, even the local member, the Minister for Finance and Administration, was out to lunch. And the Cobar workers are still in limbo today.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—For 13 years, what did you do? Nothing.83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN—This is an out-of-date mind-set.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—You've got a poor record on this.83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN—I am happy I am upsetting the minister at the table. This government takes the view that workers are the enemy, that the war between capital and labour has not been concluded, that unions are evil and should be crushed. Australians did not accept this rampant ideological obsession in the 1920s, so why would they accept this leading into the 21st century?In fact, employers are having a tough time with employee loyalty. They are having trouble keeping good people. There are many causes, but the major one is downsizing causing angst and job insecurity. This fear can be blamed on the decline of union member ship. What this government does not understand is that union membership provides a sense of belonging to an industry. Belonging to a union takes away the trepidation of employee-employer negotiations. Unions have a role in the modern workplace, as many employers will tell you. Just because there has been some market research showing unions have to lift their customer service standards to stay a major player in the game, it does not necessarily mean that the proportion of the work force with union membership is hugely dissatisfied or that the proportion without union membership is hostile.I joined a trade union at the age of 16 and I am proud to still be a member of a trade union today. Young people today are not signing up with unions like I did when I was 16 years of age because this government has made them frightened to join a trade union. Who is going to join when they have to sneak behind the employer's back to join? You would have to be street smart and pretty game. We have the ludicrous proposal that a workplace is classified as a closed shop if 60 per cent are union members. The government calls that freedom of association. The government's deceit is there for all to see, with its present advertising campaign in favour of freedom of association.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—What is wrong with that?83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN—What a joke! It is a joke, Minister. If you have to sneak around for an organisation to represent your basic rights, where is the freedom? The answer is there is no freedom at all for Australian workers. Anybody should have the right to withdraw his or her labour if the circumstances permit. Everyone in a democracy should have the right of assembly. Unions are a worker's cover against adverse circumstances. It makes sense to delegate. That is what unions are for. That is what the whole system has been developed for—protection for employees; independent conciliation and arbitration.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—How rich are the unions? How many shares do the unions own? What about their property portfolio?83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN—Minister, it is fairness for all. This legislation shows this government's unwillingness to understand the fundamentals of industrial relations. It is revenge for the independence of the courts in the docks dispute. The minister thinks you can achieve industrial relations reform with a crash or crash through approach. Those who follow this philosophy usually end up crashing with disastrous consequences. But this minister is an ideological zealot. He is driven to destroy the union movement. This has been tried before by greater and stronger people than this minister, and they have failed and they will continue to fail. Those who try will always fail. The Australian people will not put up with being bullied into submission.Even the Australian Industry Group is nervous about these amendments. The Director of Industrial Relations for the AIG, Mr Roger Boland, was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald on 28 June as saying:. . . many employers . . . would be reluctant to "light a fire" under the issue because completely unionised sites did not necessarily impede business.This is from a group that represents an industry that has undergone major reform in the last 15 years or so. The Master Builders of Australia agree.This government is also attempting to destroy the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. It is changing the name. It says that everything should be sorted out in the workplace. So if an employee has problems, approaches their employer and is told to take a hike, what happens then? The employee must give notice of representation by providing an invitation to their union—that is, if they have one. If they do not, where do they go? The answer is: they have nowhere to go. `Sort it out for yourself,' the government says.As I stated at the beginning of my speech, the commission's impartiality is under threat. The introduction of limited seven-year terms is a blatant attempt to pressure the commission into making favourable decisions. We have already seen how the minister has no problem intervening in decisions he believes are not correct. Last year he lodged an application with the commission to review something like 35 awards that had been through the simplification process, because he believed that they had not met his legislative criteria. And he is constantly on the com mission's back, whether it be award simplification, the living wage decision or a number of other cases. The basis of our Westminster system is the principle of the separation of powers. The commission is a quasi-legal institution. It was formed to independently conciliate and, if need be, to arbitrate in settling industrial disputes. Can you imagine the furore if governments began appointing judges to the courts of the land for fixed terms?Another provision is for the commission members to receive compulsory training through their terms. What does this imply? That some members of the commission are not qualified to provide the correct decisions? These people have had decades of experience in industrial relations, and most have had quite a number of years on the commission itself—and they need training? This is absolutely unbelievable.In conclusion, this bill is the worst attempt to undermine the conditions of Australian workers in this country's history. This government's ideological obsession with the destruction of the union movement and the independent umpire will see the workers take revenge. And they will take revenge: they will take revenge at the ballot box at the next federal election.11:18:0010869O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—I rise on behalf of the working people of the Corio electorate, which encompasses the great city of Geelong, to oppose the Howard government's Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 , and I do so with considerable political authority. I went to the last election strongly opposing the Howard government's industrial relations changes, and I increased my majority, which now stands at 61.5 per cent of the vote. I remind the minister at the table that the party which I represent polled, on a two-party preferred basis, more than the parties which now sit on the treasury bench. In my electorate recently, the workers of Geelong held a rally to oppose this legislation, and 15,000 workers in Victoria's largest provincial city took to the streets. That is the authority that I bring in opposing this legislation which the government has put before this House.The government has form in the industrial relations area, and its real objective in this legislation is unstated. Its real objective is to break down the ability of workers to collectively bargain for better wages and conditions. The positions that have been taken on this legislation by the opposition and by the government really reflect two views of the world. I guess we must go to the title of the bill to really see the reflection of those points of view. The government has entitled this bill `More Jobs, Better Pay' but, as the workers of Australia know, there are no new, real, secure jobs for them in this legislation. They also know the form of Liberal governments at the Victorian state level and at the federal level, which has led already to a significant assault on their level of wages and the conditions which they enjoy.The two views of the world that are reflected in the debate on this legislation are simply this: on the one hand, you have an opposition that wants a highly skilled work force, an education system that gives opportunities and real skill development to the work force, significant investment in research and development and real growth in jobs and investment; and on the other hand, you have a conservative party that has as its basic premise, reflected in this legislation, that to get more investment and more jobs in this country all you have to do is simply screw down the level of wages and abolish the conditions that are enjoyed by the working people of this nation.I want to reflect on what is involved in this legislation for working people. The workers of Australia must be very clear about what is at stake for them and their families in the Australian workplace under this legislation. It will lead to a long-term reduction in wages for many working people, and involves a dismantling of the conditions of employment which were won by their fathers, mothers and uncles in workplaces throughout this country over a long period of time. This legislation represents a reduction in the effectiveness of long established institutions to offer some form of protection in the workplace for workers and their children. It involves a reduction in resources to protect workers against unfair practices.I think the ultimate obscenity is in the title of this bill—`More Jobs, Better Pay'. It is an insult to working families across this nation. The minister is treating the work force with the same arrogance that his counterpart—the person who will soon become the former Premier of the state of Victoria—treated electors with in Victoria. By glibly entitling this industrial relations legislation as `More Jobs, Better Pay' the minister seeks to treat Australian workers as fools, and for that—just like Jeff Kennett—he will pay a heavy political price for the assault that he is making in this legislation on the living standards of Australian working families.While we are on the subject of the Victorian state election, I would like to remind the House of the Kennett legacy in the state of Victoria, which was overwhelmingly rejected by the people of Victoria in the poll which was held recently. It is worth reflecting on the form of the Victorian caretaker Premier on industrial relations matters and the part that that has played in his demise in the state of Victoria. It was Jeff Kennett who, on becoming Premier of Victoria, led the first conservative government assault on the wages and conditions of Victorian workers. It was an industrial relations regime born out of arrogance. It certainly was not born out of ignorance because Jeff Kennett knew exactly what he was doing to Victorian workers with the first wave of industrial relations legislation that was introduced when he came to power. He was arrogant, and he has paid dearly for that arrogance at the polls. When he sought to introduce industrial relations changes of the sort that we had seen introduced in New Zealand and in Thatcher's Britain, the Victorian electorate reacted dramatically and savagely and with a vengeance against that conservative government.It was a federal Labor government that provided Victorian workers at the time with federal award protection—an award protection system the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, this government and this minister at the table have been intent on dismantling since they came to power. People in this nation will not be fooled by the title of this particular bill—`More Jobs, Better Pay'. A more apt title for the legislation should be `Less Jobs and Worse Pay'.The coalition has the outmoded view with regard to job creation that simply by lowering the cost of labour there will be massive job creation in the Australian economy. The real way to create jobs in this society—real long-term, secure, meaningful, high-skilled jobs—is to encourage innovation and investment and to encourage education, training, research and development in our private enterprises and our public institutions. But here we have a government which has carved up the education and training expenditures in successive budgets. We have seen massive reductions in private sector research and development and an assault on the process of massive skilling that was initiated by Labor under Working Nation and dismantled by this coalition government.As far as better pay is concerned, I say to the minister and the whole frontbench of the Howard government, come to my electorate in Geelong and talk to workers at the Geelong hospital and to the workers in some of the smaller engineering businesses. They will certainly tell you that, since the Howard government came to power, it has not been a better pay situation. What they have got from this government and from Liberal governments at the state level is more job insecurity, an assault on their conditions under which they work and a diminution of their wages. That is the reality for working people in Geelong today. If we allow this legislation to go through this parliament, then we are going to see a further diminution of the wages and conditions that are currently being enjoyed by workers in my electorate.Let me now turn to major elements of this bill. I wish to examine in more detail several aspects of this bill because it is in the detail of the bill that the nefarious intent of this legislation and this minister can be fully appreciated. If we turn to the issue of awards—the central element that has maintained the wages and conditions of working people in my electorate—we see that this legislation continues the assault that was made in the first wave legislation introduced by the minister. This legislation will remove as allowable matters in awards skill based career paths, tallies and bonuses, long service leave, notice of termination, leave for jury service, superannuation, trade union training leave and union picnic days. You can argue with some elements of that, but when you go to the removal of incidental allowable matters you can appreciate the dimensions of the government's assault on the award system. This was the federal award system that gave protection and succour to Victorian workers when Jeff Kennett attempted to drive the boot into them in his first term as Premier of the state of Victoria.This legislation makes it harder for workers under state award systems to achieve federal award coverage. That is, when a state government of the ilk of that on the verge of being turfed out in Victoria assaults the wages and conditions of working people, this legislation tries to take away from those workers their ability to seek protection under the federal award system. That is what Labor did in government: it gave Victorian workers the protection of the federal award system in the face of the assault that was being made by Jeff Kennett. Now this government wants to remove that particular protection from them.If we go to the issue of workplace agreements, we find exactly what in practice and in detail this legislation means. It removes the requirement that the employer must offer the same AWA to all comparable employees and thus it allows a discriminatory approach to offering agreements in the workplace. Rather than offer a system that brings cohesion to the workplace, this one will divide it. And, of course, this legislation allows AWAs to be made that undercut a collective certified agreement even while the latter is in operation.As far as industrial action goes, we see that this legislation is biased heavily in favour of the employers. Unprotected action for employers is only to include lockout action, but unprotected action for employee organisations is there to include all forms of industrial action. This is the fairness of this government's industrial relations system—a deliberate bias against working people and the organisations that seek to represent them. Of course, we have the assault on the entry and inspection of premises by legitimate organisations. This particular legislation limits a union's ability to enter an employer's premises to hold discussions with employees or to investigate award breaches where the union has a written invitation from its members.What does this legislation mean in practice? It is more of the same that occurred when we had the first wave of industrial legislation under this minister. I want to mention here exactly what has happened under the government's legislation.There have been many examples brought to me but none more insightful than the one I want to quote here today. It involves the CFMEU in Melbourne receiving information about workers at a company producing blinds who were working up to 40 hours of overtime and not receiving any penalty rates. They were concerned that machinery and chemical safety were not being adequately addressed by the company. After writing to the company to request the right of entry and being refused on numerous occasions, the union had the matter listed for hearing before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. The request from the work force came on 9 December 1997 and it took until 13 July 1999 for heads of agreement to be reached between the union and the company over the matter. You might well ask what happened to the issues of chemical safety or the issues of machinery safety. I could go through the detail of this case: it makes for quite extraordinary reading regarding the time lines. The company refused the union right of entry to hold discussions in the lunchroom with the workers. Unions received notice from workers advising of exploitation and intimidation. All of these things were there in this instance, but of course the workers were not able to be represented by their elected representatives.At Pivot, a company in my electorate, seven workers who had worked there for 25-plus years were called into the lunchroom by management one day and retrenched on the spot. They were handed their pay and told that contractors would be doing the work the very next day. When their union and their workmates tried to protect their jobs, the union found themselves in the courts for doing their job of protecting their members' rights—for no other reason than trying to protect the rights of their members. On a construction site in Geelong, the Employment Advocate made the building unions take down all union signs and remove union stickers promoting their union from the workers' helmets.Here we have a structure that is really, at its nitpicking worst, aimed at trying to smash the union movement. Workers at Shell in Geelong, after 22 unsuccessful attempts to negotiate a decent agreement with their employer, removed their labour and found themselves and their union in court. When concerned Geelong citizens took the place of unionists on the peaceful picket lines, police on horseback, armed with batons, tried to break up the peaceful assembly. The reaction to all of this on the streets in Geelong was what I mentioned at the start of my discussion of this legislation: 15,000 workers out of the Geelong work force taking to the streets in Geelong to protest against this legislation.In my portfolio area I have made a very strong issue of farm safety because there are too many farmers dying on farms throughout Australia at this point in time. I also have a concern for workers in rural and regional businesses. This legislation will add to their uncertainty because those workers will not have a sufficient degree of representation by unions in their workplaces or in their communities. They will be left without protection for their workers' entitlements. Occupational health and safety issues will be put at risk by this legislation.The safety of farmhands, shearers and other workers in rural and remote areas will certainly be a concern with this legislation. We have had cases of young trainees in the dairy industry who were made to work 12 to 14 hours a day, seven days a week, without a break, for $5 an hour and with no appropriate training. If that is the promised land under this `More Pay, Better Jobs' legislation, then the Australian work force will most certainly reject it. (Time expired)11:38:0010873Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—The Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 has nothing to do with creating more jobs or better pay. How could a bill that tips the scales further in favour of employers in bargaining with workers lead to better pay and conditions? The reason for the introduction of this second wave of industrial relations legislation has nothing do with good policy and everything to do with politics.The politics I speak of is internal Liberal Party politics, as various contenders and pretenders for the leadership jostle to get on the right side of the Prime Minister. But getting on the right side of the Prime Minister is easier said than done. I say that for two reasons. The first is that the Prime Minister is about as far to the right as you could possibly get for an Australian Prime Minister. I refer here to a declaration of the Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition. This was on 2 March 1987 when he was trying to fend off the `Joh for PM' campaign. He told the John Laws program:Everybody who knows me knows that I am the most conservative leader the Liberal Party has ever had.He was right then, and it is truer today than it ever was. So getting on the right side of the Prime Minister is exceedingly difficult. At that time he was courting the New Right and the H.R. Nicholls Society. He was obsessed with the New Right agenda of smashing the union movement and moving to individual contracts. He purged the parliamentary Liberal Party of wets and replaced them with dries. At that time he was impressed with the lawyer who took on the Dollar Sweets case. That lawyer is now the Treasurer.The second reason for it being hard to get on the right side of the Prime Minister is that it is pretty crowded over there. We have the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, the greatest punisher and straightener since Governor Bligh. He knocked off that wet Ian Macphee for the preselection for Goldstein and he says, `Pick me, pick me.' But what are his credentials to be at the right hand of the Prime Minister? They are quite good, because he threatens to withdraw funding for disadvantaged schools that need it most.Next there is the Treasurer, a self-declared income tax cut man, obsessed with cutting the top marginal rate for high income earners and opening up new tax avoidance opportunities for the wealthy—as if there weren't enough already.Then there is the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. He will not be outdone in the Far Right stakes. He donned the balaclavas and unleashed the guard dogs in the waterfront dispute he manufactured and then denied all knowledge of involvement.So far there are three starters in the `Far Right Stakes': Balaclava Pete, Governor Bligh and Lachlan's Boy. Next there is a lightweight entry—the Minister for Employment Services, that loyal monarchist, Lizzy's Lad. He is a bit of an outsider but he is in the race, I think at around 33 to 1. But he does have good recent form in weaker company. That form was demonstrated by his declaration that unemployed people are `job snobs'. That gives him real form in the `Far Right Stakes'. This is an employment minister who represents an electorate which has an unemployment rate of 2.3 per cent. The residents of Warringah can afford to be a bit choosy about the jobs that are offered to them, but for the minister for employment to label the disadvantaged job seekers in areas such as Woodridge and Kingston in Logan City in my own electorate as `job snobs', when there is 25 per cent unemployment, is completely outrageous. But it does help boost his credentials in the `Far Right Stakes'. He labels as `job snobs' the 12 Australians who are competing for each job vacancy in this country.But language like labelling unemployed people `job snobs' would be impressive to that champion of the far Right, and here I refer to Ming's Dynasty. In the `Far Right Stakes' the pretenders and the contenders are going to have a lot of difficulty beating Ming's Dynasty, the current Prime Minister of Australia, but Balaclava Pete thinks he can give it a shake. He told a business lunch in Perth on 9 July last year:Never forget the history of politics and never forget which side we're on. We're on the side of making profits. We're on the side of people owning private capital.And that is the problem. The minister for workplace relations is on one side. He is on the employer's side, against the other side, the employees. That is his view of the world. That is the view of the far Right.We cannot have decent industrial relations legislation when its architect sees his role as taking sides, taking the side of the bosses against the workers. That is a counterproductive approach—it is divisive and it cannot lead to more jobs and better pay. Australians do not want governments to take sides in industrial disputes. Australians want governments to facilitate the resolution of industrial disputes and to do everything they can effectively to avoid industrial disputes arising in the first place.It is for that reason that Australians want an independent umpire in avoiding and in resolving disputes, an umpire who is free of government interference or intimidation. Yet this bill proposes to handicap the independent umpire, the Industrial Relations Commission. Under this bill the government wants commissioners to be beholden to it. It wants to achieve this through the mechanism of limiting their tenure to seven years, or in particular cases to 12 months. The purpose of this is that the government hopes that those commissioners will fall into line with government ideology and, with the government's view of particular industrial disputes, under pain of not being reappointed as commissioners. This is consistent with the minister's view of capital versus labour. He wants to limit the role of unions further in bargaining on behalf of their workers. He claims this will lead to better pay—that is inconceivable.The minister wants to worsen working conditions even further than the first wave of industrial relations legislation by stripping awards. He wants to strip the awards most for the lowest paid workers. He does not want to give the lowest paid workers any pay rises until the awards are fully and effectively stripped. Finally, the minister wants to put workers onto individual contracts, regardless of whether the employees want that to happen or the employers want that to happen. This is just more ideological obsession.This legislation must be the longest job application I have ever seen. It is a job application from the minister to be at the helm of the far Right. Increasingly, it is true that the policy of the Howard government is being driven not by what is good for the country but what is considered to be good for the ambitions of its leadership contenders and pretenders. This is not modern legislation aimed at facilitating the creation of more jobs and better pay in an evolving labour market. This legislation reveals no vision and it reveals no understanding of evolving workplaces in the information age. The legislation reflects a government desire to fight new battles—all along the front of the New Right. It is nothing but old-style class warfare. I remind you that its architect, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, said, `Never forget which side we're on. We're on the side of profits. We're on the side of people owning private capital.'I am not going to get into trench warfare on a thousand clauses and have exhaustion by a thousand clauses, because this legislation should be thrown out. We should start again on a modern, visionary employment policy—that is the challenge for this parliament—and not argue the point about each and every clause. We should throw the legislation out. The secretary-elect of the ACTU, Greg Combet, is applying new thinking to the evolving work force. He is showing that he has a vision of the future of relations between workers and employers. He is showing that there is a vital role for the trade union movement in representing employees in bargaining over pay and conditions. He is demonstrating that the trade union movement can look forward, can have vision, and can understand that we have an evolving workplace and that there are new challenges to be met in forging good relationships between employers and employees in those workplaces. But the government lacks all vision. This bill should be abandoned. In its place should be a biparti san approach to reducing unemployment and continually boosting productivity as an investment in the nation's future prosperity.The reforms of the 1980s undertaken by the Hawke and Keating governments are still producing good results for workers in Australia. They are producing more employment; they are producing higher wages. They were difficult reforms, but they were implemented with courage. So let us see a repetition of that approach. That approach was one of reforms based on cooperation and not conflict. Let us work out where the jobs of the future will be. Let us have a bit of forward thinking and planning in relation to these matters, and then let us build the nation's capacity to compete successfully for those jobs in the global economy, because that is where we are competing. That involves investing in the nation's people and providing incentives for unemployed people to move from welfare to work.What incentive is there for unemployed people to work? From next year, under this so-called new tax system, an unemployed person who is offered a part-time or casual job paying around $10,000 to $15,000 a year will face an effective marginal tax rate of 87 cents in the dollar. That is, for every extra dollar earned that person will be able to keep only 13 cents in the dollar. And the government says that is incentive for the unemployed to get jobs! There is no incentive there. In addition, that unemployed person would need to take into account the cost of getting to and from work, clothes, child care and so on. So all incentive is removed. There is no incentive for the unemployed to move from welfare to work.The Treasurer is preoccupied with one thing—that is, cutting the top marginal rate of income tax for high income earners, which is 48.5 cents in the dollar. That 48.5 cents in the dollar should be compared with the 87 cents in the dollar that unemployed people face. The Treasurer is not preoccupied—or even remotely interested—with the 87 cents in the dollar effective marginal tax rate. He is preoccupied with cutting the 48.5 cents in the dollar marginal tax rate for high income earners. Why? It is because he is ideologically obsessed with offering more benefits to high income earners and opening up more avoidance opportunities for them.In the first job application of the minister for workplace relations—that is, his letter to the Prime Minister setting out his new draconian industrial relations agenda—he referred to Labor's tax credit plan to increase incentives to work. That is what it would do. It would address this problem of the high marginal tax rate effectively faced by unemployed people. But the minister said that the government was not interested in doing that. Why is that? It is because it is a Labor proposal. If the government were genuinely concerned about jobs, it would seek not only to improve those incentives to move from welfare to work but also to enhance the skills of young people in disadvantaged areas, because that is where the high unemployment rates are. Figures released recently by the New South Wales government show that in Broken Hill, Moree and Mount Druitt, one in four year 3 students are in the lowest band of reading. Yet in Hornsby, Ryde and the northern beaches of Sydney, the figure is less than one in 20.DH4HOLLISMr Hollis—I wonder why.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—I wonder why. The reason for that is that the government is unconcerned with dealing with the fundamental problem of disadvantage—that is, lifting the skills base of kids who live in disadvantaged areas. What is the government's response? It is to punish the students in these schools by threatening to withdraw funding under the literacy and numeracy program. Today, one in five children is growing up in a household where no-one has a job and one in three children is growing up in a household where there is no male working, no male role model for the boys as they grow up. These disadvantaged families are the families having children; the double income no kids families—or DINKS—are delaying having their children. They are doing all right in the information age and are having only one or two children. I have grave fears of rising inequality in Australia, but this government refuses even to recognise it as a problem. For it the exception proves the rule.We had a debate on this just the other day. Government members said, `Oh, look, of the 20 wealthiest Australians, seven arrived as penniless migrants.' So that solves the problem. There is no problem of disadvantage because seven of the 20 wealthiest Australians are the exception which proves the rule. That is the approach of this government to disadvantage.The real difficulty facing us is that this widening inequality is masked by the Prime Minister's so-called `golden age economy'. If it is a golden age, it is not being shared by disadvantaged communities around Australia. The government has no policies to achieve equality of opportunity in Australia because it does not even see it as a problem.What is desperately required is not a scramble to cut further the top marginal rates of income tax and to open up new avoidance opportunities for high income earners; what is needed is an investment in the nation's future and investment in children, in particular in children from disadvantaged areas who are suffering from a host of problems, including literacy and numeracy problems, which are leaving them behind in the race for jobs in the information age. That is the sort of approach that should be adopted by the government but, as I say, the government does not even recognise this as a problem.As long as the government takes sides in legislation such as this, as long as the government talks of capital against labour and bosses against workers, it cannot address disadvantage. As long as leadership pretenders and contenders use policy development as a means of furthering their leadership ambitions, as long as they continue to ingratiate themselves with the Prime Minister by trying to position themselves to the right of him, we will get nowhere. They will deliver no good policies for the nation's future.I say to the minister, `Tear up your job application. Abandon this iniquitous legislation and at least try to act like a statesman.' We need legislation that is designed specifically to create employment opportunities, to lift the skills base of the Australian economy and the Australian people, especially those in disadvantaged areas. We do not need more and more legislation designed to divide Australia. That is what this legislation seeks to do. It seeks to achieve some sort of political bonus or dividend on the part of the government by dividing Australians, by setting workers against employers. That is very old-style politics, but it is the traditional politics of the Liberal Party of Australia.I say we should tear up the job application. Let us start again. I ask the government to join with Labor in developing genuine policies to improve job prospects in this country and to improve the working conditions of Australians and remove disadvantage. Then Australia could become a strong, prosperous and fair nation as we enter our second century of nationhood and Australians could be confident in our future as a decent, united and caring society.11:58:0010876Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—It is interesting that commentators often say that we in this parliament are a grey lot and that there is not a lot distinguishing either side, but in a debate about industrial relations and inequality you will see the difference between those on this side and those on the other side. Five people on the other side spoke on this legislation, against something like 30 speeches on this side. That shows where the interest in this legislation is.Some of the comments that have been made were interesting. I listened to the honourable member for Longman last night. I must say it did stick in my throat when I heard him pretending to represent the working men and women of this country, and just how out of touch he is. I also listened to the honourable member for Hume. I have great respect for him and listened to what he said. In some respects, he made quite a good speech. In this place, people always try to outdo the working-classness of one another. The honourable member for Hume talked about starting work at 14. I started work at 14 in a sawmill. I had no chances of advancement. It was a labouring job and it was only as a unionist that I had any protection in that job.I have been a trade unionist—and I make no apology for this—all my life. As someone who started their working life with no skills and no trade, there was only the protection that I got from the trade union movement. But then we have this minister in this House who has a pathological hatred of the trade union movement and a manic determination to smash the movement.No-one in this place who follows these debates would have missed the interesting and timely article published in the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday, 7 August 1999, by its industrial correspondent Brad Norington. The headline reads `Reith moving in for the overkill' and the article adds to the flurry of other articles in the Australian Financial Review over the last 18 months which expose this minister, his office and his department of being up to their necks in the disgraceful sacking of an entire work force in April 1998. There are a couple of interesting observations that are worth recording for the public record from that article, specifically relating to the poor performance of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and the administration of the industrial relations policy. One is as follows:He frequently changes direction, glossing over inconvenient facts or contradictions that obstruct his single-minded pursuit of winning a political point.The article also says that the minister exposes himself:. . . on the evidence, as someone who says one thing but means another.From my perspective, there is no more worthy an observation than the following:Close examination reveals that it is Reith's most ardent attempt yet to `get unions'.This proposed legislation that we debate today is indeed the minister's most audacious attempt yet to further undermine workers and their legitimate representative organisation, the trade union movement. On reflection, the minister may have had very good reason to attempt to get square with the trade union movement. After all, despite his unsparing dedication to pumping every conceivable public resource into destroying the Maritime Union of Australia, the MUA actually used the government's own laws against it and, I might say, succeeded. It was only the Prime Minister's race to Government House in late August 1998 in search of an early election that spared this minister from being exposed as having misled this parliament. The minister would have been forced to resign on the basis of what he knew of the Patrick Stevedores chairman's intention to dismiss his entire waterfront work force.Of course, this proposed legislation is designed to distinctly enhance the minister's credentials for the leadership of the coalition, setting his claim wide apart from his chief rival, the Treasurer. Why the ordinary Australian worker must be used as a pawn in such an awful power struggle escapes them and escapes me. This proposed legislation is dressed up in terms of choice, as are most policy positions from the government. But scrape away the choice overtones, strip the sections of this proposed legislation naked and we find there is not much choice for the workers.The government faces the Australian worker with a loaded gun, smacks it down on the table and expects the worker to take the offer he or she cannot refuse. This is an unacceptable bias in this government's approach to industrial relations policy. It is an unacceptable swing of the pendulum to the extreme right in total favour of the employer. The Sydney Morning Herald article to which I have already referred puts it thus:To give unfettered control to employers is dangerous. It places total trust in them to do the right thing by workers despite examples every day of companies under-paying workers, forcing impossible hours on them or denying entitlements when they go broke.The Oakdale coalminers, their families and communities know about this dangerous control by employers. Last night in the adjournment debate I drew attention to another firm, Parrish Meat Supplies, in my own electorate where this is happening today. The coalminers have been left with a legacy of working long hours deep underground, risking their lives and helping to contribute to Australia's export capacity, many of them for 20, 30 or 40 years. Today, because of substantial public pressure and an unnecessary coal strike, provoked by the government's inaction, the Oakdale coalminers have finally achieved some peace of mind.This government does not accept that the employer and worker relationship is different and always has been. The power established between employer and workers is always tipped towards the employer. That, like it or not, is an industrial relations fact. It is for this very reason that the Australian industrial relations system was established nearly a century ago—to try to redress this unequal power balance. It is for this very reason that successive Australian governments since 1904 have given significant powers and responsibilities to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission as it is known today but which soon, if this proposed legislation is passed, will be known as something else.It is also for this reason that workers began to join collective organisations to protect their conditions and their pay. But this government has a high-minded belief that, if a worker has a job, this qualifies the worker to be on an equal footing with the employer. The relationship is equal and the power in the relationship is the same. Any negotiation between parties on conditions and pay can be settled amongst them. If only we lived in such a perfect world.I have personally lost count of the number of times over the years where a worker has come into my office pleading with me to take on their case because their employer has either underpaid them, sacked them or abused the working relationship in some way. Two years ago a group of young workers approached me about the way they were treated by their Sydney based employer, who paid them when he felt like it but never at the right rate. When he did not want to pay any form of penalty rate, he sacked a whole lot of them on Christmas Eve and brought in another group at a lower rate of pay. This employer ensured that these young workers, the majority of whom were teenagers looking to obtain some extra money honestly through work, worked extremely long hours in rain or hot weather.I took on their case and, with the assistance of the secretary of the South Coast Labour Council and a sympathetic media, including the A Current Affair program, managed to obtain for the young workers their back pay and other moneys owed to them. That Sydney based employer, I am pleased to say, no longer operates his trolley collecting business in any shopping centre in my electorate or in the Illawarra generally. I also want to emphasise that these young workers impressed me with their fighting spirit. They knew they were getting a raw deal from an unscrupulous, money hungry, bottom line boss—the very type of person those on the other side come into this parliament and spew out their support for day after day, especially when we are having a debate such as this. But the workers stuck together and won back what should have always been theirs. These young workers are now somewhat of a legend in my electorate, and are known as the `Shellharbour Square trolley boys'.It is proposed that young workers be actively discriminated against in this bill that we are debating. It provides for the permanent maintenance of age based wages in awards and requires the extension of age related rates of pay to all awards. This flies in the face of the junior rates inquiry reported by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and tabled in this place prior to the recess. The commission's report outlines a very reasonable conclusion on this issue. The report did not conclude that the provisions of this proposed legislation be introduced. By the government ignoring the commission's conclusions it not only ignores young people but also confirms the contempt it holds for the commission.The real intent of this proposed legislation is to assassinate trade unions and the trade union movement. For the first time we see a bureaucratic nightmare about to unfold in workplaces around the country as workers duck off to the crib room to issue written invitations to their union officials to visit their workplaces. The written invitations are valid for 28 days, after which the worker must write another invitation to the official. What will we have next—balloons, streamers, red carpet treatment and a brass band? If it were not so serious and inhibiting to the functioning of union activities, it would be very funny indeed. The government needs reminding of the recent report Employee attitudes to workplace reform commissioned by the Labour Ministers Council. Workers have very definite views on the role of government and unions in the workplace. For instance, it records that:. . . if a government is perceived to blatantly take sides on industrial relations matters, workers fear outcomes that are unfair . . . Have you ever known a government in the history of Australia that has so blatantly taken sides in any industrial dispute? My colleague who will be speaking later in this debate could tell you about the sides the government has taken with regard to coalmines in her electorate. You have only to look at the waterfront dispute where the government sanctioned mad dogs and thugs in balaclavas coming onto the waterfront and praised those who were involved in this. The report, which must come as a shock to the government, also provides a rather positive response to the role of unions:Security and self-esteem derive favourable attitudes towards unions . . . the role of unions is deemed to be important in enabling workers to make more money than would otherwise be the case, and to maintain their families' quality of life . . . To a lesser degree, unions are seen as a source of information . . . But this is the primary reason for the attempt to assassinate trade unions. The government, like an elephant with a mouse at its feet, is scared that a humble union official may impart information to workers about the agenda of their employer and that workers will earn more if they join a union. This too is an industrial relations fact, like it or not. Government members should understand these facts. Union members earn on average 15 per cent more than their fellow workers not in a trade union. Union members are also more likely to have better working conditions and also achieve wage increases more often. No wonder the government is trying to lessen the power of the union movement.This leads to another of the anti-union measures contained in the proposed legislation—the imposition of a secret ballot regime for industrial action. The government will interfere in freedom of association, and that has already been condemned by the Interna tional Labour Organisation, and it will also render useless the only remaining bargaining tool workers have—the right to take industrial action. The proposed legislation establishes a snakes and ladders paper trail for workers to take industrial action, but after a fortnight the employer can legally seek to have the strike ended. No worker takes industrial action lightly. Industrial action has loss attached to it, and it is always taken as a last resort. The ABS figures confirm this. Indeed, the minister needs no excuse to parade the fact that industrial disputation is at an all-time historic low. So why the provisions to make industrial action harder?The trend of low industrial disputation began under the Hawke and Keating governments. There was a 13-year period of incredible and unapologetic cooperation between the industrial and political wings of the labour movement. One need only examine the achievements: incredible increases in productivity, impressive coverage of superannuation, child-care service increases, improvements in occupational health and safety, protection from unfair dismissal and employment growth. These achievements have not just happened since the 1996 election; they happened under Labor governments since 1983. The government can try all it likes to malign and demonise this significant period, but it cannot escape from these significant Labor reforms.This proposed legislation is not the second wave; it is a tidal wave. The provisions and measures—unjust, unfair and so many just plain unnecessary—swamp the original Workplace Relations Act 1996. This is Margaret Thatcher's agenda more than a decade and a half on. The minister thinks he is Thatcher but without the handbag. Australian industrial relations have always been about balance—fair and independent—and about standards and protection. With all of the concentration over recent weeks on the fall in union membership, it is important to remember that the trade union movement still represents over two million Australian workers.I joined with over 3,000 workers in the Illawarra at a public rally in Wollongong a few weeks back. The honourable member for Longman in his speech last night asked, `Where were the women in these rallies?' Let me tell you that the women from the clothing and footwear industries in the Illawarra were there speaking from the rostrum along with me and some other males, condemning the actions of this government and this proposed legislation. I do not know where the honourable member for Longman gets his facts, but if he wants to see a decent industrial rally at some time I invite him to come down to the Illawarra with me and address some of the workers at Port Kembla and Wollongong and spew out some of the nonsense he spewed out here last night and see what sort of reception he gets from the workers there.This rally a few weeks back in the Illawarra, which over 3,000 people attended—no-one forced them to attend—was one of the most impressive, well-attended public rallies Wollongong has seen in many years. Over 3,000 workers were determined to defeat this government's tidal wave attack on their conditions of work, their pay and trade union rights. Conservative governments, try as they might, will never destroy the workers and the trade union movement. This is legislation for the boardroom, ignoring and attacking the crib room, and I am pleased to absolutely oppose it. I think every working person in Australia must oppose this legislation. I am pleased that the shadow minister has moved an amendment, and I will be supporting that amendment and opposing the bill.It is very important that we do have good industrial relations in this country. No-one on this side of the chamber would argue against good industrial relations, but we have to ask ourselves how we achieve those good industrial relations. We have to look at the record of this government and its attack on workers and workers' conditions. We have to ask ourselves whether the waterfront dispute that was pictured around the world is the way you go about good industrial relations. Do you collude with the bosses to sack an entire work force? Do you move in balaclava-wearing thugs and savage dogs in the middle of the night? Is that the way you create good industrial relations? Do you strip all conditions away from coalminers? Do you bring scabs through picket lines? Is that the way to achieve good industrial relations, or is the way to sit down and negotiate and work through these issues?That is the Labor Party approach. We sit down and negotiate. We do not always agree with the trade union movement. Those of us who have been around for a few years have no real illusions. We know it is difficult and tough. It is sometimes difficult to negotiate, but the end result is a better industrial relations policy which is better for the workers, better for the bosses and better for the whole country. That is what we are about, rather than this manic, pathological hatred of the trade union movement and this pathological determination to destroy the trade union movement that the minister opposite has.12:18:0010880Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE83ACapricorniaALP00—I am not sure that I will be able to prosecute my case with quite as much visible passion as the member for Throsby, but that certainly would be no indication of how strongly I feel about this bill, the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 , and this issue of industrial relations in our country. I have long been a strong supporter of workers and the union movement in this country because I see the two as being inextricably linked. Since becoming the member for Capricornia, I have gone beyond that to make the strongest representations on behalf of the workers in my electorate, and I intend to do that in this debate. For that reason, I am opposing in its entirety the bill before the House.I am speaking in support, however, of the second reading amendment that was moved by the shadow minister for industrial relations, the member for Brisbane. The amendment proposed by the shadow minister reflects very well the concerns that the Labor Party has about the government's bill and about the government's whole approach to industrial relations in this country. The amendment identifies the key deficiencies in the government's bill. Not surprisingly, there are quite a number of deficiencies. Some of the key ones are that the bill proposed by the government further entrenches unfairness and bias in the existing industrial relations system; that it ensures that the role of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission is further restricted and that the independence of the commission is compromised; and that through further award stripping it reduces the minimum conditions available to all Australian workers by further undermining the award system as a dynamic framework for the protection and advancement of wages and conditions.The shadow minister's amendment also calls for the government to actually do its job in the area of industrial relations. Instead of this piece of ideological rhetoric that a year 12 economics student would be ashamed of, we would like to see a bill that delivers fair and equitable outcomes for Australian workers, preserves basic conditions for all Australian workers, provides for an independent commission with the appropriate power to conciliate fairly and settle disputes and provides jobs and income security. Wouldn't that be a novelty? The reality is that the industrial relations agenda in this country is totally divorced from the real issues facing us if we want to build a modern nation with a competitive work force. If you sat down and set out to design a strategy for achieving what is necessary for Australia to prosper in the future, as a whole country and also the individual workers and families within it, wouldn't you be talking about things like encouraging investment and research into developing of industries, giving workers the skill to lead those industries and promoting stable employment with an emphasis on training and an increase in skills?That is not what this government proposes. The measures in this bill are completely out of date. More than that, these sorts of things have been a proven failure in other countries that have gone down the route of lower wages and less protection for workers, countries like our neighbour New Zealand. Surely the government can do better than this. According to this bill, the only hope it can hold out to Australian companies that are looking for opportunities to succeed in the future is the option of paying their employees less.The opposition's amendment talks about the things that workers are really concerned about, things like job security, decent wages and conditions and the recovery of their legal entitlements in the event of company insolvency—a situation that we are seeing more and more in this country, whether it is real or engineered for a bit of corporate manoeuvring and a bit of sport with their employees. The amendment also lays the foundation for what this country needs to achieve in the future, that is, a highly skilled work force secure enough in their employment to focus on improving their skills and to work cooperatively with their employers to maximise productivity and opportunities.The government's bill, on the other hand, has none of these things. This is purely and simply a product of the minister's ideological obsessions. It has nothing to do with what is really happening in workplaces or what will really achieve the outcomes that workers need and want so that they can have a bit of certainty about their futures. Really, you would laugh if it was not so serious. On the one hand, you have workers saying quite clearly what they want and what their concerns are; on the other, the government completely flies in the face of that and gives them this bill, which cuts down all the existing entitlements that workers have and does nothing to improve their security. It is a bit back to front: the workers are the ones doing the jobs, paying the bills and trying to juggle their work and family responsibilities, but the government sees fit to ignore the workers, who are really in the best position to say what would be helpful to them in their workplace.This government's con job on workers has been going on for four years. We all remember that it started with the famous line by the Prime Minister that `no worker will be worse off under this government'. Well, we gave up on that a long time ago. Then we saw what the government really meant by its promise that we would all be relaxed and comfortable. We saw that when dogs and security guards invaded the Australian docks last year. Sadly, the con job continues with this bill. Looking at the bill, I do not know what is worse: the continual kicking of workers by this government or the insistence on insulting their intelligence by pretending to have workers' interests at heart. Why doesn't the government just come out and say, `We are antiworker; we are against workers having any sort of a fair go'? I say to the government: just admit it and call in the dogs and thugs; spare us the window-dressing of lies like `more jobs, better pay'.If you want the truth about what is happening in workplaces in this country, you would certainly not waste your time asking the minister. Instead, I am more than happy to tell him what I have seen in my electorate over the past few years. It is actually getting quite rare to hear what workers really think these days, because of the culture of intimidation and game playing that goes on in so many workplaces. I could be charitable to the minister and suggest that it is happening only because some employers are being a bit overzealous, but of course workers know that the riding instructions come straight from the top: the minister himself is promoting this new industrial relations agenda.Nowhere has this been more obvious than in the coal industry in my electorate. I will spend a few minutes talking about the impact of the government's first wave of industrial relations changes on the coalmining towns that make up a significant proportion of Capricornia. I have seen first-hand that the coalminers in Capricornia have borne the brunt of the minister's attacks on workers. I have seen that through the increased job insecurity, the stress that the families of these coalminers are feeling as their partners and husbands—often long-term and very experienced miners—constantly have to wonder what the future holds: will they hold on to their job or will they see yet another corporate restructure that will give the company an excuse to sack them all wholesale?Instead of having their skills recognised and valued, they are subject to threats and insecurity. We are seeing more and more the use of contractors in the mining industry in my area. The use of contractors is a double-edged sword: on the one hand, it threatens the security of long-term employees in the mining industry but, on the other hand, the contractors are not getting a rosy deal out of it either. People on contract work are telling me all the time that they cannot really plan for the future, they cannot live a proper life and they find it very difficult to get loans for a house, a car or their children's education. So the long-term miners are living in limbo and so too are the contractors. That is having a severe effect on the small mining towns in my electorate as families can no longer spend freely, cannot buy the luxuries that they used to be able to buy and are forced to really pull back on their investment and their plans for the future.Safety is becoming a much lower priority in these workplaces. That is the result of a few things. Because the long-term permanent workers are often being replaced by casual workers or contractors, you are losing the depth of experience of those miners. Accidents are starting to happen on a much more regular basis within the industry and some very serious and quite horrifying accidents have occurred this year in the Bowen Basin.The effect on the families is worth noting. I am often finding in the mining towns that the workers themselves are quite reticent about letting me know what is going on. They are scared of losing their job and they are scared of rocking the boat in any way. More often their families are comfortable about coming to see me and saying, `Look, this is what is really going on here.' We might have a husband or a partner who can spend no time with their kids. They are on 12-hour shifts and they are dead tired when they are going off to work. They are working in an environment that is dangerous and involves heavy machinery and they really need to be on top of their game when they are underground on the long wall. But you have miners who are working 12-hour shifts, five and six days a week.An example worth mentioning to the House of safety being used as a weapon against coalminers is where a company wants to insist on drug and alcohol testing for the miners when they start their shifts. The miners have said, `That's great. Let's have fitness for duty testing. Let's test the fatigue that miners are suffering,' but the company has backed away from that at a million miles an hour. So, if this were really about safety and not about targeting workers, I think the company would be a bit more fair dinkum about that kind of fitness for duty testing.The workers' union, the CFMEU, is accused all the time by the minister of being militant and unreasonable, but have a look at the sorts of issues that it has been taking up for its members over the last couple of years: the question of workers' legal entitlements at the Oakdale mine, its insistence on rigorous safety standards like that fitness for duty testing at the particular mine that I mentioned, and protecting its members against the gross unfairness of mass sackings at places like the Blair Athol and Gordonstone mines. Is this simple pursuit of a fair go really such a threat to this government?Closer to home, in my town of Rockhampton, the biggest workplaces that will be affected by the government's bill are the meatworks, and of course we know that is another industry high on the minister's hit list for no good reason other than the efforts of the meaties union to stay in there fighting for its members. It is the same story for workers at the meatworks as for workers at the mines, one of insecurity and of constant undermining of their working conditions. There is no respect whatsoever under this government for their skills as workers and as contributors to a company's performance. It is all give and no take.Aside from the question of what this bill will do to the wages and conditions of the meatworkers, the biggest concern is the decreasing emphasis on safety in the workplace. A similar theme is emerging here. It is not so much in terms of large-scale accidents—I do not want to get dramatic about it—but it is more the treatment of workers who have been injured as a result of work practices that put production ahead of the health and long-term working capacity of these employees.In question time over the last couple of days, we have heard some answers to questions where the government has been crowing about the abolition of the tally system within the meat industry. That is turning out to be a bit of a double-edged sword as well. The tally system actually remains in at least one of the enterprise agreements in the Rockhampton meatworks. But the employees are worried that it is an open-ended tally. So the pressure is on employees to work at an unsustainable pace and produce at rates above what is sensible for their long-term health and working life. A few years ago the government in Queensland implemented an audit across the industry looking at workplace health and safety measures. It recommended that, instead of working on a continuous chain, the chain stop and the workers work with the carcase in front of them. That was not taken up by the industry. It really is production over the health and safety issues at all costs.With at least one of the meatworks—and it is happening in the mining industry as well—when workers are injured because of the work practices in place, the company says, `Look, according to the workplace health and safety laws we have a duty of care to you to provide a safe working environment. We are really looking out for you here. With your injury, we do not think that we can guarantee that you can work safely within this industry, so we are going to have to let you go.' Instead of worrying about the duty of care before the injury happens there is much care and concern afterwards, but it is not in the worker's best interests. It is really just an excuse to let that worker go. In these types of dangerous industries, workers have to have some protection and they should not be punished because they seek that protection from their union.I mention one other thing that is affected in the meatworks in Rockhampton. Safety is an important issue, and wages and conditions are really the key part of this. But one of the things that comes into this bill is the taking out of allowable matters from awards. Union picnic days is one of those things that has been taken out. We have a union picnic day for the meatworkers in Rockhampton. It is a very longstanding tradition in our town, going back to the beginning of this century. It has traditionally been time for the workers to spend with their families on the school holidays. The `butchers picnic', as it is known, is on this Friday at Emu Park in my electorate. When I mentioned to one of the workers there that this was one of the things that was going out of the award, he said, `Oh well, that's the end of that.' But the end of what? It is a century-old tradition in our town. I find it quite ironic that, for a government that is so hung up on tradition, it is very quick to judge what is a worthwhile tradition and what is not. I would love to suggest to the beautiful people on the way to the Melbourne Cup in a month's time that maybe their tradition was not worth while. For the poor old meatworkers in Rockhampton who want to spend a bit of time with their kids during the school holidays, it is not good enough. It is a very interesting contrast to draw.I spent a few minutes at the start saying what is not in the bill—that is, the things that are important to workers—but let us have a look at what is in the bill. Underpinning every part of this bill is its essential bias. There is nothing subtle about this bill. In fact, there is nothing subtle about the minister. The bill is unashamedly biased towards employers and against workers and their representatives in the union movement. One of the main examples of the lack of balance, or even any pretence at balance, in this bill is the change in the role of the Industrial Relations Commission.The minister wants nothing to stand in the way of his political agenda. We have seen over and over again that he has no respect for fairness, proper process or natural justice—all the things that have traditionally existed in our industrial relations system in this country, thanks to the responsible watchdog role adopted by the Industrial Relations Commission. Thanks to this bill, the IRC is now going to be shut out of any meaningful role in industrial relations. It is workers with the least power, especially those low paid workers, casuals and predominantly female workers, who will suffer as a result. The IRC will no longer have the power to vet agreements or AWAs. Right now, if there is any doubt about whether an individual agreement is any good, there is scope to go to the commission to have the commission check it for the impact it will have on workers. Under this bill, all the power lies with the Office of the Employment Advocate, and we all know that is really an advocate for Mr Reith's agenda. At least, the workers in the Office of the Employment Advocate would want to be doing that, because if they want to hang around for long that will be an unspoken part of their job contract, I am sure.Another part of the attack on the independence of the Industrial Relations Commission is seen in the way commissioners are now going to be appointed. It is unprecedented in this country to suggest that commissioners who are to play the role of adjudicators—of objective arbitrators—in a very important element of our country's workplace structure are going to be appointed for seven-year terms. That is just unheard of. Another point is that acting commissioners are to have 12-month appointments. You can see where that is heading. Clearly, if the full-time commissioners are not doing the job that the minister wants and he cannot wait out the seven years to get what he wants done, he can call in some hired guns for a 12-month appointment. I suppose that at least this time the hired guns will probably not be wearing balaclavas.We have already seen, under the 1996 act, that the powers of the commission to get involved in disputes have been cut back, and the consequences of that have been totally negative and counterproductive. The thing about the commission is that its charter was about outcomes, about getting people back to work. Basically, it was to call the parties in, knock their heads together and get them back to work on some agreed set of terms and conditions. Under the new system that we have seen with the courts, that is just not happening. Courts have a completely different emphasis, a completely different charter. It is about winners and losers, not about outcomes. It is about technicalities—although I guess that a complex, technical legal system is certainly much better than what is being proposed under this bill, which is to take away all forms of protection and all forms of independence of the Industrial Relations Commission to protect workers in this country. (Time expired)12:38:0010884Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—My colleague has made a number of observations which I will reinforce. I will start with one of them in terms of minimum conditions and stripping away of award conditions. One of the things that is prominent on the Darwin agenda and calendar is union picnic day. As we have heard from my colleague, the same is true in her electorate. As it happens, the union picnic day in Darwin is also Darwin Cup Day, which brings over $20 million to the Darwin economy and is regarded by everyone as almost a religious holiday. Any attack on Darwin Cup Day will not be well received. Yet this government is proposing through the proposition before us that, under this second wave, that holiday would go. I say to the minister that that would be unpopular not only with the workers but with the Northern Territory community.Another issue which my colleague spoke about was meatworks. Living in the Northern Territory as I do, I well remember the Mudginberri saga, and I well remember the debate that took place about Mudginberri and the role of various persons who are currently serving in this House. We were led to believe that somehow or other this would be a magnificent result for the Mudginberri meatworks. It was not long after the Mudginberri fiasco played itself out that the Mudginberri meatworks closed. The person who was at the front of this exercise in attempting to belt the unions was Jay Pendarvis—who, I am told, is no longer involved in the industry. I am not sure what his circumstances are, but I do not think he has profited too well out of the exercise that he was involved in with the support of the conservative elements in this government.We need to comprehend absolutely what this legislation is about. What it expresses is the absurdity and malevolence of the government's ideological obsession with undermining the collective rights of workers, doing everything possible to attack the right of trade unions to properly represent the rights of their members, and imposing undemocratic restrictions on their ability to operate. It is also their obsession and desire to diminish the role of, and undermine the independence of, the Industrial Relations Commission.To paraphrase the observations made in the Sydney Morning Herald of 7 August, the legislation reveals the malevolence of the minister. It has got nothing to do with fairness. It is an attempt to get unions and it is a desire to give unfettered control to employers—which is obviously very dangerous. To go to the opinion of the 80 leading industrial barristers and solicitors, they have said that the government proposal will upset the balance and deliberately tip it in favour of the employers and that the fundamental and independent role of the commission has been attacked.We need to comprehend, Acting Deputy Speaker Andrews—as I am sure you do, sitting where you do in the context of the coalition party room—what this is all about. This is not about fairness. It is not about dealing with employees in Australian workplaces as people who have rights which they can choose to use collectively in the form of working within a trade union structure. It is about trying to administer to them in a way which takes away their rights to work collectively, and trying to put a preponderance of power in the hands of the employer and to undermine the independence of the umpire.My colleague, the previous speaker, talked about the independence of the umpire, about the proposal to put the commissioners on term contracts and about the ability of the minister to employ people on shorter term contracts. To enlighten the House, this of course is part of the ideological obsession within the conservative side of politics in this country, and it is not new. The former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, who is now President of the Liberal Party of Australia, proposed to put magistrates under the Northern Territory judiciary on the same sorts of contracts.It seems to me that this question is not about justice, fairness and the ability of people to make independent decisions, provide independent advice and make recommendations to bring people back to work, in this instance; it is about political interference in the processes of the courts and, in this case, of the commission. I do not think it is fooling anyone. I do not think that there is anyone in Australia who cannot see through what the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business is on about. We know because his record speaks for itself: other members have already spoken about the balaclavas and dogs, and I will not go into that any further.But we need to know and the community of Australia needs to know that, if this legislation is passed through this parliament, there will be a dramatic and further reduction in the protection of entitlements of employees, Australian workers, including award protection for superannuation, paid maternity leave and long service leave. It will reduce the bargaining choices available to employees. It will deliver worse results for members through the increased use of individual employment contracts or AWAs instead of collective bargaining, and it will make employers less accountable for their actions. As I have said, it will erode the role of the Industrial Relations Commission as an independent tribunal and will dramatically diminish—and undermine, indeed—the capacity of unions to effectively represent their members.What we need to comprehend here is that this proposal by the government focuses on individual workers negotiating their conditions as if they were a standard commercial contract. It pretends that each has the same bargaining power in the negotiations. That, to all of us, is patent nonsense. It is a throwback to the conservative views of 90 years ago. Indeed, in my former life as a school teacher and as a student of history, one of the things that I observed—and something which is obvious to anyone who has read any modern European history or Australian history or, more importantly, economic history—is the conditions that people worked under 90 to 100 years ago, before the formation of unions, and the roles and the relationships between employers and employees. I do not think it is stretching it too far to say that what the minister is on about here is taking us back to those dim, dark days of the past. I do not believe that there is any worker or any fair-minded employer in Australia who believes that this legislation will bring us fair and equitable outcomes, that it will do any justice to the relationships between employers and employees generally, particularly in small business, or that it will produce the sorts of economic outcomes that we as a community have a right to demand.We need to understand that the commission serves a multipurpose role in discharging its functions. Its function is to be an independent and impartial tribunal and to establish fair minimum wages and conditions as well as dealing with industrial disputes. That is what we need to comprehend, and that is what this minister is trying to change. In the context of the observations I made previously about the desire of the government to change the method of appointment of commissioners, if you understand it in the context of the judicial system and the separation of powers, it is absolutely fundamental to the Westminster system of government and the independence of the commission that the government not proceed with this proposal.All Australians should be concerned about the progressive threat to the very nature of our system of government that is implied in this proposal by the government. We have already heard and seen through the debate so far, and in observations which have been made, that Australian workers have, through their trade unions, been able to provide themselves with a voice and a capacity to gain improved conditions for themselves and their families, to produce remarkable increases in productivity, and to make an enormous contribution to the wealth of this nation. Now we have a proposal which would undermine the independence of the very persons who are charged with oversighting the awards system and industrial relations generally.It is worth while understanding that in the Northern Territory we have one commissioner—all the awards in the Northern Territory are federal awards; there is no territory industrial relations act; we work under the federal act—looking after about 100,000 workers. If the powers of the commission are further reduced, and if, as proposed by this legislation, $500 is required before a dispute can be conciliated, there will be a significant increase in both bastardry by bosses and in wildcat industrial action by workers. Of that there is no doubt. And that of course is a recipe for industrial disaster.Before coming to a central matter in relation to defence issues—which is a byproduct of what is being proposed by this legislation—I want to raise briefly a range of other issues which reflect particularly on the Northern Territory. In terms of the question of deferral of safety net increases, in 1998 the Northern Territory unions reached consent positions with the local chamber of industry and commerce on all awards in relation to the award-stripping process of the first wave. The agreed document was sent to Melbourne for approval and it was rejected—knocked back by the minister's underlings. This was a document which was agreed on by the employers, represented by the chamber and the trade unions. As a result, the awards are still in limbo, not because the locals cannot agree but because of the ideological fixation of the minister in dealing with trade unions and the awards system. He says that, because he cannot agree with the employers and the workers of the Northern Territory as represented by their unions, there will be no more pay increases.In relation to AWAs in the Northern Territory, we have a common rule system. There is a need to ensure that both employers and workers survive. AWAs have not been a success in the Territory. Even employers who do not want unions do not want AWAs. In remote areas, if automatic operation of AWAs upon signature is introduced without the ratification of a third party, we will see an increase in coercion and bullying tactics from bosses who know already that there are no other jobs around. The people who will be most adversely affected by this move will be indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory and people of a non-English speaking background. They will most certainly be worse off.The other issue which I think is relevant to discuss in terms of the Northern Territory is the union right of entry. Workplace visits by union officials are already made very difficult in the Northern Territory by the joint tyrannies of distance and size. It is not unusual for a union official to visit half a dozen workplaces in one day and cover 1,000 kilometres in the process. At present, most of these visits are organised well in advance but loosely structured to allow maximum flexibility in arrival times. If the boss can restrict access at his or her own discretion, many workers will not see an organiser for many months at a time.What we need to comprehend is the nature of isolation and the remoteness from the scrutiny of even the Employment Advocate. When union officials have the opportunity to visit these communities—whether it is a mining community, a small town or a pastoral lease—they should have the right of entry and they should have a right to meet with the workers. But under the proposals which this government is putting forward they will have no right. That severely jeopardises and potentially harms the conditions under which people who live in remote and rural Australia work. I do not believe that it is an exaggeration to say that there will be some people—I hope not many but there will certainly be some—who will see this as an opportunity to severely erode the conditions under which people are employed.The other issue that I want to refer to briefly in relation to the Northern Territory is unfair dismissal. The Territory is a relatively small economy. The largest employer is the Northern Territory Public Service with around 1,400 employees. In the private sector, most workers are employed in small business. Per capita, we have one of the highest rates of unfair dismissal in this country. If the under-15 rule is introduced, most of these workers will lose the right to protection from unfair dismissal. This includes workers in the childcare industry, the hairdressing industry, large parts of the hospitality industry—particularly restaurants and cafes—and the light manufacturing sector. Many of the employees in these areas are women or people from non-English speaking backgrounds.A further disturbing aspect of current employment practices in the Northern Territory is the high number of unfair dismissal applications involving Aboriginal corporations in the Territory. I understand that around 23 per cent of all unfair dismissal and conciliation matters brought before the Darwin Registry involve Aboriginal organisations. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure you would agree that this is a staggering figure when one considers that these employers make up less than five per cent of the employers in the Territory.Clearly, there is a real need to bring employer-employee relations up to a functional level of operation before access to such remedies is cut off. Indeed, on these figures, there may be an arguable case to say that any restrictions to access to unfair dismissal processes would amount to indirect discrimination against Aboriginal employees and employees of Aboriginal corporations. I think that is an issue which should be taken very seriously by this government.Finally, I want to refer briefly to a nonsense element that has emerged as a result of the first wave of changes. It is that leave for defence purposes is no longer an allowable matter. You do not have to be Einstein to work out that, in the context of what is happening to our near north—certainly just north of Darwin—and because of the nature of our defence force preparedness, in all likelihood there will be a desire by the government to increase the use of defence reservists. We are now in the ridiculous situation—the absurd situation—where leave for defence purposes is no longer an allowable matter. One would have to say to the government, `Here's an opportunity to fix that little problem amongst a greater problem.' But I know what we will be doing: we will be voting against this legislation. I hope we will be supported by the other parties in the Senate to ensure that this government does not get its way to deal so ruthlessly and unfairly with the workers of Australia.12:58:0010888Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I am pleased to stand here today and speak on the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 . I believe that this bill contravenes the rights of Australian workers in the most insidious ways. The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has placed before this House a bill that is inherently unfair and creates bias against employees right across Australia. The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has once again obsessively employed union busting tactics in this bill in an attempt to destroy the rights of the ordinary worker in Australia for no other reason than ideology.There are several facets to this bill which concern me greatly and which concern many of my colleagues on this side of the House. The bill works to confine the Australian Industrial Relations Commission's powers to a few areas. The bill will undermine the independence and the role of the AIRC in several ways. Firstly, it will change the name of the AIRC to the Australian Workplace Relations Commission. This will work to reduce the commission's broad responsibility and sphere of influence. This is based on the government's ideology rather than on any practical considerations.Secondly, it introduces to the AIRC seven-year appointments and acting appointments. This limitation of terms presents to governments greater opportunity to make political appointments. If we are to allow the AIRC independence to mediate on industrial issues, appointments should not be on the basis of short-term, contract or acting appointments for the commission. Thirdly, it introduces independent mediators as competition for the AIRC. There will be a national accreditation scheme for workplace relations mediators and a new mediation adviser to oversee the process, and parties wanting to stay with the AIRC will now have to pay $500 per application.Before the Howard government was elected, the AIRC was known as an impartial and balanced organisation which had the wide respect of both employee and employer advocates. It is now reduced through legislation to an arena where employees have very few rights. It is not the fault of the commissioners that the election of an arch-conservative government has caused a huge policy shift and, therefore, threatened the independence and impartiality of the commission.Another area of the bill which is inherently unfair is that of the changes to the award systems. In 1996, the government stripped allowances such as the provision in the workplace of first aid kits, staff dressing rooms, meal areas, adequate toilets, lockers, heating and cooling devices. In 1999, the Howard government is attempting to blatantly remove allowable matters from awards such as skill based career paths, tallies and bonuses, long service leave, notice of termination, leave for jury service, superannuation, trade union training leave and union picnic days. To also remove the other incidental allowable matters such as accident make-up pay, union representation for dispute settling procedures and union picnic days is shameful, to say the least.In fact, the section which removes jury duty as an allowable matter will mean the downfall of the legal system to be able to produce juries to hear cases. This bill directly contradicts section 69 of the New South Wales Jury Act 1997, which states:(1) An employer shall not dismiss a person in his or her employment or injure the person in his or her employment or alter his or her position to his or her prejudice by reason of the fact that the person is summoned to serve as a juror.Although to remove jury service as an allowable matter is not illegal under Commonwealth law, acts similar to the New South Wales Jury Act 1977 exist in Queensland and the ACT. This is one allowable matter that should not, at any cost, be eroded. It is not in the public interest in terms both of workplace relations and of ensuring fair and impartial trials with diversity of people as jurors in the court system.I note that in his speech to the House on 2 September 1999 the member for Brisbane and shadow minister, the Hon. Arch Bevis, referred to the award stripping which occurred in the first wave of industrial relations change, in particular removing the leave of those members of our reserve defence forces. In light of the crisis in East Timor at the moment, what happens if our reserve defence forces are called up for duty? Quite obviously, under this bill, those who are prepared to protect our country have fewer rights.This stripping of allowances in awards will make life only harder for those who are on low awards and who are already doing it tough. In this bill, workplace agreements are to take effect from the date of signing rather than from the date of approval by the Em ployment Advocate. Discriminatory approaches are also allowed under the provisions where employers no longer have to offer the same AWA to all comparable employees. The Employment Advocate will also not have to refer an AWA to the commission if unsure whether or not it disadvantages employees. The unfair advantage this gives employers is utterly disgraceful. It is for no reason other than the dogmatic beliefs of this government. It is wrong to put the interests of the employer before those of the employee.I now turn to the freedom of association provisions. This bill prohibits the establishment or maintenance of union closed shops at workplaces and businesses, and defines a closed shop as a workplace or business with 60 per cent or more of workers in one union. In fact, it requires employers to take action against closed shops, and it sets limits on a union's ability to enter an employer's premises to hold discussions with employees or to investigate award breaches. That is disgraceful. This change is an extremely alarming attack on the union movement—as the member for Braddon, who is sitting here today behind me, knows only too well. It is going to adversely affect larger companies such as Kmart and Woolworths which have high levels of union membership. It is going to affect industries which have a particularly high level of union membership. I believe that this sort of change will decrease rather than increase the productivity of workers. These sorts of changes are going to adversely affect the occupational health and safety of employees who work in highly unionised occupations. I will quote Brad Norington in the 7 August edition of the Sydney Morning Herald in his article entitled `Reith moving in for the overkill'. Mr Norington says inter alia:The list of anti-union measures is long and nasty. In an attempt to wipe out compulsory unionism workplaces with as few as 60% of employees in one union could be ruled an illegal closed shop . . . To give unfettered control to employers is dangerous. It places total trust in them to do the right thing by workers despite everyday examples of companies under-paying workers, forcing impos sible hours on them or denying entitlements when they go broke . . . The article goes on. Brad Norington is absolutely right. The implications of this bill are extremely dangerous for the ordinary Australian worker.I move now to the issue of industrial action. This bill introduces secret ballots for protected industrial action. As well as this, the legislation extends the notice period for industrial action from three working days to five working days. The notice of pending industrial action also needs to provide the precise nature and form of the intended action, the day or days when the action would take place and how long the action would take place for. These provisions will certainly make it almost impossible to take industrial action against employers. Under this legislation the AIRC will also be required to suspend a bargaining period for 14 days after protected action has been taken. This will also work in favour of employers rather than employees.This bill is unfair, it is unjust and it is un-Australian. The government has based this piece of legislation on pure ideology, as I said earlier. This legislation will not create more jobs. It certainly will not cause an improvement in the wages of workers across this country. The legislation leaves the way wide open for employers to strip conditions from awards and generally make life worse for Australian workers.According to a submission made by the Australian Council of Trade Unions to the Senate inquiry into the workplace relations legislation, the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 had very little impact on wage growth. The Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 has had little impact on job creation. Notwithstanding a decrease in the level of unemployment, there has been an increase in casual and part-time work. The trends have nothing to do with workplace relations legislation. This Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 will not have any positive effects at all in job creation or improvement in awards.849SIDEBOTTOMMr Sidebottom—It is a cruel name.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—Yes, it is a cruel name, as the member for Braddon has just reminded me this afternoon. He is correct. According to the National Council of Churches in Australia in its September 1999 position paper A covenant for employment , the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 does not provide adequate or appropriate solutions to the problem of unemployment. Further, on page 17 of the paper, the National Council of Churches believes that Australia under the current policy proposals is `heading to a large class of working poor'. The National Council of Churches in Australia has legitimate concerns. I also quote from this paper:The International Labour Organisation has ruled that the current Workplace Relations Act is in breach of two IL0 conventions, those related to collective bargaining and the right to organise and strike. Legislation in breach of human rights is unacceptable . . . I conclude by stressing my total opposition to this disgraceful bill and its assault on ordinary Australians in its present form. I support overwhelmingly the amendment by the shadow minister for industrial relations, the Hon. Arch Bevis, that works to restore some fairness to the employee.13:12:0010890Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—If the titles of legislation were subject to the Trade Practices Act, we might perhaps have a case for false advertising in the title of this bill. It would be more correctly titled `Less pay, worse jobs'. The bill title should actually reflect the intent of the bill. The intent of this bill is to sideline the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and make it irrelevant, to attack unions and make them irrelevant if possible and to leave workers to negotiate their own conditions individually through AWAs. Pay increases are to be made contingent upon award stripping so that award employees will be required to give up their superannuation, long service leave and all of the other entitlements covered by awards to get their pay rises.It is a disaster for working people all over Australia and especially for women. It represents a thinly veiled attack on the union movement and the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. It reverses the fundamental premises of the legal system such as independent umpires and the onus on applicants in the injunction process. It is the work of a minister and a government intent on destroying the balance between employers and employees, which has been the defining feature of Australia's successful industrial relations system. We should not be fooled by the suggestions of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business that the bill represents evolutionary and incremental reform. It is a radical and destructive attack on workers and tilts the balance even further against them than the 1996 amendments.I would like to speak first of all about the particular effects of this bill on women. Women will be disproportionately affected by this legislation, because, of course, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, they are concentrated in casual employment, in part-time employment, in lower paid work and in industries where their bargaining power is less. Often they also have less union coverage. So this legislation will affect women disproportionately.The changes to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission mean that the bill limits conciliation to certain allowable matters. It means that the Industrial Relations Commission cannot be called upon to help workers and employers negotiate equal opportunity and sexual harassment conditions. More generally, in the past the Australian Industrial Relations Commission has helped women achieve better working conditions, including maternity entitlements and equal remuneration for work of equal value. The stripping of the Industrial Relations Commission's powers is disastrous for women workers who have in the past been able to negotiate these vital entitlements.Award stripping particularly affects women workers. The ACTU estimates that over 50 per cent of women working part time are on awards. That is more than 800,000 workers. Twenty per cent of full-time working women are also dependent on awards—an additional 420,000 workers. The minister is stripping the awards and entitlements of over 1.2 million Australian women. These women have depended on these awards, in particular for pay increases, in the past because, as I said, they are often concentrated in industries where their bargaining power is substantially lower than some of the more male dominated industries. The move towards bargaining is bad for women. Women have not done as well in the bargaining process as men, due to their weaker bargaining power. As I said, that is because of the concentration in part-time and casual employment, their concentration in lower status jobs and occupations and lower union membership.All of the reports over many years have shown that Australia has comparatively good levels of pay equity. They are certainly not the best in the OECD, but the advances that we have made have been based on the fact that in the past we have had a centralised bargaining system which has allowed workers in weaker bargaining positions to gain the benefits of the industrial activity of workers in stronger sectors.In fact, Geoffrey Crockett and Alison Preston in an article titled `The future is bleak: Enterprise bargaining and gender wage equity', which was written this year, show that moving employment negotiations from the public sphere into the private sphere will certainly not advance the struggle of women workers. They suggest that decentralised bargaining will adversely impact on female earnings. They say that this has already been proved in Western Australia, which has implemented many of the reforms proposed by this bill. We can look at the future of the federal legislation by examining the effects of the Western Australian legislation—and that, of course, is not just true in the issue of equity between men's and women's wages but also relates to the issue of accessing workplaces with the required notice.Crockett and Preston show, for example, that between 1991 and 1998 the wage gap in Western Australia rose 5½ percentage points from 17½ per cent to 23 per cent. That is a very significant increase over a seven-year period, and is certainly not a situation we should be proud of. Australia, as a country that has in the past led in many areas of wage equity and other gender equity issues, is in fact now introducing legislation that is proven in Western Australia to have increased the wage gap between men's and women's earnings. Census data shows that this change was entirely brought about by adverse wage structure effects and not because of changes in productivity between men and women. I think that is a very serious issue. There has been in the past an argument that the wages gap is based on the fact that men are stronger or working in heavier industries, but really this research by Crockett and Preston shows that the increase in the gender wage gap has just been because of women's lower bargaining power in the wages bargaining process. In fact, Western Australian women have improved what the academics would call their relative human capital endowments—they are referring to education, work skills and so on—but these gains have not offset the detrimental effects of the legislative changes.An analysis of these workplace agreements show that equal opportunity provisions have been weakened and that the beneficiaries of the new system are managers rather than workers. So people in situations where they have strong bargaining power are able to bargain their wages up, but for the majority of workers that is certainly not the case.I will make some more general comments about the legislation as well. The bill confines the Industrial Relations Commission's compulsory arbitration powers. It removes matters which the Industrial Relations Commission can include in awards such as long service leave, notice of termination, skills based classifications, training and education provisions. The award stripping that is proposed will remove all but the most basic minimum conditions. This is a shameful situation, given how many generations Australian workers have fought to have these types of provisions included in their awards, for the very good reason that they are the sorts of rights and entitlements that workers should expect—not just for themselves but for all of their colleagues; not just for workers who are in strong bargaining positions but also for the majority of workers who on their own cannot win such conditions and who rely on collective action to achieve these sorts of conditions.The bill makes industrial action illegal except in the most meagre set of circumstances. In this respect we are actually embarrassing ourselves in the international community when we reach a situation where Australia is saying in the international context that we no longer believe that workers have the right to withhold their labour—their only real bargaining power. I think that this certainly sets us back decades in having an advanced industrial relations system.Sympathy and political action, of course, is unprotected under the allowable circumstances for industrial action. The Industrial Relations Commission must authorise a ballot to take place. That requires an application with signatures from five per cent of the work force. That is terrific news. If you are in a work force where you are very sackable and where you are very vulnerable, you are hardly likely to put your name to a petition suggesting industrial action.This also applies to the rights of entry provisions included in this bill whereby unions can enter workplaces only if they have a written invitation from a union member and if 24-hours written notice is provided to the employer. There are provisions for an official to obtain a certificate from the registrar to protect the identity of the union member requesting a visit, but it is not clear how onerous this process might be or whether workers will be prepared to use it.Just imagine being the one worker on the shop floor—perhaps a migrant worker sewing clothes for a few dollars an hour—who is brave enough to invite the union in to inspect the premises, to inspect the working conditions or to inspect the pay records if you believe you have been underpaid. It would certainly take a lot of strength of character and bravery to be the one to risk your job and risk retaliation from the employer. To be brave enough to be the one who will do that would certainly be an achievement. The most vulnerable workers, of course, are the ones least able to negotiate on their own behalf, but they will also be the ones least likely to invite their union into the workplace because they will be the ones most fearful of retaliation, having been identified by the employer as the person who is the troublemaker.I believe that the bill will also lead to greater not less industrial disputation because of the onerous requirements relating to allowable industrial disputation. A situation is created here where there is no incentive for goodwill between employers and unions. In fact, unions, by and large, see these requirements as so onerous and so unreasonable that they are more likely to behave illegally if this bill is passed—so in fact increasing the level of disputation. The Assistant Secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, Dave Oliver, told Workforce magazine last month:If they tighten it up too much, then we will have to defy the law. The unions have always taken industrial action and we always will.And of course it is the unions' responsibility to defend the interests of their workers in the most effective way possible. If the government gives them no room to move and no possibility of reaching any sort of reasonable accommodation, they are forced into a situation where conflict is increased.Unprotected action occurs in any situations other than those specifically described in the bill. For example, when workers protest against the loss of jobs through restructuring, the Industrial Relations Commission is obliged to issue orders to stop or prevent industrial action within 48 hours of an application being made. The bill's definition of industrial action covers only unions. It is significant that when the minister implies that this is a bill that promotes a level playing field, that is fair to both workers and employers, it is plain to see that the intention of this bill is certainly not to be even-handed. The definition of industrial action used to cover both employers and unions with a broad definition that included any change to normal work arrangements.The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, in particular, has been successful at having actions by employers defined as industrial action and therefore making those actions illegal. The fact that the CFMEU was able to use the provisions of the previous legislation obviously irritated the minister so much that he has now changed the legislation to make sure that employers are no longer covered by this legislation. An analysis of the bill provided by leading industrial lawyers suggests:Perhaps the most glaring example of the distinct lack of even handedness on the Minister's proposals is that which seeks to expand the scope of s127 to ensure that orders may be made against unions and their officials, while at the same time confining the grounds on which an order may be made against an employer to just one, unprotected lockout action.Secondly, there is also a requirement that the Federal Court must act promptly in enforcing section 127 orders. The court has demonstrated a willingness not only to prioritise section 127 orders but to sit outside normal sitting hours for these matters. An analysis of the minister's proposals by 80 leading industrial barristers and solicitors suggests that the provision:. . . may have something to do with the Minister's desire to get even with the Federal Court because of the decisions made by the Court during the course of the waterfront dispute.It is hardly a good basis for making public policy, is it? A hurt ego and a desire for revenge are hardly a good basis for public policy.In these provisions the government is seeking to limit the discretion of the courts. Even the Industrial Relations and Management Newsletter in July this year said:. . . there is a concern that by limiting Court discretion so much, genuine cases may not get the special attention they need. Employers are not always in the right—nor are unions and employees always in the wrong.You would never guess that from reading this legislation; you would never guess that there is any chance that the employer would ever be in the wrong.I return briefly to right of entry. This has certainly been a problem in Western Australia. I will not go into too much detail, but the CFMEU is a union that has experienced a lot of difficulty with this. It has led to a number of injuries, and indeed deaths, on construction sites in Western Australia where safety re quirements have not been adhered to. Because of the onerous conditions of rights of entry in Western Australia, union officials have not been able to enter those sites and inspect them. This has certainly led to injury and, I think it is fair to say, a number of deaths in the construction industry in Western Australia. I am very concerned that this legislation will indeed lead to an extension of that problem around the country. I think it is also fair to say that there is no way in which this legislation is fair to Australian workers; there is no way in which it meets the suggestion in its title that it will provide more jobs and better pay—in fact, it will be just the reverse.13:30:0010894Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—Once again I am standing in this House to oppose a bill of parliament which is aimed at reducing the bargaining position of workers in gaining fair and equitable wages and conditions. In proposing these amendments, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business seeks to implement further attacks on the industrial relations system of this country. In fact, these so-called reforms will do nothing but raise the profit margins for the employers and lower the living standards of the people whom the minister suggests he is assisting—the workers.I find it hard to contain my anger and disappointment at the government's flagrant attempts to destroy the trade union movement and reduce the ability of workers to defend themselves against provocative employers. What is proposed is a further stripping back of awards. It will mean that awards will be stripped back so that they can contain only basic minimum wages and conditions. This will remove conditions such as skill based classifications, accident make-up pay, long service leave, superannuation, training and education provisions—the list goes on and on. Awards must be stripped back before any safety net increase can be applied, preventing access to arbitration in the Industrial Relations Commission for workers covered by a paid rates award, a large chunk of which are in the public sector. The fact is that the minister does not believe the protection of workers' entitlements is necessary because he does not want those entitlements to be awarded at all. The minister said on Meet the Press on Sunday, 8 August:It would be consistent with our policy of workplace relations policy to have a system which is seen as a safety net rather than necessarily guaranteeing every last entitlement.This shows his total disregard for workers' entitlements—which have been earned—and is a clear indication that he wants these to be removed and abolished. He wants these entitlements removed because they hinder the ability of employers to create wealth without having to pass on anything to those who created it—the workers. In terms of individual agreements, the government will make it easier for employers to force workers into secret individual contracts, which may result in substandard wages and conditions. The Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 does away with the cooling-off period that allows the AWA to be implemented as soon as it is signed. This will lock workers into an intimidating situation where the employer can stand over the workers—who will not have any proper representation—in order to make them sign to get employment. The bill allows for selective discriminatory offering of individual contracts by removing the requirement that an AWA must be offered to all comparable employees. It also undercuts an existing agreement by allowing an AWA to be offered whilst that agreement is still in force.The bill also makes it far easier for employers to unfairly sack their employees. It does this by removing the right of remedy for workers who work for a company with 15 employees or less, who have been employed for less than six months or who are employed on a casual basis. It does it by requiring the commission at conciliation stage to issue an opinion as to whether a claim would succeed or not. The commission will also have the power to cease conciliation and refuse to arbitrate if it deems the claim to be a potential failure. And it does it by broadening the circumstances where costs can be awarded against the workers, and allowing a system where a worker may be required to pay some form of bond before the case goes ahead. This will have the desired effect for the govern ment, as very few workers or unions will be able to afford such an imposition.The bill also seeks to diminish the role of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. This body, the independent umpire of the industrial relations system, is something that the government simply does not support. The minister has said very openly that he is on the side of capital, whereas a decent minister for industrial relations should be promoting harmony in the workplace. This bill would remove certain powers of the commission in respect of industrial disputes. It would limit the compulsory conciliation to disputes about allowable matters. It would introduce private mediation providers as an alternative, with no real indication as to who will pay for this mediation, and it would introduce a user-pays system, by charging the parties $500 for the privilege of voluntary conciliation in the commission. Perhaps, though, the biggest threat to the independence of the commission would be the plan to introduce seven-year terms for the members and one-year terms for acting commissioners. This may have the effect of influencing the members of the commission, whose tenure and future will solely depend on their appointment by the government through the Governor-General. It will also give the government the opportunity to control the workings of the commission by the use of successive acting commissioners. Independence of courts and tribunals is absolutely critical to the Westminster style of government and the separation of powers that are contained within the Australian Constitution.On the issue of young workers, this bill proposes to ensure all awards contain age related rates of pay and to permanently maintain those youth wages and awards. First, the government tries to pre-empt the inquiry by the Industrial Relations Commission, exposing the situation, and then it goes about these measures. The government simply is about slashing the wages of some of the most vulnerable in our community. The Senate have rejected this proposal once before. I am positive they will do it again.Perhaps the most repugnant aspect of the bill is the further attempt to destroy the union movement and prevent them from effectively representing the members who choose to belong to trade unions. This bill seeks to force employers to reduce union power where over 60 per cent of their employees are members of one particular union. How absurd and ideologically driven is that proposition. It suggests it is inappropriate in any workplace for 60 per cent of members to choose to belong to a particular union, whereas in most of those workplaces, if not all, it makes absolute sense. It makes sense to have a commonality of interest, which is why they choose to belong to that trade union as it is. But this government is about creating confusion and division and destroying the rights of workers to collectively bargain for their interests.This bill also seeks to prohibit clauses encouraging union membership from being included in certified agreements. The fact is that employers who have a bit of vision, who care about their workplace and who care about their particular corporation, understand that by having a cooperative relationship with their work force through collective negotiation, discussion and dialogue they can actually improve the way their company operates and improve their profit ratios as well. Workers should not be treated simply as the ones on the other side of the fence; they should be treated as the core part of any corporation. To be successful, a cooperative relationship beats a relationship of conflict every single time.But this bill seeks to undermine that. It also seeks to limit the ability of a union to enter the employer's premises even when there is a written invitation from an employee. A new invitation would be required every 28 days, and the employer can even direct the place where the meeting can occur. This story really is bordering on George Orwell in its attempt to control from the top what is occurring. It has disastrous implications for issues such as occupational health and safety if an employer can stop a trade union representative from coming into a workplace, even when invited by one or a group of the employees, and stop their ability to actually examine what is occurring there. This is at a time when industrial accidents still cause more injury than motor vehicle accidents, more loss to the company, more loss to the economy and, most importantly, more human suffering to those workers whose employers choose to cut costs rather than look after the interests of their work force.I suspect it does not really matter to this minister that those workers wish to be in a union, choose to insert encouragement clauses for union membership into agreements and wish to meet their union official in private—free from the possibility of intimidation for seeking to defend their own and their fellow work mates' industrial interests. Proposals such as this will ensure that the ultimate power will rest in the hands of the employer.To complement that, the bill also intends to remove the cooling-off period for conciliation, in which unions are protected from legal action by an employer, and allowing a choice between the Federal Court and a state Supreme Court—shopping, if you like, for a sympathetic court to hear particular cases. It would also impose a requirement that the union must apply to the commission for an order to allow a cumbersome and expensive secret postal ballot. The commission must issue an order for protected industrial action to take place. This radically restricts workers' ability to take appropriate action to advance their aims for fair and equitable wages and to protect their conditions. How extraordinary. When workers take industrial action, it actually costs them money. They forgo their wage when they do that, and they do it for their long-term interests. People do not take industrial action lightly; people do not do it without proper consideration of other dispute mechanisms which are in place. It is, of course, a last resort. When we are talking about workers taking industrial action, we are talking about them withdrawing their labour.To suggest that they not have that right is to suggest that, in 1999, it is appropriate to have legislation to force people to give of their labour. That might be all right for some of the spivs who sit on the front bench opposite, with their family trusts, their avenues of capital and the interest and money they get from other sources—most of which is untaxed. But for workers who rely on their wage for shelter, food and clothing for their families, it is outrageous to suggest—on the part of this uncaring, unsympathetic, anti-worker government—that they take lightly an action to withdraw their labour.The title says it all—more jobs, better pay. This is a government which is about rhetoric. It is not called the `smash the trade union movement bill', which would be more appropriate. This government has a childish, student politic-like stunt in the way that it is naming its bills. This is the biggest joke since it called the GST bills `a new tax system' without referring to GST in the title. The reality is that these proposed amendments ensure that the real meaning translates to `more jobs for lawyers and accountants, and better pay for the managers and employers'.The ILO's Committee of Experts, which is made up of 20 eminent legal experts, found that the Workplace Relations Act in its current form breached several ILO conventions, most notably freedom of association and collective bargaining. They found that the laws do not promote collective bargaining by giving favourable treatment to individual contracts and are restrictive on negotiating agreements with more than one employer. So after being told that laws introduced by the federal coalition contravene conventions that Australia has ratified, the federal coalition go one step further and reduce a worker's ability to bargain collectively and gain protection.Even the employers are reluctant to provoke the trade union movement without cause. Roger Boland from the Australian Industry Group, the peak employer body in Australia, stated in the Sydney Morning Herald on 28 July this year that employers would be reluctant to `light a fire' in their workplace because unionised shops did not necessarily impede business. So you have a large employer group that is by no means a friend of the union movement saying that these proposed amendments are provocative and damaging to workplaces.Reith the wrecker just will not listen! He will not even pay heed to his own supporters in the boardrooms. By speaking out, the employer groups, in acting as the minister's industrial jackboot squad, took issue by overtly provoking the trade union movement into conflict purely for the benefit of the leadership ambitions of the minister for workplace relations. The minister has done the Prime Minister's bidding by derailing the republican issue, and now he is out to wreck workers' lives by doing the bidding of his mates in the boardrooms across the country. I can picture him now sitting in his office, devising plans on how he can thwart the latest attempt by workers to obtain a fair, livable wage.The fundamental aspect to this whole debate still remains the government's promise that no worker will be worse off as a result of the reforms over the last three years. This promise has proven to be worthless on countless occasions over those years: ask the workers who are unfairly dismissed and who are unable to gain a remedy due to the lack of financial assistance or who are denied access to the federal and state industrial tribunals; ask the workers who are coerced into signing individual agreements against their better judgment but who have no real option otherwise.I call on all members to reject these provocative policies—members of the House who represent hundreds of thousands of workers throughout Australia who will be adversely affected by this bill. We should be doing the right thing by our constituents and protect their wages and conditions from being eroded which will jeopardise them, their families and our economy into the future.13:49:0010897Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—In this debate on the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 I am happy to join my colleagues on the Labor side who are arguing against the key provisions of this bill and arguing for the amendment which the shadow minister for industrial relations has put forward. This bill is of a piece with the government's approach not only to industrial relations but also to the management of this economy and the outcomes of that management, particularly in terms of the social conditions for people in Australia, that they have exhibited since they came to office in 1996. This workplace relations act is an extension of the first act that this minister brought into this place. It is of a piece with the youth employment provisions that they have attempted to adopt and it is also of a piece with the broad changes that they have attempted to make and have had to back-pedal on in terms of Public Service employment.If this bill goes through in its original government form, if the government does not agree to the amendment the opposition is putting forward, its impact will be extremely deleterious to the people who live in my electorate of Blaxland. The city of Bankstown of which Blaxland is half has been directly impacted on by this government in a number of ways.In particular, I want to point out the related issues of what happens to people who are working in government employment in Bankstown. Since 1996, over 440 local employees in the Australian Taxation Office in Bankstown have been moved to Hurstville or Parramatta. There are 220 left. The government cannot move them because the other facilities are already overstocked with employees. This government is wasting $22 million in dead rent on the Bankstown Taxation Office and will do so until 2002. Just in this last week, the staff at Bankstown Immigration have been informed that all of them—all 90—will be moved either to the central business district or to Parramatta. So 440 plus 90 more jobs are to be lost in Bankstown in direct government employ. That means there is less ballast in the area.Directly in terms of the broader industrial relations changes that the minister for workplace relations has initiated already, at De Havilland in Bankstown there has been a broad cut in the work force. The management of De Havilland determined to make the changes that Peter Reith has already brought into place in this parliament and would be supportive of the model that is in the government's bill before us right now. In the past couple of weeks, a large number of workers have been made redundant from that facility—workers who have worked at De Havilland for a long time and been productive and efficient. In the dispute between the workers and the management at De Havilland they got special help from outside counsel—special help provided by the minister for workplace relations sent in to be the leading edge of these sorts of changes. There was direct intervention in Bankstown which resulted in the loss of jobs.I turn to what this government has done in this bill and in a series of others. In particular, the member for Grayndler mentioned the tax bills before the House—for a new tax system—and those being misnamed. I would point to the charter of budget honesty as another outlandish misnaming of legislation in this House. I have spoken previously, dealing with that bill, about how the reality in the bill does not match up with the names.This is a government of doublespeak, this is a government of newspeak, this is a government where less is more. There is no place where that is evident more than this bill. Less is more from the coalition government led by John Howard, the member for Bennelong, in which the minister for workplace relations promises more jobs and better pay as a result of the measures contained in this bill.Everyone in Australia who is not utterly biased and not a complete supporter of this minister knows, slightly at least, that when this government speaks and when it uses flowery language or evocative language—like `more jobs, better pay'—you start to worry. You start to worry because there are already indications of doublespeak, there are already indications of an Orwellian 1984 approach from this government. We have seen it before in other bills. It knows, in this area in particular, that more jobs and better pay emanate from a more productive and efficient work force. They also emanate directly from better relations between employers and employees.Those in the Australian population at large who can cast their minds back to the period of the Labor government will have in their memory that over 13 years Labor moved progressively from the centralised award system to a modified system in which there were workplace agreements where the work force and the employers joined with the work force's representatives, the unions, in conjunc tion with the Industrial Relations Commission, to bring about a more productive and more efficient workplace. During all the time that we were in government, and particularly the period in which Labor undertook a progressive set of changes in regard to that, the then opposition and now government tried to push the pedal harder.This government not only believes that less is more, that you can con the Australian people by using rhetorical phrases in regard to what has been provided, but also centrally believes that it is not just enough to con people: it is centrally important on the factory floor and in the community to drive towards this one central, key view, that there should be a master-servant relationship between employers and employees in this country. From 1996 onwards, this government, under this minister for industrial relations, has sought time after time in the legislation that he has put forward and in his actual conduct in the field—and the best example of that is what he did in relation to the waterfront fiasco—to take Australia back to the place that is safe for the coalition, and that place that is safe is a 19th century industrial system where the master-servant relationship operates.If there is any doubt about that, which there is expressed from the government side, all they have to do is look at the provisions of this bill. The provisions of this bill take away what protections there still are after the minister's previous bills. They strip away award provisions; they take protections out of the hands of the industrial commission, an industrial commission that has had a central place in determining the relationship between workers and employers ever since the Harvester decision, I think, in 1905 or 1906. Then really progressive elements—a combination of the High Court sitting in relation to the Harvester judgment, the Australian Labor Party in this federal parliament and the progressive Deakinite Liberals who came just after that in 1907 but were there at that time—initiated an industrial relations system that has served this country well since 1906.But for this government, this Prime Minister, this minister for workplace relations, less is more. Cutting away people's award conditions, slicing into a productive relationship between employers and people at the workplace—that is a key to what they see as reform. We see it as a change that is deleterious not just to the country as a whole but to every individual who works either for this federal government or out in private industry. I have seen it in the last couple of weeks in De Havilland in Bankstown, where workers have been made redundant on the model put forward by the minister for workplace relations. They were assisted in that, directly, by one of the advisers, one of the people who was closely associated with the member for Flinders.This bill is about doublespeak; this bill argues that less is more; this bill is a further concentration of power in the hands of the employers. It is not about an equal or fair balance between employers and employees. It is about readjusting that balance, and the actions of this ideologically driven government—and in no place more than workplace relations—are directly aimed at the reinstitution of a master-servant relationship that existed in the 19th century, actions that this minister and Prime Minister seek to push forward as hard and fast as they can. This is not about more jobs, better pay; that is newspeak for cutting workers to the bone.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and when the debate is resumed the member for Blaxland will have leave to continue speaking.Ministerial Arrangements1089914:00:0010899Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry will be absent from question time today and tomorrow. He is travelling to Montreal to attend the Quint Forum of agriculture ministers from the United States, the European Union, Japan, Canada and Australia, followed by a series of official meetings in Canada and the US which will focus on the forthcoming World Trade Organisation agricultural negotiations. The Minister for Forestry and Conservation will act as Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry during the other minister's absence.Questions Without Notice108991089910899Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY PE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Do you recall on 9 September saying that you would be seeking from President Clinton a US combat force contribution to an East Timor multinational force? Do you recall saying, `We want boots on the ground'? Have you seen the interview on this morning's Today show where US Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, categorically stated that `Australia has not at any time requested a contribution of combat troops from the United States' for the INTERFET operation? Prime Minister, can you explain why you did not request combat troops from the United States when you said you would?10899Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have seen the interview on television with Mr Cohen, and it is important to remind the House that what he said was, `The answer is no, no formal request for such a commitment.' As I am sure the Leader of the Opposition knows, in a relationship such as that between Australia and the United States a formal request that is made is of those assets that you know you are going to get. The reality is that it was made very clear to us in discussions between me and President Clinton—and there were three such discussions—and also in discussions between Mr Moore and Mr Cohen that, although the United States would provide significant assets, the United States—for domestic political and other reasons—was very reluctant and in fact felt unable to provide combat troops. That was the position that was made clear to me.Mr Beazley interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—It is a serious issue and it deserves a careful answer, and if the Leader of the Opposition has any further questions I would be very happy to respond because I want to make it very clear that we regard the American contribution that has been made as very effective. The American support is very effective, it is very welcome, and I am in no way critical of the contribution that the Americans are making. It is very valuable indeed, and it is being provided to the complete satisfaction of the Australian Defence Force.I should make it clear that when I first discussed this matter with President Clinton on 6 September I indicated to him that the Australian government and the Australian people expected an American involvement. He immediately made it clear to me that that involvement to the extent of involving combat troops would be extremely difficult. He pointed out that the Americans already had 14,000 troops in Kosovo, that the Congress was unsympathetic and that, although he would take on board all of the requests that we had made, that that would be difficult. In a subsequent conversation between me and the President an exchange to a similar effect took place and, in discussions between Mr Cohen and Mr Moore, Mr Moore canvassed the possibility of an American troop contribution, and a similar response was given.So the situation very plainly is that there was no doubt at all in the discussions that took place between the President and me and between the defense secretary and the defence minister that an American troop contribution was canvassed. But it was made equally clear to us by the Americans that, for a combination of reasons, they felt unable to provide combat troops on this occasion but would provide a large number of other assets.There were discussions between the military of the two countries and the assets ultimately provided and ultimately contained on the list that was sent to the Americans were to the complete satisfaction of the Australian Defence Force. That is why, Mr Speaker, you will note the secretary has used the expression `no formal request for such a commitment'. The reality is that in a situation such as this you have a lot of discussions in advance. You formally request what you know you will actually get. You do not formally request something which you know from earlier discussions, for a combination of reasons, is simply not going to be available.1090010900Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE CK6MoretonLP10—My question is to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister outline any plans by the government to examine further reform of welfare and social policy, building on reforms already implemented and reflecting the government's commitment to maintaining a strong social safety net?10900Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for Moreton. Like many colleagues on this side of the House, the honourable member has a very deep interest in intelligent, long-term reform of Australia's social welfare system—the sort of reform that protects the weak and the vulnerable and also provides incentives for people to get off welfare and to break the cycle of welfare dependency.My colleague the Minister for Family and Community Services announced at the National Press Club today that the government proposed to establish a reference group to develop a green paper on further welfare reform. I know that this announcement will be very widely welcomed by many in the opposition—the member for Lilley, the member for Werriwa and many others—who have spoken very regularly over recent months of the importance of fundamental reform to Australia's welfare system: a reform, I repeat, that continues to keep in place the safety net, a reform that continues to protect the weak and the vulnerable but a reform that recognises the need to break welfare dependency, that recognises the need to entrench the principle of mutual obligation in our society.I am pleased to announce that the chairmanship of the reference group has been accepted by Mr Patrick McClure of Mission Australia. Mr McClure is a well-known and respected figure in one of the major welfare organisations of this country. Mr McClure, along with officers from Senator Newman's department and others, will provide a marvellous reference group for the development of this white paper. The preliminary findings will be delivered to the government by early in the year 2000, with a final report in June of next year.The reference group has been asked to consider reform proposals against a number of principles. They include maintaining a strong social safety net where those who are in genuine help will always be supported, the principle of mutual obligation, prevention and early intervention, reducing welfare dependency, encouraging self-reliance and capacity building, establishing better incentives, and maintaining current budget policy. The group will seek submissions from interested groups and the broader community. In this way the broader community will be part of the social coalition examining further reform of the welfare system.This government has already trailblazed many welfare reforms. We have put an end to excessive rorting of the welfare system. We have provided additional benefits to Australian families. We have reduced the withdrawal rate applying to many low income families. We have reversed the previous incentive for people to remain welfare dependent rather than go back to work. That is one of the great advantages of the taxation package that was passed in the teeth of opposition from the Australian Labor Party a few months ago. It is now time, on the eve of the new millennium, to move on to a newer and better debate about the future of welfare in this country, a debate that does not argue for a moment that the poor and the vulnerable need help and assistance but a debate which is designed to reduce the debilitating impact of welfare dependency within the Australian community generally. That has been recently recognised by leaders of the Aboriginal community such as Senator Aden Ridgeway and Mr Noel Pearson, both of whom have spoken eloquently and feelingly of the impact of welfare dependency on indigenous Australians. Their words apply with equal force to other sections of the Australian community. It is a forward looking debate. It is one the community needs to have. I hope all sections of the Australian community join it enthusiastically.1090110901Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, can you give the House a categorical assurance that Senator Newman's suppressed welfare policy discussion paper contains no options to cut benefits, including those which form the compensation package for the GST, either in terms of cuts to the rates of benefits or in terms of reduction of access to benefits?UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—It doesn't exist.2V5Mr SWAN—The one in the bottom drawer.10901Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—That is a wasted question, Wayne. What a wasted question. I will tell you what I will do: I will categorically assure the House that the compassion this government has displayed over the last 3½ years will continue.1090110901St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the minister advise the House of progress towards achieving the government's waterfront reform objectives? Are there any obstacles which may prevent the achieving of these objectives?10901Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. He comes from one of those electorates that is very dependent on having an efficient capacity to export. So the jobs and so forth that they need to continue to promote in places like New England are very dependent upon us having an effective waterfront. Despite the opposition's consistent opposition to everything that we have sought to achieve, from the establishment and achievement of the seven benchmarks that were laid down in April of 1998 through to the general objectives of a highly competitive waterfront, the reality is that the government, the stevedores and their employees have pushed ahead with the reform.Today we see that we have managed the elimination of overmanning and restrictive work practices, with the voluntary reduction of 1,400 people. We have seen sustained and real improvements in waterfront reliability, with the statistics for the March and June quarters 1999 showing that berths were available within four hours for more than 90 per cent of the vessels that arrived here. Those who remember such things as the `Wran navy', they called it, off Sydney Heads and for months off Newcastle, will realise what an incredible turnaround over time that is. We have seen record average rates for container movements as well.Just today, the June quarter 1999 Waterline edition has been released. It provides some very important further evidence of the progress we have made. It shows that the five port crane rate has again reached a new record high. The June quarter is the highest ever recorded in Waterline. It breaks the record set in March. The rate is now over 20 movements per hour, up from 19.9 in the March quarter and 18.9 in the December 1998 quarter. These are always a long way in front of anything that was managed when the ALP was in power. In fact, it is the first time that the rate has exceeded 20 movements per hour, and those champions of the working class regard it—all those jobs that depend upon us having an efficient waterfront—as something to guffaw about.The reality is that, having laid the foundation in a very substantial way, the future rates, particularly from P&O, who are just completing their redundancy program, will show a significant improvement from now on. It is all up from here. The opposition seems to be unable to grasp the simple reality—that to be successful exporters need to enjoy an established reputation for being reliable suppliers. Reliability on the waterfront is something that was never achieved by Labor. Despite having achieved these very desirable ends, we now find the Labor Party is into continuing its opposition. We now find that it seeks to cut in half the additional funding required by MIFCo, from $100 million to $50 million.The fact is that the government's waterfront package embraces a range of elements, not just redundancies. We believe that there is scope for further improvement in a range of areas, from occupational health, which the opposition would surely support, to safety regimes, new technology and improved training. That is one of the reasons that we seek an extension of around $100 million. The opposition wants to cut it in half. I would have thought that it would have recognised the value of pursuing those objectives and the essential correctness of the principle that the waterfront industry ought to pay for it, rather than the taxpayer.The government have always made it plain that we would deal with redundancies first— in the approach laid down by my colleague, the minister right behind me—and would then move on to implement other worthwhile reforms. That is what we continue to seek to do. The fact is that the opposition's proposal to reduce the appropriation by $50 million will create administrative uncertainty. It may very well create uncertainty for the financiers of the Maritime Industry Finance Company—MIFCo—and it may also mean that the government would have to come back for a further appropriation. That is not in the interests of anyone—least of all the people in this country, the workers across this nation, who depend upon an efficient waterfront for their future prosperity.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I ask that the minister table the documents from which he was so copiously quoting.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Was the minister reading from confidential notes? The minister was reading from confidential notes.1090210902Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN 8I4CunninghamALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, yesterday you advised the House that our commitment of 2,000 troops in East Timor `for six months or so' would cost more than $500 million. Will you now confirm that we have committed 4,500 troops to INTERFET in East Timor and that this commitment is likely to be for longer than six months, as confirmed yesterday by your defence minister? What is the cost? Do you agree with Access Economics that the cost could be up to as much as $2 billion per year?10902Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The situation, as the member for Cunningham said, is that the commitment is for up to 4,500 troops. The deployment at the moment is in the order of 2,000 and, depending on circumstances, it could rise. I indicated yesterday, so the House was in no way misinformed, that the original figure of $500 million was on the basis of about a six-month deployment. If the 2,000 goes on longer than six months, obviously the $500 million will be higher, and if the number increases for a longer period, that will be higher again.What is happening at the moment is that I am having work done by the Department of Defence and the Department of Finance and Administration about the precise projections on future costs. I do not have those figures ready yet, and I do not think there is any reason why we should. We are dealing with a situation that was not reasonably contemplated with the degree of precision that would be required to answer your question now when the budget was put together. It would be quite unreasonable for the government to be able to produce that figure out of thin air. We are working on it and, as soon as we are in a position to inform not only the parliament but also the Australian public of the likely cost scenarios, given possible outcomes and levels of troop deployment, we will certainly do it—and also how it relates to other areas of government spending and revenue, to the extent that we can. That would certainly be something that would at least have to await the context of the mid-year financial and economic assessment.It is no secret that this troop deployment will cost this country a lot of money. We are perfectly happy to acknowledge what it will cost when we know the full extent of it. We are perfectly happy to explain the relationship of that to the other obligations of the government. There will not be any reluctance on the part of this government to do that. I note that the opposition has already indicated its support for increased defence spending, and I welcome that. We will try to do this thing in a constructive, open fashion. I am the last person in this country who wants to hide from the Australian people the reality that our involvement in a very important issue in this region is going to cost us money. I am pleased that the accounts of the Commonwealth are strong and in surplus. I would hate to have Timor on my lap with a $10½ billion deficit.1090310903Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, does the federal government support the proposal by the New South Wales unions and government that employees who choose not to join unions be required to pay $200 to $500 each year to a trade union? What do these proposals demonstrate about the industrial relations and political priorities of the advocates of such a policy? Can federal laws provide security to non-unionists from the impact of these proposals?10903Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for her question. We have today released details of one of the most partisan and ideological policy proposals coming out of a state Labor administration and its bosses in the state labour council.Opposition members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—The proposal—I deduce, from the heckling, that it is clearly supported by the frontbench of the Labor Party—is that people in New South Wales who have elected not to be a member of a union will be required to pay a fee of $250 to $500 a year to the trade union movement in New South Wales. People who have exercised their basic right to decide whether or not they will be a member of a union will be penalised as a means of gathering up a huge slush fund for the Labor Party and the unions in New South Wales. It makes a mockery of the Labor Party—who talk about concern for the battlers and in circumstances where a person is required to pay $500—that with one stroke of the pen, pushed by a trade union leader, they would take close to the entire benefit of the safety net living wage increases which they have had under the federal coalition government. It is an absolute outrage. This morning, when referring to the government's Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 , the member for Paterson said this about a $500 charge:. . . to the breadwinner of a family $500 can be a month's repayment of the mortgage. It can mean being able to eat that month or not, it can mean the family having a holiday at Christmas or not and it can mean having something in the Christmas stocking or not.Yet his party is proposing a charge which could bring to the coffers of the unions in New South Wales between $400 and $500 million a year. Not only would we see this charge imposed on more than a million workers in New South Wales but also they had the incredible audacity to put up a proposal which would see the same charge being placed on people running small businesses as independent contractors. You might ask: was this proposal put to the people of New South Wales before the last state election by the Labor government? Of course, the answer is no, it was not. What was their policy? Their policy was to have a review of industrial relations policy after the election. That is exactly the same deceptive tactic that is their policy position today; that is, slug millions of workers with a new charge which will fill the slush funds of the ALP and the unions.I can assure the New South Wales Labor government—as I have already done—that the federal government is totally opposed to this particular measure. We will take all necessary steps to prevent the implementation of such a measure. I say to workers in New South Wales who have exercised their basic democratic right to decide not to be in a union that, if they want some relief from this onerous obligation which is about to be put on them by the New South Wales Labor government, if they are within the federal law they are of course safe from such heavy-handed practices by the Labor Party and the trade unions. If the Leader of the Opposition has the guts to stand up to the trade unions, we would like him to give this parliament an assurance that it will never be part of Labor's federal policy to impose this new tax on people for exercising their basic freedoms.1090410904Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of media reports that Portugal is willing to spend up to $100 million per annum on the cost of reconstructing East Timor? Do you stand by your statement on CNN Asia this morning that Australia would be prepared to do `quite a lot' towards the cost of East Timor's reconstruction? Given that the Treasurer is presently overseas seeking contributions from other nations towards this cost, will you now advise the House how much Australia will commit to East Timor's reconstruction? 10904Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—It is true that I did say on television this morning something which I have said frequently in the past—it is something which I imagine everyone in this House would agree with—that is, that Australia should contribute a significant amount to East Timor's future. After all, it is hardly reasonable to support a country's aspiration for freedom and then run away from it when it has an appalling living standard.DT4CREANMr Crean—Have you got a figure?ZD4Mr HOWARD—I do not have a precise figure and I am not going to just grab one out of the air. What we are going to do, bearing in mind that East Timor is in a state of political transition at the present time—it is still part of Indonesian sovereignty and will be until the act of separation from the Indonesian state occurs—is, in consultation with the United Nations, Australia will join in an international effort. There will need to be an assessment made of the needs of East Timor. On the basis of what I have been told, I can say that the infrastructure has virtually gone and the living standard is very low. When it does become independent, it will have one of the lowest living standards of any country in the world. The number of professional people there in the nature of doctors and teachers will be very low indeed. Overall, the territory will need a great deal of support and a large volume of resources. It will take some time before an intelligent figure can be compiled through international collaboration.Flowing from that, it will also take some time before the precise size of a contribution from Australia can be calculated. But I can assure the House that just as soon as we are able to say what that figure is and what the government is willing to contribute, we will make that figure public. If what the honourable member is getting at is that this will have budgetary implications, the answer is yes, it will. I am not going to disguise that for a moment, but I do not know what those implications are. I do not think it is reasonable for the government to be required now to nominate a figure. What is reasonable is that the government should be asked whether we remain committed to helping an independent East Timor and the answer is yes, we are. We made it clear months ago that we were willing to do that and I have made that clear to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.Just as this country was prepared to play a major role in the multinational force, we are prepared to play a major role in the reconstruction of East Timor. But we are not going to play a solo role in the reconstruction of East Timor; we will expect the rest of the world to make healthy contributions as well. To ask me now to nominate precisely what that figure is, with great respect, is wasting a question.1090510905Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. Minister, would you inform the House of measures available to assist workers affected by the imminent closure of BHP's steel making facility in Newcastle?10905Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I thank the member for Robertson for his concern for the retrenchees of BHP, some of whom live in his electorate. When BHP announced two years ago that it was finishing up steel making in Newcastle, it marked the end of an era. But was it a portent of Newcastle's industrial decline, or was it more a sign that the Hunter was joining the information and service economy, as a former Labor member of this place suggested that it might? As the furnaces have finally closed, there is nostalgia, there is sorrow and there is some anger—but there is also some appraisal of where the Hunter goes from here. This is not the first economic blow or the heaviest that Newcastle has suffered: BHP shed 9,000 jobs in the 1980s. But these job losses are acutely felt because they come at a time when much of the country is enjoying very buoyant economic conditions.I am advised that just under 1,500 workers will leave BHP this week, and BHP expects that 900 of these will be looking for other work. BHP expects between 300 and 400 subcontractor employees to be affected.83NHALLMs Hall—What about all the other contractors?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Shortland! EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Many of these work for large businesses with the capacity to redeploy staff. The area consultative committee of my department has advised that there are eight subcontracting firms with 105 staff largely dependent on BHP. The government has just approved a $100,000 package to provide the mentoring that these firms need to readjust.83NHALLMs Hall—What about jobs?EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Ever since the BHP shutdown announcement the government has been working closely with the Newcastle community and with the state government. The Prime Minister has made four trips to Newcastle to meet with the social task force chaired by Mr Rob Chenery and by Mr Kevin Maher of the Australian Workers Union. We established a $10 million fund to support employment in Newcastle and the Hunter, and over $9 million has been committed so far: $1½ million to upgrading Newcastle Airport, half a million dollars for the Lower Hunter water pipeline, $1½ million to a transport and distribution centre in Maitland, $2 million in principle to upgrade Forgacs Shipyard and $2½ million towards the Impulse Airlines reservations centre.In some ways this is a sad ending for BHP, but it is also a new beginning for the Hunter. In April the Prime Minister opened a British Aerospace fighter support facility at Williamtown, which will directly employ 250, with 200 support jobs. The Prime Minister has also announced that Williamtown will host the Air Force's early warning aircraft from 2004, which means an extra 280 RAAF and support jobs. The Huon minehunter project and the refurbishment of two amphibious support ships are a further $1 billion boost to the Hunter economy. The government has also provided a $30 million tax break to assist the Redbank power station, which will employ 1,000 people in the construction phase and 250 workers and contractors once completed.I just want to make two final points. The first is that BHP has handled this closure like a truly model corporate citizen. On this matter the Big Australian has been the Big Hearted Australian.Ms Hall interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Shortland!EZ5Mr ABBOTT—I am advised that total payments to the BHP retrenchees are in the order of half a billion dollars, which is obviously a massive cash injection for the local economy.83NHALLMs Hall—But they've got no jobs.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—To aid job matching services available under the Job Network, BHP has set up for its workers an in-house, on-site employment centre which will operate until December next year.83NHALLMs Hall—Give us something other than rhetoric.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Shortland has been persistently reminded by the chair of the obligation she has to be courteous in the House. I warn her.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—The final point I would make is that Newcastle is bigger than BHP. It is a town with a tough reputation.83NHALLMs Hall—And it's got a lot of unemployed workers. It's about time you helped them.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—The people of Newcastle are tough enough to rise to this challenge, as they have to so many in the past. Janet Murray, one of the BHP retrenchees who is going on to start up her own business, said this morning:Newcastle is well equipped to meet the challenge this time round.The government has played its part to help.1090610906Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Mr Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the government's acknowledgment that the business tax package is currently not revenue neutral. In light of the significant new cost to the budget arising from Australia's commitment to peacekeeping and aid for East Timor, will you ensure that the business tax package is revenue neutral by guaranteeing to implement all of the deferred measures, including the anti-avoidance measures?10906Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will be aware of the commitments that have been made by the Treasurer on behalf of the government in relation to the fullness or the amplitude of the business tax package, and I support what the Treasurer has said—it represents a statement of government policy. As to the other matters that the honourable gentleman raises, of course the House will get more information from the government in relation to the additional defence costs as and when it becomes available. That is our position. I have made it clear twice, and I will say it again: whenever more information about the costs is available I will be very happy to make it available to the House.1090610906Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Will the minister advise the House of actions the government is taking to ensure that the views of young Australians are heard? What are the government's expectations of the meeting of the National Youth Roundtable?10906Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Blair for his question, and I acknowledge his great interest in young people in his electorate and in ensuring that they have appropriate educational opportunities. The National Youth Roundtable is currently meeting in Parliament House and I am pleased that a number of members from both sides of the chamber have attended presentations by the roundtable. This generation of young Australians is probably the best educated generation that this country has yet seen. Young Australians want the opportunity to put their views to government. They believe they have something to contribute, and they do have something to contribute. The government, through the National Youth Roundtable, is providing an unprecedented opportunity for the coming generation of young Australians to put their views directly to government. The Youth Roundtable consists of 50 young Australians aged 15 to 24 years who are selected from almost 1,000 applicants. They come from all states and territories, they span the age group 15 to 24 and they include a wide mix of young people, many of whom have overcome barriers to success, such as disabilities, homelessness and unemployment.Since March this year, the members of the Youth Roundtable have been consulting widely in their communities and they have now returned to Parliament House to present the results of their consultations with young people around Australia. The members of the Youth Roundtable have unprecedented access to government—the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, senior ministers, parliamentary secretaries, government advisers and officials from many Commonwealth departments. The result of this, as I am sure any member of the House who was present this morning at the presentations by the roundtable will recognise, is the extraordinary quality of the work that has been done by the members. The roundtable has already made a significant contribution. It drafted a preamble to the Constitution, which the government took into account in putting forward its proposed preamble.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! I warn the member for Batman and I warn the member for Grayndler.BT4Dr KEMP—The members of the roundtable are very conscious of the fact that young Australians have very often been in the front line in defending the democratic and humanitarian values for which this country stands. We were very pleased to see in the statement issued by the roundtable that it was strongly supportive of Australia's peacekeeping operation in East Timor. They recognise that young people over there might well have been members of the youth roundtable themselves. I take it as a matter of great credit to the members of the roundtable that they have been very conscious of the responsibilities that they carry. As I said, the members of the roundtable are currently presenting the results of their consultations around Australia, and members on both sides of the House are welcome to attend.1090710907Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Minister for Finance and Administration, representing the Treasurer. Do you stand by the Treasurer's claim last year that the GST package will increase insurance costs by only 0.8 per cent? If so, how do you explain the fact that many Australians are being asked to pay insurance premiums now, for the period after 1 July 2000, where the GST has increased the cost by close to 10 per cent, not 0.8 per cent?10907Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I note that in the question that has been put to me a number of assumptions and assertions have been made which have been attributed to the Treasurer's statement last year. I cannot recollect that statement. I have no reason to believe that it is not correct, but I will check that first to see whether those figures that were stated to me, which do not immediately come to me as being the figures I was aware of, are correct. In response to the honourable member, it is easy for the opposition to come in here and fire figures around to try to support a particular claim that they might want to make at this time or any other time. In the process of so doing they want to ignore at all times the beneficial impact of the new tax system. There are significant beneficial impacts of the new tax system, which clearly the Leader of the Opposition does not want to hear about.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question was specifically related to the fact that the government has said there would be a 0.8 per cent impact on the cost of insurance premiums, and there has been a 10 per cent impact. It is not alone in its failure to achieve what was predicted by the government, but it is a specific—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. He cannot argue the point of order. The Minister for Finance and Administration was responding to a question about the cost impact of the GST, and is in order.HQ5Mr FAHEY—As I indicated on numerous occasions, on isolated instances they will come in and they will raise assertions. The point of order taken by the Leader of the Opposition clearly demonstrated that. I will repeat that the new tax system which this government and this parliament supported will bring significant benefits to all Australians, more affordability for insurance and more affordability for many other areas in the community.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was explicitly, after it canvassed the 0.8 per cent, `If so, how do you explain the fact that many Australians are being asked to pay insurance premiums where the GST has increased the cost by close to 10 per cent?' That is it; end of question. How does he explain it?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has raised a point of order that had already been dealt with. I call the Minister for Finance and Administration.HQ5Mr FAHEY—Again, I repeat that I will look at those figures and see whether there is accuracy or otherwise in them. I repeat that it is all very fine for the Labor opposition to talk about any particular figures and to ignore the significant boost to the economy that the new tax system will provide.1090810908Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—My question is to the Minister for Sport and Tourism. In the light of the importance of the tourism industry as a generator of jobs and economic activity, particularly in regional Australia, can the minister inform the House of recent government initiatives which will help maximise growth prospects in this sector?10908Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPSport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—I thank the member for Cook for his question. I know that he comes to this House with enormous experience in tourism, being the former CEO of Tourism Council Australia. We have with us in the House today the current CEO of Tourism Council Australia, Phil Young. Both Phil Young and I are today hosting a tourism leaders forum here in Parliament House. This is a reflection of how seriously this government takes tourism as an industry.The tourism forum is looking for ways to grow tourism in a sustainable manner that will generate wealth and jobs not just for those in our tourism centres but also out into regional Australia. With that in mind, it is with great delight that I announce today the release of our Regional Online Tourism program, which is a way of boosting the promotion of tourism to our regions. In accordance with govern ment policy, it was published on the web in the first instance. The Internet is revolutionising the way that tourism does business. While much of the tourism industry has recognised the potential of this technology, it is important that our regions are not left behind with this technology. This particular initiative joins our $350 million over four years to the ATC, as well as our doubling of the regional tourism program and our contribution of $8 million to the domestic tourism initiative. There are many great things to come with our tourism leaders forum here in Australia and from this Howard government.1090810908Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—We could have learned about the increase in air fares from the GST. My question—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition does not have the call. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wishes to ask a question, he will go straight to the question.DT4Mr CREAN—My question is to the Minister for Finance and Administration, again representing the Treasurer. With the GST impact on products such as insurance premiums, advertising, petrol, car prices and air travel—just to repeat the point—set to increase well beyond your predictions, how can you continue to claim that your GST calculations are valid? Have you received advice on the inflation impact of the revised GST package? What is that impact? Do you now expect the CPI to increase by more than the 1.9 per cent you originally promised?Mrs Irwin —Page 10, paragraph 2.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Fowler!Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Fowler is warned. I call the Minister for Finance and Administration.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Fowler has been warned. I will tolerate no further interjections.10908Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—There was adequate information and data provided by the government accompanying A New Tax System at the time of its release and adequate further information given as to the modelling that was done in terms of the inflationary impact on that new tax system. The government has continually supported the inflationary impact that it has asserted in respect of a new tax system, and that, of course, is a complete system of which the GST is in fact one component. The government stands by the inflationary impact that it has stated will flow from the new tax system. Any attempts on the part of the opposition to suggest—DT4CREANMr Crean—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It goes to relevance.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The chair has deliberately allowed all members to elaborate on the question of relevance. I will allow the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to do so, but it is very difficult for me to imagine any area in which in the last 50 seconds the minister has said anything other than something relevant to the question.Mr Adams interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lyons is warned. I have had quite enough of the behaviour of members on both sides of the House in this question time. I will now extend a good deal more leniency to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition than is obliged by the standing orders, and I expect that courtesy to be reciprocated.DT4CREANMr Crean—My question said, `Has he received any revised advice from Treasury on the inflation impact?' So it is not what you are standing by but whether there has been advice received from Treasury.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.HQ5Mr FAHEY—I repeat again that the government stands by its statements in respect of the inflationary impact of A New Tax System. As far as I am aware, no further information has been provided to suggest that what we have stated previously is not the situation at this point in time.1090910909Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Today is national remembrance day for police officers killed on duty. Attorney-General, will you inform the House whether any steps are being taken to mark this occasion?10909Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I thank the member for Wentworth for the question. Today is a day on which we remember men and women of our police forces who have given their lives in the line of duty. Police are sometimes not accorded the acknowledgment they deserve—some of us tend to take safety, security and wellbeing for granted—yet police live and deal with danger, violence and tragedy on a daily basis. Sadly, members of the police force often become victims of violence themselves. The recent tragic slaying in Darwin of Sergeant Glen Huitson and the equally tragic death of Constable Ty Bennett in southern Tasmania, as well as the deaths of Senior Constable Simon De Winne in Victoria and Senior Constable Gordon Patrick in Western Australia, are graphic illustrations of this reality. These deaths all occurred in the last 12 months. Today the honour roll for those police officers killed in the exercise of their duty was read as part of a National Police Remembrance Day service held here in Canberra. The service provided the opportunity for reflection on those lives cut short during community service.Police fight a war on a day-by-day basis against those who bring violence to society. The Australian people should consider police who risk their lives in the course of their duty with a similar sense of pride and thanks to that accorded to the men and women who have served this country during times of war. I am sure all members of this House will agree that it is fitting that on this day we take time to reflect on the debt we owe for the sacrifices of members of our police forces.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear! Hear!1090910909Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Minister for Finance and Administration representing the Treasurer. Can you confirm that the ABS is currently working on a new CPI measure that removes the impact of tax increases? If so, will you guarantee that this measure will not be used to hide the real impact of the GST on the inflation rate?10910Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—No, I cannot confirm, but I will make an inquiry. The second question is irrelevant until such time as I ascertain whether there is any veracity in the first question.1091010910Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. In view of the minister's forthcoming visit to Singapore and Japan, could you inform the House of developments in our export markets and opportunities for pork in those important markets?10910Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the honourable member for his question. Obviously, as a member who represents an area that exports a lot of agricultural commodities, he is interested in the discussions that will take place in Singapore on Friday between CER and AFTA, as we export some $10.4 billion worth of exports to the ASEAN countries. Of course Japan is Australia's largest trading partner, at around 20 per cent of our exports, but I might just focus on a particular area of export in answering this question. That is the excellent performance of Australia's pork industry, and we will be making an announcement at the launch and promotion of Australian chilled pork in Singapore on Friday, organised by the Confederation of Australian Pork Exporters. It is interesting to note that Australian exports of pork have more than doubled—from 6,674 tonnes, worth $33 million in 1996-97, to over 16,350 tonnes, worth $70 million last year.Japan has accounted for most of this growth, with exports rising from 747 tonnes to 4,429 tonnes. Exports to Singapore have absolutely boomed. In January exports to Singapore stood at $8,000 a month; in July they amounted to $6.4 million worth. The market for air freight fresh chilled pork from Australia to Singapore now accounts for approximately 6,000 pigs a week.Members will recall last year the difficult circumstances that were being confronted by Australia's pork industry. The government made a decision to assist the producers in that industry and it is paying dividends in spades. It was interesting that in last week's Queensland Country Life the editorial, `Pork industry kicking goals', read:A remarkable transformation is taking place in Australia's pork industry. Only a year ago the industry was in crisis. Knives were out for the then Agriculture Minister, John Anderson, who was being accused of destroying the domestic industry by allowing imported pork to compete on the domestic market. Today, prices are at a three-year high and climbing, export markets have been established and the industry is entering a growth phase firmly aimed at supplying the massive and nearby Asian market.Australia's export pork industry is one of Australia's great export stories of the last six to 12 months—with the assistance and guidance of our government and the policy that we have pursued in this area—and I am going to reinforce that in Singapore and Japan at the end of this week.1091010910Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. It is now 15 months since the minister called for statutory declarations to test the validity of the suspect MRI contracts and 10 months since the Health Insurance Commission started its investigation of allegations of backdating. Why is this investigation still incomplete? When will the minister table the promised report? As there is nothing in the Health Insurance Act which prevents the minister releasing the dates on which these contracts were signed, will he now disclose the dates or will he continue to keep them secret to cover up his own role in the budget leak?10910Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—At the outset, on Monday I tabled, along with a statutory declaration, a statement from my former staff member. That statement has now been provided to me in the form of a statutory declaration and I make it available to honourable members.Let me start with the end of the question first. There has been absolutely no evidence whatsoever to confirm that there was a budget leak. What happened—and I was informed of this only on Monday—was that as early as February 1998 one of the companies that sells MRIs went around a conference in Sydney saying, `You'd better sign up now. It's coming in the budget and the government is going to have a supply measure.' I do not quite know how they knew this, as we first considered the supply measure in the first week of May, so there was considerable speculation in the industry that there would be a supply measure months ahead of when we did it. That is the first point.The second point is that this was not a secret negotiation. The Australian Health Technology Advisory Committee said in October 1997 that the government should fund MRI. I had said publicly that we would try to find a way to fund MRI. I began formal negotiations with the Royal Australasian College of Radiologists in February 1998, as I recollect, with the express authority of the expenditure review committee to discuss with them the full possibilities of a budget measure. This was necessary because the whole budget measure led to savings of $80 million over a three-year period, and this could not be done without the cooperation of the College of Radiologists. So there was a great deal of speculation.We did not make our decision to have a supply measure until the first week of May—I think I was first told about it on 5 May, so I do not concede there was a budget leak. I do concede that some people in the College of Radiologists knew about it. I do not know how those people behaved, and I do not know whether or not they ordered machines. If they did I think it is quite improper, but I do not want to speculate on that; they will be found out through the investigation process that we have put in place. I concede that the investigation has taken a long time. I have asked the Health Insurance Commission to finish it as fast as possible, but I have not attempted to interfere with the investigation because it does need to be at arms-length from government. I can assure the honourable member that, as soon as it becomes available, I will make the report itself available.Finally, this whole measure has made a new imaging technology dramatically more available than it ever was under the Labor Party. When I came to government there was not one of these machines available anywhere in rural Australia. Today there are 19 of these machines in rural and non-metropolitan areas and we have an $80 million budget saving to boot.1091110911May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Minister, what are you doing to ensure that East Timorese evacuees who were brought to Darwin are appropriately settled as a matter of urgency in safe havens?10911Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for her question. I am sure members of the House are interested in what is happening in relation to the East Timorese who have been evacuated to Australia. Some 1,500 people were evacuated from East Timor to Darwin and have been resident in a camp under canvas in a situation of some vulnerability as we approach the wet season. For that reason, we have been anxious to move people to sites that will provide more secure accommodation, albeit temporary. A total of 813 people have been moved to Puckapunyal, which is a safe haven in Victoria, and 402 people have been moved to the Leeuwin safe haven site in Western Australia. To achieve this outcome, these sites had to be vacated by Kosovars, who either were intent on returning to Kosovo or had to move to other safe haven centres. I make that point because there are a further group of East Timorese in the reception centre in Darwin who have been identified for placement in a haven centre, but they cannot be moved until Kosovo evacuees are consolidated into a smaller number of havens. Of the 3,900 Kosovars who came to Australia, 2,600, or two-thirds, have now returned home. A further 600 have indicated to us a desire to do so by the end of October. That leaves us with around 700 who, at this stage, have not indicated a desire to return and who may seek to stay on until such time as the UNHCR says they can be moved home in a way which is not voluntary. But, up to the moment, it has been a voluntary repatriation.It is important for the House to know that this morning I visited the East Hills haven site in Sydney because it has been identified as necessary to accommodate the East Timorese. I told them that the East Hills Kosovars who are leaving Australia on the next charter flight on 6 October can stay until the flight goes, but of all the others I have said that, unless they have the strongest medical reasons for staying at East Hills—independently corroborated—there will be a requirement for them to move to the other safe havens before then. You will appreciate that there has been some indication to me that, unlike the situation at Leeuwin and Puckapunyal, people are intent on not moving on. For that reason, I have indicated that access to the living allowance, phone cards and the haven facilities will be available for former East Hills residents only at the havens that we have identified Those havens are at Bandiana and Portsea in Victoria and Brighton in Tasmania. Similar arrangements will be made for the Hampstead and Singleton residents, where we need also to have the sites available. There are very good and substantial reasons for this. I am disappointed that, although the Australian community has a desire to accommodate the East Timorese appropriately—we have numbers waiting in Darwin for that accommodation now—the capacity to respond, if there are any further requests, is being jeopardised by a lack of cooperation.1091210912Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Can the minister advise the outcome of his inquiries into what form of notes was made at his late evening meeting with the Royal Australasian College of Radiologists on 6 May 1998? Has the minister been able to confirm how many of the 31 suspect MRI contracts were taken out by members of the executive and negotiating task force of the Royal Australian College of Radiologists?10912Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I did ask the department again yesterday after question time, and they informed me that no minutes or notes were taken, which is the reason why I have tabled two statutory declarations.Opposition members interjecting—8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—The meeting was an informal meeting, largely to say thanks to the College of Radiologists. I know that the shadow minister is interjecting that this is unbelievable, but that shows that she does not understand the way health works nor the way that government works. It is not routine or normal to take minutes of every meeting. It does not happen and it did not happen in this case. But you have two statutory declarations there from two staff members who were at the meeting.The second thing she raised was whether I have confirmed how many machines were ordered by members of the executive. No, I have not, because I have not sought to interfere in any way with the investigation of the Health Insurance Commission. It is possible that there were machines ordered by members of the executive of the College of Radiologists. I would think that, had they done so, it would be highly improper. But it is possible that they did it. They were part of a negotiation which was specifically authorised by ERC.1091210912Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the new, highly competitive interest rates offered by Aussie Home Loans on a new Aussie Card? Could the minister inform the House of the benefits of this new credit card? What opposition is there to future regulatory reform?10912Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I would like to thank the member for Page for his question. I know, certainly from past experience, that the member for Page has always taken a very keen interest in issues relating to consumers—particularly in his electorate, I might say. I thank the member for Page for drawing to my attention recent reports that Aussie Home Loans have now entered the credit card market. I am informed that they have entered the market with a 6.35 per cent honeymoon credit card rate in a transactional deal with American Express. That initiative is welcomed by the government. We encourage competition and we certainly encourage competition that involves new entrants coming to Australia—in the case of American Express, it has been here for a long time—in partnership with a local venture such as Aussie Home Loans, to provide to everyday Australians credit cards and credit facilities that are highly competitive.Honeymoon rates are a new product in credit cards. I do urge consumers to think very carefully and have look at the details of credit cards before they sign up. But I know that members such as the member for Parramatta, who is always in my ear about his local headquarters of Aussie Home Loans, are certainly strong advocates for greater competition. This new product adds to the already 200 organisations in Australia that supply 70 different credit cards—70 cards from 200 organisations. That sort of competition has come about because of the structural reform we have undertaken as a government. They are the sorts of reforms such as the Wallis reform or, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, some of the reforms that the Labor Party initiated when it was in government. But, in terms of the Labor Party, they were supported by the opposition. I need to ask a question: why is it that the opposition keep opposing every major reform that we try to undertake? They opposed us on retail tax reform, such as ANTS; they opposed us on industrial relations reforms; and, when it comes to corporate law reform, they oppose us there as well.Why does the Labor Party keep opposing us on the structural reform which Alan Greenspan said is making a huge difference to Australia's competitiveness—not only in the Asian region but globally? We have got people around the world praising Australia for its regulatory reform; but let it be on the record that at every stage the Labor Party has opposed us in all of our reforms. We are still waiting for your response on Ralph, but we are not holding our breath.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice109131091315:13:0010913Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, by way of addition to the answer I gave to the mem ber for Cunningham, I mentioned that, as he would be aware, the original deployment of ADF personnel in Timor was to be in the order of 2,000. I am told that, as of today, there has been quite a rapid build-up and that the total number there now is 3,077.Questions to the Speaker109131091310913Ms JANN McFARLANEMs JANN McFARLANEUNKNOWNUNKNOWNUNKNOWNUNKNOWN00—Mr Speaker, I would like to ask you to exercise standing order 150 and write to the Treasurer and ask him for my answers to questions 786, 787 and 788.UNKNOWNMs JANN McFARLANEMr SPEAKER—I will follow up on the matter raised by the member for Stirling.Documents1091310913Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings .Miscellaneous10913Motion (by Mr Williams)—by leave—proposed:That today being National Remembrance Day for Police Officers Killed on Duty, this House remember the men and women of our police forces who have given their lives in the line of duty and acknowledge the debt we owe for the sacrifices of the members of our police forces.15:15:0010913Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—The opposition supports the motion.Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable members standing in their places.Matters of Public Importance109131091310000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Crean) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The uncertainty surrounding the government's ability to deliver its tax packages, particularly its GST compensation. 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—15:16:0010914Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—This matter of public importance is proposed today because, as the House has learned during question time, there are three significant emerging factors which are adding great uncertainty in terms of where the government is going. These three factors will add up to a pincer movement on low and middle income earners, who are already hit by the imposition of the GST. We have seen today the government acknowledging that there will have to be significant increased expenditure on defence—expenditure increase that we support because it is necessary to support our troops. But they have not been able to indicate to us how much, even though they must be becoming increasingly aware, as indicated by the Prime Minister's supplementary answer today, what the call-up on Australian troops will be.We have also seen today the government ducking and weaving on the CPI impact of the GST—a government that says it is still standing by its 1.9 per cent inflation effect of the GST, when everyone knows that to be a ludicrous figure. Of course if it is the wrong figure, not only is it bad for the economy but it impacts upon the compensation package that this government has been forced to introduce to coincide with the GST. We have argued before that this compensation package is already inadequate for low and middle income earners, but it will be further eroded with the higher CPI.We have also had the Treasurer, on his overseas visit, talking about financing the increased defence expenditure through further expenditure cuts. The lesson is this: if as a government you are forced to dip into the surplus to the tune of $20 billion over three budgets to buy the GST—if you are going to do that off the budget to buy an unfair tax—then, when you run into budgetary difficulties, you will have to look at cutting the outlays. This of course is what we warned of when the GST was being introduced. We warned that the GST, once introduced, was there forever, but the compensation package could be eroded over time by the whim of the government. That was the experience in New Zealand. What we are now seeing is the repositioning by the government around its commitment in defence expenditure. We are seeing the Treasurer in Washington sowing the seeds for further cuts to outlays—and we can all speculate on what they would be.Before I go to the individual points, the fundamental point I want to make is this: we always argued that the ordinary people of Australia did not get their fair share out of the government's tax packages. They did not get their fair share, but now it would seem they will have to pay more. They will have to bear more in terms of the cuts and they will have to bear more of the unfairness of these packages.We know that we are going to have a much bigger defence corps. Access Economics has indicated today that it could be as high as $2 billion per year, and we await with interest what the Prime Minister has to say, because he has committed to coming back into this House to indicate the extent of expenditure. We have got another tax package—with legislation still to be introduced before this parliament—which does not pay for itself. That is the business tax package, which comes off the Ralph recommendations. That package is $3.8 billion short, on the government's own figuring.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—We are not listening, Simon.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—There are plenty of people who are listening to this, Joe! And I will tell you what: as the responsible minister at the table, you should be listening, because you are leading this government further into fiscal profligacy.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The deputy leader will ignore the minister at the table and direct his remarks through the chair, and the minister at the table will be silent.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Tell the overblown at the table to keep quiet, then. So you have got another business tax package which falls short to the tune of $3.8 billion, and you have got the Treasurer saying, `We are going to have to fund the defence expenditure out of expenditure cuts,' but he will not nominate them.Today's revelation that the need to increase expenditure on defence could cost up to $2 billion a year puts enormous additional strain on the budget. It is a necessary increase in defence spending which we support because we do have to back our troops, but the magnitude of it is sobering indeed. It ought to be another wake-up call for this government, because it not only has bungled the Timor incident in terms of where our troops are getting their support but also clearly did not foresee that this expenditure, if it were needed, would have great difficulty being met. The point that I want to repeat is that, if what you are doing is dipping into the surplus for matters that leave you no flexibility, when that flexibility is required what comes again is the harshness through the cuts.But it is the fiscal loosening to date that really has left us exposed. It exposes the folly of dipping so massively into the surplus to fund the GST package—a package which is already in itself unfair; a package which costs $20 billion over three years. Now, with respect to the additional $3.8 billion that I have alluded to, the government will not give any firm commitments to reduce the next stage of fiscal loosening. The fact is that the business tax package does not pay for itself, and it is the minister at the table's figures that shows that it is short by $3.8 billion. That can be retrieved if the government is prepared to commit to implement the deferred items—the items that appear below the line in its announcements on Ralph. Those announcements involve significant crackdowns in certain areas of tax avoidance. But it is this area that the government will not act on. If it does not act on it, it means the business community is going to get, again out of the surplus, another $3.8 billion. How is that fair? Against the background of the $20 billion in GST compensation, half of which goes to the top 20 per cent of income earners in this country, how is that fair?DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—So you are opposing Ralph?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Minister, that is not a legitimate question.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—How is the additional expenditure going to be met? That is what we want to hear from the minister. Will it come out of expenditure cuts? If so, in what areas? Or will the increased surplus be capable of paying for it in its own right? This is the question the Prime Minister will not answer but should answer. If we do not have that answer, we know that the inevitability is that people who can least afford it are going to be hurt.We have the Treasurer saying that he will not be dipping into his surplus and that it will have to come from expenditure cuts—this from a man who talks of the need to maintain surpluses but himself erodes them. Where are the expenditure cuts to be made—in the areas of health, education, employment programs? I would like to hear an answer to that question from the minister. Will it come from the compensation that was in the GST package or the access to benefits? These are the little leaks that we are starting to see emerge.Jocelyn Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services, stood up and said, `We're going to make sure that we have another scheme that gets people off benefits and into reciprocal obligation.' In other words, we can read that as denying access to benefits for the disabled in our community. Why do you think she has been gagged today? Here was the build-up to her great presentation at the Press Club. There was supposed to be a white paper presented by her today. Instead we got a speech—a set of words on some white paper but no white paper. That has been hidden, and we want to know what is in that white paper.The Prime Minister was stung into coming into this parliament to say that he was not going to cut these things, but we do not believe him. He is the same Prime Minister who said that pensioner compensation in the GST package would not erode to zero. We had to spend months in the Senate inquiry to prove that it would, but prove it we did. In the end, it was the Treasury itself that was forced to admit it, not the government. It was the constant pressuring and questioning by the Labor Party that demonstrated that the government was about dudding pensioners through the GST. So this mob has form in terms of whittling away and eroding the benefits. The government would like you to believe that it has all the bases covered, but the truth is that it does not. The government's hidden agenda is about eroding those benefits and stripping back the compensation. That was the New Zealand experience.Again today the minister representing the Treasurer was not able to answer the question as to whether work is being done to take out from the CPI the impact of tax increases. What a convenience! I bet we will find that this little joy and this little trick will actually come in about the middle of next year, just when the GST bites. Not only is it a deceit in the same way as you refused amendments on the GST to disclose on receipts what the impact of the GST would be but this is another deceit to try to hide the full impact of the GST on inflation. Not only does it artificially indicate what the inflation figure is, but just think about all those measures that are geared to the CPI. If you are taking out this component, this is the back door to whittling away the compensation.As I say, this government has got its problems on the budget because what it has tried to do is to engineer a massive redistribution in this community through two tax packages. Let there be no mistake about the unfairness of the GST package: 50 per cent of the tax cuts go to the top 20 per cent of income earners. What is fair about that, Minister? What is fair about that when you are imposing a 10 per cent tax on just about everything and when that hits those people on low and middle incomes hardest? That is what is wrong about a GST—it is regressive. So the $20 billion—half of it going to the top 20 per cent—is inherently unfair.It now becomes essential for the government to bite the bullet on tax avoidance and anti-avoidance mechanisms if it wants to implement its business tax reforms—measures that are essential. What this government has done in halving the capital gains tax rate is open up a huge incentive for people who have the means to do it—and we know who they are; they are at the wealthier end of town—to convert their income into capital gains and end up paying a lower tax rate. This is what John Ralph himself has warned about. What we therefore want to see is the government commit to the revenue neutrality test and commit to implement those items which are below the line.Labor is not prepared to endorse the package as it currently stands. We need to be satisfied on the two fundamentals: firstly, that the business tax reforms meet the revenue neutrality test and, secondly, that the government is serious about anti-avoidance measures. The revenue neutrality test can be met if all of the deferred measures are adopted, if the assumptions made and the costings are realistic and if there are no additional calls on the budget from Ralph. These are the answers that we need. Labor is not prepared to commit sight unseen. The community and the Australian public have been dudded already. They do not deserve to be dudded again. The government should end the uncertainty and come clean in this parliament. (Time expired)UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Hear, hear!15:31:0010916Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—It is good to hear the Labor Party backbench giving the shadow Treasurer a big cheer at the end of his speech because they were paying no attention whatsoever during the speech. Half of them had left the building, obviously, and were not interested in hearing what the shadow Treasurer had to say.Opposition members interjecting—DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—Calm down, Simon; calm down. Mogadon. I now understand what the pain of opposition is all about. It is painful to listen to the opposition; it is painful to be part of the opposition. The only part of the AAP report of the words of Access Economics director Chris Richardson that the shadow Treasurer left out were:. . . and we are lucky enough that we are running a surplus at the moment . . . Otherwise, the matter of public importance today has been a mantra from the shadow Treasurer about the direction of the budget. He has quoted almost verbatim from Access Economics director Chris Richardson. What he left out were the words:. . . and we are lucky enough that we are running a surplus at the moment . . . Why would he leave out those crucial words? Why would he leave out the words that summarise our budgetary position? I will tell you why. Because he has got form. The Labor Party have form. They have a history on this issue. They have a history when it comes to budget surpluses, or lack thereof, that they cannot run away from. We are not going to let them run away from their history. I am sure that the Australian public is not going to let them run away from their history. And why is that? Because over an extended period of time the Labor Party kept reassuring the Australian people in 1996 that the budget was in surplus.The current Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley—who at that time was Minister for Finance and therefore knew the state of the budget—said to the Australian Pensioners and Investments Conference on 29 January 1996:This strategy—of fiscal consolidation—has led to a small budget surplus in 1995-96 and growing surpluses forecast over our forward estimates period.That was the Leader of the Opposition on 29 January 1996, three months before the federal election, who said, `We're running a surplus with growing surpluses over the next few years.' He was supported of course by the Prime Minister of the time, Paul Keating, who in his usual Keatingesque way said—and this had to be on AM —to Fran Kelly:But again, let me remind you, Fran, we have the Budget in surplus. I mean, how many governments around the world have got a Budget in surplus?Paul Keating—a great Keatingism—saying `Oh, come on, Fran, you know what we think. We have got a budget in surplus.' Again, Paul Keating was reported in February on AAP:The budget is in surplus. At source, we don't have an underlying problem.With that typical Keating arrogance, he repeated the words, this time on 14 February 1996—you could call it the budgetary Valentine's Day massacre—in the Australian Financial Review :The budget, for God's sake, is in surplus for this year in the middle of the year. We have surpluses in prospect for the next three years.We came into government 1½ months after that great Keating line—`For God's sake, it's in surplus, and we've got them in the out years.' We came into government, and the current Leader of the Opposition, who we have just been told has no position on business tax—what a surprise, the Labor Party has no position on business tax—had no position on the budget other than to say it was in surplus in February 1996. We came in to find a $10.3 billion deficit. As every Australian knows, if they have not got money in their pockets they have no flexibility—particularly flexibility to meet the crises of tomorrow.And so it was disappointing that the shadow Treasurer came into this House, holier than thou, asking us to take a position on issues which he plainly knows we cannot take a position on which will give confidence and certainty to the Australian people. We have just put troops into East Timor as part of a peacekeeping force. We do not know how many troops will have to be committed over the next six to 12 months. We are doing what we can to strengthen the resources of the Australian Defence Force in their peacekeeping role, we are doing what we can to help the people of East Timor and we are doing what we can to put in place a system that will with the rest of the region and the rest of the world help to rebuild the infrastructure in East Timor, yet all the Labor Party can do is come into this House and, in a very non-bipartisan way, challenge everything we do in regard to East Timor to the extent that they are now challenging us about individual budget estimates of how much we will have to commit. We have never said we will not tell you. Why? Because on this side of the House we are honest. On this side of the House we introduced and passed through this parliament legislation called the Charter of Budget Honesty. We did that in response to everything I have talked about to this moment, including the misleading statements of the Labor Party to the Australian people about the state of the budget.The Labor Party comes in here and says: `How are you going to pay for this? How are you going to pay for everything that you are pledging to do in East Timor?' I will tell you how we are going to pay. We are going to pay out of our surplus. If we have to replenish that surplus spent on East Timor by budget cuts, by expenditure cuts in other areas or by other forms of fiscal change, then you will find out about it in due course. But the fundamental fact is that we have a surplus, we have money available, and that is in stark contrast to absolutely everything the Labor Party has ever said about the budget. You can only compare the Labor Party's performance in this area with our performance—Mr Albanese interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Member for Grayndler, your deposit in the bank of tolerance is out. You are warned.Mr Albanese interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—No, don't come back at me. You were warned earlier this afternoon. The minister has the call.R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—I was responding to him.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I warn the honourable member for Grayndler.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—I am disappointed in the lack of discipline of members of the opposition, not only when it comes to economics but also when it comes to their attitude in this House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—That is going a bit far.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—If the Labor Party were in government today, we can say with absolute certainty that the budget would be $7.5 billion worse than it is. We are currently projecting a significant budget deficit for the next financial year. We are projecting a deficit that will give us, over 2000-01, a surplus of $7.2 billion. That $7.2 billion surplus can cope with the demands placed on it by East Timor and Australia's commitment to East Timor. We can cope. So it is not a case of: where do you get the money from? If we want to maintain a budget surplus, we are going to maintain a budget surplus with measures that you will find out about in due course. But that is our current commitment outside of our expenditure commitments to East Timor.In contrast, the Labor Party would be in a far more difficult position because they would have no surplus. They would be over $7 billion worse off than we are today. With all the difficulties that we go through in this House and in the Senate trying to get the budget in order, every single measure the Labor Party oppose. We all remember the 1996 budget vividly. The Labor Party opposed every single measure in that budget, which was trying to fix a $10.3 billion legacy that they left us. It is no surprise. They oppose us on just about everything: industrial relations reform, corporate law reform, all the tax measures.Today we had a revelation. The shadow Treasurer came into this House and said, `We have a position on Ralph. Our position is we don't have a position.' That is what he said; tell me if I am wrong. The shadow Treasurer came into this House and said, `We haven't got a position on Ralph.' I know what is happening. All the mutterings around the Labor Party back bench are coming to the fore. They are talking about whether they are going to support the capital gains tax cuts. I heard a couple of frontbenchers from the Labor Party talking about the equity measures. That was a very interesting little revelation to me. Suddenly the Labor Party is talking about equity, after foisting on the battlers of Australia a $10.3 billion deficit, after foisting on the battlers of Australia a wholesale sales tax regime which is moribund and which they sought to defend during the entire GST debate and after foisting on the people of Australia tax increases that they never compensated everyday Australians for. We remember the 1993 tax increases. They were meant to be the l-a-w tax cuts. That is the tradition of the Labor Party.The Labor Party have this great tradition. They will tell you one thing and they will do the opposite. They are like an athlete who goes around wearing a T-shirt saying `I am drug free' and then is caught with steroids. What they tell the Australian people they do the opposite of, and they take pride in that. So when they come into this House and talk about equity we on this side of the House know full well that they are wondering how their mates can get ahead. And who are their mates? The union movement are their mates. Why don't we ask this question? I will just shoot this across the bow to let you know it is out there.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! Minister, before you shoot anything across anybody's bow, I might remind you that, although I am cognisant of the fact that you are addressing your remarks through the chair, a consistent and constant view of your back is somewhat less than entertaining.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—It is a whole lot better than my front.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—That is arguable.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—I would like to shoot something across the bow of the Labor Party. We on this side of the House know how many share portfolios the union movement has. We on this side of the House know, for example, that the unions in New South Wales pay no payroll tax, no land tax and no stamp duty on the transfer of shares. So when it comes to the Labor Party defending self-interest in the Ralph reforms, think very carefully. And when it comes to whom you seek advice from in relation to Ralph, we know the form. Paul Keating's biographer talked about it, Graham Richardson talked about it and Peter Walsh, a former finance minister, talked about it. They all said that the primary source of policy advice on tax for the Labor Party is the ACTU. When you have a good look at the Ralph reforms and when you think of self-interest, as only the Labor Party does, ask yourself these questions: how much tax are your mates in the union movement that fund your election campaigns paying? How big are their share portfolios? How many shares do they own? How many different portfolios do they cut across?Mr Albanese interjecting—DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—The Labor Party do not have clean hands in relation to budget surpluses; they never have. Why? It is because they deliberately misled the Australian people about the state of the budgets when they were in government. So what position are they in, in opposition, to start lecturing us about surpluses? They are in no position, which is a position that they are most familiar with—a position of no position. They take no position; they make themselves a small target. That is good because they are going to stay in opposition for a very long time.15:46:0010919Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr Albanese interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Grayndler! This is it. One more and you will not be here for the rest of this debate. The honourable member for Gellibrand has the call and the member for Grayndler should be silent.83KRoxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON—It is certainly hard for us on this side of the House to contain ourselves after hearing such a ridiculous response by the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. It is extraordinary to me, as a new member, that we can debate a matter of such importance—raised by our side of the House—about the government's ability to be able to deliver its tax package and in a 15-minute speech the minister cannot mention at all the government's capacity to be able to deliver on those changes. This debate is extremely important. It is a matter that goes to the very heart of how we are governed and it is about the priorities that are being set by the government of our country. It should deal with our priorities for spending and our priorities for the community that needs our help most.I was very concerned to hear in the minister's response that there are measures that we will find out about that will be taken in order to deal with the expenditure—and cuts that we will find out about. Unfortunately for the people in my electorate of Gellibrand, each decision made by this government on tax issues is a further blow to the area. Reform after reform means that the government keeps putting its hand out time after time, expecting low and middle income families in Australia to bear the burden for its bungled priorities and its determination to reform the tax system, even if it is actually at great cost to our community. I was also very concerned when I heard the Prime Minister, in question time today, categorically assuring the House that the compassion—to use the Prime Minister's words—of this government will continue with any further measures to be taken in welfare. I am absolutely at a loss as to what the Prime Minister could be referring to when he said `this government's compassion'.When you put together the government's agenda in different portfolio areas, it paints a canvas of a pretty ugly picture. When you put together the workplace relations reforms, which drive down wages and make jobs less secure, then if you are able to hang on to a job, despite the workplace relations reform that this government is pushing for, the money that you do earn is going to be worth much less because the GST is going to hit low income families. Low income families are going to have more and more of their income eaten up just on basic needs. The GST is being applied to most of those. Not only will you pay more, but also your job will be insecure. You are also going to pay more if you can hang on to your job. In addition, the government is going to raid the surplus to pay for its huge GST bribe, which means that less money is going to be available for community services.This combination obviously puts more and more pressure on families and it puts more and more people into the welfare dependent categories. We can be very disappointed, as a House, to know that the principal source of income of one in three families is from welfare. That is directly related to this government's agenda of constantly pushing people down. As I say, the workplace relations reforms will drive down wages and people's jobs will become more insecure. If they keep their jobs, they are going to earn less money. With a GST, that money is not going to go as far as it used to. As well, we are going to use some of the remaining surplus to compensate high income earners—those that least need it—for the GST. That is obviously going to affect our community services.Add to all of this, as if that were not enough, the revelation that the government does not intend to meet its own parameters of revenue neutrality as part of the response to the Ralph review on business tax. This is a significant change and it threatens the expenditure that is needed for vital community services. Of course, we need to be aware of the significant costs of our troops in East Timor. That does not mean that we do not support them being there, but it is something that the government cannot run away from. We need to be concerned that it will not mean that services in our community are going to be cut. On top of all of these things, there are comments from the Treasurer that he is not going to use the surplus. He may be interested to find out on his return to the country that the minister for financial services has promised that the money to finance our troops in East Timor will come from the surplus. I am not sure that is an issue that he has talked to the Treasurer about.So the great concern on this side of the House is: where is the money going to come from? It is not going to come from increasing tax avoidance measures, which should have been part of the government's response to the Ralph review; it is not going to come from their treatment of trusts; and it is not even going to come from some consideration of winding back the tax cuts that are extremely generous to high income earners as a result of the introduction of the GST package. My fear—and I think you can see it is well justified—is that the government intend to walk away from the people who need them most. The funding allocated to vital services will be further reduced and ordinary workers and their families will continue to carry the tax burden of this country, but they will get less and less to support them in return.In my electorate there have already been significant cuts to vital services as a combination of cuts from the federal and state coalition governments. Our Medicare office in Footscray has closed and our Centrelink offices have had a large number of staff cut from them. With an unemployment rate of around 10 per cent—and a youth unemployment rate of about 28 per cent—we rely very heavily on these sorts of community services and cannot afford to countenance further cuts in this area.In January 1999, there were difficulties in processing Centrelink claims and, as with a lot of other members in this House, Newstart claimants in my electorate waited up to nine working days to be able to get their payments. All of this is in the context of the government saying that they do not know where the extra money is going to come from for their business tax reform. They have not stuck to their promise of revenue neutrality.We need to go back and look at what we had been saying for a long time in relation to the GST; that is, that low income families are going to be hit hardest by this measure. Most of the workers in my electorate and most of the workers in the country—about 80 per cent of PAYE taxpayers—earn less than $50,000. It is probably more than 80 per cent in my electorate, but that is a figure we can work from. The package that they will receive in compensation for the GST is all based on the prediction of an inflation rate of 1.9 per cent, but we know that even the Reserve Bank is talking about it being possibly as high as five per cent. The people in our community will be worse off immediately.Let me just remind the House, if members have forgotten, of the differentials in this area. A single income family with two children aged between five and 13 that earns $25,000 a year will receive compensation to the level of $22.30 a week. But if the family earns $75,000 a year, the tax package is worth $79.15 a week, more than three times as much. It is just as bad if we use examples in the double income area, if there are more children, if the families are single income and if they are couples without children. Time and time again we see that the high income earners are going to receive the highest compensation.PAYE taxpayers get hit in other ways as well. They do not have the scope that some of the more creative members of the community have who avoid paying their taxes by having corporate structures. They do not have the scope to invest capital to be taxed in a different way from the taxes that are charged on people who earn income through their own efforts or hard labour. To add insult to injury, as has already been mentioned by the Deputy Leader, the Treasurer will not bite the bullet on trusts or the implementation of anti-avoidance measures. The people in my electorate of Gellibrand, and I know in many other members' electorates, really are saying to the government and to the Treasurer, `We need you to take these issues seriously. We need to make sure that our vital services are going to continue to be funded. We need to make sure that the government is providing for those issues.'I would like to look quickly at the example of two retiree constituents who came to visit me in my electorate office this month. Mr Spiteri and Mr Bottigliri were both Commonwealth public servants for over 20 years. Through the good and fairly generous—in terms of the rest of the community—Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme, they receive between $16,000 and $17,000 per year in their retirement income. That income is clearly fixed. Their retirement income comes from their contributions made over many years of work and set aside for security in their retirement. Both men carefully planned the use of their money to provide for themselves and their families. They are also entitled to a small part-pension of about $3,000 to $4,000, bringing their income to about $20,000.With the introduction of the GST, both men will be hit hard. Their income is fixed and, even if they do not increase their consumption, their expenditure will increase. They will receive only a paltry part of the compensation to pensioners because they have a part-pension, and they will receive negligible income tax cuts because of the level of their income. These men are just two examples of the ordinary Australians who are being left out by this government.With the passing of the GST package and the government's avoidance of dealing with some serious expenditure issues in response to the Ralph review, they see the value of their hard-earned money diminished, and that leaves the rest of the community's dependence on services at risk. It is of great concern to us that the government does not even, in the response to this discussion of a matter of public importance, seem to take this issue seriously. (Time expired)15:56:0010922Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—The subject of today's MPI, as I read it, is the uncertainty surrounding the government's ability to deliver its tax packages, particularly GST compensation. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition strayed very widely in his 15-minute ramble. He ranged from the 1.9 per cent inflationary effect of the GST to the cost of the East Timor incident, albeit that he quoted Access Economics in a very selective way.Implicit in the opposition's matter of public importance today are the fundamental questions: has the government got the financial capacity, the economic framework or the management skills to deliver on its programs? Let me dispel any doubts with a brief comparison of the last three years of the Keating government with the first four years of the Howard-Fischer-Anderson governments. In the last three years of the Keating government, we had successive budget deficits of $17.1 billion—84BST CLAIRMr St Clair—How much?KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—Successive deficits of $17.1 billion, $13.2 billion and $10.3 billion—that is, over $40 billion. Let me ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Gellibrand and the rest of the opposition this fundamental question: how would you have funded East Timor over the last three years of your government with a $40 billion deficit? Just tell me that.NV5FORRESTMr Forrest—Bankcard.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—Just like everything else was funded, with Bankcard. By comparison, the first Costello budget halved the infamous $10.3 billion down to $5.6 billion. Then for the following three years we had budget surpluses of $1.3 billion for 1997-98, $2.9 billion for 1998-99 and an estimated $5.2 billion for 1999-2000. From that position, we are much better able to fund the East Timor incident and the rebuilding program that might be necessary in East Timor than from the position of being in deficit.On the basis of that alone, which of the two governments would be in a position to pay a compensation package to pensioners and low income earners? Clearly it would be the current government. It is an undeniable fact of economics that if you can run budget surpluses then you can pay modest economic compensation packages. Let us look at the management skills of the 13 years from 1983 to 1996. The national debt under Labor's management went up from $16.3 billion to $95.8 billion. That is an absolute outrage.This year the Howard government has cut that down to $71.6 billion and next year, with surpluses and from the sale of the second tranche of Telstra, it should go down to about $51.1 billion. We will be better off in terms of interest payments on our debt to the extent of something around $5 billion. That is another thing. Not only are we running budget surpluses but we are reducing the debt and, in reducing the debt, we are also lowering the interest payments that the government has to fork out. Therefore we are doubly in a position to fund those emergencies that occur.What a stupid, silly and inane argument that, because East Timor has come on the horizon, suddenly our whole economic fabric is in ruins. What a nonsensical sort of an argument. That could have happened under any government. That could have happened under a Labor government, it could have happened under a coalition government and it could have happened under a minority government. Any government at that time would have had to have taken measures to make sure that Australia was funded. The Prime Minister was perfectly open in question time today. He said it would be half a billion dollars if we got out in six months, or more if we had to go for 12 months. It would be more still if we had to commit the whole 4,500. No-one said anything different from that. But you are in a much better position to fund those sorts of things when you are running a surplus of $5 billion or better than if you are not in a position to run any surpluses at all.I think what worries Labor about the GST is that deep down they know—and they knew even as early as 1985—that Australia needed a consumption tax. We needed something that was equitable but that had a growth factor in it. I could quote Keating, I could quote Hawke, I could quote Beazley and I could even quote Wayne Goss. An interesting quote comes from Bob Hawke in November 1984, when he said:Unless there is a source of income in the consumption area, then the mass of Australians—the ordinary taxpayers, the ones that the member for Gellibrand was talking about—are not going to be able to get the substantial cuts in personal direct taxes to which they are entitled.From 1984 to 1996—in 12 years—what did they do about it?NV5FORRESTMr Forrest—Nothing. They put them up.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—Nothing. Better still, they offer them l-a-w tax cuts. Nothing ever happened with it. It is lovely just to pick up the Sydney Morning Herald of that date. On 18 August, the day after their infamous 1993 budget, do you know what they were going to do? A bottle of wine was going to go up by a dollar and cigarettes were going up by 14c a packet. It was going to cost $180 more for the family car. There were extra charges for undergraduate degrees. They are always talking about education. It was going to be $42 for eye tests because they were removing that from Medicare and $2.60 for prescriptions. All of these charges that they criticise today had their genesis in that time.Worse than that, knowing that that wholesale sales tax was flawed, they put it up from 10 to 11 per cent, 20 to 21 per cent and 30 to 31 per cent in the first year. In the following year it went up from 11 to 12 per cent, 21 to 22 per cent and 30 to 32 per cent and, for good measure, they put the family car up from 15 to 22 per cent. It gets better. They added excise of 2c a litre over two years to leaded petrol. In fact, they were actually going to put it up by another 6c a litre but their own backbench went into revolt. I remember it. I sat over there and I can remember that, after the budget, there was not a smiling face. Normally when you bring down a good budget there are smiling faces. I was a new boy here, so I was looking for the reaction. It was glum. They had a caucus meeting the next morning and all of a sudden the 6c disappeared from the budget speech of the night before. But who did that 2c a litre hit most? It hit the guy with the old car—the battler, the one least able to pay it.Let me come back to another thing. Having put the wholesale sales tax in that three-year term of parliament up from $9 billion to $13 billion, having put excise up 2c a litre, all the CPI increases, having put the HECS up and having taken a lot of benefits in health, what compensation package was offered to the battlers, the pensioners and the Mr Spiteris from Gellibrand? What was offered to them? Not a brass razoo—not one cent.It is very instructive to compare that with our package. There is going to be no GST on health, no GST on education, no GST on domestic household rates, no GST on religion, no GST on charitable activities and no GST for businesses turning over up to $50,000. With the revised tax package of early June this year, it is also instructive to look at some of the prices. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion has concluded.Miscellaneous10923Motion (by Mr Ronaldson)—by leave—agreed to:That the following bill be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration:Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999Bills10923r87310923Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.10923Bill (on motion by Mr Tuckey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills10924r87110924Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.10924Bill (on motion by Mr Tuckey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills10924r88810924Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration at the next sitting.Bills10924r89410924Debate resumed.16:10:0010924Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—This sideshow alley of a government, led in this debate on the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 by their chief spruiker, Mr Reith, the member for Flinders, has the temerity to name this bill `More Jobs, Better Pay'. As I indicated previously, this is pure doublespeak. This is about a government which is promising that, when they give you less, it is actually more. When they rip away all of the defences that used to be available to every Australian worker, that loss will give workers more. What is the aim of this? I said previously that this was to reduce the relationship between employers and their employees to the master-servant relationship that prevailed in the 19th century.The aim of this legislation is to reduce the conditions of Australian workers to a point where they are standing alone, unaided and effectively powerless against both the government and employers. It is creating an entirely unequal situation for the lone employee, and the atomisation of the work force and of the workers in their workplace. The intent of that is to deprive them of all of the reforms that have been made over the last hundred years in the industrial relations area so that they are in a position of not being able to defend themselves adequately and not having the protection of either their unions or the Industrial Relations Commission, which has done such sterling work in this area for so long. Its intent and aim is to leave every individual worker in Australia pinned and wriggling against the wall of this legislation so that they have no escape from the government's intent.The amendment moved by the shadow minster, and there are a number of elements to it, goes to the critical elements that are lacking in this bill. He moved that we should condemn this government for introducing a bill which, inter alia, would do the following things: first, further entrench unfairness and bias in the existing industrial relations system. Does it do that? The answer is absolutely yes. Second, it would restrict the role of the Industrial Relations Commission and compromise its independence. That is utterly true. Third, it would further undermine the award system, as it has been in the past, as the dynamic framework for the protection and advancement of wages and conditions through the process of award stripping. Fourth, it would put Australia's lowest paid workers in a position where they would have to trade off a wage increase against having all their award entitlements that still exist stripped of basic entitlements such as long service leave, superannuation and paid jury leave. Inter alia also is the critical condition that this emphasises punishment and prevention of industrial action rather than its resolution. It flies completely in the face of past industrial practice and it is a recipe for further mayhem and for further punishment of Australian workers.I finish on this positive note. The opposition recommends in its amendment:(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.I recommend this course of action to the House and, along with all of my colleagues, utterly condemn the bill presently before us which is a disgrace in the context of Australian industrial relations practice for almost a century.16:15:0010925Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I support the remarks just made by the member for Blaxland in stating his opposition to the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 . I rise to speak on the bill because it goes to the very heart of the industrial relations system of the country. It also goes to the very heart of fairness in this country—fairness not just in the management of relations between employers and employees but also fairness in the distribution of the national taxation burden and fairness in the allocation of national public resources to those who are in greatest need. In fact, what is on trial in this bill today in this parliament is fairness itself and whether this government, beyond rhetoric, gives any passing attention to the notion of fairness itself. Fairness is not simply some political construct of the Australian Labor Party; fairness goes to the very core of our national ethos as Australians. And it is that ethos which is under fundamental threat and challenge in the legislation before us.The government has its own view of fairness. When you strip it all away, its concept of fairness is this: it should be arbitrated and determined by markets alone. In this context, the only function of government is to ensure that those markets operate competitively. This is the core of the Liberal capitalism which this government stands for. It is neoclassical economics, it is Hayek, it is John Howard, it is Peter Reith and it is Peter Costello; but it is not us. We stand for something completely different. Let us look briefly at the overarching government philosophy that lies at the heart of this legislation before the House. Let us look at it as it reflects itself through the clauses of the industrial relations bill before us. Let us also see how it has been reflected in the other tenets of government policy, in its consideration of both consumption tax and currently business tax. These legislative initiatives of the government are not a series of random events. They are linked by a common philosophy, and that common philosophy has as its core organising principle this very simple proposition: a redistribution of wealth and power in our economy and in our society away from the poor and towards the rich, away from the weak and towards the strong.Those opposite have asked why we have opposed the consumption tax. It is very simple: because the consumption tax, the goods and services tax, is a redistribution of wealth tax which redistributes wealth away from poor people to rich people. It is a $32 billion redistribution tax. You ask why we have reservations about certain aspects of the business tax proposals currently before us as well. The reason for that is that once again there are certain elements of that package which give rise to concern on the part of a number of us in terms of yet a further redistribution of wealth away from the poor to the rich, away from the weak towards the strong. Not to mention, in the case of the business tax proposals, the ultimate impact which they will have on the overall integrity of the taxation base and the capacity of the nation at large, through the budget sector, to deliver social programs to those most in need. And today you ask us again in this place why we oppose this bill. The reason again is equally simple, and that is that what we have before us is a naked redistribution of power away from the weak and towards the strong.One of the disturbing elements of all of this revolution in taxation and all of this revolution in industrial relations is the two personalities driving it, P1 and P2. Sitting on this side of the chamber, you get the distinct impression that what Mr Costello and Mr Reith are busy doing all the time is out- Ramboing each other in order to achieve the most dramatic headlines out there in the newspapers the following day. What we have on the other side of the chamber at the moment is an undeclared leadership dispute. What we have is Mr Costello, the Treasurer, already declaring his hand in the article published the other day in the Australian Financial Review under Peter Hartcher's name. What we have is an equally displeased Peter Reith concerned that his own leadership prospects might at some stage be threatened by Mr Costello's own ambition. What we have as a consequence of this is a process of almost permanent policy one-upmanship, a competition you can see on a daily basis here as they compete one against the other for who is going to get the most questions on what.What is all this about at the end of the day? It is about who ends up being the top dog in the show represented by those opposite. But who are the casualties of this political competitive process, the casualties of this race of naked political ambition? Who are the victims of this process? They are those who at the end of the day suffer the consequences of this redistribution of wealth and power through the tax system and through the industrial relations system—the poor and the weak. They are the casualties of this leadership dispute which seems to be driving so much of the government's policy agenda as we speak.When we go to this bill and we go to its title, the title itself sums everything up: More Jobs, Better Pay. It is as if we have taken leave of ourselves and this place and we have entered into the world of Lewis Carroll and Alice in Wonderland, the land where everything is in fact upside down. Or, more sinisterly, I think it is more likely to be the world of George Orwell and Nineteen Eighty-four. Remember that in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four the Ministry of Truth was the ministry which told the lies and the Ministry for Peace was the ministry which made war. What we have now is a government which says, `We are going to give you a piece of legislation which delivers more jobs and better pay.' For that, read `less jobs and less pay'. What we have now is a set of political protocols on the part of those opposite which simply has as its organising principle: tell them one thing, deliver the other; pretend something is one thing while in fact doing quite the reverse. When they say `fairness', in fact the enduring reality is unfairness.When we go to the substantial provisions of the bill, we see that a large part of it goes to the emasculation of the powers of the trade union movement. What is it about those opposite that they have such an experience and such an attitude towards trade unions and trade unionists? Have you all had bad experiences in childhood somewhere with trade unions? I fail to grasp the level of animosity, anxiety and vitriol which we see pour forth from those opposite almost on a daily basis when one simply mentions the words `trade union', as if trade unions, in the history of our country and in the history of the broader civilisation of which we are part, have not played a positive role. Have you all forgotten the role of trade unions in the 19th century and the early 20th century in the basic conditions of safety in the mines and in the basic conditions in the workplaces? Those most elementary conditions of safety and entitlements, as far as the wages and the like that were guaranteed, were delivered through the trade union movement.The challenge which those opposite have never answered in this debate or in their daily outpourings of vitriol against the trade union movement is this: has human nature changed? Do those opposite genuinely believe that, as a consequence of this legislation, mystically human nature will change and that employers in the future will be a permanently virtuous set of humanity, never once again in the future doing anything nasty or negative to any employee in any workplace across the country? Dickensian England lies in the 19th century. It could never recur. If you went to visit some of the sweatshops of suburban Melbourne, you would find it is alive and well in this country—not just in Melbourne but right across this country—and the only force that working people have working for them at the end of the day to defend their conditions against exploitative employers where they exist is an active and vibrant trade union movement.I am proud of the Australian trade union movement, in its history and its current practice. I have never worked for a trade union in my life, but I recognise, through everything that I have experienced in work and in my dealings with friends and fellows, the impact which they have on underpinning basic conditions in our life and in our workplace. It strikes me as passing strange that we had in this place for months on end this vitriol and this diatribe, particularly by Mr Reith, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, as he sought to name, one by one, those on this side of the chamber who at some stage of their life had worked for a trade union, as if that were some crime against humanity. I would regard such employment as in fact being a badge of honour, given the role which trade unions have played in the life, the work and the social equity of this country.There are also the substantive changes to the powers of trade unions themselves contained in this bill. Removed from trade unions is their ability to inspect records. Removed from trade unions is their ability to visit workplaces unmolested. They must now seek a written application from a member of a trade union in a particular workplace, forgetting that such a process is almost impossible given the fact that so many employees in industrial workplaces do not have English as their first language, let alone any passing familiarity with the industrial laws of this country. Then we have the sheer impracticality of going to the commission registrar in order to obtain a certificate to gain access to a workplace if such a letter of invitation cannot be obtained from a member of a trade union in the first place.What we have in this bill is an attack on the powers of trade unions. We also have an attack on awards and what they contain. We see the continuation in effect of award stripping. We see changes in terms of what awards are capable of providing for casual workers. We see no longer any protection offered for workers who would normally have been in receipt of notice pay when a business folds. We see no protection for workers when companies go into insolvency. We see no protection for workers when there is a corporate restructure. We see no protection for workers when we have a transfer of business, as in fact once was the case.Finally, we have through this bill the further emasculation of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. If there is anything that goes to the core of our national sense of fairness in this country, it is an independent umpire, be it in sport or any field of life but most particularly in the workplace where so much of our basic earning of income and most of our basic conditions are so much at stake. Strip away the power of the Industrial Relations Commission, remove from it the ability to perform the independent function that it has performed in years gone by, and what you are left with at the end of the day is employers pitted singly against employees. We have proposals here which say that there will now be fee-for-service arrangements for certain functions historically performed by the commission free of charge. We have in fact the privatisation of certain other functions of the commission: for example, in mediation.We now have greater recourse to the courts. When individual workers are forced to go to the courts, how many of them can afford to pay the extraordinary fees which are levied on them when they go through the formal legal process? What we have under challenge in this bill is a total attack on the cost of industrial justice itself, placing it beyond the reach of individual workers. In conclusion, what we have in the bill is a fundamental assault on the Australian traditions and practices of fairness. We see that reflected in the bill's attack on the powers of unions. We see that in its attack on the independence of the Industrial Relations Commission and we see that in its further emasculation of awards. For these reasons, the bill in its present shape should be opposed and the amendment moved by the honourable member for Brisbane should be supported.16:28:0010927O'Byrne, MichelleMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—I fully endorse the comments made by the member for Griffith and the other members on this side of the House who have spoken today and who spoke yesterday on the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 . Before I begin my comments, I want to inform the House of my background in industrial relations—to declare my interests, as it were. I was a union organiser for the Miscellaneous Workers Union for some years. During that time I worked with members who did not have strong bargaining positions. They were cleaners and groundkeepers—people in those sorts of professions—who do not have the might that this government assumes. I worked with people who were desperate for their jobs and who relied heavily on the existence of a strong framework of industrial regulation, because without it they were and would be severely disadvantaged. I have seen the lengths to which some employers will go to avoid fair conditions. The framework is there primarily to stop them.I have found that it is only those who seek to undermine conditions who really wish to remove the safety net. I hasten to add that in my time I have also met employers who recognised the value of the system and always operated within it in a fair manner and who enjoyed productive relationships with workers and their unions. I wonder if they will be able to afford to operate at that level now. To do the right thing by employees may seriously put them out of the commercial market.The bill before the House today is a vitally important one because it is about working lives. People's livelihood will depend on good policy. Where policy is driven purely by ideology and not the reality of average working life, then its proponents ill-serve working Australians. This minister is one such ideologically driven person who does not serve working people well. The bill before the House seeks to undermine the role of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, to attack workers through their unions, to significantly reduce workers' negotiating power and to strip away basic conditions whilst hiding behind a spurious claim of short-term gain. All of this is under the misleading title of `More Jobs, Better Pay.' What a horrible joke is being played upon the Australian people. Perhaps the minister thinks that by giving his bill an innocuous title people might not really see what is going on. The minister can call it what he wants, but he cannot change what it is. It is still a vicious attack on workers and has the foul stench of every other piece of legislation that this minister has touched.Let me take a moment of the time allotted to me to put the minister into some kind of industrial relations context. In order to fully comprehend the intent of this bill, one must understand the intent and belief structure of this minister. I think his attitude to industrial relations was summed up in his infamous secret paper entitled Waterfront strategy which, as the title suggests, laid out the minister's secret plans for waterfront reform. This paper suggested a course of action to create a waterfront dispute. We all remember the cost of that action. It says:In the meantime, we need to further develop plans to involve the MUA in a dispute, on an issue and at a time of our choosing.It goes on:. . . a stevedoring issue could be used to sack stevedores.Further work will need to be undertaken on possible triggers, in the meantime, no action should be taken that will neutralise any such possible triggers.In terms of timing it is important not to engage the MUA until both stevedoring firms are in a position to commence re-starting operations without the existing workforce.The minister planned to create that dispute for his own ideological purpose, just as he plans now to destroy the workers' safety net. The minister even recognised that in the area of the maritime industry community support was against him. The paper says:Our research suggests that the general public does not yet appreciate the need for major reform. . . . It is important that this be turned around before a major dispute.Well, perhaps the minister should make sure that he works a little bit harder on that area of his plan because, as we all remember, community reaction was certainly against him. The community could see what he was up to and offered overwhelming support to the rights of people to keep their jobs. The 21 May edition of the Business Review Weekly labelled this minister as:. . . possibly one of the most interventionist industrial relations ministers in Australian History. This minister claims he wants a deregulated system—but only deregulated in the area of workers' rights. This bill does not seek to create a deregulated system; it seeks to establish an unfair one.We view this legislation in a climate of much distress for working people. Insecurity about their futures and the futures of their families is on the increase. We know that government policy should be about providing the basis of stability, a framework for greater skills and an independent arbiter. We should be providing security. In particular, we need policies that will stimulate job growth and job security. If you ask workers—and I am sure the minister does not—and those people who want to be workers what the most important thing to them is, the resounding reply will be jobs and job security. This cannot be underplayed. But the bill addresses none of these vital objectives.Let us look at some of the things it does seek to do. This bill seeks to move the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to the zone of irrelevancy. This government does not support the role of an independent umpire. This minister wants control of what the commission do, how they do it and, very importantly, who will do it. On 28 August the Daily Telegraph said:A senior member of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission has launched an attack on Government plans to limit terms of office. The Senior Deputy President, a member for 10 years, said limiting tenure to seven years would make it impossible for members to maintain independence.We need an independent system. Workers and employers need to have equitable access to a forum whose decisions are not only fair but are recognised as being fair. That will not happen if that independence is questionable.This government have shown, through their calculated attack on the MUA, that equity is not the driving force in their policies. Their plan is to lessen workers' rights. This bill is about stripping conditions from awards so that they contain only basic provisions. They want to remove provisions for superannuation, long service leave, training provisions, skill base classification and non-state gazetted public holidays. To anyone who has had experience in this field, this is foolish behaviour. It becomes even more ludicrous when you note that this bill seeks to restrict the commission's compulsory conciliation process. This option is linked to the plan to charge for mediation—a privatised process which could see workers hit with charges of $500.This is an attack on a mechanism for dispute resolution. This government is intent on destroying the process of conciliation. This bill seeks to limit workers' conditions and their access to a fair and equitable dispute resolution process. It also seeks to remove the right to information and representation for workers. The intent is to remove unions from the process, as if unions and workers were separate entities. Must I remind the House that a union is a representation of the body of workers—of the collective group? This legislation seeks to restrict right of entry permits even further. You can see why the government would want to do that: work forces kept in the dark about their rights are an awful lot easier to manipulate and a lot easier to do over.Why is the minister so afraid of union organisers going on site to provide information and to ensure that the legislative requirements are being met in the areas of wages and conditions and in particular occupational health and safety? Because that is what union organisers do. That is what their members want them to do. That is why they choose to join.Employers do not seem to be getting any restrictions in this bill. They have unfettered access to lawyers, industrial relations consultants and the like. This government seeks to intervene in the relationship that exists between employers and unions. This legislation seeks to define what constitutes a closed shop. If over 60 per cent of the employees at a site are members of a union, then look out—because the minister has you in his sights. What a blatant attack on freedom of association.Most workplaces have healthy relationships with their employees, and these healthy relationships have grown out of a solid link with the relevant trade union. These are workplaces which recognise that unions will ensure workers know what is going on and are having their views negotiated in a fair and regulated manner. This government seeks to put industrial remedies out of the reach of ordinary workers. The introduction of costs cuts out those people who need representation the most. It prices them out of the market. This government progresses further and further down the path to industrial desolation. It is not, and has never been, about resolution; conflict and division is far more its game.I want to concentrate now on what these sorts of legislative conditions mean, and have meant, for Tasmania. I want to start by pointing out that the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business seems to believe that reducing wages creates employment. In Tasmania, we have some of the lowest wages in the country and very high unemployment. In Tasmania, we do not believe that the previous rounds of industrial relations reforms have assisted Tasmanian workers in pursuing higher levels of employment or living standards but have in fact let employers achieve greater flexibility of labour to the detriment of workers' security and incomes. This bill gives legislative credence to the ideological argument that unions are somehow separate or alien to the workplace, that unions are an outside interference. That workers need to draw on support from their unions is not paternalistic but realistic. We need to recognise the fundamentally unequal power relationship that exists. Employers have the power to hire or not. They can call upon resources to load the bargaining exercise, through the employment of consultants and lawyers. It is only through collective action that workers can go some way towards evening the balance.Tasmania has experience with these sorts of fundamental changes to the legislative framework, under the Tasmanian state act's part 4A agreements. This legislation has led to reductions in security and conditions for many workers. The lessons learned have been amplified with the experience of the Workplace Relations Act. A 1996 Tasmanian House of Assembly inquiry into the state agreement system found that employers were in a strong bargaining position where there was not a union, because employees as a whole were unaware of their rights and were therefore unaware of the availability of assistance. It found that employees demonstrated little understanding of the details of their workplace agreements, despite allegedly agreeing to them. Employers typically had expert advice and employees typically had nothing except what the employer or consultant gave them.Mr Deputy Speaker, you would well recall the election results in Tasmania. They indicate that workers recognised the appalling outcomes of the industrial relations process and they said no. They said no because they had experienced the reality of the system. Experience has shown evidence of dodgy ballot papers, where workers were told to bring their signed ballot papers back the next day. It has shown evidence of agreements which were retrospective for up to three years to justify underaward payments. It has shown agreements with no wage increases for the life of the agreement—sometimes up to five years. We have seen an abolition of career paths and the scrapping of public holidays.This sort of experience has been reinforced with the existence of AWAs in Tasmania. We have seen cases of employers who offer an AWA with the words, `Take this or leave.' That is a great choice for most people! One employer offered an AWA to a new employee, despite the fact that there was a collective agreement in place. AWAs will be altered under this proposal. The minister seeks to remove the cooling-off period and the option of collective bargaining. In December 1997 the ILO Expert Committee on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations investigated alleged breaches of the ILO's Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention No. 98 by provisions of the federal Workplace Relations Act. I quote:On the subject of AWA's they found that Part VI(D)(AWAs) promoted AWA's which are essentially individual in nature over collective bargaining. The Committee considered that primacy is clearly given to individuals over collective relations through the AWA procedure. The Committee considered that the provisions of the Act noted above do not promote Collective bargaining as required under Article 4 of the Convention (98). Collective bargaining is the only way to maximise the bargaining potential for workers. But this government is not interested in supporting workers. It is not interested in negotiating rights because it is not interested in workers' conditions. One thing it is interested in, though, is masking the harsh reality of the true plans for workers. If you look at the bill, you could almost get the impression that it was benign because it uses such safe language. It talks about `choice'. But this is a fraud. It is a fraud perpetrated on working Australians because the language does not reflect reality. The provisions of this bill undermine collective action and improve the ground for employers. In fact, in the words of one advocate for workers' rights in Hobart, it is as `fair as a free kick in front of the goal before the other side is even on the field'.There are a couple of options before us: either the minister has absolutely no knowledge of the everyday life of those workers who do not have strong bargaining positions or resources or he does know and he simply does not care. Perhaps workers of Australia are not as important as his business mates. The minister should learn that government is for all Australians, not just for a couple of the minister's friends.I would like to continue to discuss the many disturbing aspects of this bill and the merits of the member for Brisbane's amendment, but I am conscious of the need to maximise the time for consideration in detail. However, in conclusion, I would like to reiterate my despair at the actions of this government—despair but, I must say, not surprise. After all, look at the minister who introduced this bill—the minister whom workers cannot trust, who actively seeks to dupe workers. After all, in his infamous waterfront strategy paper, whilst actively planning an attack on workers in the maritime industry, the minister highlighted the need to `keep the unions wondering whether the government would settle for an evolutionary approach'. This was while he was engaged in `intensive planning on how to manage a major dispute'. The government have introduced unfair legislation. They have introduced bad legislation. It is an ideologically driven attack on workers. It is made without any reference to, or understanding of, the sorts of lives that workers lead. It has been made by people who do not understand the issues that workers come up against.There was a case in Tasmania recently where a new business was set up. They employed a young woman. They did not start off by paying her the right amount of money, but they said, `Don't worry. We're going to fix it up later on. Everything will be fine.' After four weeks of her pleading her case, the boss finally said, `Look, just take it out of the till.' Later that afternoon she was dismissed for theft. This woman and other people in these circumstances need to know that they have rights to representation, that they have access to conciliation and that they will be subject to an independently arbitrated decision. It is the only way to guarantee equity in the workplace. This bill makes a mockery of those simple requirements. Perhaps the bill should be retitled `What jobs? Lucky to get paid'.16:44:0010931Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—My colleagues who have spoken before me have done a superbly detailed and thorough demolition job on the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 . For those who are interested in issues of industrial relations, workplace relations and the like, it really does pay to read through the second reading debate on this legislation and see just how comprehensively the arguments of the government have been demolished. So there is no need for me to repeat those, and I do not intend to. I also do not intend to provoke the government, which has been suggesting that it might gag this debate if it goes on for much longer.I want to summarise some of the issues that have been raised. This legislation has been referred to as Peter Reith's second wave. One of the features of a wave is that it ends up dumping somewhere. In the case of Peter Reith's second wave, it dumps on job security, family life, skills, the independent umpire and workers. Let me deal with each of those points in turn.Firstly, the second wave dumps on job security. It weakens the transmission of business provisions, encouraging dodgy corporate restructures as a way of avoiding awards, whereas in the past an award automatically applied to new businesses upon transmission. Also, notice payments on terminations are to be taken out of awards at a time when workers are fighting to get paid the entitlements that they are owed under existing awards. The minister's provision will simply exacerbate this problem. I find it extraordinary that the government is prepared to weaken those transmission of business provisions and take notice payments on terminations out of awards at a time when there is a great deal of community awareness and an awareness in this place about the issue of workers losing their legitimate entitlements when companies go under, and when work is being done by the government and by the opposition on how we can secure superannuation, leave entitlements and the rest.Secondly, the second wave dumps on family life. We see the protections for casual workers being eroded—the proportion of casuals, hours worked and rostering are all to be taken out of awards—at a time when the casual sector is growing. The removal of award provisions dealing with transfers will have a dramatically negative impact on trying to match work with family life. It will diminish workers' rights concerning transfer between locations and from one type of employment to another. With casualisation in Australia the second highest of OECD countries, the minister wants to remove the existing protection for casual and part-timers by taking out those provisions that provide the number or proportion of employees of a particular type or classification, provide the number or proportion of hours an employee may work and provide maximum or minimum hours of work for regular part-time employees.I think one of the most serious issues in the Australian community today is the way in which people endeavour to balance work with family life. There has been a lot of comment about how people these days are working longer hours rather than shorter hours. We have seen the abolition of public holidays, not least in my own state of Victoria. In various ways, families are finding it tougher to bal ance work with family life. Instead of making it easier for them, these provisions will make it more difficult.Thirdly, the second wave dumps on skills. It removes skill based classifications and training—so much for our desire to be the clever country or the knowledge nation. The minister claims that he wants to reward achievement, but he is removing from awards the only way for employees to be recognised for extra skill and responsibility.Fourthly, the second wave dumps on the independent umpire. It shrinks the powers of the commission, which is not to be allowed to use fairness and decency as a test on setting standards. Access to the commission and courts is being restricted through the introduction of new policies of charging fees for applications. The legislation makes it harder for workers to prove their claims once they get to court, with records of hours, classifications, et cetera, gone. The detection of award breaches will become more difficult as examination of records by unions is being restricted.The minister's department is in the process of abdicating its previous responsibility for inspection of workplaces, handling claims of underpayment and so on. We also see the appointment of commissioners for a short time only—constant downgrading of those who once had the status of High Court judges. In one case, we can have an acting commissioner being appointed for up to one year, so the government can see if it likes the commissioner's performance! It is scandalous. We also have the situation where the commission cannot effectively arbitrate during disputes. We saw during the MUA dispute that this caused massive problems. That dispute naturally ended up in the courts as a result. There was nowhere else for it to be resolved.Fifthly, Peter Reith's second wave dumps on workers. The minister pretends he wants a deregulated system. That is a matter of pretence. He only wants the system deregulated for business. He wants to control workers. His legislation restricts the capacity of workers to bargain to ensure that they do not have a fair chance. Industrial relations is still to be regulated by the common law which is, in my view, designed for commercial matters rather than these sorts of matters. Strong negotiation is limited because the bargaining period can be easily suspended or terminated by the employer. Workers' rights of representation have been slashed through severe restrictions on union right of entry to talk with workers, inspect books and negotiate essential things of that character. Finally, the fair wear clothing industry code—a matter of interest in my electorate which still has a textile, clothing and footwear industry—that protects outworkers' wages and rights will be outlawed by this legislation.In all these ways, the second wave dumps on workers. The second wave might not be a tsunami, but it is not what this country needs either. I urge the House to support the amendment moved by the member for Brisbane.16:51:0010933McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—There are a few matters that I would like to speak on with regard to the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 to counter some of the wild assertions and scaremongering that a succession of opposition members have indulged in. What we ask of the opposition in approaching this legislation is to debate it on a very factual basis without their pandering to their constituencies in the wildest language.Sadly, I feel that the opposition have not lived up to the normal requirements and, indeed, responsibilities of opposition. Instead, they have engaged in the worst kind of class warfare. They have deeply insulted him but they have not hurt, let alone bowed, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business with their insults. Instead, he has brought about a fundamental change to the way employers and employees can reach their own agreements on a sensible basis without the heavy hand of unwanted interference from either bureaucrats or trade unions. It is surely in the best of Australian traditions that people can freely and openly negotiate their own arrangements—always, of course, with the safety net of protection for workers.The government is very proud of this legislation. We stand shoulder to shoulder with the minister, who has had to bear the brunt of personal as well as professional abuse. There is no question whatsoever that workers are the beneficiaries of this visionary legislation.16:53:0010933Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank honourable members who have spoken in the debate on the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 . This bill will deliver what we promised in our More Jobs, Better Pay policy in September 1998 for the subsequent 1998 election. It will amend the Workplace Relations Act to improve the quality of workplace relations in Australia and the outcomes for workers, employers and those seeking work. The bill provides for evolutionary change, building on the government's 1996 workplace relations reforms.The position that the opposition has adopted on this bill makes it very clear that it does not want to build on these reforms. It does not want to further the benefits of reforms that have helped strengthen Australia's economic performance with fewer strikes, the lowest since 1913; low inflation, the lowest in 30 years; higher productivity; and low interest rates. It does not want to build on the changes that have helped Australian families improve their living standards with more flexibility and more disposable income and that have protected the low paid with real wage increases. The opposition does not want to build on the reforms that have helped create more than 400,000 new jobs and have helped reduce unemployment to the lowest levels this decade.It is one of the ironies of this debate that the Labor Party, whilst stridently opposing this bill, does so in the face of the clear benefits which have flowed to Australians regardless of their circumstances. We are particularly proud of the benefits that have flowed to low income workers, who under this government have seen lower interest rates—meaning, therefore, less financial pressure on them in respect of meeting their mortgage repayments—but also higher real wages. We have seen in the time that we have been in office, according to the ACTU's recent strategy document, real wage increases of nine per cent or thereabouts, compared with when Labor was in office for over 13 years, when real wages actually fell.The opposition's position shows that they are out of touch with the needs of Australian workers and businesses. Stripped of the rhetoric, the opposition's objections to the bill amount to no more than the fact that they object to employers and employees taking responsibility for their own workplace relationships without the intervention of uninvited third parties. Not only is their policy direction wrong, but they are wrong about the content and effect of the bill. Their contribution to the debate has been a series of errors about the purpose and effect of the proposed amendments, and I welcome this opportunity to set the record straight.In respect of the Australian Workplace Relations Commission, let me make some remarks. The opposition wrongly claims that the bill will undermine the independence of the Australian Workplace Relations Commission. The bill simply provides the capacity to make seven-year term appointments as an alternative to the existing tenure arrangements. These provisions will apply only to new appointees. Existing appointments will not be affected by the proposed changes. The concept of term appointments is, of course, not new. Term appointments are widely utilised in a range of Commonwealth and state tribunals and statutory offices.The honourable member for Brisbane made the extraordinary claim that the bill imposes 12-month appointments. This is simply wrong, and it is irresponsible and unhelpful to the debate to make the claim.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—It lets you appoint people on a 12-month contract.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—You are just plain wrong. You do not even understand the basic proposition in the bill. I do not mind you attacking us for what we are doing but, for heaven's sake, do not attack us for something that we have not even proposed.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Be honest about what you are proposing.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—You should be intellectually honest enough to recognise that you have failed to understand a simple proposition. It is a simple proposition. These are seven-year term appointments.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Say on the record that there is no 12-month contract.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Mr Deputy Speaker, he can interject until he is blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is that he does not understand what we are proposing. This is typical, unfortunately, of a lot of the rhetoric we get from the Labor Party. The bill provides for the Governor-General to appoint acting commissioners, including for periods exceeding 12 months. By providing to this effect, the bill extends the same arrangements to appointments at the commissioner level as those already applicable to acting appointments as presidential members under the Workplace Relations Act. Have you got that? Do you finally understand it now? Not only is this later provision included in the current act, it was also in Labor's industrial relations act. So you do not even understand what we are doing, let alone understand what was actually in legislation which you yourself have supported in the past.Let me say something about award simplification. Once again, the opposition have embarked on an attack on award simplification and once again they have got it wrong. The honourable member for Brisbane claimed that the bill will stop people from receiving notice of termination of employment. Again, this is just plain wrong. The bill will provide for the removal of provisions about notice of termination from awards, but it will not mean that employees will not receive notice of termination.The Workplace Relations Act provides directly for notice of termination, and the bill will simply eliminate the duplication of notice provisions. Similarly, removal of long service leave from awards will mean that long service leave will no longer be regulated by both awards and state legislation. The honourable member for Lalor claimed that the bill will take away skill based classification structures and the regulation of redundancy pay—wrong again. Awards will continue to be able to provide for classification structures, with criteria that include qualifications, skills or tasks. The intention of the amendment is to remove from awards detailed provisions relating to training and the like that are better dealt with at the workplace level.Awards will continue to be able to provide for redundancy pay. The amendments will make clear that redundancy pay provisions must apply only in circumstances of genuine redundancy, not in situations where, for example, an employee resigns, as is currently the case in some awards. Awards will continue to be able to deal with wages and key conditions of employment. Contrary to the opposition's claims, award simplification is not about award stripping; it is about making awards less prescriptive and detailed, removing obsolete clauses, removing duplication of regulation, providing for more flexible arrangements, and making awards more user-friendly and easy to understand.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—No-one believes that.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—What a foolish statement to make. Award simplification was proposed by the Labor Party in 1993 and 1994.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—But that is not what you are doing.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—You ought to read the statements of your own party when they were in favour of the concept of award simplification. You cannot even stand up for things which you supported when you were in government, which just demonstrates the paucity of intellectual understanding, let alone conviction to actually reform this system for the benefit of workers.The opposition have also attacked the proposal to speed up the award simplification process, providing that awards must be simplified in order to be varied for safety net adjustments. Of course, they have neglected to mention that this amendment is needed to avoid a repeat of the delaying tactics engaged in by unions during the first round of award simplification. For all their apparent concerns about safety net adjustments, the oppoisition have neglected to mention the track record of unions in applying for award variations to give effect to safety net decisions. As at December 1998, less than one-third of federal awards had been varied to provide for the 1997 and 1998 safety net adjustments. On the basis of this track record, it is hardly surprising that workers are leaving unions in droves. The fact is that you do not back up your rhetoric. You do not bother to understand what we are actually proposing. You simply take your faxes and phone calls from the ACTU head office and you get up here and sprout things when you do not even understand what is being proposed.Let me make it clear that the proposed amendment linking safety net adjustments to award simplification is not intended to preclude award variations for next year's safety net adjustment. I will be moving an amendment to the bill to provide that the proposed provision will not come into effect until the end of a six-month transitional period. That matter came up in our discussions with some of the church groups. I understood their concern; I did not think it was entirely substantiated or justified, but it was fair enough for them to raise it. We take the attitude with this bill that we have put the bill out, we are prepared to sit down and talk to people, and if there is a better way of doing something or if we can allay concerns, then we are happy to talk about them.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—You are a caring and sharing fellow.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—The fact is that we have talked not only to church groups; we have talked to women's groups and we also talked to the ACTU in the committee on industrial legislation. We do take a reasonable attitude, and I must say that it is in contrast to the negative, whingeing, whining tone that we have from the member for Brisbane, particularly having now read the amendments which they are proposing to move—but more of that later.In respect of freedom of association, the honourable member for Brisbane attacked the provisions of the bill that will prohibit clauses in agreements that encourage or support union membership, claiming that clauses that discourage union membership would not be prohibited. Again, this is simply wrong. Item 44 of schedule 14 of the bill makes it very clear that clauses that encourage or discourage union membership are equally unacceptable and are inconsistent with the principles of freedom of association enshrined in the act.The opposition is also wrong about the operation of the proposed prohibition on closed shops. It is simply not the case that a workplace with union membership levels of 60 per cent or more will be investigated. That is simply quite wrong—and again, it is silly of you to say things which are not based on the facts or the particular proposal. A claim that a closed shop is being maintained can be pursued only where another breach of the freedom of association provisions relating to non-membership of an industrial association—or restrictive arrangements—has been established. Where such a breach has been established, it is entirely appropriate to examine whether the specific breach is part of a wider pattern of conduct designed to maintain a closed shop.I must say that your bona fides on the question of freedom of association are completely shot to pieces when, in your amendments, you oppose every proposed measure to make changes to the freedom of association provisions. You are not prepared to even countenance measures which will provide proper protection for workers in the freedom of association provisions—which shows how hollow your interest is when it comes to actually protecting workers' rights.In respect of agreements, the opposition has also made a number of extravagant and misleading claims about the proposed amendments to the AWA provisions. The amendments relate to the procedures for making and approving AWAs, and they are aimed at providing a simple and speedy means of formalising agreements entered into by employers and employees. The amendments do not change the substantive requirements for AWAs. Requirements relating to genuine consent, the information statement and explanation of the AWA remain in place, as does the no disadvantage test. Similarly, the substantive requirements for certified agreements remain in place, including the require ments that the employer explain the terms of the agreement to employees, valid majority approval and the no disadvantage test.The honourable member for Jagajaga spoke at length about the recent Steggles dispute involving an employee who, for family reasons, objected to an earlier starting time. The honourable member failed to mention that this dispute arose in connection with an award provision, not an agreement provision. It serves to demonstrate the need for greater flexibility in awards and greater scope to enter into agreements that can be tailored to the needs of individual workers and their employers.With respect to independent contractors, the opposition has attacked the proposed repeal of the contract review provisions. What the opposition has not said is that these provisions are rarely used and that there are comparable remedies available to contractors under the Trade Practices Act 1974 and state unfair trading legislation in respect of harsh or unconscionable contracts. Of course, behind that approach by the unions and the Labor Party is that they are totally opposed to small business. They are not interested in the importance of the small business sector. Given the fact that so many jobs are created by small business, it is easy for us to mount the charge that their opposition to small business is opposition to that sector of the economy that has created the most jobs in recent years.This is a bill that provides for continuing reform of the workplace relations framework. It will take Australian businesses and workers forward by building on the reforms introduced by the government's 1996 legislation and ensuring that its benefits are delivered more widely. I should point out that the 1996 reforms were of course supported by the member for Dickson, who is now a frontbench member of the Labor Party.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—And she's your mate, so cut it out.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—`She's my mate,' says the member for Banks. What that demonstrates is that, if we can get your people off to one side and actually talk about the merits of what we are doing, you will see that many of the things that we are doing are perfectly sensible, as the member for Dickson demonstrated because she supported them. The fact is that you are just opposing for the sake of opposing and because you have been told to do so by the trade union movement. Most of the speakers we have had from the Labor side have been former union hacks just doing the bidding of the unions and the people who run their preselections.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—How did you get into parliament?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I got in by knocking off a Labor member.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—Order! Both the member for Banks and the minister might return to the subject.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—On my second time, I should say.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—That is right.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—The bill will ensure that the workplace relations legislative framework will be fair and balanced and appropriate to the needs of the modern Australian workplace. There are a few elements in the bill that require some finetuning. As I said, some issues have arisen in the course of consultations about the bill and the need for some technical amendments has also emerged. I will be tabling those amendments shortly.The bill will continue to give workers and employers at their workplace more choice and more opportunities to manage their relationships without forced interference from third parties. It will continue to devolve to the workplace the right to make decisions about whether to make agreements individually or as a group, to withdraw labour or not, to join or not join unions and how industrial disputes should be resolved. The bill will remove unnecessary complexity from the system so that workers and employers can have more direct control over the management of their relationships without the need to engage outside assistance. It will continue to provide safeguards in relation to the content of agreements and maintain a safety net of minimum wages and conditions to protect the low paid and the disadvantaged in the work force.The fact is that this government's reforms to the workplace relations system in Australia have been of tremendous benefit to workers and employers alike. Australia's productivity performance has been the best it has been for many years.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—On the waterfront.4T4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—You mention the waterfront.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Tell us about P&O.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I am very happy to tell you that we set a waterfront benchmark for the Australian stevedoring industry, and the Patrick business in Melbourne now runs at 25 crane lifts an hour. In terms of the national average, obviously you have the Patrick organisation and P&O, and one is ahead of the other, but there we have already seen a lift-up. The figure that was announced today was the highest number ever recorded. What is your policy? Your policy is that you are in favour of nick-off time. You are in favour of people sitting at home watching TV and getting paid double time and a half. That is what you are in favour of.Right across the Australian economy productivity has improved. It has improved in such a way that we are now as an economy in a position where we are seeing higher living standards for everybody. One of the proudest boasts of this government is that the people who have been most advantaged by our reforms are people who are on low incomes. Since 1996, in the order of 400,000-plus jobs have been created. Not only have more people got jobs; they are getting better pay in the jobs that they have. That is something that we should all aspire to.It was a great irony that when the unemployment rate hit seven per cent—the lowest it had been for 10 years, and one of the reasons we got to the lowest level for 10 years was our workplace relations reforms—the Labor Party was marching with the unions in Melbourne opposing further reform. This is against the interests of working people. The Labor Party's record for low income people was not only the highest level of unemployment since the Great Depression but also declining real wages. The former Treasurer used to boast about the fact that real wages had fallen when Labor was in office.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—We gave them other conditions.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—You did not give them other conditions. Their real wages fell and they lost jobs in record numbers. Since we have been in, exactly the opposite has occurred, as the official figures reveal. These are evolutionary reforms. They are sensible reforms. They build on the sensible changes we made in 1996. I commend the bill to the House. We look forward to seeing its implementation.Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Bevis's amendment) stand part of the question.17:18:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr K.J. Andrews)71Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BarresiMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr BroughMr CadmanMr CameronMr CausleyMr CharlesMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Mrs GallusMs GambaroMrs GashMr HaaseMr HardgraveMr HawkerMr HockeyMrs HullMr JullMr KatterMrs D. M. KellyJackie KellyDr KempMr LawlerMr LiebermanMr LindsayMr LloydMr McArthur*Mr I. E. MacfarlaneMr McGauranMrs MayMrs MoylanMr NairnMr NehlDr NelsonMr NevilleMr NugentMr PyneMr ReithMr RonaldsonMr RuddockMr St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperMr SomlyayDr SouthcottDr StoneMrs SullivanMr C. P. ThompsonMr A. P. ThomsonMr TuckeyMr M. A. J. VaileMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs Worth63Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr AndrenMr BevisMr CoxMr CreanMrs CrosioMr DanbyMr EdwardsMs EllisDr EmersonMr G. J. EvansMr M. J. EvansMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMr KerrMr LathamDr LawrenceMs LivermoreMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McLeayMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MossfieldMr MurphyMs O'ByrneMr O'ConnorMr O'KeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*The Hon SciaccaMr Sercombe*Mr SidebottomMr SmithMr SnowdonMr SwanMr TannerDr TheophanousMr K. J. ThomsonMr WilkieMr WiltonMr ZahraMr HowardMr BeazleyMr CostelloMr BreretonMr DownerMr LeeMr ProsserMs Burke* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.10938Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.17:23:0010938Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—I seek leave to move amendments Nos 1 to 64 as circulated in my name in the following order: group 1, amendment No. 1; group 2, amendments Nos 2 to 6, 15 to 29, 39 to 40; group 3, amendments Nos 11 to 14, 30 to 38 and 57 to 62; group 4, amendments Nos 63 and 64; and group 5, amendments Nos 7 to 10 and 41 to 56.Leave granted.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—I move opposition amendment No. 1:(1) Clause 1, page 1, lines (4-6) omit the clause, substitute:1. Short titleThis Act may be cited as the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment Act 1999 .Before I deal specifically with that, it might suit the convenience of the House if I just explain that each of these groups deals with broad areas of policy in relation to industrial relations. Whilst it is clear the opposition does not support the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 at all and has just divided on the second reading, given the time constraints it is not proposed that we would divide on each of these groups that the House has just agreed to deal with. It would be my intention, though, to divide on the third group, which is an important issue. I indicate to the House and place on the record the Labor Party's opposition to the bill as a whole and that we divide on one only for the convenience of the chamber.Amendment No. 1 deals with the title of this bill. It has been the subject of some comment in this parliament and elsewhere that we have a bill before us that the government has now titled for its short title `More Jobs, Better Pay'. There is actually not a person outside the politics of the Liberal Party who believes this bill is about more jobs, better pay. There is no-one working in Australia who regards that title as in any way reflecting the motivation and desire of this minister or this government to provide more jobs and better pay in pursuing this piece of legislation.It is only this minister, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, that would introduce an industrial relations bill into the parliament and seek to place as its legal name `More Jobs, Better Pay'. That is fine as the title of a Liberal Party propaganda document, which they had for the election campaign. They can call their propaganda document More Jobs, Better Pay. They can call it whatever they like—it is part of their political spin doctoring at election time—and that is what they did. But to rock up to the parliament and actually include in the title that piece of political spin doctoring so the legal name of the bill is `More Jobs, Better Pay' is a total outrage, and it is one that we are not willing to let pass.It reminds me of that famous skit in the first episode of Yes, Minister. All of us in this place from time to time have been known to watch and enjoy the Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister series, and very often the series cuts close to the bone. In the very first episode there is an illuminating exchange where Sir Humphrey is sitting down with Sir Arnold—Sir Arnold being the permanent head of Prime Minister and Cabinet—and they are educating Bernard about the way in which government operates. Bernard had made this comment about a publication, the title of which was `Open Government' and Sir Humphrey said, `Always dispose of the difficult bit in the title; it does less harm than in the text.' Sir Arnold reinforced that for young Bernard by saying, `It's the law of inverse relevance. The less you intend to do about something, the more you have to keep talking about it.' That was the Yes, Minister skit verbatim.Obviously this minister and this government watched it and subscribed to it. To put forward a piece of legislation that takes out of awards a whole set of conditions that are already theirs by right, to take those things out, to reduce the role of the umpire, to reduce the right to collective bargaining, to reduce the right to collective representation, to ramshackle the commission and reduce its independence—to do all of that—and then give it a title that says `More Jobs, Better Pay' is a good comic skit but is a tragedy when it is imposed on the people of Australia in the way this government is proposing to do it. The one good thing that this bill title has done is provide a bit of mirth around the place. `More Jobs, Better Pay' has been referred to as the `mojo bill'; `This is the minister's mojo'; and `He is chasing his mojo'. But, unlike Austin Powers who chased his mojo to the 1960s, this minister is chasing his mojo back to 1904. To find the last time the parliament tried to nobble an industrial commission, you have to go back to 1904 to provide that opportunity. We have here a minister chasing his mojo back to 1904, titling his mojo bill the `More Jobs, Better Pay' bill, but I am afraid it is a title that should not be left uncommented on and one that we think should be changed. (Time expired)17:28:0010940Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—This is an amendment to simply change the title of the bill which will change the act, and in that sense it will not have lasting implications. Quite frankly, it is not a matter of great consequence to working people in their terms and conditions. But, without wanting to delay the House on a matter which compared to all the other things is trivial, the reason we adopted this title was that in the last election we gave commitments to the Australian people about what we would do. This bill simply fulfils promises that we made, and we make no apology for it. To say that this is somehow an odd occurrence is also not true.Taking the tax package, for example, many of the bills have been described as `a new tax system'. That simply demonstrates the fact that these bills are consequent upon a policy which we took to the Australian people. It is hardly extraordinary and, quite frankly, it reflects on the Labor Party that they should make such a big deal of it. It is pathetic. I say no more, but it is typical, unfortunately, of the standard of debate we get from the Labor Party—when you consider all the things that are relevant to workers, such as whether or not you have a right to be a union member or not to be a union member and whether or not you can have a vote in deciding whether or not you should go on strike. If you are running a small business, it is important that you know whether or not, when you employ somebody, you will be able to deal with them on a fair basis, instead of getting a letter of demand from some local solicitor and being told by your own solicitor, `It is basically blackmail, but you might as well cough up.' I concede that those are important issues. However, even though this is our bill, I have to say that I do not think the issue we are considering is important at all. We do not accept the opposition's amendment. It is a silly amendment and it reflects the paucity of intellectual capacity on their side—and I am being generous.17:31:0010940Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—I should read into the Hansard the actual title that we propose. We propose that the legislation should be cited as the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment Act 1999. That seems to me to be a fair and reasonable description. All Australians would understand that it is a fair presentation of what the government is seeking to do. I do not propose to speak for five minutes, but I do want to make a couple of quick comments in response to what the minister said and in relation to the opposition's amendments.This minister is too smart by half. This is the same minister being too smart by half too often. This is the same minister who stood in this parliament and told the parliament that he knew nothing of the Patrick fiasco that unfolded, and then introduced laws into this parliament 12 hours after the sacking.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is the opposition's amendment. The rules of the House require people, within some ambit, to stick to the matters. If they want to debate the waterfront and Labor support for all the rorts and nick-off time, we are happy to have a debate on those things. If they want to talk about how the waterfront figures are the best they have been for many years, fine. But this is not relevant.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—Order! The suggestion that the member for Brisbane is perhaps drifting away from the point of the amendment I think is well made and I ask him to return to his amendment. ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—The point of my comments is to pick up on the views actually expressed by the minister. The title of the bill is both a matter of substance and a question of tactics. The minister, in his comments, saw fit to talk about the relevance of this and the question of tactics. I make the point, I think quite validly, in response that the minister has been too smart by half in adopting a tactic to label a bill so clearly contrary to its intention, in the same way that he has been too smart by half in the past, and as he was with the Patrick dispute. Whilst the minister might think this flippant, clearly his electors do not. At the last election the swing against the minister was double the state average. People out there do take some—WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Deputy Speaker—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member is now well away from the point of the amendment.17:34:0010941Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Just to finalise the matter, seeing as we are having two shots at this each, the shadow minister said that his objection to this was that it was contrary to our intention—namely, that the words `more jobs, better pay' were contrary to our intention. The fact of the matter is that the intention of this bill is to continue evolutionary reforms to produce more jobs and better pay. That is what we promised the Australian people that we would do. It was our policy. It is a pretty odd thing when you are criticised by the opposition for attempting to legislate your policy. People are cynical about Australian politics because on many occasions politicians have not done what they said they would do. Let us accept the criticism. What we are attempting to do is to meet that criticism by doing what we said we would do. Naturally enough, we do not think this is being too smart by half. The only reason the honourable member is surprised by this is that it is novel to have a government that is determined to do exactly what it said it would do. The fact is that our intention in this area is to have more jobs and better pay. We are entitled to say that because, since we have been in office, there are demonstrably many more jobs in the Australian economy—what, 500,000?2K6BROUGHMr Brough—The highest ever.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—We have the highest number of jobs ever. Furthermore, people are receiving more pay. There have been increases in real wages of around seven per cent for low income people. That is a good record, but it is proof of the pudding that we set out that as our objective and we are continuing to pursue that objective. In one sense this is a matter of trivia—I am quite happy to say that—but it is also important to us that we stick to what we said we would do. We reject out of hand the opposition's silly amendment.Amendment negatived.17:36:0010941Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—by leave—I move amendments Nos 2 to 6, 15 to 29, 39 and 40:(2) Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (lines 11-18), omit the item.(3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (lines 19-31), omit the item, substitute:6 After paragraph 88B(3)(a)Insert: (aa) the need to ensure, so far as it can, that the system of awards provides for secure, relevant and consistent wages and conditions of employment;(4) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (line 32) to page 6 (line 7), omit the item.(5) Schedule 1, after item 7, page 6 (after line 7), add:8 Section 89Repeal the section, substitute:89 General functions of CommissionThe functions of the Commission are: (a) to prevent and settle industrial disputes: (i) in so far as possible, by conciliation; and (ii) where necessary, by arbitration; and (b) such other functions as are conferred on the Commission by this or any other Act.(6) Schedule 1, after item 7, page 6, (after line 7) add:9 Section 89ARepeal the section.(15) Schedule 6, item 2, page 68 (lines 8 and 9), omit the item. (16) Schedule 6, item 3, page 68 (lines 10 and 11), omit the item.(17) Schedule 6, item 4, page 68 (lines 12 and 13), omit the item.(18) Schedule 6, item 5, page 68 (lines 14 and 16), omit the item.(19) Schedule 6, item 6, page 68 (lines 17 to 21), omit the item.(20) Schedule 6, item 7, page 68 (lines 22 to 29 ), omit the item.(21) Schedule 6, item 8, page 69 (lines 1 to 8), omit the item.(22) Schedule 6, item 9, page 69 (lines 9 to 13), omit the item.(23) Schedule 6, after item 9, page 69 (after line 13) insert:9A Subsection 89A(2) Insert:"(ma) the provision, and protection, of workers' accrued entitlements and benefits in the event of termination;".(24) Schedule 6, item 10, page 69 (lines 14 to 15), omit the item.(25) Schedule 6, item 11, page 69 (lines 16 to 17), omit the item.(26) Schedule 6, item 12, page 69 (lines 18 to 19), omit the item.(27) Schedule 6, item 13, page 69 (line 20) to page 70 (line 14), omit the item.(28) Schedule 6, item 16, page 70 (lines 19 to 22), omit the item.(29) Schedule 6, item 26, page 72 (line 32) to page 73 (line 5), omit the item.(39) Schedule 8, item 42, page 122 (line 27 to 30), omit proposed section 170LZB.(40) Schedule 8, item 48, page 123 (line 16) to page 124 (line 8), omit the item.These amendments deal with questions that go to the protection that workers have in determining their wages and conditions, and specifically the provisions in the bill—and, I might say, in the 1996 legislation—that strip away their current entitlements. The minister in his summing up of the second reading debate made reference to the fact that what the government has been involved with is not award stripping; it has been simply trying to modernise awards. Let us look at what he means by that. As I commented in relation to the title, this is a minister who likes being too smart by half and presenting a view of what he intends to do that is very different from what is happening.In relation to the bill before us, the simplification that the minister talks about is simplified to the point of taking these things out of awards. You are going to take skills based structures out of awards. Interestingly, the government is not proposing to take a non-skills based structure out of awards. So it is quite okay to maintain in an award a wages structure that does not recognise skill, but if you actually have a skills based structure, this government wants to remove that as a matter which the commission can insert into awards. At a time when we are endeavouring to educate and skill the community for the 21st century, why any government would want to impede that process is beyond any reasonable analysis—but that is exactly what this does.It removes long service leave as an allowable matter. Is that simplification? You tell that to the workers who rely on their award for their conditions. Yes, there are statutory entitlements for long service leave. They exist around the country, but very often they are less generous than the provisions that are available in awards and agreements. The government want to remove the opportunity for workers to have long service leave.They also propose—as part of what they call `simplification'—to take away rights in relation to compassionate leave. They are also proposing to take away redundancy pay as an issue that can be included in award matters. On the one hand, this government would have the public believe that they are concerned about workers, such as those at Oakdale who lost their jobs and were without income for some time. The government would profess to be concerned about people in that situation, but for people who are made redundant they are proposing in this bill to remove the right of workers to have redundancy clauses in their award. They are also removing the notice of termination provisions from the award and, unbelievably, they are removing paid jury service leave as well. This is not award simplification.The minister stood here less than half an hour ago and told the House that the government were not involved in award stripping. He said that what they are doing is simplifying the award. It is not simplification of the award to take those things away. It is not simplification of the award to tell workers that they cannot take paid jury service leave, which raises some interesting questions about the sort of society we as a nation want to develop. The very independence of the courts has been predicated on the basis that, for a whole range of offences, you can be tried by 12 of your peers. Under this bill it will become 12 of your peers who are rich enough to turn up and spend the required couple of weeks on the jury, because the government is about to take paid jury service leave out of awards. That is not the first time it has taken a counterproductive stance.Ms Gillard interjecting—ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—The interjection was `the removal of defence force leave', which occurred as a result of the 1996 legislation and which the government has refused to have debated when I have moved private members' bills on the matter. The defence forces themselves told you that they estimate there are more than 100 awards in which defence force leave applied. The defence forces said to this government, `Please, do not take that provision out of awards.' But for blind, ideological reasons, for mad, right-wing, antiworker reasons, the government actually decided to hamper the defence of the country by doing away with defence force leave. (Time expired)17:41:0010943Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—A lot of claims have been made which are simply not true. In respect of defence force leave, the fact is that, if you are an employee and you are required to perform your necessary service under the reserve system, your employment is protected by section 118A of the Defence Act.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Come in spinner!WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—It is. What you are proposing—ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Be careful, Peter.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I am a lot more careful than you seem to be. We have looked at defence force service leave.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—So have we.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—You obviously have not, with some of the things you are saying. In all honesty, you are using East Timor as a basis for running the ACTU's line on award simplification. That is a fact.83KROXONMs Roxon—Talk about the issue.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I am happy to talk about the issue. It would be good if someone on your side did for a change. We did have defence force leave and it did go out as an allowable matter—that is true. The coverage was no more than about five per cent. Of that five per cent, about half of it—and that is at the top end of the range—was public sector and in the Australian Public Service we have determinations covering it. So you are down to about 60 or 70 awards. To say that removal of allowable—83KROXONMs Roxon—What's happening with Telstra at the moment?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Hang on. What you are saying is that this has undermined Australia's reserves. Quite frankly, that is a stupid thing to say. We are talking about 70 awards. Many of those awards are single enterprise awards. So to say that what happened in respect of 1996 had some impact, when people's basic rights to leave are protected anyway, is just a nonsense, and anybody who knows anything about this would appreciate that. There is a fair debate that you want to have about award simplification, but do not say that this is undermining Australia's efforts in East Timor, because that is simply not true. I am happy to have a debate about any of these things, but let us at least have the facts on the table.You talk about skills based classifications. I invite you to understand what I said in my summary, and that will put an end to the claim you have just made. You made a claim about notice of termination. Okay, it comes out of the award, but your basic rights are protected under the Workplace Relations Act. So do not give us this nonsense telling people that somehow they have been deprived of their basic rights. You made the same claims about redundancy. Again, I have answered that in full. You do not seem to have understood what I said, so I am not going to repeat it. It would be nice for a change if you could actually understand what we are saying. Then sure, come back with a response and tell me where I am wrong. That would be fair enough. I do not mind having a debate about these things, but do not go on as if there is no responsibility to at least argue the points, understand the facts and put up a different point of view.With regard to long service leave, there is a difference of opinion. You are wrong to go around suggesting to people that they are going to be worse off or that they are going to be deprived of long service leave. The fact is there is a state system available for people and it does provide a safety net. All we are saying is that we do not need to have two safety nets which are contradictory. We should have one system, and that removes complexity in the system.83KROXONMs Roxon—They have to go to the magistrate's court and the Federal Court to hear their claims.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—One thing at a time. In terms of long service leave, the advice that I have had is that, in many circumstances, it will actually provide people with a more generous safety net than they have now. If you want to contest that, fair enough, but you show me the facts and figures. That is my advice. Do not go around telling people they are not going to have long service leave when that is factually not true. By all means have your debate about award simplification, but do not tell people things which are factually not true.There were the same, quite frankly, silly remarks made about jury service. Yes, there is a debate about jury service. Our argument is that people already have protection under state law. That is the basic point. There are other points you can make, but do not deceive people about what we are actually proposing. I will make this the end of my five minutes, subject to any contrary points. What you are saying on award simplification is, for example, that we should keep the tally system. That is your position. The Industrial Relations Commission has just spent 12 months—(Time expired)17:46:0010944Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—The problem on this side is not that we do not understand what this Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Busi ness says; like most Australians, we just do not believe it. Let me deal with a couple of the issues the minister has just dealt with. With regard to Defence Force leave, the minister refers to the provisions in the Defence Act in relation to this. If he bothered to do the investigation, he would know that there has never been a prosecution as a result of the provisions in that act. The Department of Defence do not want to use it to enforce the provisions because they do not think they can make it work. That is the reason.I can tell you that, with some personal experience of having sought to prosecute such a case where a person was in the reserves and was victimised in their employment, the very persistent, strong view expressed by the Defence Force was that they wanted us to jettison that reservist rather than access the clause to which you refer.WI4REITHMr Reith—Why didn't you change the Defence Act?ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—If you have a look at what the former Labor government proposed in relation to this, it was to do that as well. The problem that you have at the moment is that the great bulk of reservists actually do rely upon their employment conditions for their leave. There are about 152—or there used to be before your 1996 legislation—awards that had Defence Force leave in them. You have managed, as a result of your 1996 legislation, to strip all of those away and, to my knowledge, only one has been resurrected—I might say against the wishes of the employer.If you do not take our assessment of how that has been detrimental to defence, you might take the views of the defence department. Your government was advised in 1996, when you did this, as follows:As reserve members constitute approximately 40 per cent of the ADF work force, their continued availability for training as currently provided for in awards, agreements and company personnel policies is essential to the Australian Defence Force capability. Existing awards have been important in providing institutional support for reserves through the inclusion of provisions which allow leave for military training purposes for members of the reserve.That is the formal minute your government got from the defence department. You ignored it and, for ideological reasons, you overrode the defence department's requirements to strip all awards out of Defence Force leave.You referred also to jury service and said, `Be honest about it,' which is an interesting comment coming from this minister. Being honest about anything, for this minister, is a bit of a challenge. He said that there were other provisions for jury service. Let us compare them. You have a base legislative entitlement that the state government provides where you are talking of people being paid $15, $20 or $30 a day for jury service or you have the award, which guarantees them full pay. That is the trade-off, and this minister would have us believe that, when we say he is going to abolish paid jury service leave, we are somehow gilding the lily. I can see all the workers out there saying, `I really think I would rather get paid $20 as the base rate that this state provides for me as a juror. I'll take that $20 and I don't want my paid leave. I don't want my normal day's pay. I'll give that up because Mr Reith says it's a good idea.' You go and find me some punters out there who want to follow you down that path, Minister.The simple fact of life is that your process contained in this bill we are seeking to change here with these amendments is not about simplification and it is not about modernisation, both of which you know full well the former Labor government started and which this opposition supports and indeed the trade union movement supports. What this bill does and what your 1996 bill did was not to seek to modernise but rather to strip clauses out of awards. They seek to reduce the minimum benchmark. That is no surprise to any of us because in your confidential letter to the Prime Minister last year, when you set out your plan for three years, you actually complained to the Prime Minister that the basic wage adjustments that the Industrial Relations Commission had given were too generous. You proposed setting up an alternative tribunal made up of people that you could appoint who might come up with a different answer. Your agenda for reducing the minimum standards of Australian workers is plain. It is in black and white and in formal advice to the Prime Minister. This bill and these award stripping provisions are just another aspect of it.17:51:0010945Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—No strident speech can disguise the embarrassment for the Labor Party caused by the fact that, since we have been in, people on low incomes and people generally who are at work have enjoyed higher wages. They have enjoyed higher wages in a time when interest rates have been down, so they have had more money in their pocket as a result of that. They have not lost those wages by high inflation as a result of deals done with the ACTU under the accord. When all is said and done, most people want to know: have I got a job? Am I getting fair pay for the work I am doing? The fact is that more people have jobs and more people have better pay. All of the nonsense that we hear from the shadow minister about award simplification also betrays the fact that, when the Labor Party were in office, they were in favour of award simplification. Their former esteemed leader, Mr Keating, publicly advocated award simplification—not exactly the same as us, that is true, but by and large he was in favour of award simplification. He said that it was a necessary part of modernising Australia's workplace relations system, and the reason he said that was that the consequence over time of a more flexible system is that people do end up with higher pay and we do create more jobs. We have demonstrated that, and it is ironic therefore that the Labor Party claim to be supporting the working person but oppose the very measures that would actually give them higher pay and more jobs in the future.Let me give you an example: the Labor Party proposes in this matter that we have before us to retain the system of tallies in the meat processing industry. This is madness. The Labor government itself, back when Peter Cook was the minister, made a submission to the Industrial Relations Commission advocating the abolition of tallies.Mr Bevis interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—It was your policy. This just demonstrates that you are not up to pace on this. You have a proposal here to do away with the allowable matters list—the whole list. In other words, tallies should be an available, allowable matter in the system that you are proposing. You would not have an allowable matters list; you would have a complete jurisdiction for the commission. You are unhappy with the commission in the tallies decision because you are opposing us removing tallies. If you are opposing us for removing tallies, it is fair enough for me to assume that you are in favour of tallies. Why would you want to keep them in unless you are in favour of keeping them? Isn't that your position?ET4BEVISMr Bevis—We might be in favour of letting the commission do its job.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—It has just done its job, and it said, `Tallies are going,' so why are you opposing the removal of tallies from the allowable matters list? Why?ET4BEVISMr Bevis—It's opposing the legislative removal.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Oh, right! So this is a new world from the Labor Party: `We are not going to have tallies in practice, but because they are so important and the ACTU has told us we are going to have them in the allowable matters list.' So they are going to live on in Canberra in legislative form, while you acknowledge that in practice they are gone, finished and that the commission said they should go. Do you seriously think that is a tenable position? Doesn't it occur to the Labor opposition that it is slightly inconsistent to be saying that this is a matter for the commission but that, when the commission gets rid of tallies, you are in here today arguing for the retention of tallies? That is a nonsense position. It is completely untenable.Mr Zahra interjecting—Ms Roxon interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Here we have two new backbenchers. I know you are learning the ropes, but you have to think these things through for yourselves. You have to work it out for yourselves, and it is slightly inconsistent to be saying that it is a matter for the commission and, when the commission has said that tallies are going, to be up here arguing to retain them. This is from a party that wants to allow union picnic days to be imposed on people who are not members of unions—another matter which we do not think should be allowable but which you argue for. No better testimony is there of the way in which you just do what you are told by the union movement than for you to be supporting an anachronistic system of union picnic days and imposing them on people who are not members of unions. I will be fascinated to hear whether they have an answer to that. (Time expired)17:56:0010946Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—I will endeavour to make this my last contribution in this bracket of amendments to the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 . I say one thing only about the tally circumstance, and that is that the commission decision which the minister has sought to put an interpretation on in the course of this week is actually not a final decision. They have sought further submissions. The matters on which they have sought further submissions include a bonus structure. It will be interesting to see what the final determination of the commission is. When the final determination of the commission is available, we might find the minister less cocky than he was earlier this week in question time.There are two or three additional matters that I do need to address. One is the decision this government took, along with its insane propositions about jury service and defence leave, in its 1996 legislation, which we are seeking to amend here, to remove leave for people to donate blood. As with jury service, the operations of the Red Cross blood service are fundamental to the way in which our community functions, yet the government decided to make it harder for ordinary men and women to donate blood to the Red Cross. Not surprisingly, the Australian Red Cross blood service have been moved to make a submission to the Senate inquiry they are so concerned about what has occurred. In their submission they say that, since the removal of this provision from awards, blood collections have fallen in comparison to last year's figures by 2.4 per cent in New South Wales, 4.7 per cent in Queensland and 8.4 per cent in the ACT.Two years ago this government decided to abolish leave for people to give blood, and as a result—surprise, surprise—fewer people are now giving blood. The Red Cross pinpoints that as one of the key contributing factors in the drop in the number of people who are now providing blood to the blood bank. What an absurd decision for any government to take. Why would you do it? You would do it only for the crassest of political reasons that only this minister and this government could devise. We seek in our amendments to restore some commonsense in that.The other amendments here touch broadly on the question of how workers have their conditions protected. One of the themes that runs through this government's industrial relations legislation is its desire to reduce minimum conditions, to reduce the role of the umpire and to force workers onto individual contracts. I want to make an observation about individual contracts. There may be opportunity later to make a few more comments. In relation to individual contracts, I want to quote from some people who might surprise the government in this respect. There is a quite worthwhile publication simply titled Workplace Relations Act 1996. It was penned by Joe Catanzariti and Mark Baragwanath. These two gentlemen are well respected in the industrial relations field. Mr Catanzariti is a partner in the law firm Clayton Utz, not normally renowned for its support of left-wing causes. Mr Baragwanath was a solicitor there and he is now a lecturer in the field of industrial relations. In their book on the 1996 legislation, they talk about what happens when you have individual contracts and when you do not have the protection of collective bargaining. They say this:In a situation where the agreement is with an individual employee, that employee has virtually no bargaining power.The minister stood here and said that the government is on about allowing workers and employers to negotiate their conditions fairly without interruption. He knows, and everyone in the country knows, that what Catanzariti and Baragwanath say is the case. In fact, when this system was established and when the Harvester judgment came down in 1907, Justice Higgins actually commented that the contract entered into under those arrangements was the same as the contract between the sheep and the wolf—and we know who the wolf is. The simple fact of life is that, without the protection that the Industrial Relations Commission and the umpire afford, workers left by themselves to negotiate their own conditions are left in a very parlous state. These amendments we have moved we strongly support. They restore some decency to the rights of workers to have collective agreements. They restore some decency to the award system and allow the Industrial Relations Commission the independence to go about its work unhampered by this government. (Time expired)Amendments negatived.18:02:0010947Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—by leave—I move amendments 11 to 14, 30 to 38 and 57 to 62:(11) Schedule 4, item 5, page 46 (lines 20-21), omit paragraph 88AB(2)(d).(12) Schedule 4, item 5, page 47 (lines 7 and 8), omit subsection 88AC(4).(13) Schedule 4, item 35, page 53 (lines 3 to 6), omit the item.(14) Schedule 4, item 54, page 55, (lines 5 to 29), omit the item.(30) Schedule 7, item 12, page 89 (line 15 to 27), omit the item.(31) Schedule 7, item 13, page 89 (line 28) to page 90 (line 17), omit the item.(32) Schedule 7, item 14, page 90 (line 18 to 31), omit the item.(33) Schedule 7, item 15, page 90 (line 32) to page 91 (line 18), omit the item.(34) Schedule 7, item 16, page 91 (line 19 to 32), omit the item.(35) Schedule 7, item 17, page 91 (line 33) to page 92 (line 19), omit the item.(36) Schedule 7, item 18, page 92 (line 20 to 35), omit the item.(37) Schedule 7, item 19, page 92 (line 36) to page 93 (line 20), omit the item.(38) Schedule 7, item 20, page 92 (line 21 to 23), omit the item.(57) Schedule 10, item 5, page 175 (line 1), omit "Employment Advocate", substitute "Commission". (58) Schedule 11, item 10, page 180 (line 32) to page 181 (line 28), omit the item.(59) Schedule 11, item 15, page 182 (line 11) to page 184 (line 33), omit the item.(60) Schedule 11, item 25, page 187 (line 19), after "or award", insert:"or an employer who is party to the agreement or award".(61) Schedule 11, item 36, page 189 (line 24) to page 203 (line 3), omit the item.(62) Schedule 12—Opposition to oppose.These amendments we will divide on. These amendments go to the heart of the industrial relations system. They deal with the question of the independence and the role of the Industrial Relations Commission. It is a fundamental difference between our side of the parliament and the government's view of industrial relations as to whether there should be an umpire. We now have the first government since 1904 that believes there should not be an independent umpire with the authority to determine disputes in industrial relations.The 1996 legislation went a long way to undermining the industrial commission. This bill goes incredibly further. This bill goes to the heart of whether the commission has any independence at all. Whichever way the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business likes to cut the cake—and he made some comments when he was summing up in the second reading debate—this bill will allow the government to appoint commissioners for seven-year appointments on an appointment where, as a body that should be impartial and independent, it would become impossible for them to exercise that impartiality without looking over their shoulder. This is particularly the case given the form of this minister. This is the minister who has publicly attacked the commission when they have made decisions that he did not see eye to eye with. This is the minister who has also been willing to attack individual commissioners when they have inserted clauses he did not like, saying that the president of the commission needs to educate his commissioners better.So one of the provisions here is that we are going to legislate to require all of the commissioners to undergo annual training. This will be Peter Reith's training school for industrial commissioners. The law will require every one of these people to undergo an annual training program. We do not legislate to require anyone else to undergo these annual training programs. We do not legislate to require the cabinet, the parliament, the courts, our generals in the military or our public servants to do so, but this group above all else we single out in legislation and they are going to undergo re-education camps every 12 months. Every 12 months they go off to boot camp and they learn what the government's instructions are. They are on a term appointment, and if they do not follow the instructions they are given at that annual boot camp then it is pretty clear what will happen: they will be booted out.A seven-year appointment is totally contrary to the entire concept of an independent body. That is a view not just held by the Labor Party in this matter but which has been expressed by every single commentator. It has been expressed by employer groups, governments, unions, the judiciary and the legal fraternity. In fact, Senior Deputy President Polites, who I am sure is well known to the minister, has made comments critical of the provisions which seek to place commissioners on term appointments. He pointed out the impact that will have on the independence of the commission. So too have a range of eminent commentators. For example, Keith Hancock is a well-respected academic and practitioner in this field. He comes from the National Institute of Labour Studies in South Australia, much loved by many people on the conservative side of politics. In his submission to the Senate inquiry, he refers to the attacks on the industrial commission and says:Another set of proposals which reduces the commission's role for no other apparent purpose is the restriction of its powers to conciliate.So we have got the restriction on their appointment and we have got the restriction on what they can do. They will no longer have the power to conduct compulsory conciliation. In fact, if they do undertake voluntary conciliation, the act will require them to charge participants $500 for turning up. We used to actually have a system in this country where the umpire would sit down, mediate, concili ate and, if necessary, arbitrate. That was seen as a public good. That was seen as a desirable thing in settling disputes that arise from time to time between workers and management. This government is about politicising the appointments to the commission, reducing their tenure and then reducing their authority. That is precisely what this bill says and it is exactly what a litany of commentators have had to say about it.WI4REITHMr Reith—It is not true.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—I do not know whether the minister bothers to read any of the submissions that are actually made—(Time expired)18:07:0010949Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The shadow minister just said that we are reducing people's tenure. That is not true.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Oh!WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—It is not true—understand? You attack the 12-month provision, which is the same provision that you had when you were in office. Let us go to the tenure point because this is the heart of your concerns. What we are proposing is that people may be appointed for seven-year terms.83KROXONMs Roxon—But what are they currently appointed for?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Yes, okay, but let me go on. We also retain the right for the government of the day to appoint people as they are appointed today. This does not mean everybody is going to be on seven-year terms. All the existing personnel retain their existing tenure, so there is no change to existing tenure. So for you to say we are going to reduce people's tenure is simply not true. You should withdraw it because it is not true.Secondly, we give the government of the day the capacity to appoint people for seven-year terms. This is, as I say, the heart of your objection. I find it hard to believe how you could be so excited by the proposition. We have people today who exercise federal jurisdiction who are on fixed terms. They are people who are dual appointees. They are state appointees who have dual appointments to the federal commission. Three of the states have had in recent times fixed tenure. Has anybody seriously suggested that there have been any decisions by any of these people with these limited tenure appointments which have somehow been subject to the accusation that they were not made independently? No, absolutely none.83KROXONMs Roxon—But you don't appoint them.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—We do appoint them, because they are dual appointees. They are our appointments.Ms Roxon interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—Order! The comments will come through the chair. I remind the member for Gellibrand that she is out of her seat, if she wishes to interject.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—The member for Gellibrand says we do not appoint them. I am sorry, we do appoint them. That is the fact of the matter. So we already have some people through the state system, and I do not think anybody would fairly make criticism of any of those appointments. They are all good appointments, and that is good—it is part of the harmonising of the system. But, furthermore, we have in various Commonwealth tribunals—where people exercise quasi-judicial powers—people with fixed term appointments. Again, are there allegations made against those people where they hold terms of seven years? No, there are not any. So why should you be making such allegations about this particular proposal? Lastly, how could the Labor Party possibly make this claim when they themselves appointed a president of the commission, Deidre O'Connor, for a fixed term?ET4BEVISMr Bevis—You know that was a special circumstance.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Oh, a special arrangement! I see, right.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—But it was on a request.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Oh, right!Mr Bevis interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Okay, I had not appreciated that there are special fixed term appointments that the Labor Party can make for five years.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Not for every commissioner.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—No, not for everyone!Mr Bevis interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Right, not for every commissioner!ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Absolutely.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Well, that is our proposal. Our proposal is that we can continue to appoint people—ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Appoint people to do what you like.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Oh, I see, right, this would give us a power that we could use, but it was okay when you were in government because there were special circumstances. That is absolutely laughable. You had a five-year fixed term appointment and when I make that point you say, `Oh, no, special circumstances.' Certainly there were special circumstances in your view because it was a Labor Party in government and the Labor Party could be trusted to manage that issue. That was your view?ET4BEVISMr Bevis—No.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Did we stand up and say, `This is an outrage because this person will not be independent'? No, we did not. Why didn't we? Because it is not unreasonable. Why are you opposing this? You are opposing it for the sake of opposition; you are just drumming up every argument you can think of.It was said that we have publicly attacked the commission. Compared with the attacks that the Labor Party mounted against the commission, we have been nothing but polite and respectful. You show me a quote where I have been anything other than respectful of the commission. I did not talk about a dog returning to its vomit, as Bill Kelty did. I did not talk in the way that Keating did about the commission when you got decisions that you did not like. Sure, when there are decisions we do not like, we have a mandated right through the parliament to take appeal processes. We have done so, and that is perfectly reasonable, but to say that we have somehow publicly attacked the commission is laughable when we think of the record of the Labor Party in office. There are a few other things but we will see what your response is.18:12:0010950Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—It is plainly a matter of record that this minister and this government have in fact attacked the commission on a number of occasions.WI4REITHMr Reith—Give me a quote. Give me just one quote.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—I will give you one quote.WI4REITHMr Reith—Give me just one quote.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—I do not have the document here, but I am sure you will remember it.WI4REITHMr Reith—Don't dream it up.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—I am sure neither of you will dream it up, nor will the Speaker in the chair. Please come through the chair.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—I am sure the minister will remember—I think it was last November—when Deputy President Munro agreed to a certified agreement which included provision for an encouragement clause for union membership. That incurred your public wrath and condemnation and your admonition to tell the president that he should train his commissioners better. There is one example that might come to mind.The minister seems to want to twist both history and facts to suit his own purposes. Let me not enter that political debate but use the submissions made by others—respected commentators—on this very issue. Again I refer to the submission made by Keith Hancock on this bill which is about to go before the Senate inquiry. It said:Taken together, these attributes of the bill represent a reduction of the role of institutions in the labour market and an enhancement of the capacity of employers to determine wages and conditions of employees. To a greater extent than for many decades, present and potential employees will depend on market forces to protect them against the exercise of employer power.In other words, workers will be without any real protection from this government or, because of this legislation, will be unable to avail themselves as easily of other protections. They will be without that opportunity to an extent not seen for decades. Coupled with the other provisions, that means that the minimum standard is reduced, because we have seen the award stripping provisions take away what is the minimum standard—the award—and we have then seen workers left with less opportunity to negotiate collectively and exposed increasingly to individual contracts in which their bargaining power is next to nil.I have already referred to Catanzariti and Baragwanath in an earlier contribution in this debate. On that point, Professor Keith Hancock referred to a British Labour lawyer, who said:The relation between an employer and an isolated employee or worker is typically a relation between a bearer of power and one who is not a bearer of power.Every worker understands that predominantly to be the case. People can cite the exceptions to the rule in certain industries and skill groups but, overwhelmingly, that is the arrangement individuals face if they are left to negotiate their own conditions. There are plenty of examples of where that has happened.The simple fact is that, by stripping away the authority of the industrial commission, as this bill does, it denies workers a meaningful recourse to advance their conditions. Worse than that, because of the other changes, it denies them the opportunity to protect their current conditions. Unbelievably, this government will take away their conditions and their awards will be stripped before they can get a wage increase. The commission will have no option but to do that, because the bill ties the government's hands. Clearly, we could engage in a very lengthy debate on this matter, but I am conscious of the time and hope that I will not need to speak further on those particular amendments.18:16:0010951Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—One of the amendments to the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 moved by the opposition spokesman is the total removal of schedule 12, which deals with the secret ballot for protected action. He has not yet spoken on that particular part and he just said that he does not want to waste too much more time of the parliament. I would have thought that this would have been an exceptionally import ant amendment. I will read schedule 12.1 on page 142 of the explanatory memorandum so the parliament fully understands what it is the opposition wishes to remove from this bill. The explanatory memorandum reads:This Schedule proposes to introduce new preconditions for the taking or organising of protected industrial action by employees and organisations of employees. In order to be protected action under the provisions of the Act, it is proposed that industrial action must be preceded by a secret ballot process overseen by the Australian Workplace Relations Commission.The new provisions are intended to ensure that protected industrial action is not used as a substitute for genuine discussions during a bargaining period, and to ensure that the final decision to take industrial action is made by the employees directly concerned.How can anyone possibly take issue with that? I was recently in Ireland and spoke to the Irish union bosses over there. When I brought to their attention that we were having a battle back in this country about industrial issues, and in particular the taking of industrial action with or without a secret ballot, they were dumbfounded to find that we are still having such battles. They take it for granted that it is every worker's right to keep their own position clear. They do not have to endure the indignation of standing up—or sitting down, as the case may be—in front of their colleagues and declaring a different position from that of their union bosses. This is about people's rights. This is about the individual—whether they be unionists or not—being able to say what they want to do, clear in their own conscience that they do not have to incur the wrath of their workmates for wanting or not wanting to take that industrial action.A simple secret ballot goes to the fundamental freedoms of Australia—freedom of association and freedom to make your own decisions. This opposition seeks to remove this. It does not seek to replace it, water it down, change it or in some way omit one or two lines, but to remove the entire schedule. One must ask why.Recently down in Melbourne I represented the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business at a function. A bunch of unionists arrived at this place to protest. They did not go there under their own free choice; they were forced to go there from their workplace as their employer was told which quota of his work force must attend this rally. I have no issues with unions or individuals taking any form of industrial action if it is their choice, but when they are forced to turn up to rallies, and when they are forced against their will to make choices such as going on strike—taking the sort of action which impinges upon their ability to fend for their family because they lose wages—I believe that we as a government have a responsibility to ensure that secret ballots are put in place so that they can protect the decision that they make.I am sure we would all scream blue murder if we decided to remove secret ballots from any other walk of life—from state elections, federal elections or any other election—but to those opposite it seems quite right and proper that a show of hands in a workplace, with the intimidation that is quite obviously in place, is quite okay. I would dearly love to hear the opposition spokesman's answer to this and why he sees fit to take away the basic freedoms that unionists and non-unionists enjoy in this country—to keep to themselves their decisions as to why or why not they would want to take industrial action.18:20:0010952Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—I am indebted to the member for Longman for raising the issue. The present act includes provisions for strike ballots to be ordered by the commission. As a person who spent 13 years as a union official, I have conducted many secret ballots for industrial action and for a whole range of other things. The provisions that are proposed here are not about democratising the workplace; they are about putting in place impediments that guarantee that workers will not be in a position to take industrial action. The bill provides a mechanism that I do not have a problem with. The commission is able to deal with applications and order ballots where it sees the need to. Any individual is able to go to the commission and seek such an order. The simple fact is that if you want to be even-handed about this, why don't you pro pose that employers are required to conduct a secret ballot of shareholders using the same restrictive procedures that you seek to impose on unions? Why don't you require employers to do that before they take industrial action? You are not; and the reason you are not is that you know it is unworkable. The reason you are not is that you know that the bill puts in place a series of impediments that are designed to prevent people from taking the action, not to introduce some sort of industrial democracy.But, in terms of what the big issue is, anyone who has actually been in a union and been an officer in a union knows full well that the common practice in the overwhelming number of unions is in fact for those ballots to happen. If there were a problem—Mr Reith interjecting—ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—It depends how you want to write the rules, Peter: you want to write the rules in such a way that they do become impossible. If you had a problem, one would have thought that it would show up in the requests for compulsory ballots. In fact, if you look at the record, in 1995-96 there was one request; in 1996-97 there were two; in 1997-98 there were six requests; and in 1998-99 there was one request. The simple fact is that this is not, in the real practical application of what goes on in industrial relations, an issue.My assessment—and, I might say, the assessment of many others—that these amendments are not about democratising the workplace but about denying workers any real opportunity to take industrial action, is borne out by some of the commentary that has been placed before the Senate inquiry. I refer in particular to the evidence of Professor McCallum, who is one of the most respected industrial relations academics and practitioners in the country—and is, I might say, internationally recognised. For the past 16 years he has been a member of the international panel, the National Academy of Arbiters, which is the foremost body on labour arbitration in the United States and Canada. He is a recognised world authority. This is what he said about these amendments:For example, if enacted into law, these regimes would make it virtually impossible for a union to take meaningful and effective protected industrial action to press its demands at the bargaining table.They are the views of one of the most respected industrial relations figures in the international community. The simple fact is that this person has said—as every other fair commentator has also identified—that the bill is, in relation to strike ballots, not about regulating them but about preventing them. Therefore we do oppose it, and that is what the amendment does.18:24:0010953Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—This proposal from the government and Labor's now proposed amendment have finally flushed them out on this issue. You see, if they were fair dinkum, they would be putting up amendments to our proposal to make it work. Their whole argument is, `Oh no, we are not opposed to the in-principle concept of secret ballots; it is just that we don't have a workable system.'ET4BEVISMr Bevis—The law currently provides for them.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—And then there is this other little bit of deception, that the current law provides for them. Well, it does not provide for them as mandatory steps prior to the taking of industrial action. That is the point, and you know it; and you should stop deceiving people. I was very interested when I read their amendments. The fact is that they are not being fair dinkum. They are totally opposed to having secret ballots. And why? Because right across the front bench of the Labor Party you have got a whole lot of ex-trade union officials whose last idea is to ever ask the workers what their view of the world is. The shadow minister—like the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who was a former ACTU president, and like the member for Batman, a former ACTU president—is a former teachers union official.To show you how confused he is, he says that in his years as a union official they conducted many ballots. In other words, it is possible to conduct ballots; but of course in the next breath they say, `It is impossible to conduct a ballot; therefore we are going to oppose this proposal.'Mr Bevis interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—It is your position.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Don't verbal me.WI4REITHMr Reith—I am not trying to verbal you.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—Order! I am sure the comments from both sides of the House will come through the chair.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Madam Deputy Speaker, I appeal to your sense of fair play and judgment. Is it not fair to reach the conclusion that the Labor Party are totally opposed to secret ballots when, in their amendments, they make no changes to the detail of our proposal? That is all I am saying. That is verballing, is it? Is this such a difficult thing for you? Is it really? You see, you are opposed to secret ballots. If you were in favour of secret ballots, you would put up some propositions to make them workable. That would be your position. You quote Ron McCallum to me. Let me quote the leader of the trade unions in the UK. I went to see him.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—A week after I did.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—That is right. We paid for your trip. I went to see him—he is Bill Kelty's counterpart. And I said to him, `We are thinking of having secret ballots in Australia. I notice that you have got secret ballots in the UK.' And he said, `Yes, we have.'Mr Bevis interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—The answer to that is: the details of the provisions in the UK are not the basis of an amendment from you. That is the point.Mr Bevis interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Who is trying to verbal whom? I am in favour of secret ballots. My point is that you are philosophically opposed to them, and the reason you are opposed to them is that former trade union officials like you never want the rank and file to have a say. That is the reality of it. I said to the trade union boss in the UK: `Blair has come in, Thatcher introduced them, are you going to keep secret ballots?' And do you know what he said to me? He said, `It is very hard to take a democratic right away from somebody once they have got it.' That really sums up this whole debate.Opposition members interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order!WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Madam Deputy Speaker, let me again appeal to your sense of fair play. When it comes to providing people with basic democratic rights, on this issue the government is delivering and the Labor Party is opposing. That is all there is to it.You want to talk about the details of the provisions. I do not mind talking about the details of the provisions. I went to some lengths to understand how the UK system works, and I will make you an offer now: if you are fair dinkum about it, I would be happy to talk to you about the details.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—It is your bill, Sport!WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I have certainly made—Mr Bevis interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—As usual, the Labor Party—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! I call both sides of the House to order. I have called the minister. If others wish to take part in the debate, they may seek the call. The minister has the call.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—You must be very disappointed, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Labor Party has just dealt itself out of this issue, as it did with tax reform and a whole lot of other issues over the years. Secret ballots are an important basic principle. We are for them and the Labor Party is against them. Question put: That the amendments (Mr Bevis's ) be agreed to.18:33:00The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker—Hon. J.A. Crosio)63Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr AndrenMr BevisMr CoxMr CreanMr DanbyMr EdwardsMs EllisDr EmersonMr G. J. EvansMr M. J. EvansMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMs KernotMr KerrMr LathamDr LawrenceMs LivermoreMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McLeayMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MossfieldMr MurphyMs O'ByrneMr O'ConnorMr O'KeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*The Hon SciaccaMr Sercombe*Mr SidebottomMr SmithMr SnowdonMr SwanMr TannerDr TheophanousMr K. J. ThomsonMr WilkieMr WiltonMr Zahra70Mr AndersonMr K. J. AndrewsMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BarresiMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr BroughMr CadmanMr CameronMr CausleyMr CharlesMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Mrs GallusMs GambaroMrs GashMr HaaseMr HardgraveMr HawkerMr HockeyMrs HullMr JullMr KatterMrs D. M. KellyJackie KellyDr KempMr LawlerMr LiebermanMr LindsayMr LloydMr McArthur*Mr I. E. MacfarlaneMrs MayMrs MoylanMr NairnMr NehlDr NelsonMr NevilleMr NugentMr PyneMr ReithMr RonaldsonMr RuddockMr St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperMr SomlyayDr SouthcottDr StoneMrs SullivanMr C. P. ThompsonMr A. P. ThomsonMr TuckeyMr M. A. J. VaileMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs WorthMr HowardMr BeazleyMr CostelloMr BreretonMr DownerMr LeeMr ProsserMs Burke* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.18:39:0010955Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—In regard to opposition amendments Nos 63 and 64, the opposition opposes schedules 13 and 14. These amendments deal broadly with questions of freedom of association and the right to organise. I do not propose to speak at length about these matters, but there are some important points that need to be made.One of the provisions involved here deals with the right of entry of union officials to workplaces and what they are able to do when they enter workplaces. It has long been a fundamental tenet of the operation of our industrial relations system that authorised union officials are able to enter workplaces, and the customary arrangements that we have had in both state and federal jurisdictions for the great part of this century have authorised those union officials to inspect time and wages books and other conditions to ensure that the law is being applied; that is, that the correct award or certified agreement rates and other occupational health and safety issues are being properly addressed.That system has actually been the mainstay that has guaranteed workers some certainty. As everyone in this place would appreciate, it is one thing to acquire an award or an agreement but it is another thing to enforce it. The enforceability of that has largely rested on the union officials—the workers' representatives, elected by them to ensure that those conditions are met. Industrial inspectorates have historically been very small in number and capable of undertaking that work. More recently, they have been stripped back to nothing. In the case of the Commonwealth, there is now virtually no industrial inspectorate and no-one doing the work.I think it is instructive to have a look at the way in which some employers deal with this question. They seem to want to go out of their way to prevent union officials having any access at all to employees. I note in the submissions to the Senate, a submission from the Australian Services Union that included correspondence from the Northern Territory News. The union organiser there had actually written to the proprietors seeking permission to come to the premises and to meet with employees. The company wrote back to the union on 22 April this year—so it is quite recent—and, in part, the secretary of the company said:I am not aware of any staff member seeking to participate in discussions with you concerning the pending negotiations or any other subject matter. If that is not the case, please advise me with the names of employees who have made such a request and we will promptly attend to your request to meet with them at our premises.What we now find in the operation of businesses is that companies deliberately seek to prevent union officials from entering the premises. They certainly seek to stop them looking at time and wages books and they certainly seek to stop them talking to individual workers.I do not think we have to guess what editorial line the Northern Territory News might run when dealing with this bill, given the practices they follow in relation to their own employees. When you restrict the opportunity for union officials to enter premises to check conditions of employment and to talk to people, you not only raise fundamental questions of freedom of association but also place at a disadvantage those decent employers who are trying to do the right thing by paying correct wages. You also make it harder for union officials to deal with employers who cut corners and who prevent union officials from checking to see whether the corners have in fact been cut.The situation in respect of right of entry is actually one of the fundamental questions for the operation of trade unions. The proposals in this bill are designed to further restrict unions from being able to visit workplaces to meet with employees. The provision that requires unions to identify the people who have asked them to attend and then pretend that that is somehow protected by saying that that information can then be sent to the registrar rather than the company does not provide the level of protection that has traditionally been available. If you couple that with the efforts this government is making on unfair dismissals and the general tenor with which they have approached industrial relations, you leave individual workers naked to attacks from employers who are quite happy to victimise them. (Time expired)18:44:0010956Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—As per schedule 12, this is another issue which goes to the rights and freedoms of individuals. What the opposition spokesman is actually saying is that even if there is only one union member on a work force, then the union should have unfettered right of entry to come in and ensure that the employer is meeting their obligation and be able to examine not only the books of that particular individual—which he or she should be able to do; there is no problem with that—but also all of the books on wages and entitlements, and in doing so tie up the time of the employer for people who are not even represented by the unions.Let us get this into perspective: 21.4 per cent of the population is now currently in the private sector and has union membership, so that is approximately one in five members of the work force. Out of a work force, for example, of maybe 50 employees, two or three may elect to be members of a union. We in the government respect their right and, in fact, encourage people to make that decision, knowing full well that checks and balances are in place. But, that decision having been made, the unions then feel that it is their right to be able to come in and impinge on the employers' valuable time and look at what they have been paying to each and every one of the employees, regardless of whether they have taken up the opportunity to be members of a union.They remove from much of this legislation the role of the Employment Advocate. The opposition spokesman said earlier that, if you remove the rights of the union to have unfettered right of entry into businesses, then you remove the only opportunity that employees have to have their rights protected. The fact is the Employment Advocate is there to advocate on behalf of the employees.Ms Roxon interjecting—2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—This is not some sort of a police force against unions. This is some form of—8T4FERGUSONMr Laurie Ferguson—That is exactly what it is.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—That is so typical of the opposition's attitude towards these matters. They do not want an independent umpire, if you like, to be able to come in to look at the books of employees who are both union members and non-union members, and more importantly—Opposition members interjecting—2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—what the Employment Advocate will not do is come into someone's workplace and start canvassing for cheques to go to a union. The point is that it is a free service which is available to employees, so with any qualm or concern whatsoever they have that they are not receiving their due pay and conditions they can ask the Employment Advocate to come in and look on their behalf. That applies to both union and non-union members. What the opposition is seeking to do by removing schedule 13—entry and inspection of premises by organisations—as it was with the secret ballots, is to remove the fundamental rights of individuals.If four out of every five workers, or 80 out of every 100 workers, in Australia's private sector elect not to be part of a union, why should they and their employers have the imposition of the opposition's representatives—since every member of the opposition is in fact a member of a union—coming in, taking up their time and incurring the expense? Why should they run their fingers over the books and then talk to each one of these employees simply to be able to extract money from their pay packets to prop up the unions?I have no problem whatsoever with unions representing their members to the full. They should and, in fact, it is their obligation to ensure that their members are looked after and that their pay and conditions are met. But when the opposition suggests that the union should have unfettered right of entry, re gardless of whether it meets the interests of the workers, it is simply denying those workers and the employer their rights. The opposition stands condemned for both schedules 12 and 13. It cannot justify these in any shape or form. It will stand here and go on with a whole lot of rhetoric but, at the end of the day, it seeks to be able to build up membership of unions regardless of what they are going to provide. It takes away from the opposition the responsibility to provide a real service to union membership so that they will stick with the unions in the future. Do not talk about 1907; talk about 1999 and the role the opposition's unions play. Why is the opposition becoming an irrelevance? It is because it seeks to remove measures like this from bills such as this one before the parliament at the moment. (Time expired)18:49:0010957Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—Our next bracket of amendments deals specifically with the Office of the Employment Advocate, so I will leave the bulk of my comments in relation to that until then. I think the member for Longman honestly believes the things he just said, which indicates that he has swallowed the line. I hope when we talk about the OEA, he might have a better understanding of what the OEA actually does.The question as to why a union official should be able to check the time and wages book of someone who is not in the union is an interesting one. What is the purpose of a union official checking those time and wages books, safety procedures or any of those other matters? The principal purpose is to ensure the law is being adhered to. Why is it that the parliament would want to prevent the enforcement of laws or arrangements made in accordance with its laws? Why would any government want to put in place a system that facilitates, encourages and hides employers who wantonly or inadvertently break the law? That is precisely the mechanism we are now putting in place. In fact, to a large extent, it is already in place.Once upon a time, as I said, there were industrial inspectors who used to do this sort of work. There were never enough of them; they were never able to do the job properly. If you spoke to an industrial inspector, they would tell you that they relied on unions to ensure that awards, conditions, safety procedures and the like were being adhered to. That is what the industrial inspectorate used to say, but the industrial inspectorates have now gone. The Office of the Employment Advocate is not an industrial inspectorate, and I will say more about that when we get to it.The point is not whether people are in a union per se. The point is whether, as a legislature, we put in place a system that ensures for all Australians—whether or not they are in a union—a better chance of having their legal entitlements met. Say an employer has 10 workers and five of them are in a union and five of them are not. The union official goes in and checks the five who are in the union—provided that the procedures have been followed—but they are not to check the other five. Why would an employer not want to disclose the other five? If the employer is actually paying the legal rates of pay, why would they want to hide that? The truth is—and practice bears this out; if you talk to people on the ground they will tell you time and time again—that employers will not make that sort of information available because they know they are breaking the law and they do not want to be exposed. But there is another side to this: it is the side of the decent employers who are doing the right thing. The National Electrical and Communications Association, an employer body, in a submission to the Senate inquiry, commented specifically on this right of entry issue:The proposed amendments make it increasingly difficult for union officials to enter the workplace for the inspection of pay records, and these people have been the only enforcers since workplace inspectors have gone.The submission went on:The action aimed to provide protection to both employees and employers. The above proposal could have the effect of making low union density industries' employees more vulnerable.This employers association understands that in practice the only people who are actually ensuring that award or certified agreement wages and conditions are being paid, that safety conditions are being met and that superannuation is being paid are the union officials. The decent employers that are doing that know that they have to compete with the unprincipled employers that are cutting corners and cutting people's conditions and wages. They have to compete out there on an unfair basis. What the decent employers have said in a submission to the Senate inquiry on this very bill is: `Let the union officials do that job properly. Let the law be enforced properly. Don't expose us as decent employers to the unscrupulous ones. That is an unfair advantage that you give to the unscrupulous employers.' Sadly, that is the model we now have, and it is about to get a lot worse under this bill.18:54:0010958Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I do not wish to add much to what has been said by the honourable member for Longman on this issue. I simply restate what we think is a fair principle, and that is that unions should have a right of entry but they should have a right of entry upon request of their members. When all is said and done, we think that is a fair proposition. In some of the consultations that we have had when we have discussed this issue and explained it to people we have found there is quite a lot of support for that proposition. We will obviously reject Labor's amendment.In respect of freedom of association, let me simply say here again that there is a simple principle at stake: people have a right to join a union and likewise they have a right to not join a union. We simply want to ensure that those rights can be observed. We find it strange indeed that the Labor Party should be opposing what are essentially technical amendments to make sure that those basic rights that people enjoy can be upheld through the legal system.I am not surprised they would oppose these proposals, because we find today that the Labor Party in New South Wales is proposing a system to require non-unionists to pay between $250 and $500 a year to the trade unions in New South Wales.83KROXONMs Roxon—That has nothing to do with the amendment, and you know it.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—It does have something to do with it. It goes to the basic proposition as to whether or not you genuinely believe people should have basic rights to join or not to join an association. You talk about freedom of association but you have never been in a shearing shed in Queensland and had an AWU bloke come around, barge his way in, and basically muscle in and heavy people. With great respect, the honourable member simply has not had much dose of real life and an understanding of what actually happens in these workplaces. If you had some idea of what it is like to run a small business and to have a union heavy come in and start pushing their weight around, you would not make some of the rather more ridiculous statements that the Labor Party makes.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—View from the penthouse.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—The fact is that the view on this issue is the view of a trade union official. That is the problem with the Labor Party. Fifty years ago a lot of people were in unions and you could understand a lot of ex-trade union officials being in the Labor Party. People in modern Australia have been leaving unions, but the trouble is the front bench of the Labor Party is still run by former trade union officials.When it comes to a simple thing like freedom of association, when it comes to basic principles like your right to join or not to join a union and the right to run your business without being harassed by some union thug, then you people have a blind spot about basic rights.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Now you are going to harass the union members who want to be in unions.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Jagajaga should not harass the minister.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Here is a classic example of this blind spot: here in New South Wales—and you all think it is great—they are proposing a policy, which you all support, where people who are not members of a union will have to pay $250 to $500 to a union of which they decided not to be a member.Opposition members interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—That is because I am happy to support somebody's argument. I am prepared to support somebody's argument on the merits. In this debate, you are the ideological ones; we are the pragmatic ones. We just want a system that works in the interests of employees and employers.This is one of the most outrageous proposals the Labor Party has ever put up to basically dragoon people into a form of compulsory union membership, which thereby portrays your real attitude on this issue. When we hear the member for—Lalor?PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Gellibrand.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—One Labor backbencher is the same as the next.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—She will be here a lot longer than you will.VU5GRIFFINMr Griffin—She has never lost a seat.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—She has never won one from the Liberal Party either. Let her start by telling us the answer to this: what is your basic objection to the idea that right of entry should be for those who are members of unions? (Time expired)18:59:0010959Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—At the risk of introducing some facts into the debate, we have just had the view from the penthouse of the way in which workers see the world. If we are talking about people who are in unions, who want to be in unions and the encouragement or discouragement to join, the simple fact is that all the major surveys I have ever seen done on unionism and people's attitudes to it show that some 40 per cent of the population say they want to be in a union. In fact, about 28 per cent of the population are in a union. What that means is that about 12 per cent of the population actually want to join a union and are being denied or persuaded or prevented in their workplace from doing it.This government has gone out of its way to take a very one-sided view of the debate. In his comments a moment ago the minister was at pains to try and talk about the fact that somehow all the ideologues in this debate are on this side of the House. I do not mind being called an ideologue in many respects, and certainly in this debate I can handle that crown quite happily. But to describe this minister as not ideologically involved in this issue is stretching things. I remind the minister of what he said to that business lunch in Perth just last year: `Never forget the history of politics. Never forget which side we're on. We're on the side of making profits. We're on the side of people owning private capital.'That is what the minister said to a business audience just to make it plain to everybody that, when it comes to running his portfolio, he is not about an even-handed balance system. He is not about looking after the interests of workers. He is not about looking after the competing interests of capital and labour. What this minister has clearly placed on the record is an overwhelming commitment he has to the side of capital. If we want to be ideological about it, let me mention the hard-nosed ideology that has been brought to bear in industrial relations. And the minister is proud of it in other places. When he sits down with the H.R. Nicholls Society he actually beats his chest to show the H.R. Nicholls Society how macho he has been; to tell them how ideologically committed he is to the cause.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—That is a vision worth contemplating!ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—It is a frightening prospect. I am glad I am not invited. Unfortunately, that hairy-chested attitude that the minister likes to adopt in this regard has been at the cost of ordinary Australian workers' entitlements. In relation to the question that is before us now, there is no sensible reason why government seeks to prevent the enforcement of awards, the enforcement of safety provisions and the enforcement of other legal entitlements. But for ideological reasons this bill does just that.19:02:0010959Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—This is not a view from the penthouse, shadow minister, because I lived in a shed for seven years. We ran a little factory and I can tell you that I know your union mates first-hand. We ran a tiny little business, we worked like hell, and I know what your union thugs are like. Let me tell you a few little stories from the factory floor, because I am fed up with your ideological rubbish. You do not give a hoot about small business and you do not care about jobs. You know that this minister has been able to deliver more employment. We have got unemployment down to—what is it?—7.1, 7.2 per cent. You do not care at all for those people that are out of work, and you certainly do not care about small business. Let me mention a few views from the shed and the factory floor.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! Before the member for Dawson continues, I might remind her to address her remarks through the chair.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will do that. I am afraid my passions ran away with me, because I well and truly remember what it was like. I will tell you a few little stories about what it was like. I can well recall employing some people in our factory when the union rep came along. He was known as `red socks'—red socks in more ways than one. Do you know what? These people had been unemployed for 18 months, so they had absolutely no money and they had families. We took them on board and the union rep, who had access whenever he wanted, came in and said they had to join the union and had to pay up—I cannot remember the amount—about 150 or 200 bucks. They did not have it. I certainly was not going to pay it, so they had to leave. So much for unfettered access. So much for freedom of association. Way back then you did two people out of a job. I can recall a host of other things that happened.Those opposite talk about people being able to come in and have unfettered right of entry. I can tell you that when you are a small business trying to do a contract it is an absolute and utter nuisance. There is no problem with a union coming in and checking on the terms and conditions, if they have an invitation from a member on the site and the member has their identity protected. There is no problem with that. But we were being hassled all the time. Those opposite have never worked in a small business. Being hassled continually by the union rep was an absolute nuisance. I see they are laughing. They think it is funny. I suppose they think that 7.1 per cent unemployment is funny too. Is that something to laugh at? I do not think so. They are living in the past, because they will never get unemployment down.Do you remember Mr Beattie who promised five per cent unemployment? Let me tell you what he is doing in Queensland, and the shadow minister would know this. I have been talking to some of the cane farmers. The Labor Party has done away with the levies that underpin research and development in Queensland for the sugar industry and the horticulture industry. It is not interested in the future; it is interested in the past. But what it has delivered in Queensland is unfettered right of entry. So cane farming families, small business, are just going to have the union reps walking through their farm, going through their books and interrupting their operation.What the minister has proposed is fair, decent and balanced. There is nothing wrong with that. What those opposite propose is a walk in the past. They have no interest at all in the unemployed. They have no interest in small business. They have no interest in balance and fairness. What is wrong with a member issuing an invitation for the union rep to come in? There is nothing wrong with them doing that and checking the terms and conditions of their employment. There is then an opportunity, through the Employment Advocate, for the department to investigate any award breaches. That is fair and reasonable. Unfortunately, there are employers who do do the wrong thing—I grant you that—and there should be an opportunity for that to be checked. But what the minister is suggesting is absolutely fair and reasonable. But those opposite do not want that. What they really want to do is to ratch up their union membership. That is what this is all about—preserving their power base and forgetting about small business and the unemployed. I am totally and completely in support of what the minister is doing.Amendments negatived.19:07:0010960Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 7 to 10 and 41 to 56:(7) Schedule 2, after item 3, page 7 (after line 16) insert 3A Subsection 4(1) (definition of Employment Advocate )Repeal the definition.(8) Schedule 2, item 18, page 9 (line 27) to page 10 (line 7), omit the item.(9) Schedule 3, item 1, page 43, (lines 5 and 6) omit the item, substitute:1. Part IVARepeal the Part.(10) Schedule 3, after item 7, page 44 (after line 4) add8 Paragraph 298T(2)(d)Repeal the paragraph, substitute: "(d) the Commission; or".(41) Schedule 8, item 59, page 126 (lines 7 to 19), omit the item.(42) Schedule 8, after item 73, page 130 (after line 15) insert:73A Section 170X (definition of designated award )Omit the definition, substitute:" designated award , in relation to a person to whom an agreement will apply, means an award that the Commission, under section 170XE or under section 170EF has determined to be appropriate for the purpose of deciding whether the agreement passes the no-disadvantage test;".(43) Schedule 8, after item 73, page 130 (after line 15) insert:73B Section 170XAOmit "the Employment Advocate or".(44) Schedule 8, after item 73, page 130 (after line 15) insert:73C Section 170XEOmit "the Employment Advocate" (twice occurring), substitute "the Commission".(45) Schedule 9, page 133-169, omit "Employment Advocate" (wherever occurring), substitute "Commission".(46) Schedule 9, item 1, page 144 (line 28) to page 145 (line 25) omit section 170VD.(47) Schedule 9, item 16, page 167 (lines 5 and 6), omit the item, substitute:"16 Subsection 170WI(1)(1) The Commission may issue a verified copy of any document filed with, or issued or approved by, the Commission under this Part. The verified copy may only be issued to a person who is or was a party to the AWA or ancillary document to which the verified copy relates.". (48) Schedule 9, after item 17, page 167 (lines 7 and 8), omit the item, substitute:"17 Subsection 170WI(2)Omit "Employment Advocate", substitute "Commission.".(49) Schedule 9, item 17, page 167, after line 8, omit the item, insert:17A Paragraph 170WI(2)(b)Omit "Employment Advocate or".(50) Schedule 9, item 18, page 167 (lines 9 and 10), omit the item, substitute:18 Subsection 170WI(3)Omit "Employment Advocate" (twice occurring), substitute "Commission".(51) Schedule 9, item 19, page 167 (lines 11 and 12), omit the item.(52) Schedule 9, after item 22, page 167 (after line 24), insert:22A Section 170WKAOmit ", the Employment Advocate".(53) Schedule 9, after item 22, page 167 (after line 24) insert:22B Section 170WLOmit "the Employment Advocate", substitute "the Commission".(54) Schedule 9, after item 22, page 167 (after line 24) insert:22C Section 170XOmit "Employment Advocate", substitute "Commission".(55) Schedule 9, after item 22, page 167 (after line 24) insert:22D Section 170XAOmit "the Employment Advocate or."(56) Schedule 9, after item 22, page 167 (after line 24) insert:22E Section 170XEOmit "Employment Advocate", substitute "Commission".These amendments deal with the abolition of the Office of the Employment Advocate. The Office of the Employment Advocate was presented by this government, prior to their election to office, as a vehicle through which individual workers could gain protection in the workplace. It was supposed to be the place workers could go if they thought their employer was not doing the right thing by them. In fact, the government's policy document even referred to the fact that it would have special concern for those in disadvantaged circumstances, those from non-English speaking backgrounds, women, and those in our community who generally do less well in industrial relations.Now that we have had the office running for a few years, it is absolutely clear that they have done precious little of that. What they have done is expend a considerable amount of money, resources and human effort in endeavouring to undermine collective agreements. They have gone from work site to work site encouraging workers to leave unions, they have gone from work site to work site encouraging people to sign AWAs, and they have gone from work site to work site encouraging people to leave awards and agreements and to move into what is the minister's preferred model. But outside of this minister and the current caretaker Premier of Victoria there are not too many people in Australia who are attracted to those AWAs.It might be useful to look at the operations of the OEA as explained by some practitioners in submissions to the Senate inquiry. A statutory declaration submitted by the Transport Workers Union sheds a bit of light on what happens on the ground. It refers to a union campaign to recruit people during the course of which they came across an employee of the Employment Advocate. The statutory declaration reads, in part:I understand that soon after the programme had commenced a person whom I now know as Mr. Tim Mohr, an Employment Advocate, arrived at the On Line depot. Tim Mohr stayed for the duration of the five hours. During this period of time I spoke to many truck drivers some of whom had flagrantly broken driving hours, and some of whom also were driving vehicles that would be considered to be defective.I observed during this time Tim Mohr took photographs of both myself and other officials whilst we were carrying out our duties. On one occasion I spoke to a driver who had been driving shockingly excessive hours and I requested that Tim Mohr come down and discuss the matter with myself and the driver. I told Mr. Mohr that the driver had worked some 16 (sixteen) hours straight and I asked Mr. Mohr `What are you going to do about it? 'Mr. Mohr said he was not doing anything about it at all and in fact it had nothing to do with him. The only duty he had to perform was `freedom of association'. He was not interested in any other matter.84CTHOMPSONMr Cameron Thompson—Hear, hear!ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—And we get `Hear, hear!' from the government benches in response to that. The statutory declaration goes on:Approximately half an hour later I noticed a truck with tyres that appeared to be bald and defective. I again called on Tim Mohr and asked what he would do about it, but he replied again that it had nothing to do with him and that he was only there to see that freedom of association was carried out.I stated to Mohr that his work description must be very narrow and he would not have much work to perform.That paragraph in the statutory declaration continues:It was quite obvious to me that the appointed `Employment Advocates' were not there to assist workers to do wage claims or offer any assistance . . . but were purely there for the purpose of persecuting union officials and current union members, and to ensure that workers were to be excluded from trade unions.There is a statutory declaration that sets out what happens in real life, where the Employment Advocate had had drawn to his attention the illegal operations in the trucking industry and not only refused to take any action on it but pointed out to the Transport Workers Union official who raised it with him that that was none of his concern. That in fact was the honest answer from the Employment Advocate, because the truth is that the Employment Advocate has not, at any time, been about protecting individual workers in the way it was portrayed. The Employment Advocate has been and is the industrial police force for this government's political campaigns. It is an abhorrent office that has failed any reasonable test of equity and it should be abolished. (Time expired)19:12:0010962Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The Office of the Employment Advocate have done a good job. They have undertaken the tasks established for them in the federal legislation. That legislation was agreed between the government and the Australian Democrats. The purpose of the Employment Advocate, amongst others, was to approve Australian workplace agreements and also to act as a policeman to provide protection for both employers and employees and to require people to observe the law.83KROXONMs Roxon—In the pursuit of payment?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—In respect of the pursuit of payment, some of these amendments, which you are opposing as I understand it, would allow the Employment Advocate to pursue payments on behalf of employees. I am not surprised that you would say one thing and vote another way because that, quite frankly, is typical of the way in which these amendments are being handled. I think it is a good idea that the advocate should have such powers. We have concrete proposals for the support of employees and the honourable member for Gellibrand, who is a new member, sits in here catcalling from the back and has not bothered to read what the government is proposing.Ms Roxon interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—That is a fact. You have just demonstrated it. The Employment Advocate—ET4BEVISMr Bevis—You are admitting that they have not done it in the past.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I am simply referring to the fact that specifically in this bill there are particular provisions relating to certain circumstances where the Employment Advocate will have a power.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Which they did not do in the past.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Well because—you read it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The chair would be most grateful if the minister would ignore the interjections from my left.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I would be happy to ignore the shadow minister—that would not require any great effort. I simply suggest to him that he should read the bill. If he read the bill and our amendments, he might understand what we are doing.The point I would make generally about the advocate is that the advocate has taken legal action against both employers and unions. That is because he has taken a balanced and fair view. It is true that there are some unions that are very unhappy that they have been on the receiving end of legal action by the Employment Advocate. I have no doubt that the CFMEU are very unhappy that they have had to comply with the law following legal action being taken by the advocate. But the truth is that, in this whole area of industrial relations, there are unions that think that the law is just there and is not something to be observed.We as a government said we would require people to observe the law. We require both unions and employers, as well as other parties, to observe the law. That is the real objection that the Labor Party has to the Employment Advocate. They hate the idea of having somebody who is able, with the resources made available to them, to actually ensure that the law is upheld. We support the advocate. We are pleased that the Democrats continue to support the work of the advocate.The advocate has also been able to streamline agreement making for those who want and have entered into either individual or collective AWAs. That is in everybody's interests. They have run that system very efficiently and we are now getting 90 or 95 per cent of those AWAs going through within 20 working days. That is a good system. You are opposed to that system, but it is a good system for literally tens of thousands of employees who have taken advantage of that option.You say that the advocate promotes AWAs. Sure, their job is to go around and ensure that people have information about the options available to them. What is wrong with telling employees what is available to them? The advocate has also been funding the working women centres and some legal aid type community centres. That is a good idea because that is another means of ensuring, through the advocate, that people have information about their rights.The advocate has done a good job. For all the Labor Party's opposition to the advocate and all the scrutiny under the Senate—which is fine; we are happy for that of course—you have not been able to demonstrate anything other than the fact that both the current advocate and his predecessor have run it very well. It has been a very successful office. They have done a good job. They have acted fairly and in accordance with the law set down by the parliament.19:17:0010964Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—There should be an independent, well-resourced industrial inspectorate that ensures conditions are properly adhered to. The Office of the Employment Advocate does not do that. I cited one example from evidence that has gone before the Senate. Frankly, I could bring along a list of examples where unions have written to the Office of the Employment Advocate giving details of breaches of awards and conditions where the Office of the Employment Advocate has taken no action.There is no question about the way in which the OEA approaches its task. It is biased and it is divisive. It is out of character with everything that the industrial relations framework has previously held dear, which is to maintain as best you can an independent commission and an independent registry. If there was any substance to what this government claims the OEA is supposed to do, then they would not have appointed to run its office someone who was a personal political staffer in the office of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, the minister responsible. You do not get confidence in the wider community about impartiality when you take a political staffer from the minister's office who was there in 1996 when all of these plans were hatched and then try to convince people that that person is now independent, does not come with baggage and is there to represent everyone's views.19:19:0010964Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—I want to make the quick point that we all understand that one of the roles of a union is to protect the rights of the work force to entitlements. The Office of the Employment Advocate is another measure which further strengthens that. The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has stated here at the dispatch box that there have been prosecutions of both unions and employers, which simply means that there have been illegal practices undertaken by both parties. The Employment Advocate has actually operated in the manner intended and has perhaps made the workplace safer and the entitlements more readily available to the worker, as they should be.Why would you wish to remove the Office of the Employment Advocate from the legislation and from the jurisdiction? The advocate further strengthens the rights and responsibilities of the workers, and that maintains the equality of rights whereby the unions do not have unfettered entry and the employers cannot run roughshod over their work force. Simply put, you only want it one way. You want the unions to have the role of policing in the workplace and for them to have that role against the employer, with no balance to it whatsoever.We have seen closed shops where, particularly in the transport industry, you see contractors come in with no ticket, so they cannot work. They are sent away. These are the sorts of things that have to be overcome, as much as ensuring that workers get their entitlements and that there are safe work practices. The Office of the Employment Advocate is a very integral part of protecting both sides of this argument.You state an affidavit given before the inquiry. The fact is that you have quoted someone from a union official's position, not from an unbiased position. It was not a third party but a statutory declaration. The facts are before you that both sides have been prosecuted, yet you stand before us and tell us that this is a biased organisation which is set up to do one thing—to destroy unions. You do come from an ideological bent on this. Those opposite certainly do see things through blinkers. The ALP are here to do one thing only: to protect those that feed them—the union bosses—and the money they constantly put into the campaign funds of all of those opposite.It is time that the opposition took a more pragmatic look at this. Look at your role not only as members of the Labor Party and members of unions but as members of the wider working community. You should support measures such as the Office of the Employment Advocate as another important way of protecting the rights of workers, unions and employers.Amendments negatived.19:22:0010965Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—by leave—I move:(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 32), at the end of the clause, add:(11) If, on the day this Act receives the Royal Assent, subsection 83(2) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 has been repealed and replaced by an amendment made under the Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Act 1999 , subitem 120(1) has no effect.(12) If, on the day this Act receives the Royal Assent, subsection 83(2) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 has not been so repealed and replaced: (a) subitem 120(1) has effect; and (b) if, subsequently, the repeal and replacement occurs, subitem 120(2) commences immediately after that repeal and replacement is effected.(2) Schedule 2, items 3 and 4, page 7 (lines 14 to 18), omit the items.(3) Schedule 2, item 12, page 8 (after line 23), after subsection (3A), insert:(3B) A person is not entitled to be styled "Justice" merely because the person is acting, or has acted, as a Presidential member.(4) Schedule 2, item 33, page 13 (lines 7 and 8), omit the item.(5) Schedule 2, item 120, pages 25 and 26, omit the item, substitute:120 Subsection 83(2)(1) Omit "Industrial Registrar", substitute "Workplace Relations Registrar".(2) Omit "Industrial Registrar" (wherever occurring), substitute "Workplace Relations Registrar".(6) Schedule 4, item 1, page 45 (line 8), after "Part VI,", insert "Division 2 or".(7) Schedule 4, item 61, page 58 (line 31) to page 59 (line 18), omit the item.(8) Schedule 6, page 69 (after line 17), after item 11, insert:11A After paragraph 89A(2)(s)Insert: (sa) bonuses for outworkers;11B Paragraph 89A(2)(t)After "pay" (first and second occurring), insert "(other than bonuses)".(9) Schedule 6, item 26, page 72 (line 32), omit "After subsection 113(3) ", substitute "Before subsection 113(4) ".(10) Schedule 6, item 26, page 73 (line 1), omit "(3A)", substitute "(3C)".(11) Schedule 6, item 51, page 83 (line 16), omit "commencement of that item", substitute "end of the interim period (within the meaning of item 39)".(12) Schedule 7, item 6, page 86 (lines 10 to 12), omit paragraphs (1)(a) and (b), substitute: (a) the provisions of any law of a State; or (b) the provisions of any award made under such a law;(13) Schedule 7, item 6, page 86 (lines 15 to 24), omit subsection (2).(14) Schedule 7, item 6, page 86 (lines 29 to 31), omit paragraphs (3)(a) and (b), substitute: (a) the provisions of any law of a State; or (b) the provisions of any award made under such a law;(15) Schedule 7, item 6, page 87 (line 3), omit "Territory employees covered by subsection 170CB(1),".(16) Schedule 7, item 6, page 87 (lines 9 and 10), omit the note, substitute:Note: This section deals only with certain employees who are not covered by an award or who are not covered by an award that relates to termination of employment. In relation to those who are so covered, see section 152.(17) Schedule 7, item 34, page 100 (line 3), omit "170HJ", substitute "170HI".(18) Schedule 8, item 5, page 105 (after line 32), at the end of subsection (5), add: Note: This subsection provides immunity from liability for breach of an award or agreement for a person who has acted in accordance with a certified agreement that has later been varied, or overturned, on appeal.(19) Schedule 8, page 106 (after line 11), after item 5, insert:5A Paragraph 143(3)(a) Omit "the list", substitute "a list".(20) Schedule 8, item 25, page 111 (lines 5 and 6), omit "the Court", substitute "a court".(21) Schedule 8, item 25, page 111 (line 27), omit "and".(22) Schedule 8, item 25, page 111 (line 30), omit "and". (23) Schedule 8, page 119 (after line 30), after item 33, insert:33A Paragraph 170LU(2)(c)Omit "the Court", substitute "a court".(24) Schedule 8, page 127 (after line 14), after item 63, insert:63A After subsection 170MH(2)Insert:(2A) However, the Commission may only obtain the views of an organisation that is bound by an agreement made in accordance with section 170LK if the organisation has at least one member: (a) whose employment is subject to the agreement; and (b) whose industrial interests the organisation is entitled to represent in relation to work that is subject to the agreement; and (c) who requested the organisation to give the Commission views about whether the agreement should be terminated.(25) Schedule 9, item 1, page 142 (line 13), omit "paragraphs", substitute "paragraph".(26) Schedule 9, item 1, page 154 (after line 24), add:However, this subsection does not apply to the requirements in subsections 170VBB(4) and (5) (as those subsections apply to variation agreements).Note: The AWA, as varied, must pass the no-disadvantage test as required by paragraph (1)(d).(27) Schedule 9, item 1, page 155 (lines 1 to 3), omit all the words from and including "However," to and including "agreements).".(28) Schedule 9, item 1, page 155 (lines 4 and 5), omit the note.(29) Schedule 9, item 1, page 156 (line 9), omit "170VEE(1)", substitute "170VEE(2)".(30) Schedule 9, item 7, page 163 (line 16), after "employee", insert "(or the Employment Advocate, or an authorised officer, on the employee's behalf)".(31) Schedule 9, item 7, page 164 (line 9), after "employee", insert "(or the Employment Advocate, or an authorised officer, on the employee's behalf)".(32) Schedule 9, item 7, page 164 (line 23), after "employee", insert "(or the Employment Advocate, or an authorised officer, on the employee's behalf)".(33) Schedule 9, item 7, page 165 (line 12), after "employee", insert "(or the Employment Advocate, or an authorised officer, on the employee's behalf)". (34) Schedule 9, page 167 (after line 24), after item 22, insert:22A Paragraph 170WL(d)Repeal the paragraph.(35) Schedule 11, item 10, page 181 (line 2), after "section", insert "(including the question of whether the industrial action is, or is likely to be, unprotected)".(36) Schedule 11, item 35, page 189 (line 13 to line 16), omit subsection (2), substitute:(2) However, the Court must not grant a final or interlocutory injunction to prevent a person or organisation from instituting or pursuing an action in relation to the industrial action under: (a) section 127; or (b) any of sections 170MW to 170MWI; or (c) any law, whether written or unwritten, in force in a State or Territory.(37) Schedule 11, item 36, page 193 (line 11), omit "may", substitute "must".(38) Schedule 11, item 36, page 195 (line 31), after "suspension", insert "would, but for the suspension,".(39) Schedule 11, item 36, page 198 (lines 2 and 3), omit "170MWG(4A) exists", substitute "170MWG(5) exists or existed".(40) Schedule 11, item 42, page 204 (line 8), after "industrial action", insert "(whether or not protected action)".(41) Schedule 12, item 22, page 217 (lines 3 to 10), omit paragraph (b) of the definition of relevant employee , substitute: (b) if an employee is a negotiating party to the agreement—any employee who is a negotiating party to the agreement;but does not include an employee: (c) who is a party to an AWA whose nominal expiry date has not passed; or (d) whose employment is subject to a state employment agreement, the last day of whose nominal period of operation, however described, has not passed.(42) Schedule 12, item 22, page 235 (after line 13), after subsection (3), insert:(3A) However, if all of the persons who were joint applicants for the order at the time the order was made request the Commonwealth to pay the amount that is 80% of the reasonable ballot cost otherwise than as specified in subsection (3), the Commonwealth is liable to distribute that amount in accordance with the request. (43) Schedule 12, item 22, page 236 (lines 9 and 10), omit "or (c)", substitute ", (c) or (d)".(44) Schedule 12, item 22, page 236 (lines 12 and 13), omit the note.(45) Schedule 13, item 21, page 255 (line 19), at the end of paragraph (a), add "no earlier than 28 days before the organisation's application to the Registrar is made".(46) Schedule 13, item 21, page 255 (line 21), omit "285CA(a)", substitute "285CA(1)(a)".(47) Schedule 14, item 6, page 260 (lines 14 to 20), omit subsection (3).(48) Schedule 17, item 6, page 291 (line 21), omit "Industrial Organisations Act 1997 ", substitute "Industrial Relations Act 1999 ".(49) Schedule 17, page 291 (after line 24), after item 6, insert:6A Subparagraph 253ZJ(1)(c)(i) Omit "3", substitute "4".(50) Schedule 18, page 294 (after line 21), after item 6, insert:6A Paragraph 6(1)(d)Omit "Australian Chamber of Manufactures", substitute "Business Council of Australia".6B Paragraph 6(1)(e)Omit "Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia", substitute "Australian Industry Group".(51) Schedule 18, item 8, page 295 (lines 4 and 5), omit the item, substitute:8 Section 135Repeal the section, substitute:135 Application of DivisionThis Division applies subject to: (a) any industrial agreement; and (b) any award in force under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 that was made: (a) in relation to an industrial issue referred to in paragraph 5(3)(b) of that Act; or (b) under Division 2 of Part III of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 .(52) Schedule 18, page 296 (after line 22), after item 23, insert: Social Security Act 199123A After paragraph 553A(4)(c)Insert:or (d) a Supreme Court of a State or Territory;23B Subsection 596(4)Omit "or the Federal Court", substitute ", the Federal Court or the Supreme Court of a State or Territory".23C Subsection 660XBE(4)Omit "or the Federal Court", substitute ", the Federal Court or the Supreme Court of a State or Territory".23D Subsection 771HB(4)Omit "or the Federal Court", substitute ", the Federal Court or the Supreme Court of a State or Territory".Most of the amendments are technical in character, designed to ensure the provisions of the bill operate in the manner intended. The remaining amendments result from consultations with a range of groups, including employer and employee representatives, women's groups, church groups, legal practitioners and industrial advocates.Let me address each of these non-technical amendments in turn. Award bonuses payable to outworkers: the government is proposing amendments to section 89A of the act to create a new allowable award matter `bonuses for outworkers'. This is amendment No. 8. As a result of this amendment, the commission would be able to include in awards clauses concerning bonuses for outworkers. The amendment is intended to ensure that, while bonuses generally are to be removed from the list of allowable award matters, outworkers who are paid in accordance with bonus systems, such as the payment by result system set out in the clothing trades award, do not lose access to this form of remuneration.Delayed commencement of prohibition on the commission varying awards to make a safety net adjustment is a further amendment. The amendment would have the effect of delaying the commencement of the provisions of the bill that prevent the commission from varying awards to include safety net wage adjustments where those awards have not been simplified. This is amendment No. 11 of our amendments. As a result of this amendment, the prohibition on safety net adjustment where awards have not been simplified would commence at the end of a six-month interim period set for the further simplification of federal awards.The matter I was referring to a moment ago relates to the right of the Employment Advocate to take action on behalf of employees to recoup shortfalls in entitlements under AWAs. The government proposes amendments to the bill to ensure that the Employment Advocate and his authorised officers are able to take action in the courts on behalf of employees to recoup shortfalls in entitlements under AWAs. These are amendments Nos 30 to 33. The Employment Advocate or authorised officer will be able to take action on behalf of an employee to recover shortfalls in the following circumstances: first, where an AWA has stopped operating either because an employer has failed to lodge the AWA for approval or because the Employment Advocate has not approved the AWA. In this case the Employment Advocate or authorised officer will be able to take action on behalf of an employee to recover any shortfall between the amount paid under the AWA and the entitlements under the relevant award.Second, where an employee's entitlements under an AWA have been increased as a result of undertakings provided to the Employment Advocate by an employer during the approval process. In this case the Employment Advocate or authorised officer will be able to take action on behalf of the employee to recover any shortfall between the amount paid under the AWA before the undertakings were given and the amount the employee would have received if the increase due to the undertaking had been paid from the outset. Perhaps the member for Gellibrand will publicly support that one.In order to increase the effectiveness of the commission's power to issue orders in relation to industrial action, the government proposes an amendment to item 35 of schedule 11. This amendment to proposed subsection 170MT(2) would make it clear that the Federal Court does not have the jurisdiction to issue an interlocutory or final injunction to prevent a person from bringing an action in the commission either under section 127 of the act for an order to stop or prevent industrial action or under any of sections 170MW to 170MW(1) which deal with actions to suspend or terminate a bargaining period. In addition, and as originally proposed in the bill, the Federal Court will not be able to issue injunctions preventing a person or organisation pursuing an action under a law of a state or territory in relation to industrial action.As a result of representations made by certain employee interests, an amendment is proposed in respect of subparagraph 253ZJ(1)(c)(i) of the Workplace Relations Act. The effect of this amendment would be to extend by another 12 months the time limit for the making of applications to withdraw from union amalgamations that took place before the commencement of the provisions dealing with the withdrawal from amalgamations. The provisions governing withdrawal from union amalgamations commenced on 31 December 1996. The effect of this amendment will be to extend the time limit within which an application can be made to withdraw from pre-1997 amalgamations to 31 December 2000. That is another benefit to employees wanting to exercise their rights under those particular provisions.I suspect that there will be more government amendments as we go through. I say that because we are sitting down and talking to interested parties. We are prepared to respond to issues as they arise. It is a big bill; there are a lot of changes. A lot of them are technical, but we will continue to have consultations with people. We are genuinely interested in what people are saying, and we will respond as appropriate. I table the supplementary explanatory memorandum. (Time expired)Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.10968Motion (by Mr Reith)—by leave—put:That the bill be now read a third time. 19:32:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew)70Mr K. J. AndrewsMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BarresiMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr BroughMr CadmanMr CameronMr CausleyMr CharlesMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Mrs GallusMs GambaroMrs GashMr HaaseMr HardgraveMr HawkerMr HockeyMrs HullMr JullMr KatterMrs D. M. KellyJackie KellyDr KempMr LawlerMr LiebermanMr LindsayMr LloydMr McArthur*Mr I. E. MacfarlaneMr McGauranMrs MayMrs MoylanMr NairnMr NehlDr NelsonMr NevilleMr NugentMr PyneMr ReithMr RonaldsonMr RuddockMr St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperMr SomlyayDr SouthcottDr StoneMrs SullivanMr C. P. ThompsonMr A. P. ThomsonMr TuckeyMr M. A. J. VaileMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs Worth62Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr AndrenMr BevisMr CoxMr CreanMr DanbyMr EdwardsMs EllisDr EmersonMr G. J. EvansMr M. J. EvansMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMs KernotMr KerrMr LathamDr LawrenceMs LivermoreMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McLeayMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MossfieldMr MurphyMs O'ByrneMr O'ConnorMr O'KeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*The Hon SciaccaMr Sercombe*Mr SidebottomMr SmithMr SnowdonMr SwanMr TannerDr TheophanousMr WilkieMr WiltonMr ZahraMr HowardMr BeazleyMr CostelloMr BreretonMr DownerMr LeeMr ProsserMs Burke* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a third time.Bill read a third time.Adjournment1096910969Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Order! It being past 7.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.SE4BISHOPMrs Bronwyn Bishop—Mr Speaker, I require that the question be put forthwith without debate.Question resolved in the negative.Bills10969r84210969Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 2, item 16, page 29 (line 10), omit "1 July 1999 ", substitute "commencement ".(2) Schedule 3, item 21, page 37 (lines 14 and 15), omit "1 July 1999 ", substitute "commencement ".Motion (by Mrs Bronwyn Bishop) proposed:That the amendments be agreed to. 19:38:0010970Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—On behalf of the Labor Party, I just want to put on the record of this House our concern that the Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999 does not satisfactorily represent the problems that have occurred due to the aged care cuts. Labor moved a number of amendments in the Senate. The first ones were aimed at consumer protection. We moved amendments aimed at protecting the rights of care recipients. Labor's amendments would have ensured that residents would be protected from poor providers. They would have ensured that residents would be eligible for the refund of their accommodation bonds and charges that were not spent appropriately by the providers, because at the moment there is no guarantee that the funds raised through the accommodation charge will actually be spent on improvements in capital works.These amendments were defeated by the government and, once again, by the Democrats, despite the support of consumer groups such as the Council on the Ageing and the Australian Pensioners and Superannuants Federation and other advocacy groups. This is proof that the government and the Democrats are more concerned about the rights of providers than about the rights and care of residents.Labor also put an amendment to the bill in the Senate aimed at protecting employees' rights in the aged care sector. Labor's amendment would have ensured that where a poor provider fled the industry they would not be allowed to sell their bed licences and pocket large sums of money if they owed debts to employees for unpaid entitlements. There are a number of court cases where this has occurred recently. The department has the power to halt the sale of the provider's bed licences, which are worth approximately $35,000 each. Our amendment simply stated that this sale could not go ahead unless the secretary to the department was assured that the provider had paid out any debts to staff.The government and the Democrats rejected this amendment, which shows the hypocrisy of this government with regard to the issue of Oakdale and workers' rights. Given the recent rhetoric of both parties on protecting the rights of workers, here was a simple solution to the problem that was available to the government. Once again, the government showed contempt for workers, just as it showed in the previous legislation that went through the House.19:41:0010970Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—I am delighted that we have been able to see the passage of this bill. It was unnecessarily—and in an obstructive manner—held up by the Labor Party in the Senate. They should have agreed to it in June, as it had non-controversial status, which would have enabled payments or refunds—as promised in the budget—to be made from 1 July. In fact, all they have successfully done is hold up those refunds from being made. There are also in place a number of other protections for individuals who are the focus of this government's policies in aged care. I am now pleased that the bill has finally passed through both houses and that the amendments which protect individual residents can now be put in place.Question resolved in the affirmative.Adjournment10970Motion (by Mrs Bronwyn Bishop) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.1097019:42:0010970Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—In his long and tortuous attempt to avoid responsibility for Australia's treatment of indigenous people, the Prime Minister consistently argued that what has occurred should be seen in its historical context. Unfortunately, in the case of Timor he has chosen to take a very different path, ignoring the fact that this government was dragged screaming into a fundamental change of policy and into trying to take `credit' at a personal level. As a person who has been very active in Parliamentarians for East Timor since I arrived in this parliament, I do not recall any activity or any support from the Prime Minister in that period of time. On the public record we have heard quotes about the way in which he attacked those people who were critical of Australia's position as undermining Australian-Indonesian relations.We heard many speeches last week from a variety of members with regard to this matter, and I want to take the opportunity to put on the public record a number of organisations and individuals who have fought over this issue for the last 25 years and have been unpopular in the Australian political system. Amongst those I have been associated with are John Birch, who introduced me to the issue at a Guildford branch of the Labor Party meeting—he is associated with Community Aid Abroad—and Pat Walsh, who recently accompanied Tim Fischer to Timor in the election process. In Sydney, with the Mary MacKillop Institute of East Timorese Studies based at the Josephite nuns, Jefferson Lee, Steve Langford, Max Lane, Joan Simpson, Deborah Hamilton, Michael Wagner, Jim Aubrey, Vaclava Vlazna, Andrew McNaughton, Linda Pillay, Paddy Keneally, Joanne Yates, who previously used to work for Senator Bourne, Trish Fury, Jenny Kanaley and Rodney Lewis are amongst those individuals who have been consistently strong on this issue and have continued to try to move government policy, regardless of who was in power.In this parliament before I arrived and was active in this matter, previous members Ken Fry, Tony Lamb, Senator Gordon McIntosh and Michael Hodgman were amongst those who maintained the rage over Australia's policy. For the period that I have been associated with the cause here, I wish to put on the public record the strong efforts of Senator Julian McGauran, Senator Vicki Bourne and the current members for the Northern Territory, Calare, Melbourne and Menzies as well as the support on different issues and in different situations of the member for Ballarat, the member for Hindmarsh, Senator Payne and the members for Scullin and Throsby.People who are no longer in this House but who were always prepared to lend some support to the Timorese cause include former members John Bradford, Tony Smith, Paul Filing and Garrie Gibson. All of those, in their own way, tried to press government policy, whether it was by moving motions in this House, taking up petitions or financing visits to the United Nations for people to represent the alternative point of view in this country.Amongst organisations that have continued to maintain opposition to Australian policy have been the East Timor Human Rights Centre, the East Timor International Support Centre, the Australian-East Timor Association, the East Timor Relief Association and the Australian Solidarity with Indonesia and East Timor.Mr Bartlett interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Reid will ignore the member for Macquarie, and so will the Speaker shortly. The member for Reid is being all embracing in his speech and I do not think it justifies this level of intervention.8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—All of these organisations have in some way continued to try to affect public opinion and to keep people informed about events. Amongst those who I have been associated with from the Timorese community have been Estanislau de Silva, Harold Moucho, Ines Almeide, Alfred Perreira, Joao Carrascaloa, and of course Jose Ramos Horta on the international stage.There have been many people in the last week or so who have suddenly professed great interest and great admiration for the Timorese cause and who have lamented the way in which the Timorese have been massacred, murdered and pushed into West Timor—and, essentially, they are being killed at this moment. An organisation within this parliament which is linked to international groups is the Parliamentarians for East Timor. We have had the opportunity to maintain contact, as I said earlier, and to go to the United Nations on two occasions to represent that view at the decolonisation hearings.I think it was necessary, in the context of a degree of triumphalism and a degree of patting on the back by a variety of members during the last week or so, that we put on the public record those people who, from the very beginning, supported the annexation. The Prime Minister has been very fulsome about how great he was. In the same way that Prime Minister Keating and Prime Minister Hawke had certain policies, he seems to no longer recall his presence at cabinet meetings in this country when this country gave de jure recognition to the Timor invasion.1097219:47:0010972Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—Tonight I want to raise the matter of the Y2K millennium bug, or, as we oldies understand it, the possibility that things with a computer chip in them will not work in the year 2000. Despite state Labor MPs' stories to the contrary, the federal government has been very active in promoting options, solutions and cooperative pathways for individuals, companies and all levels of government to ensure a smooth entry to the new millennium. Forums were held in capital cities during July, August and September, and they involved national speakers from the telecommunications, banking, finance and aviation infrastructure sectors. State speakers represented the water, electricity, gas and transport sectors.In February, the Commonwealth government enacted the Year 2000 Information Disclosure Act. Better known as the Good Samaritan legislation, it encourages organisations to be open about their level of Y2K readiness. The states have assisted by enacting legislation to complement the Commonwealth act. There is an enormous amount of information freely available to everyone on the Internet. This week a Y2K community brochure `You and the millennium bug' was released, which is designed to provide detailed Y2K information for households. The brochure has been produced in consultation with the states, territories and industry. The timing of this information has been important, as only now the public is seeking to know more.One example of the attitudinal change now becoming obvious in my electorate of Gilmore is that local electrical retailers are saying that, previously, customers would joke about the Y2K bug as they purchased their goods, but now they are coming in with the details of their purchases over the last 10 years, asking what will be okay and what will not. As the time draws near, people in my electorate are beginning to really think about the possible consequences. However, the Commonwealth is well on track to being prepared for smooth delivery of its key services over the New Year period. It will be business as usual.Back in 1998 we undertook to raise awareness and understanding by business, especially small to medium enterprises. The government has also made it financially attractive for business to address the Y2K issue by making most of the year 2000 software expenditure tax deductible. As a result of these activities, both the globally respected GartnerGroup and a United States Senate special committee have ranked Australia alongside the United States, United Kingdom and Canada in the top tier of the best Y2K prepared nations in the world.The BBC has named Australia and Finland as the safest destinations for tourists over the date change. However, that is no reason to be complacent. State reporting is crucial to maintaining our position at the top of the ladder. Also in today's global community no country can isolate itself from Y2K problems that other nations might experience, so the Commonwealth government is working with governments and industry in other countries to meet the challenges presented by the international dimension of the Y2K. This includes the promotion of Y2K compliance of international sectors such as aviation, telecommunications and shipping.We are taking a consistent position on an issue of national and international importance. To do this we have to face the facts, not the fiction. The federal government has been providing industry and the Australian community with the necessary information to address and manage the Y2K problem in a commonsense manner. Some other interesting facts are that Australian private enterprise will spend about $10 million to $12 million, and the federal government is spending $600 million on Y2K remediation and testing. Very few systems are expected to be non-compliant by the end of September, so we are about as ready as we can be. The information for householders and the like, contained in the new brochure `You and the millennium bug', has been compiled in a very readable and timely fashion. I, for one, will be distributing it throughout the 67 villages and towns in my electorate of Gilmore.The division of the responsibilities of federal and state governments is clear: at the federal level we are responsible for the national systems of banking, communications, finance, aviation and the like, and the states and territories are responsible for their systems, such as water, gas, electricity and transport. We have been working together to ensure that Australia and its systems move into a new millennium with little or no fuss—aside from the parties that we are going to have, of course.1097319:51:0010973Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—Tomorrow, 30 September 1999, will see the cessation of steel making in the Newcastle BHP plant, after 84 years. That will be marked by the walking out of the front gate of hundreds and hundreds of workers, and the workers will be management, design staff, people from the coke ovens, the sinter plant, the BOS and all the other parts of the works. There will be men and women, some of whom have worked there virtually all their working life. Even though they are from different sections and from different parts of BHP culture, they will walk out of the plant together—unified, perhaps, in this one final act.While this is happening, of course the whole of Australia is watching and has been watching for some time. They are watching with puzzlement. The first thing that they are asking is, `How did it happen? How did something as solid and secure as a steel making plant of this size somehow stop functioning?' The second thing they are asking is, `Will things be okay?' because they are aware that there are 1,500 retrenchments tomorrow from BHP direct staff and probably between 500 and 1,000 for downstream employees of contractors. So we are talking about a couple of thousand people and, with their children and families, we are talking about, all up, direct and indirect jobs losses of 7,000 to 10,000, therefore affecting very many thousands of families.As a harbinger of that, today we see that our trade deficit is in fact in further decline. One thing that is puzzling about this exercise is that, after the Newcastle plant stops producing, we will stop exporting 1.6 million tonnes of steel per year. We will not have it to sell. That will cost our balance of payments at least $1 billion per year and probably closer to $100 million per month. That will worsen our balance of payments. The fact is that while the Newcastle plant was an old plant its technology was effective and it was ready to be upgraded to modern technology. We badly need new technology for steel making in Australia, but unfortunately we will not be getting it at Newcastle with BHP at the moment—although we still hope that in the years ahead others will see the wisdom of investing in steel making in Newcastle and the Hunter. The fact is that when BHP got into difficulty, the government was not there with it. Just imagine what would happen if we were suddenly to be told that we would stop exporting $1 billion of wheat, lambs or almost anything else. It would be a national issue. It would be debated in this parliament. Governments would establish task forces and rush out and look at it seriously. We had none of that. We had a committee of parliamentarians that did not even have travel rights and had no support staff. We did not even take it seriously. That would puzzle many people: how could we sit by and watch? I suppose that in a sense it is symptomatic of the other parts of government industry policy.Will things be okay? Yes, eventually they will. Newcastle and the Hunter is a very strong community. It is adaptable. Its people are resilient, and we have been adapting and coping with adversity for very many years.IK6LLOYDMr Lloyd—That is because of the strong economy.FI4Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—Those members opposite who wish to make smart remarks really should know what they are talking about first. They really demean themselves by buying into that debate—particularly those who ask dorothy dixers of ministers who avoid the issues. The minister who today had the dorothy dixer was in Newcastle two months ago and made a solemn promise to those workers—a promise which he has not kept and which he today totally ignored. He promised job placement support for contract employees. He has not delivered yet. He did not announce it today. They will be gone, long gone, before he even gets around to addressing it. He spent 10 minutes addressing the chamber today about what wonderful things they have done—most of which were not his work and most of which he was not even involved in. But the one thing he could have answered, the one issue he had responsibility for, he did not even talk about. So, you guys, do not start that kind of nonsense in here.I want to express appreciation to those in the Australian community who have understood the issues, who have been empathetic and concerned. I particularly express appreciation to the Australian media, who have understood this as a major national catastrophe and have been watching and reporting on this issue. I want to say to them, on behalf of all the people of Newcastle, we will come through this because we are tough and we are positive—unlike the government. (Time expired)1097419:56:0010974Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—It seems that I spend quite a bit of time talking about football in this chamber at the moment, but I do want a raise a couple of issues. Obviously, with the beginning of the 1999 Rugby World Cup, the eyes of many parts of the world will particularly be on Wales, which is a country which I had the pleasure and privilege of visiting earlier this year. The reason I want to raise this tonight is that there are so many people in Australia who have Welsh backgrounds. Obviously, with a surname like Lloyd, I have a Welsh background, and it was the first time that I had the opportunity to visit Wales and to seek out some of my forefathers and learn a little about my history. There are so many people in Australia who have a Welsh background: people with names such as Jones, Evans, Williams, Lloyd, Morgan, Griffith, Thomas, Hughes, Davies, Rees, to name but a few: there are very many others. When I was in Wales I had the opportunity to meet with Mr Roger Pride of the Wales Tourist Board, and he informed me of a promotion that they are running, particularly in countries such as Australia—`Come Home for the Millennium'. Obviously, people are looking for different things to do in the year 2000, and the board's promotion is to visit Wales. I certainly appeal to everyone in Australia who may have emigrated from Wales or who has a Welsh background to consider visiting that country. I found it a country steeped in history, a country of immense natural beauty—and, more importantly, I found the people immensely friendly and very welcoming. It was a great privilege to be able to visit Wales and to meet so many of those people, and I am sure that many Australians who realise that they have a Welsh background but have never had the opportunity to visit would certainly enjoy going back to their homeland in the millennium.I also had the privilege of visiting the Welsh National Assembly, the new parliament, which was something of a learning experience and also a great honour, as I believe I was the first Australian parliamentarian to visit that parliament. Mr Speaker, I noted that they also had laptops built into their desks and had electronic voting, so they are certainly moving with the times—and we may consider those sorts of movements at some stage in the future. I would again commend to everyone who listens to this speech to consider visiting Wales. It is a magnificent country. It has the most beautiful scenery and the most amazing history. When you look at the buildings dating back to the 17th century, it is hard for us as a young country to comprehend that sort of history. Certainly, people visiting and going back home for the millennium is a great idea, and I wish them well with their promotion.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 8 p.m., the debate is interrupted.House adjourned at 8.00 p.m.Notices10974The following notice was given:Dr Theophanous To move:That this House:(1) notes that the Report "Going for Gold Immigration Entry Arrangements for the Olympic and Paralympics Games" by the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, has made significant criticism of the visitor visa system and has warned of the potential embarrassment that this will create during the Sydney Olympic Games;(2) notes that the Committee believes "that the higher refusal rates in some countries, and the difference between the ETA and non-ETA countries could produce embarrassing publicity detrimental to Australia's international image";(3) notes that the representatives of the Tourism Industry and other witnesses believe that the system is highly intrusive for those applying from non-ETA countries, in so far as applicants are required to give many assurances and much information—far in excess of what is necessary for a tourist visa;(4) notes that the Report confirms that those applying under the non-ETA ( a system mostly from third world countries) system was subject to a much higher rejection rate for visitor visas and that the system is widely perceived as highly discriminatory—these aspects of the system have been admitted by the Minister and his Department;(5) notes that the Committee Further recommended, "That an Independent review analyses the effect of the visa application fee on applications and the effect on Australia's image as a potential tourist destination"; and(6) calls upon the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and the Government to totally overhaul the current discredited visitor visa process and to develop as a matter of urgency in the lead up to the Olympic games, a fairer non-discriminatory system.1999-09-29Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members109761097610976Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—I rise today to comment on the recent Victorian election result. I note there are a number of my Victorian colleagues in the room from both sides of the chamber, and we were actually discussing aspects of this prior to the commencement of the day's play. Certainly it has been an amazing result for the Bracks led Labor opposition, although I am hoping it will soon be the Bracks led Labor government. I have to admit, as I have said privately and I will now say publicly, that I was shocked by the size of the swing to Labor. It certainly caught by surprise a range of people on my side of politics, and I think also on the other side.The actual nature of that swing raises some very interesting issues in terms of the future of politics in Victoria. Labor, for the first time since the mid-50s, is actually in a situation where it is extremely strong in regional and rural areas. In fact, more seats are now held by Labor members of parliament than by coalition members of parliament. In those circumstances, we look at seats like Ripon, which was once held—although with different boundaries—by the Premier, Henry Bolte, in the sixties.QK6SERCOMBEMr Sercombe—Who is the federal member for that area?VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFIN—Part of that area is, in fact, in the area of the member for Ballarat—my good friend and colleague across the way there—who has gone, as he said the other day, from having a range of four or five coalition state colleagues in the area—Opposition member interjecting—VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFIN—Six, I am now informed. He has gone from having a range of coalition state colleagues to a situation where he is now half a tank of petrol away from a friend. As I said, it must be a very large tank of petrol.Mr Ronaldson interjecting—VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFIN—Absolutely, he will have to make new friends. Certainly I know that the member for Ballarat is a man of quite consummate skill in these matters, and I am sure he will be successful at doing so. When we look also at areas in relation to country such as Gippsland East, Gippsland West and Mildura, we see that Independents who were there have held on. In fact, a new Independent was elected in Gippsland East, beating David Treasure, who was—as I understand it—known locally as `hidden Treasure' and ended up last Saturday week as being `buried Treasure'.What it does show is a real crisis for the coalition in regional Australia, because it shows that, in fact, there is a range of problems there with respect to their base vote and the capacity for that base vote to be maintained, particularly in a time of government. The Premier and the Premier's attitude and behaviour certainly also warrant comment. Certainly he was seen as being an extremely strong leader. Some of us would have called him almost dictatorial, and it is obvious from this election result that many Victorians felt the same way. In terms of Steve Bracks and his team, they ran a good campaign, a very sound campaign and a very effective campaign. (Time expired)1097710977Stone, Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLP10—There is unfinished federation business along the Murray River. In that region we have the great Murray, with the state border running along the high bank of the south side, so the river itself, from colonial days, has been designated the jurisdiction of New South Wales. But it is a problem for all of us living along the Murray, and particularly in my electorate—named Murray—where we have an incredible difficulty with the lack of state consistency in regulations that apply along that region. In 1979, 20 years ago, there was a border anomalies committee set up by both state governments to try to address some of these issues. Twenty years later, we still have major difficulties. Last Friday we had a seminar—`Meeting the Challenges of the Border'—in Albury, and again the list of problems was long.Let me suggest how difficult it is for someone who goes boating. With the high water mark on the south bank being the New South Wales border, there is a problem when a lake or a dam has been formed. What has been decided at this stage is that Lake Mulwala is to become the jurisdiction of New South Wales in terms of boating regulations and laws; and Lake Hume is to have split jurisdiction—north of the Bethanga Bridge will be New South Wales jurisdiction, south of the Bethanga Bridge becomes Victoria jurisdiction. As one can imagine, this is a huge problem when boaters and young families get into a boat, thinking they have the right fishing licences, and thinking they know about the speed limits and the sort of fire prevention equipment that needs to be carried in the boat for one state, and then they magically end up in the jurisdiction of another. That is one small example, but the list goes on and on.We have towns all along the Murray: twin towns like Cobram and Barooga, Echuca and Moama, Barham and Koondrook, Albury and Wodonga. Long ago the communities worked out that, although separated by a border and river, they share the same community of interest. People are working together to develop their tourism and their businesses, and their families are spread on both sides of the border, very much like the pre-colonial days when the Aboriginal tribes had no sense of the river being a barrier. While those communities are getting on with it, they face daily this incredible frustration of the split jurisdictions.Imagine, for example, you are the Mildura or the Cobram hospitals and a significant number of your accident and emergency patients are coming from the other side of the border, from New South Wales, from the other side of your community, but you do not get a transfer of funds to the Victorian side, to the hospital. That is a huge bite out of your budget and it means that year after year you are caught short because, while you very willingly want to have your hospital open to the community, you just do not have the funding from both sides of the country flowing across to where the services are being delivered.It gets sadder. We have, for example, very recently a case where palliative care needed to be delivered to a person who was dying right on the New South Wales border. These anomalies must be fixed to improve the quality of life for the people who reside in our great part of the world. (Time expired)1097710977Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—On 13 October in the Great Hall of this Parliament House there will be a most important event that I would like to alert members to, and that is an expo showcasing the economic strengths of the western suburbs of Melbourne to the parliament and the strengths of the region to decision makers here in Canberra.The expo is being organised by the Western Melbourne Regional Economic Development Organisation and involves the participation of a large number of companies, some very large ones, including Toyoto, Orica, Tenix, AGL and the Docklands Authority. I think that will be a most useful day in showcasing the strengths of the part of Melbourne that I both live in and represent.It is part of Melbourne with over half a million people, growing at the rate of 20 per cent over the next 10 years. It is a region with very substantial economic strengths. It is a place that businesses ought to look at in terms of investment. It has an excellent transport infrastructure primarily as a consequence of former Labor government decisions. Those transport links and that transport infrastructure provide easy access from the region to the Port of Melbourne which handles something like $5.4 billion of trade each year, more than the combined totals of Brisbane, Fremantle and Adelaide. And it has easy access to Melbourne airport which handles a quarter of Australian airfreight exports and a third of Australian airfreight imports.The west of Melbourne also has 40 per cent of Melbourne's available industrial land. It has a skilled local work force and outstanding educational and training facilities centred very much on the Victorian University of Technology with some 50,000 students. So it is an area, I believe, which business could well look at in terms of making investment decisions in a most supportive environment from the point of view of the local community.This event on 13 October will attract significant bipartisan support, I might say. Former Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer has most graciously agreed to involve himself in the showcasing expo event and will speak at the business networking lunch as part of this event on 13 October. I urge all of my colleagues in this place to avail themselves of the opportunity to become familiar with the outstanding opportunities that the west of Melbourne provides.1097810978Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I would like to pay tribute to my Centenary of Federation Committee that at very short notice agreed to act as the selection committee for the Commonwealth recognition awards for senior Australians. As honourable members would be aware, the original time frame was a very tight one and I understand that my electorate was one of the 30-odd that actually got in within the original time limit. It would not have been possible without the assistance of the chairman, Mark Clarke, and Keith Allen, both of Gladstone; John Hempseed from Mount Morgan; John Bell, the Mayor of Miriam Vale; Simon Irwin of Bundaberg; and Christine Goding, who is acting as proxy for Nancy Calder from Childers.We picked 20 outstanding people, whom I will speak about in the parliament at a later date. I would like to particularly draw attention to the nominee to come to Canberra for the celebrations for the International Year of Older Persons. The person in question is Bert Bent. Bert is well beyond retirement age, although you would never know it. If you met him you would say, `This is a bloke in his early 60s,' but he is well beyond that age. Bert is a particularly focused man. He is an active member of the Rotary Club of Bundaberg East.I doubt if Bert knew, up until the time he won this award, that he had even been nominated. But honourable members may know about Bert. You have probably seen the new style of playground equipment. This new fibreglass equipment comes in bright colours and is almost vandal proof. One piece of equipment is in the shape of a helicopter, one is in the shape of a kangaroo and another is an interactive thing which the kids pedal and a plane turns around. There is also a train that sits on a single track like a small monorail and the children can just pedal along quite safely. These new toys were designed by Bert Bent. In fact, he designed those after his retirement. He has since sold the rights to a company and the product is going very well.As I said, Bert is also an active member of the Rotary Club of Bundaberg East, and he was the one who supervised the rebuilding of Bert Hinkler's house when we brought it back from Southampton. In addition to that, he supervised the building of Lake Ellen, which is one of the lakes where children can float toy boats and all that sort of thing. He personally coordinated that when he was well beyond 70 years of age—a really remarkable feat. Bert is typical of the people who give a positive face to ageing. (Time expired)1097910979Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—Over the last few months I have received numerous representations pertaining to the plight of the East Timorese people. These were made by both constituents and East Timorese nationals and concerned the need for Australia to act to prevent what has now occurred. I must say that, in all honesty, my reaction to these inquiries was one of genuine concern. I assured these people that Australia is a trusted ally to those in East Timor and that I was convinced the government had the situation in hand.But, sadly, whilst I reassured the community that the government was acting appropriately, I now know that we knew all along that black elements in the Indonesian military were planning a modern genocide. Our intelligence networks had assembled briefings on the issues; our specialists and analysts had worked through the matter only to have the information wasted due to political ineptitude. Not until after the ballot when the atrocities occurred did the government act, even though they knew the genocide was going to happen.But the government's ineptitude gets worse. Last week, whilst representing the parliament at the Association of South East Asian Nations Interparliamentary Association conference in Manila, I was pleased to be able to meet delegates from many of our neighbouring countries. I was stunned to discover on my return that much of the diplomatic efforts to positively interact with these people were being undermined by the Prime Minister back home, who, it is reported, sees our role in the region as a deputy of the United States.Recently during question time the Prime Minister tried to refute claims of his misquoted dialogue, but the damage was already done. The incident was recorded in most Asian daily papers. The editorial of the Bangkok Post was even entitled `ASEAN has invited Howard's bravado' and stated:It is sure to raise concerns across the region.Do you remember the time when we were not big enough or intelligent enough to back ourselves or our achievements? It is a case of back to the future. As Mr Harries, a conservative journalist, reported in last weekend's Financial Review :He is a fool.The article simply concludes:For the sake of the Australian people, John Howard should keep quiet. This is a simple truth and hard reality right before our own eyes. Have we sunk to these depths so rapidly? The Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs must accept responsibility for effectively jeopardising many of our relationships in the region. They must accept responsibility for making errors in judgment that could harm Australian lives, and they must accept responsibility for not acting earlier.Finally, we must work together with all in our region to ensure that an outcome is reached which resolves the current situation and builds on future relationships with all our neighbours. This will involve positive and active diplomatic dialogue and not the current actions of the government. In closing, I wish our troops in the region all the best and a safe and speedy return.1098010980Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—I want to talk about three things very quickly today. Firstly, I express my personal sorrow to the people of Taiwan for events there in the last two weeks. I think that the situation in East Timor has taken over the world news since those events. There has been an appalling loss of life with the earthquakes in Taiwan, and I am sure that I speak for all honourable members in the Main Committee today in expressing our profound sorrow to the people of Taiwan.Secondly, no-one is untouched by the events in East Timor. In conjunction with a group called the Ballarat Friends of East Timor, which is a wide collection of people I spoke about in the main chamber the other day, some 7,000 people in the region have expressed their anger, their disappointment and their wish for a positive outcome for the people of East Timor. Certainly, in 10 years I have never seen such a response to a couple of petitions we circulated.There are a large number of young men and women from my electorate who are in East Timor at the moment, which means that a large number of Ballarat families are watching the news very closely. I suspect that, in some respects, the families of troops sometimes suffer even more than the young men and women involved, as they are there and they know what is happening. The families are not there and they, for obvious security reasons, can never know exactly what is happening. They are relying on word through newspapers and television. There are families, I am sure, with a great interest in what is happening.Father Glynn Murphy, who was in Ballarat for a long time with the Catholic Diocese of Ballarat, is in East Timor, and if anyone is going to be perked up amongst our troops in East Timor, it will be those involved with Father Glynn Murphy. He is one of those terrific fellows who has the ability to lift people up and take them with him. I wish Glynn well.Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to have a table incorporated in Hansard.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Leave is granted provided it meets the guidelines.The table read as follows— OUR MEN AND WOMEN IN EAST TIMOR CORPORAL SUE O'FARRELL, Ballarat LANCE CORPORAL MATTHEW HARRINGTON, Ballarat CORPORAL JOHN SELLERS, Haddon CORPORAL STEVEN DOUGLAS, Ballarat SGT PAUL SINGLETON, Carngham ABLE SEAMAN DAMIEN VINCENT, Wendouree PRIVATE MARK REASONS, Ballarat FLIGHT LIEUTENANT MICHAEL VAGG, Ballarat CORPORAL STEPHEN FISHER, Snake Valley PRIVATE MALCOLM HOWARD, Ballarat PRIVATE JUSTIN MAHAR, Bullarook CORPORAL CHRISTOPHER CRAWFORD, Ballarat TREVOR WHITE, Ballarat CORPORAL MATTHEW WISEMAN, Buninyong ABLE SEAMAN CSO LEVON MORTON, Ballarat TROOPER DAVID FARRER, Ballarat PRIVATE CLINT MCKAY, Ballarat GRAHAM EWART, Ballarat LIEUTENANT MARTIN WHITE, Wendouree ABLE SEAMAN CSO JONATHAN TITHERIDGE, Ballarat ABLE SEAMAN AARON VERLIN, Ballarat ANDREW BRAYSHAW, Ballarat ABLE SEAMAN STD TANYA MALONEY, Ballarat ABLE SEAMAN MARCUS EFFRETT, Wendouree ABLE SEAMAN SUE-ANNE FRITH, Delacombe PRIVATE MARCUS RUMLER, Ballarat SERGEANT PAUL LE MARSHALL, Ballarat LIEUTENANT PAUL O'DRISCOLL, Ballarat LANCE CORPORAL PETER HALLAM, Ballarat PRIVATE MATTHEW WATSON, Talbot LEADING SEAMAN BEN WILLIAMS, Avoca SGT PETER MALLONE, Ballarat LANCE CORPORAL TERRY MALLONE, Ballarat SGT CRAIG CUNNINGHAM, Ballarat LAC ANTHONY TUCKER, Ballarat MATTHEW HARRINGTON, Ballarat CRAIG CUNNINGHAM, BallaratXT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSON—The third matter I want to talk about in the very short time available is that honourable members might not be aware that Ballarat is to be the site of an Australian ex-prisoners of war memorial. This memorial will have national status, though it is not to be called a national memorial. It is to recognise all Australian ex-POWs from the Boer War, the First and Second World Wars and the Korean War. There will be nearly 35,000 names engraved into a granite wall. But, since my time is running out, I will address those matters later when I have the opportunity.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Bills10982r87310982Debate resumed from 30 June, on motion by Mr Anthony:That the bill be now read a second time.10:00:0010982McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—The Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment Bill 1999 is, in its essence, a bill to apply the principles of competitive neutrality to EFIC. The application of competitive neutrality to Commonwealth statutory authorities was commenced under the Keating government and is a policy the principle of which continues to have bipartisan support. It requires that government businesses do not have competitive advantages over their private sector competitors simply by virtue of their public ownership. Once articulated, it is a very hard principle with which to argue. Accordingly, because this bill is based on a principle which we support and which, in essence, we introduced, we will not be opposing the legislation. But we are very concerned about its timing, its impact and what appears to have been a lack of consultation in its introduction.I have to say in the beginning that this is not a measure we would have done in this way at this time, and I will express some reservations we have about its nature and potential impact. Nevertheless, as I say, it is a principle that we support, but we flag these concerns, particularly in the trade context—which I will speak about in a moment. The timing of this is a source of serious worry to the opposition. It is matter on which I wish to spend some time in addressing a few remarks.In considering any piece of legislation pertaining to trade, it is very important to look at the trade context. To do so at this time, let us look at the three Australian records with regard to trade that the Howard government has established. We have had a lot of talk about people fireproofing the Australian economy and, therefore, you always get resentment and aggravation when you point out that certain unpalatable facts stare us in the face. The three records are: the largest ever trade deficit in Australia's history—over $10 billion in 1988; the largest ever current account deficit—over $28 billion in 1998; and the highest ever level of net foreign liabilities—the last figures were over $350 billion.In case we are complacent and think that this is in some way a minor, internal Australian matter that will right itself with the wonders of modern fiscal management, I just draw people's attention—those who are interested or concerned—to the recent report of the IMF. It was very scantily reported in Australia and, in a sense, I am pleased, because it would certainly not have had a beneficial impact. It was referred to in an article by Alan Wood in the Australian yesterday that the IMF is drawing attention to the external imbalances in about half a dozen countries, including Australia.Usually when international agencies make special references to Australia, we find great enthusiasm to analyse its significance. It is unusual in this instance that the IMF has felt obliged to make this reference, which includes Australia, and that it has been so little regarded in Australia. I think it has some portents for us and for our international economic success and standing, which should be more seriously considered. That is a speech for another day, but it is an important part of the context in which we are dealing with these changes to EFIC.The changes to EFIC are not just some book entry. They are going to impose costs on exporters at a difficult time. It is not just the broad statistics that are worrying. Some of the detail that underpins them does not make very pleasant reading either. Consider the markets that we sell to. Up until now, our explanation has been that the collapse in our traditional markets has had an adverse impact on our exports. There is no doubt that that must be true. Our two largest Asian trading partners—Japan and South Korea—are starting to emerge from their recession. Yet our exports to Japan remain flat and those to South Korea recently dropped by a whopping 23 per cent. I am starting to hear more and more reports about the imports coming in not just from Japan and South Korea but from Asian countries in general that are causing concern.It was the expectation that, when the Asian crisis hit, there would be surplus capacity in many of the countries of South-East Asia and North-East Asia and that that surplus capacity might lead to a lot of low priced imports into Australia. That did not happen at the time and, in retrospect, it was probably due to the collapse affecting productive capacity because the capital was not available to mobilise the production. But as people are starting to emerge and a recovery strategy based on exports is emerging, more and more industries are seeing and feeling the pressure of that import competition.I believe in an open economy. I want to see Australia remain an open economy. But we have to be a little more vigilant about some anti-dumping matters that I think are emerging on our industry and trade horizon. The concern is that, while that is happening, while that recovery is starting to emerge, our exports to Japan remain flat and those to South Korea recently dropped by a whopping 23 per cent. And if you think that is bad, I ask you to imagine how the late and unlamented Howard doctrine is likely to affect our exports to Asia. As Griffith University's Professor Nancy Viviani put it on the weekend, John Howard has taken Australian foreign policy back to the 1950s. I have to say that is very grim news for our exporters.Like other members of this place, particularly those who have had the privilege of serving in an industry or trade portfolio, I spent a lot of time in Asia trying to assist Australian access to markets—individual Australian companies, Australian industries in particular and the Australian economy in general. It is not an easy task, but we have got a lot of good products and a lot of willing buyers and we have done very well. But if our standing in the region were to fall, there is no doubt it would make some of that access more difficult. We are seeing early signs of that already.Another worrying trend—and it relates particularly to some aspects of EFIC's activities—is the composition of our exports. Recently released statistics showed that our exports of manufactures fell over the past year. Not only did they fall overall, but the fall was greatest in elaborately transformed manufactures, exports of which dropped by five per cent. This is the sector in which the growth of exports is most important to underpin our economic growth and our generation of jobs and it is exactly the sector we should be promoting if we are to realise the goal of creating a high skill, high wage Australia. Instead, under this government, exports of elaborately transformed manufactures are shrinking.This is the background against which we need to assess the EFIC Amendment Bill. As I said in opening my remarks, the bill applies the principles of competitive neutrality to EFIC, ensuring that, as a government business, it does not have a comparative advantage over its private sector competitors simply by virtue of its public ownership. This is a principle which we support. We began it. We intend to continue to support it. If it does achieve its goal of furthering the development of the private sector export insurance industry this can only be to the good. But let us not make any mistake: this bill has a short-term—and perhaps longer; let us hope not—potential to have an adverse impact on our exporters. With respect to EFIC's short-term business, it imposes a guarantee fee, a debt neutrality charge and tax equivalent payments.The bill does not give us a clue as to how large these additional charges will be and it is therefore very hard to estimate the effect. Their levels are left to be determined by the minister. But the general effect is clear. As the Parliamentary Library said in its analysis:While overall it is not possible at this stage to estimate the total amount of the payments to the Commonwealth proposed by the Bill, it must be assumed that they will raise EFIC's costs, and unless corresponding savings can be found, EFIC will be forced to pass on these higher costs to exporters in the form of higher charges.It is not apparent on the face of it, either in the bill, the explanatory memorandum or in anything that has been said with regard to it, what it is that will lead to corresponding savings within EFIC unless it withdraws services to exporters, because it is a very lean and efficient organisation with a very fine track record and standing for supporting Australian exporters and a long record of success. It is held in very high regard internationally and in very high regard by Australian exporters—and it should be.RH4KERRMr Kerr—But not as highly regarded as our industry spokesperson!10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The committee does not really need such gratuitous comments, flattering though they may be to the speaker.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—But they are so rare that they are welcome! The difficulty for the opposition in looking at this bill arises when we ask, `What assurance do we have that this is not really just a way of ripping some money out of a successful Commonwealth enterprise to prop up consolidated revenue, rather than a genuine attempt through the application of competitive neutrality to foster the development of a private sector export insurance industry?' The problem is that it is a question we cannot answer. That is one question we have. There is just not enough information about the case for these particular fees, or the case for the rate at which they are going to be set because we do not know the rate at which they are going to be set, and we will scrutinise that when it comes before us.Our other concern is the timing. It is hard to see why, at a time when Australia's trade deficit is at an all-time high, the government would be introducing legislation which may increase the cost on exporters. This is all the more incredible when you consider what the explanatory memorandum says. It states proudly:There has been no formal consultation with exporters.Extraordinary! Extraordinary! If there is a group of Australians in the economic field who are doing it tough at the moment it is our exporters. Whatever criticisms I might have of the government, that is essentially not the government's fault, that is driven by international factors. There are some government elements to it such as its cutbacks to DIFF and EMDG and all those things, but that is not my point. For whatever reason, we are having a difficult time in international export markets. Here we have a change that, justified in principle as it appears to be, minor as we hope its cost impact will be—but we do not know—we are proposing to make without talking to exporters. It is an extraordinary proposition and one which makes you question the underlying motivation.If the view was that this change was going to generate a flourishing private sector export insurance industry and therefore give competitive opportunities to Australian exporters to choose between EFIC and its private sector competitors and generate some greater efficiencies, you would have thought someone would have spoken to the exporters about that and they would have thought it was a terrific idea. It is not as if it is hard to talk to exporters. They are a pretty well-organised bunch. There are institutes of people involved in export. There are major groups associated with Austrade that provide advice with regard to exports in particular areas. The industry associations are well placed to provide advice on behalf of the people they represent in various export oriented groups.We are concerned about process; we are concerned about lack of analysis; and we are concerned about timing and impact. But, as I made clear at the opening, we will not be opposing this legislation today. We support the principle of competitive neutrality and see no reason why it should not be applied to EFIC. However, this is not something we would have done at this time when the trade deficit is at a record high. We will be watching very closely to see the detail of the charges when they come forward after being determined by the minister, and we will then assess the impact these measures might have on Australian exporters.It is a measure that has been introduced without consultation. It is a measure that does not have a proper foundation of analysis, and the government has not established the case for the relative advantage to EFIC which these measures are designed to overcome. But you cannot challenge the principle. There should be no special competitive advantage accruing to Commonwealth authorities simply by virtue of their public ownership. They should have to succeed on their merits and in a competitive environment.We will not be opposing the legislation, but I place those markers there as signs of our apprehension about the potential consequences in the hope that the charges and other consequences will not be such as to have an adverse impact on Australian exporters at this critical time.UNKNOWNMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Before the debate continues I advise the committee there will be a brief intermission while a technical gentleman comes and attempts to retrieve our clock from Alice in Wonderland.Sitting suspended from 10.15 a.m. to 10.18 a.m.10:18:0010985Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise to support the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment Bill 1999 . As the member for Fraser has mentioned, this bill goes to the very heart of the government's competitive neutrality policy.I listened with interest to the member for Fraser who says that, yes, they support the bill, but. The fact is, that like part of the Labor rhetoric, there is the throwback to the old golden era of socialism. They believe in the private sector but not quite yet; it is never quite the right time. Yes, we think that it might be a good idea. It is like being half pregnant. You can either have a market driven economy—RH4KERRMr Kerr—Can you tell us when the golden era for socialism occurred in Australia?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I prefer that the member for Cook ignore the interjection from the member for Denison.MP6Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRD—This is a situation where you either have a market economy or you do not. If you have a market economy, and the government has an organisation which provides a service to the private sector, you have to ensure competitive neutrality. Otherwise, you have a biased economy, one which is not effectively served. You do not have competition and a lowering of prices. You cannot simply say, `Maybe in the future we will; this is a bad time for it.'This is the best time you could have it, because, if there is a need to encourage people into the marketplace, then it is best that there are a number of providers of insurance in the marketplace rather than one. If you only have one provider, this can lead to distortions and to lack of access to a whole range of companies. The Export Finance and Insurance Corporation provides its type of insurance cover so well; there is no question that EFIC is a very fine organisation. It has been assisting exporters into the marketplace for many years, and it is a great tribute to this parliament that we established such a corporation. It is not one that is seen in every country around the world. Having a corporation with such an excellent reputation has assisted companies to get into the marketplace when there would normally be a significant risk in being in those particular markets. The action that the government has taken will ensure a competitive market.While the member for Fraser and shadow minister for industry has made his points, he is not quite sure. Let us get on with it. Let us recognise that if you are in favour of competitive neutrality, this is what it means. The shadow minister has also made some comments about markets and the problem of the balance of payments situation. As we all know, we have just been through the incredibly difficult period of the South-East Asian crisis. Our major export markets have been affected significantly, including Japan. There are only two countries in Asia that are in a growth situation: one is China and the other is Australia. The member for Fraser talked about Japan coming out of the crisis. If you look at the statistics for Japan, it is difficult to see where they are coming out of the crisis. They are still in negative growth; they are still in a depressed situation and spending has been considerably restricted.Korea is slowly coming out of it. There are some areas that are seeing growth; tourism, for example, is growing significantly. There has been a 70 per cent growth in tourism from Korea to Australia this year so far. So some areas are improving. But the member for Fraser said that there is concern about the growing balance of payments. Certainly, when the last figures were reported, there was hardly a glitch in terms of the stock markets or the exchange rate vis-a-vis the US dollar. That is because people recognise that the current government has the fundamentals right in terms of being in a surplus situation and reducing our overall debt.They are the factors that are driving the economy and why we have such a significant growth factor. It does not mean to say that we should ignore the balance of payments issue. One of the reasons why we should be making these reforms with groups such as EFIC is to ensure the emergence, development and fostering of an effective private sector organisation. This is about ensuring that all aspects of EFIC meet the requirements of competitive neutrality so that any assistance that they get from being a government organisation is neutralised by a levy to bring them up to the level of a company in the private sector.There is no doubt that this government has taken a lot of initiatives to meet the challenges of the international marketplace. In recent times, we have seen the manufacturing bond provisions, which exempt exporters from customs duties in some situations, and the Export Market Development Grants Scheme, which has been improved and widened in terms of its context. It was widened to provide parity for tourism operators—which is the first time that has occurred—and it has assisted a lot of new operators in the marketplace. The APEC Market Integration/Industrial Collaboration program is also part of the initiatives. The extension of export access and the new Trades Start programs have been significant and, of course, the announcements of the Ralph report and its new initiatives will provide further inducements and encouragement to small operators and small exporters. They can see the prospect of their corporate tax rate being reduced and of reductions in capital gains tax, if they are involved in that area. Australia is becoming an increasingly open economy. We have a globally competitive situation. It is important to make these changes at this time, as we move more and more to an internationally competitive situation.EFIC has been operating since 1956 in various forms, providing loans, credit insurance and guarantees and bonds to companies seeking to trade internationally. Usually, companies have come to EFIC when there have been international problems, where the level of risk involved in exporting to countries in terms of repayments would be under threat. It has played a very fine role. The government took the initiative at that time, but we have now moved beyond having a sole government organisation. That is the factor. When you have a situation of market failure, the then government becomes involved. But there is a time when you need to ensure that there is a level playing field and then you make these types of changes.So the role that EFIC has played in areas such as Vietnam and many others, and in supporting Australian wheat farmers, has been significant. EFIC has private sector competition from insurance companies such as QBE Trade Indemnity, which is based in Sydney. This competition is limited to short-term business activity, normally within a 90- to 100-day period. Where the debtor fails to pay its account, EFIC would cover about 90 per cent of the company's losses. Last year it underwrote some $6.9 billion of insurance business.In EFIC's role in supporting longer term business activity—for example, providing loans for companies to purchase capital goods to set up a factory—it has no private sector competition. I believe that, in the current economy, we would be concerned about not having competition in the private sector. Setting up a factory may take around 25 years in terms of returns and companies are reluctant to tie up capital for such long periods.The concept of competitive neutrality comes in. The Prime Minister announced in his 1997 Investing for growth document that the government had reviewed its ownership of EFIC and concluded that the interests of exporters would be best served by a strong EFIC remaining in public ownership. So it is clear that there was a decision to do that. The government believes it can achieve this objective while at the same time encouraging the private sector players in the export finance and insurance industry. The member for Fraser said, `This is all very new. It wasn't discussed.' Everyone was supporting this. It was announced in 1997.So what do we see in terms of the four main provisions of the bill? Firstly, there is a question of the debt neutrality charge. Because EFIC is backed by the government, the interest rate that it is able to charge is lower than the private sector would normally be able to offer on a competitive basis. A debt neutrality charge would even it up in terms of putting a surcharge on to be an equivalent of what would be charged in the private sector.Secondly, there is the question of the short-term insurance operations. The costs of reinsurance are not normally included in EFIC's costs because, with the government backing, they do not get involved in reinsurance, but a private sector organisation would be involved in reinsurance. So the costs of reinsurance are included.Thirdly, EFIC is currently tax exempt because it is a government owned corporation. So working out what the tax equivalent cost would be of being in operation is the third major aspect. The final aspect is the question of the insurance agents and brokers. EFIC does not use insurance agents and brokers. Therefore, that is, again, a cost that the private sector would need to incur, but the government owned EFIC corporation does not.So four factors make up the difference between EFIC and the private sector: the question of interest rates, which are lower because they are government backed; the question of reinsurance; the question of brokers; and, finally, the question of the tax charges that will be made by an organisation. This is not new. This covers organisations around Australia. It is also about our National Competition Policy and encouraging the private sector.In summary, this is not about weakening EFIC. This is not about putting an impost on the private sector. This is about encouraging competition which will inevitably lead to lower cost, greater choice, encouraging more exporters out in the marketplace in those markets where there is some degree of risk and some questions about returns because of international volatility or security aspects occurring in that particular market. It assists the private sector in overall terms and in the longer term to be in the international marketplace.I certainly support this bill. It goes to the heart of what this government is about—not only ensuring the long-term viability of the export market, assisting our balance of payments situation and encouraging export earnings, but also encouraging more private sector players in the market. This is not about the grand old days of having a single government owned organisation which dominates. We have seen those failed models littered around the world. This is about empowering the private sector who can best understand the marketplace to be out there assisting the operators in the export field. I commend this bill to the House.10:30:0010988Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—First of all, I would like to thank both honourable members for their contribution to this debate on the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment Bill 1999 . I will cover some of the issues raised by the honourable member for Fraser. I will start with his comments suggesting that the government was keeping EFIC purely as a cash cow for the government. I would suggest to the honourable member that EFIC does not need to achieve significant profits each year as would a private company and therefore additional costs on EFIC will not necessarily feed back through to higher charges for exporters.The government made the decision in 1997 to keep EFIC in public ownership. This was to ensure that exporters would continue to be supplied with an efficient support body in EFIC. There would certainly be no point in this if EFIC was hamstrung in its efforts to assist exporters by offering higher charges. The government will certainly be mindful of the international competitive situation in setting the charges which EFIC will have to pay to the government.The member for Fraser also asked, `Why do you impose higher charges on EFIC at a time when there is a record trade deficit?' I would suggest to the honourable member that there is really no good time to impose these sorts of measures. There is, however, a developing private market for insurance and the measure is designed to ensure that EFIC does not unfairly compete. What the government wants to achieve here is an efficient EFIC, working in tandem with efficient private markets.In regard to the contribution from the honourable member for Cook, he supported the measures in the bill and the concept of competitive neutrality. He mentioned the government's achievements in supporting the industry and exporters, including in the important taxation reform area. As he mentioned in relation to EFIC, it certainly has had a long history of support for exporters—over some 43 years—but a level playing field concept is important. The private sector certainly must be encouraged to continue to develop. It is particularly important in the short-term insurance area. He also mentioned that the government has announced its dual aim of having an efficient and effective public and private sector in the export insurance area. This is very important. I thank both members for their contribution.As Mr Anthony mentioned in the second reading speech, the government had concluded that the interests of exporters are best served by maintaining EFIC in government ownership. The benefits of this decision were seen in EFIC's ability to respond quickly and to provide invaluable support to Australian exporters during the South-East Asian economic crisis. The merits of this decision will be further demonstrated as EFIC provides cover for exporters for risk extending past 1 January 2000. At the same time, however, the government believes that, where the private sector is willing to support exports, it should be encouraged to do so.This bill seeks to ensure that EFIC enjoys no net benefits from its government ownership and will therefore assist in developing a strong private sector that will provide competitive benefits to our exporters. I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Bills10989r87110989Debate resumed from 30 June, on motion by Mr Slipper:That the bill be now read a second time.10:36:0010989Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—It is a delight to be on my feet in an environment where I have unlimited time to speak to a measure. It is refreshing. We seem to be in magic pudding time: instead of the clock running down, the clock is running up so that we cut and come again and speak and speak some more. It seems to be the political equivalent of being forever young. So in this debate, I find myself able to make a very large contribution to the Customs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 , yet I fear it will test my capacity to expand into this infinity of time that I possess. Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope I will not keep you in the chair for too long.These amendments are the result of a review undertaken by the Customs Brokers Council of Australia and the National Customs Agents Licensing Advisory Committee. The review focuses on the way in which Customs could make a progression following the introduction of the COMPILE computer system and also integrate some of the work it is doing with the planned tax changes that will come in with the GST legislation.The COMPILE computer system allows for the electronic lodgement of import entries, and the proposed amendments will give those in the industry who have links to COMPILE the option of applying for refunds electronically, while retaining the current documentary system for those who do not have that link. It is anticipated that electronic lodgement and payments of refunds will be more resource efficient and faster than the current system. The department has taken the opportunity of preparing the legislation which the minister has introduced and which is also picked up in this legislation. This brings some timing issues in relation to the customs legislation into line with the GST. The GST legislation makes goods and services tax on imports payable at the same time as customs duty and also provides for the deferral of GST on imports.At present, there are no provisions in the Customs Act specifying the time when duty must be paid, so there is no basis for a provision allowing for the deferral of customs duty. The amendments are intended to give Customs the flexibility to coincide payments of customs duty with collections of the GST for administrative simplicity. Schedule 3 contains provisions in the act amending the Customs Brokers Licensing Scheme in minor ways, too. The bill picks up a number of matters which are intended to facilitate greater ease in the use of electronic lodgement and improve the system. It also makes arrangements which will, to the extent that it is possible with the complexities that are inherent in the goods and services tax—with which we will all be struggling in the next 12 months; some of those problems have been anticipated—be capable of being addressed to some degree through this measure.The legislation will be supported by the opposition. The opposition would make the point that the fact that government has a particular intention is not necessarily proof that the outcome will match the intention that has been indicated. It is a small point relative to the goods and services tax. Before the last election we were assured that there would be a decrease in domestic air fares. We now find that both major airlines anticipate increases. It is similar with the way in which electronic processing of certain procedures by Customs has been put forward as a way of improving efficiencies.There are real doubts that some of these outcomes have been achieved. The Joint Standing Committee on Migration report Going for gold, which focused on the way in which we are preparing for the Olympics, focused on entry arrangements for that event and the Paralympic Games. In relation to computer facilities, it raised its concerns that customs information technology systems used by key border agencies to process visitor information are vulnerable to malfunction. Agencies have fallen behind in computer testing and implementation programs.They pointed out that it is probable that their computers will not be able to cope with any Y2K problems in time for the Olympic Games or with the increased workload that will occur during the Olympic period. They noted that the staffing arrangements for border control authorities are inadequate. They pointed to the need for more short-term employment of experienced people during that period and noted that agencies were not sufficiently aware of the importance of getting these arrangements right at all entry points.We welcome the fact that the government says that it is intending to build on the COMPILE computer system. We would hope that the deficiencies that have been recognised by the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration which apply to the processing of people are not similarly reflected in the actual outcomes that will occur in relation to these changes to the goods processing area.To date, I have not had representations to me from the industry that have raised this as a significant current issue. With the increased volume that will be generated through these new measures, in the same way as the pressure that the Joint Committee on Migration pointed to will come onto the facilities for people registration and management of people flows for the Olympics, it is possible that any deficiencies that may exist in the system will become more significant in practice as we move towards greater reliance on electronic systems. All I can say is that we do not want to be in a situation where we are trying to pick up the pieces too late.I suspect that one of the great deficiencies occurring in a whole range of areas, particularly as we move to outsourcing more of both the physical and the intellectual infrastructure of government, is that arrangements for long-term maintenance and thinking through of the way in which we deal with those strategic issues and the vulnerabilities in our critical infrastructure have been left behind.I had a discussion with the Australian Institute of Engineers about exactly this issue of the expertise and skills base that was hitherto hard wired into the way government did its business. Within large institutional departments, there were sufficient staff and training resources to anticipate problems with the run-down or long-term depreciation of both physical and information technologies and to build a program that would develop sufficient maintenance and upgrading to ensure that the systems did not collapse in any particular point of time. Those planning capacities have been significantly reduced.The fact that stood out in the briefing provided to me was that, at the time when the present administrative officer took her position about a decade ago, approximately 70 per cent of engineers who are members of the institute were in public employment. That figure is now approximately 30 per cent. What we have seen, in a sense, is the shedding of the core capacity for government to necessarily supervise and superintend these new arrangements which were largely passed into private infrastructure, and the absence of any proper audit mechanisms to address a gap that has emerged.I think the government would concede that, if changed circumstances require different responses, it needs to respond to those changed circumstances. One of the problems is that, whilst many people have spoken up about the advantages of so-called efficiency gains and gains that can be had from outsourcing technology, very little attention has been paid to proper arrangements for maintenance, long-term planning or structural change, or to ensure that the critical infrastructure, both physical and relating to the cyber environment, does not corrode to a point where we have significant weaknesses. The Olympic Going for gold report highlights precisely that.We need to have some integration in the way in which the electronic resources of government are thought through. Thinking which proposes greater efficiencies in relation to these new systems and the aspirations that are built into them is always to be welcomed. There is no public interest in maintaining procedures which are labour intensive, which depend on paper transactions, simply for the sake of it. No-one would make that case. Nonetheless, we must be alive to the reality that, as we move to different means of addressing old problems, those problems do not go away—we still need to have a plan B for them.Referring again to the interrelationship between physical technology and the cyber environment, I was able to spend a couple of weeks in the United States prior to Christmas. At that time I took the opportunity of meeting with the US agency charged with the administration of presidential direction No. 63, which relates to the protection of critical infrastructure in the United States. It was quite illuminating to hear how seriously that country is taking issues that we seem to be very complacent about, in relation to the way in which we are changing the technology for addressing particular circumstances without hardening up the targets so that they are not vulnerable to attack.I will mention a couple of the points that were made to me. One was a point which I had given little thought to, that in the United States now all switching systems on rail are electronic. Most of these were quite vulnerable at the time the review started because the electronic signals were transmitted by single lines that were running along the edge of rail lines. They could be cut very easily and the whole switching system broken.Secondly, even if there were a mechanism for transmitting these signals from switch to switch which did not depend on a line running alongside the rail lines, there was no plan B to deal with a breakdown in the network of switching systems. The whole system that used to exist, by which people could pull levers to divert trains to lay-bys and allow them to pass, had gone. The system had rusted out. Even where it existed, staff had no training. Even if you could pull a lever, if the wire was not rusted and was still connected with the line, no staff had any knowledge of how to use a secondary system. There was no redundancy in the system.We have to bear in mind when we speak of the advantages that can come from greater applications in these technologies that we are addressing old problems with new solutions. But we have to recognise that the new solutions themselves have vulnerabilities. That means that we have to always be mindful of the need to have strategies to audit what is happening, to make certain that weaknesses are identified as well as vulnerabilities, which can be by reason of deliberate attack. There is the possibility, of course, of organised crime or of vandals or the like seeking to disrupt critical services. But even just the run-down on ordinary administration may be sufficient to cause real problems, as it apparently did with respect to the water supply in New South Wales and in relation to the Longford power disaster in Victoria and in a host of other areas where we have infrastructure which is inadequately maintained so that what appear to be small planning errors can cascade into real disaster.I understand that these are issues which do not regularly get significant attention in the public sphere, notwithstanding that they are vitally important. It is a cause of real concern that whilst we in Australia occasionally give lip-service to the kinds of processes that would be required to ensure that we do not suffer a continuation of those kinds of infrastructure difficulties, we really give minimal resources to it. Even when government says that it is addressing these issues, again it is more in the nature of a token than a real response.Partly, the responsibility for this failure lies with the media excitement generated with the Y2K issue. It is almost as if every debate that has focused upon vulnerabilities in the information environment, in the national information inventory, as part of the whole debate around critical infrastructure has focused almost exclusively on the Y2K issue. That has diverted attention and allowed complacency to grow, firstly, around the stock of our physical infrastructure, which is not the subject of any audit and which many believe has been significantly run down over the past four or five years; and, secondly, with respect to arrangements necessary to ensure that programs like COMPILE that Customs are putting in, and which have now become essential to the efficient trade of Australia and other countries, are not subject to cyber attack—that is, a deliberate act of terrorism.I will make a simple point. As we move away from that paper environment and as programs like COMPILE, for a whole range of perfectly rational and good reasons, become more efficient and more commercially advantageous ways of doing business between an importer and Customs, and as they start to deal not only with Customs but also with the tax relationship between the customer and the Australian government as they process the goods and services tax component, you can see immediately that you have got a single point of vulnerability. If you attack it, not only does revenue suffer but the whole capacity to trade effectively, to bring goods in and out of Australia, can be subject to grinding delay by the failure of that single, COMPILE network. So how many COMPILE networks are there in Australia? How many of them are, in a similar sense, vulnerable? What are the arrangements that we have in place for ensuring that, in case of attack, they are hardened as targets? What are the audit procedures to make sure that simple failures of maintenance, and deficiencies in the way in which the system is monitored and structured, are addressed? And particularly as many of these systems are increasingly outsourced, what control do we have by way of principles of responsible government on the way in which these services are delivered?These are broader questions than those that were raised immediately in the bill, but they follow logically from what are welcome outcomes because as we move to greater reliance on these systems, to the extent that they are outsourced and the like, then new issues of responsibility arise. For example, when government itself delivers a service there is a direct path of accountability. If somebody complains to me about something government does, I can say to the minister, `Minister, what are you going to do about it?' and the minister cannot evade that responsibility.However, if it is a contracted out service then there is no privity of contract, the relationship of obligation exists between government and that person who is contracted to provide the service. Therefore, if somebody comes to my electorate and says, `Such and such a service is not performing effectively,' I can certainly refer the matter to the minister but the obligation of the minister is defined by the terms of that contract. The contractor may say, `That's not specifically dealt with by the contract.' There may be a dispute about the liability in relation to it. I believe a range of subsidiary issues relating to the way in which we, as parliamentarians, can discharge our responsibility to hold the executive properly accountable need to be addressed.Madam Deputy Speaker, I am taking full advantage of the fact that we are working on the infinity of time principle. In the normal circumstances you would have drawn my attention to the fact that I have spoken for over 20 minutes. I guess we are working on the magic pudding principle and time is expanding upwards rather than declining downwards. But, out of respect—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Kelly)—I remind the member for Denison that as a first speaker he does have 30 minutes. Your time is not infinite: you have 30 minutes.IJ4SNOWDONMr Snowdon—This is one of the best contributions I have heard from the member for Denison!RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—I thank my colleague. I had hoped that I would be able to speak to a point where I could take advantage of the opportunity that this suspension of time allows and to live forever in the parliamentary annals, but I have probably exhausted what I can usefully say in relation to this measure. It is a good measure and I have used the debate as an opportunity to raise some larger issues.I am certain the Attorney, who has, at least nominally, prime responsibility in relation to an interdepartmental committee that has been established to look at the critical infrastructure issues, will bear in mind the remarks that I have made. I certainly believe the government's response to date has not been comprehensive. It has been very ad hoc and, really, a Clayton's response. It is the sort of response you have to have as a result of knowing there is an issue out there and you have to do something about it. But it is not a serious addressing of the substantive issue.I have raised as a matter of important principle these issues of how we address long term the way in which we maintain, manage, account for and audit our physical and cyber infrastructure. I have raised also the important issue, in relation to the outsourcing of a whole range of technologies and delivery systems, of how we as parliamentarians acquire the means of insisting on responsibility through that process where privity of contract arrangements supplant the traditional direct line of responsibility that has hitherto existed in public life.These are important and large issues. I thank the minister for the briefings that were provided in relation to this legislation. As we indicated, we are comfortable with the particulars of them but we raise these larger issues in a spirit of goodwill, hoping the government does take account of them and knowing that essentially they are large issues which will remain for future governments of whatever colour to address.10:59:0010994Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise to support the Customs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 . I note the comments of the shadow minister, the member for Denison. It is interesting that this legislation is about the electronic transfer of information. I certainly thought during the speech, with the clock standing still, that we were in cyberspace in terms of the contribution that was made.The bill is a mechanical bill and the shadow minister waxed lyrical, but not too much about the bill. It is simply an efficient transactional mode, recognition of e-commerce in today's environment and nothing more, nothing less. I certainly commend the Minister for Justice and Customs, Amanda Vanstone, for her initiative in presenting this bill, and also the departmental officers for bringing it forward. It obviously is something that should have happened a long time ago, but it is an excellent initiative. The bill provides an enhancement of the Customs computer system to enable users to lodge refund applications electronically.QI4PRICEMr Price—Did you say `to lunch'?MP6Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRD—I said `to lodge'. I know the members of the Labor Party are constantly out to lunch but this is not about lunch on this particular occasion; it is about lodging applications electronically. In the 1997-98 financial year, there was $200 million worth of customs duty, and $6 million of sales tax was refunded. This amendment simply allows the applications to be lodged electronically and to be received and processed much more expeditiously than was previously the case.The enhancement will allow 90 per cent of refund applications to be handled in this manner. Obviously, if you are involved as an exporter or an importer in this case, it allows a much more efficient way of handling arrangements. The current manual lodgment system will remain for those who cannot cope with the electronic approach. If those opposite have difficulty in importing products, such as the member for Werriwa's book, they can do it manually.Schedule 2 allows for a customs duty deferral facility. At present, customs duty is paid before imports are released into home consumption, although the time for payment of duty is not specified in the Customs Act. These amendments will expressly provide the time when payment of customs duty is required. This is in order to coordinate the requirements of the GST. It has not been formally determined when the final payment of the GST on imports is required at this stage, but obviously there have been representations to the government on this issue. This amendment to the bill will enable the coordination of the import duties and when the GST is paid. This is a logical approach and will assist in terms of some of the comments that have been made by importers about how they may be otherwise unfairly penalised. This is an appropriate change to the previous legislation.Finally, the Customs Broking Licence System is simply allowing these to go out from one year to three years. I think that is a simple approach. One might even question why it would not go out to five years, but that is a 300 per cent improvement. This will reduce the cost to the industry and will also shift the time from the end of the year to the end of the financial year to enable people to concentrate on that. It is an administrative change and well deserving of support from this House. I commend these amendments and the bill to the House.11:03:0010994Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I am pleased to speak on the Customs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 , which the opposition supports. To pick up the last point made by the honourable member for Cook, whilst we welcome the fact that the licence is being extended from a 12-month to a three-year licence, it is a matter of regret that he did not mention that the cost is going from $200 to $1,200—a somewhat disproportionate increase. I do not think the government is setting a good example of low inflation by having a sixfold increase in the cost of the licence. It is very important that we accept the need to increase these licences for agents from the 12-month period to a three-year period, and indeed there may be merit in making it longer.I would also like to draw to the attention of the House that there was in fact a Customs Service review of these matters. It is disappointing that that review was never made public. It would be interesting to know what else was in the review that the government has not acted upon or has decided against acting upon and what the reasons might have been. Was this the totality of the review?The other two issues contained in the bill are on enabling applications for refunds to be lodged electronically. We are seeing quite a number of other government services allowing the electronic lodgment of applications. Taxation, of course, is a very good example of this. It does cut down unnecessary paperwork. It certainly enhances speed. The great benefit from a department's point of view is that, because it is formatted to be compatible, it also aids in diminishing processing times. All these things are very useful. The Commonwealth is not picking up the cost of this initiative. ELOR has already been funded through the industry based Cargo Automation Development Fund.My senior colleague the shadow minister made a relevant point when he was talking about vulnerability. If you are really trying to look at how Australia may be vulnerable and how the Olympics may impact on us, we are all very conscious of terrorism and are trying to minimise that, but information warfare is a growing and productive field. Whilst it requires a great deal of expertise, it does not require manufacturing. It does not require a lot of money. Things like computer systems can be very vulnerable.Although I would have thought that our defence department has a special responsibility to look at this, I would have also thought that the Attorney-General, given his responsibilities, has a responsibility to ensure that, when we are setting up systems like this new customs system and other computer systems throughout the country, they are not vulnerable to information warfare.We have all heard stories about how hackers have been able to break into US Defense Force computers and other government agency computers. It is surprising what damage may be able to be done. I think that, whilst members of parliament can embrace new technology and see all the benefits of implementing new technology and how, all round, people can be winners, it may very well increase vulnerability. It is a legitimate thing to ask the Attorney what safeguards are in place for this proposed new development and how vulnerable they are to information warfare.This bill also provides for customs duty deferral facilities. People will not be required to actually pay the duty when they are picking up the goods. Again, this is a measure that we can all support. It poses the question, in talking about computers, whether the new system is going to be ready for the Olympics. Presumably, there are going to be huge demands placed on the customs department with the huge influx expected before and after the Olympics next year. It is also appropriate to ask whether or not the department, which has really suffered huge cuts under both governments and has had a history of large staffing cuts, is going to be adequately staffed to cope with all the requirements posed by the Olympics.I want to finish on a point that is germane to the department of customs, and that is the documentary that was shown on the illegal fishing in the orange roughy grounds. Most Australians who watched that documentary would have bemoaned our apparent impotence to respond, when we knew full well what had taken place. I know that there is very good harmonisation between Customs, its related authorities and the Navy about these matters, and I note in recent times the issue has been raised about whether we need a separate coastguard. I do not have a particular view about that.I know that my learned colleague the member for the Northern Territory is very interested in our review of the state of preparedness of the Army. Yesterday Professor Dibb said that, should East Timor go beyond 12 months, with the current levels of projected deployment there would be a case to look not only at the Army's state of preparedness—which is absolutely essential—but also at the other three services.I suggest to the government that there is some value in reviewing the adequacy of our current services and whether it is appropriate for those services to be bolstered by a dedicated coastguard service in Australia, similar to that in the United States. I certainly hope that we will not have any further repeats of the orange roughy situation. In conclusion, I reiterate that I support the measures in this bill that are being proposed by the government.11:12:0010996Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I thank the honourable members for Denison, Cook and Chifley, who have contributed to the debate on the Customs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 . I thank the opposition for agreeing that the bill is not controversial and thereby facilitating early passage. As the previous speakers indicated, the bill proposes to amend the Customs Act 1901 in three separate areas: firstly, with the introduction of an electronic lodgment and payment system for refunds of custom duty; secondly, with the introduction of a duty deferral facility; and thirdly, with the extension from one year to three years for customs agents' licences.Most of the comments have been directed at the first area—the proposal for the electronic refunds of customs duty. This will replace an antiquated resource intensive process. Benefits will clearly flow to industry and Customs, with payments being available much faster. It should be acknowledged that there is strong industry support for this project, with funding, training and implementation provided by industry.The member for Denison raised the issue of the vulnerability of the Customs computer system, COMPILE, and this was also mentioned by the member for Chifley. I seek to put their minds at rest by referring them to a recent report of an inter-departmental committee, entitled Protecting Australia's national information infrastructure. The IDC was set up following a confidential report in February 1997 by the Defence Signals Directorate, entitled, Australia's national information infrastructure: threats and vulnerabilities. The principal recommendation was the establishment of a formal structure involving both the government and the private sector. It is important to remember that much of what is vital in our information infrastructure is actually in the hands of, and conducted by, the private sector.I will not go through the detail of the recommendations, but one of the recommendations was to establish an industry consultative forum. This has been done—in fact, I addressed that forum several weeks ago at one of its regular meetings. In addition, there is to be set up within government an interdepartmental committee, with representation from those departments and agencies that have a particular interest in the subject. This includes the Attorney-General's Department, which will chair the IDC. Customs is not directly represented—it is represented by the Attorney-General's Department—but there is a capacity for the committee to invite other agencies to join the committee or to attend specific meetings if the committee considers that such participation will facilitate the achievement of the objectives of the committee.There is not a major component in the bill to protect the infrastructure, but the opposition can be assured that appropriate steps are being taken, both within government and in the private sector, to protect the systems upon which government is dependent. COMPILE will be dealt with in that way.The member for Denison referred to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, Going for gold. The committee has noted that there is a narrow margin between the predicted demand and the capacity to process passengers at the primary line. I inform the Main Committee that on 1 September 1999 a state-of-the-art IT system was implemented at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport to facilitate the clearance of international passengers and to improve border integrity. The system is now being rolled out to all international airports throughout Australia and is performing to specifications. This is some 12 months in advance of the Olympic Games.In the current federal budget, Customs was allocated some $6.5 million over two years to bring forward its recruitment program to ensure it has sufficient resources to manage the Olympic demands. This will provide Customs with the capacity to process 6,000 arrivals per hour on a sustained basis at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. This capacity is more than able to match the worst-case scenario anticipated by the Games organising committees and airport planners. Customs has recently implemented a specific duty-free passenger concession for non-Australian Olympic and Paralympic family members. This will assist in facilitating the clearance of these passengers and all passengers in general.The second area of the bill, the introduction of a duty deferral facility, will provide the opportunity for customs duty to be collected following the importation of goods rather than at the normal time of importation. This will enable Customs to be brought into alignment with GST collection when GST becomes payable.The third area, relating to the streamlining elements of the licensing support system for customs brokers, appears to be popular. Notwithstanding the reference by the member for Chifley to the cost of the licence, licences will be for three years not for one year, as is presently the case. Renewal dates will be for the financial year rather than for the calendar year. The title of those holding a licence will not be `customs agent' but `customs broker'. These changes are not controversial; they are supported by industry.The member for Chifley mentioned a documentary on orange roughy fishing. I am unable to comment on that because I did not see it, but he should be aware that there are proposals in train for expanding the powers of Customs at sea. These will be brought to light in due course. I commend this bill to honourable members.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Bills10998r87210998Debate resumed from 30 June, on motion by Mr Horne:That the bill be now read a second time.11:20:0010998McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The opposition supports the Electronic Transactions Bill 1999 . The only criticism in the text of my speech will be that, if anything, it is perhaps a little too timid. The bill has three main purposes: to facilitate the use of electronic transactions, to promote business and community confidence in the use of electronic transactions, and to enable business and the community to use electronic communications in their dealings with the government—specifically, the Commonwealth government.The bill arises from recommendations of the Electronic Commerce Expert Group, which was established by the Attorney-General and which reported to the federal government in March of last year. The ECEG recommended that the Commonwealth should enact legislation based on the United Nations Committee on International Trade Law's Model Law on Electronic Commerce of 1996. Those recommendations of the international body, with some modifications, have been adopted. Effectively, the international model has provided a template of model rules for countries to adopt, and Australia was closely involved in the development of that model law.The bill is based on two principles: firstly, functional equivalence; and, secondly, technology neutrality. The term `functional equivalence' means that transactions conducted using paper documents and transactions conducted using electronic communications should be treated equally by the law and not given an advantage or disadvantage against each other. The second concept, that of technology neutrality, means that the law should not discriminate between different forms of technology—for example, by specifying technical requirements for the use of electronic communications that are based upon an understanding of the operation of a particular form of electronic communication technology.The government has accepted the ECEG recommendation in that respect to depart from what a number of European countries have done by actually mentioning a specific form of technology. The ECEG committee recommended that to do so could lock in inefficient, outdated or outmoded forms of technology, and the opposition agrees that the approach taken by the government is appropriate.The bill establishes the basic rule that a transaction is not invalid because it took place by means of an electronic communication. It contains specific provisions which state that a requirement or permission under a law of the Commonwealth for a person to provide information in writing, to sign a document, to produce a document or to retain information or a document can be satisfied by an electronic communication, subject to certain minimum criteria being satisfied.The bill sets out rules to determine the time and place of dispatch and receipt of electronic communications, because that obviously could determine where a contract is made and what fair trading or consumer protection laws apply to that particular transaction. The bill also contains provisions that specify certain exemptions or allow for exemptions to be made by regulation from the application of the bill.It is important to note that the provisions in the bill do not remove any legal obligations which may be imposed upon a person by other Commonwealth laws. Effectively, the sole purpose of the bill is to enable people to use electronic communications in the course of satisfying their legal obligations.The bill has a two-step implementation process. Prior to 1 July 2001, the bill will apply only to laws of the Commonwealth specified in the regulations. After that date, it will apply broadly to all Commonwealth laws unless they have been specifically excluded from the application of the bill.Contrary to the recommendations of the ECEG, the bill applies only to transactions under Commonwealth law, but the Commonwealth has obtained in-principle agreement from the states and territories that they will legislate in similar form. I understand that agreement was obtained earlier this year. Nonetheless, there are concerns that the state legislative framework could take some time to develop and that there could be some retardation of the use of electronic communications to facilitate commercial transactions while the state laws are being developed. The opposition notes that members of the ECEG have criticised the government's failure to show stronger national leadership on the issue, and it is important to note that the bill has not been set up as a national scheme law. As I have indicated, while the states have all agreed to introduce similar legislation based on the federal model, there is a risk that it may be departed from.The government's reason for not adopting a national approach was concern regarding constitutional limitations. However, we believe the government could have been more adventurous in this area and we note, for instance, that the government was in fact more adventurous in respect of considering the year 2000 disclosure, where section 12 of the Year 2000 Information Disclosure Act 1999 invokes, amongst other heads of constitutional power, the corporations power, the trade and commerce power and the territories' power.The opposition would have preferred the government to take a much stronger national approach in respect of this bill by: legislating to the maximum extent possible under alternative heads of power—perhaps also the telecommunications power was worth looking at; and seeking a referral of the relevant powers from the states or, alternatively, setting up a national uniform scheme in relation to these matters akin to, for instance, the Corporations Law. However, despite that limitation—and, as I say, perhaps a little timidity of approach—the opposition supports the bill because, clearly, it is in the national interest to enact such a scheme.Before concluding, there are several matters which we would like to highlight. First, the legislation does not address the technically more difficult area of ensuring that businesses and consumers can verify with whom they are dealing—and, later in this debate, the member for Bonython will have some very specific and informed comments to make in that respect. Clearly, confidence in electronic communications depends on business and consumers having confidence in the people they are dealing with. Verification of identify is fundamental to this. However, Labor accepts that it is not easily addressed by legislation alone.Subject to ensuring that reasonable access for law enforcement and national security agencies to any encrypted communication is available, the opposition believes that appropriate recognition of the role of that encryption technology is fundamental to addressing this verification issue. In this regard, we note that the National Office of the Information Economy released a discussion paper on 19 August 1998 on the establishment of a national authentication authority, and that authority, as proposed, would administer a national public encryption key authentication scheme. We note, on the other hand, a contrary argument in the discussion paper insofar as it is at odds with recommendations of the Attorney-General's Electronic Commerce Expert Group, which argued against a detailed legislative regime that specifies an operating framework or the use of particular technologies. The ECEG correctly noted that a framework that is too rigid could seriously impede Australia's ability to participate in international electronic commerce.The Australian Labor Party generally prefers an approach which would allow those entering into a commercial transaction to determine the most effective means for that transaction to be verified. Governments should not be in the job of predicting what level of satisfaction the market will require or of how it goes about doing its business. However, the governments are entitled to ensure that the public interest in law enforcement and national security is protected. So we note that it is appropriate for those things to be developed. Whichever approach the government adopts, it needs to act quickly and in line with international practice. It also needs to provide appropriate sanctions against the use of encryption technology in the commission of crime, and such conduct should attract significant criminal penalties.Secondly, the legislation fails to address issues of appropriate consumer law protection. By default, the legislation applies the consumer protection law that applies to the relevant jurisdiction. While we acknowledge that the law will define where the communication was sent and where it was received, because of the distance covered there, nonetheless, will be complex issues as to what particular jurisdiction will apply as far as consumer protection is concerned. Given that consumers and businesses will often not consider or appreciate the differences that exist across jurisdictional boundaries, the failure to address this issue will become important. It is perhaps disappointing that the government did not seek to use the bill as a means to help unify Australia's consumer protection laws, particularly in this area of electronic commerce.I note in passing that I have seen several attempts where my younger daughters have attempted to engage in electronic commercial transactions on the Internet. Fortunately, they did not come off. I have often wondered what protections I would have as a parent if they did.Thirdly, subclause 13(4) in the bill contains a blanket exemption for transactions involving the courts. This is despite the fact that the draft bill did apply but enabled the rules of the court to exempt specific matters. Labor believes that, at the very least, the proposal should be amended so that it is possible for the rules of the court to apply the provisions of the bill. We would ask the government to seriously examine this issue before the bill is debated in the Senate. We believe it would facilitate cheaper and speedier access to the courts, particularly as there frequently are strict time limits applying to the lodgment of documents.Fourthly, the bill contains a blanket exemption in relation to dealings with Commonwealth entities in connection with applications for the grant of permission, a certificate or similar thing where the permission, certificate or thing is of a kind not capable of being granted to an Australian citizen. These are designed, as the explanatory memorandum says, to have applications made under the Migration Act and the Australian Citizenship Act.We note the rationale for the government having that exclusion was the difficulty verifying some documents emanating from overseas. To verify the source and the authenticity of those documents could present a difficulty. We note, however, that the government has recently provided us with a proposed amendment to clause 11 of the bill. We think that the amendment is much more sophisticated in that, while there is the general exemption, there are exceptions from that exemption which will enable a number of transactions to take place by electronic means.Finally, we note that paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 ensure that an electronic transaction can only be validly engaged in with a person who is neither a Commonwealth entity nor a person acting on behalf of the Commonwealth entity if that person consents to the use of electronic communication as a means for the purpose of the transaction. We support this approach. People or businesses that do not want to engage in electronic transactions should not be forced to do so. However, it will increasingly be the fact that their consumer and commercial interests will be enhanced if they do participate in the electronic framework.In conclusion, this is increasingly an important area for Australians. The Bureau of Statistics showed that 650,000 Australians used the Internet to purchase goods for private use in the 12 months to May 1999. That was up from 409,000 in the 12-month period to May 1998. Every indication is that it is increasing at an exponential rate. Despite the defects in the scope of this bill, the Labor Party is prepared to support it. The development of the information economy is vital to Australia's economic prosperity, but we would encourage the government in future to be a little more adventurous and far-sighted in taking hold of this opportunity.Debate interrupted.Distinguished Visitors1100110000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! Before allowing the debate to proceed, I would like to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of a delegation of members of the United Kingdom branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. The delegation is led by the Rt Hon. Robert Sheldon. On behalf of the Main Committee I would like to extend a warm welcome to our visitors. As an aside: you can be certain that you are in the Southern Hemisphere if you note that our timing clock is running backwards.Bills11001r87211001Debate resumed.11:36:0011001Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise to support the Electronic Transactions Bill 1999 . I commend the government and the Attorney-General for their initiative in bringing this proposal forward. There are few areas of the world economy which have transformed it to a greater degree than the use of e-commerce. E-commerce has revolutionised the way we do business around the world. It is appropriate that the government captures those changes and looks at the various processes in terms of purchasing and the way business is done, both in Australia and internationally, and recognises those changes to ensure the validity of the system and of transactions which are made and also the security of the whole system, making it more possible that we have uniformity of legislation throughout the country so that everyone is operating on the same agenda. Obviously, there are some developments that will take a while for all to come on board, particularly in terms of bringing about uniformity among the various states. But this will provide the overall agenda within which states can coordinate their own legislation to conform with this model.It is interesting that we have a delegation here from the UK, a country which has a reputation for developments in terms of e-commerce and the use of the Internet generally. It is particularly encouraging to see the role that Australia has been taking in e-commerce. Japanese officials have commended the Attorney-General, saying that Australia is now considered as a world leader in Internet legislation. The high degree of computer literacy in this country, the great degree to which the Internet is accessed by Australians, puts us second or third on a per capita basis in use of the Internet and of computers. We should use that to put us at the cutting edge in terms not only of competitive advantage but also of legislation that can be enacted in this House.This bill provides a strategic framework for the development of the information economy in Australia. It is designed to move businesses towards having the same level of confidence in their electronic transactions as currently they have in paper transactions. The elevation of the information economy to a cabinet position, under the Hon. Richard Alston, reflects the importance the government attaches to information technology. Certainly, Australia's comparatively high level of readiness for the millennium bug and the introduction of legislation like the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill—the result of an inquiry by the Senate Select Committee on Information Technologies—demonstrate that we are on top of the game. These highlight the attention that is being paid to ensuring Australia enjoys social benefits, as well as technological benefits, from these changes.The government is eager that access to the Internet be restricted where appropriate—in terms of children, in relation not only to pornography but also to the display of bomb making techniques, for example. On the one hand, we want appropriate restrictions to be in place to restrict access by children. On the other hand, we want to make certain that we develop common standards and ensure standards to improve the system worldwide. The technology revolution is transforming the whole way in which business is done at the start of the new millennium, and we can only imagine what it is going to be like into the 21st century.The growing importance of e-commerce cannot be underestimated. It is the most significant change that we have had in the last 50 years. The World Trade Organisation's role has been significant. Australia has taken a leading role in that organisation and we have been the leading advocates for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, which will police the outlets through which goods will be sold.Of course, we are most concerned that Australia is well placed to enjoy the benefits that come from our high level of computer literacy and adoption of computer technology. At this stage we are keen to encourage the use of electronic technology in business transactions. I notice that in the new tax system we are also requiring that large corporations make their payments of tax electronically, and I believe we are going to see that spread across the board. In terms of dealing with government agencies, there is an encouragement that as companies interface with government we should progress, to a much more comprehensive basis, the interaction through electronic means.This bill is going to remove many of the doubts that currently exist regarding the legitimacy of these transactions. Those doubts are with regard to the writing, signing, and originals in relation to documentation. The bill is based on the principles of functional equivalence and technology neutrality. Functional equivalence is the equality under law of the treatment of paper and electronic communication. Technology neutrality is the non-discrimination between different forms of electronic communication.In general this bill has three functions. Firstly, it validates the use of electronic transactions other than verbal contract engaged through the use of a telephone. Secondly, it gives electronic signatures the same status as written ones. Thirdly, the receipt of transaction is defined when the electronic communication entered the recipient's system, rather than, for example, when an email was sent.There have been some comments made about various aspects of this bill and the shadow Attorney-General has raised some of these issues. Critics of the bill have focused on its limited scope and that it only applies to the law of the Commonwealth. It was considered that there should be a total generic bill in which the Commonwealth would take a far more expansive view of Commonwealth power in dealing with another e-commerce issue, year 2000 disclosure. It may be possible that there could be lengthy delays until identical state and territory legislation is enacted, which could hinder the development of e-commerce in Australia. The fact is, however, that the government has taken a cautious approach in terms of the constitutional powers and has opted for a uniform national scheme instead of a single piece of Commonwealth legislation, as recommended by the EGEC.While there was initially some concern that some states might depart from the uniform framework, in May 1999 the states decreed at a meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General to draft complementary laws based on the Commonwealth bill. That seems to be an appropriate way to go. It is not unusual. We have similar examples of this, where the Commonwealth enacts the primary piece of legislation and complementary bills are brought simultaneously into each of the state houses. I think it is important there is state ownership of each of these pieces of legislation, that they developed their own access in terms of their own involvement with e-commerce in each state. So these criticisms are basically ill-founded and fail to recognise the fact that that was a decision taken not by the Commonwealth but by the Commonwealth government in concert with the states, which believe this is the more appropriate way to go.The second criticism was that only certain Commonwealth laws would be captured by the bill. Until 1 July 2001, it will only apply to laws made subject to the bill by regulation. After that date, Commonwealth laws may be exempted by regulation. The fact is that, while people want everything to be done at once, it is important that there is appropriate lead time for the agencies. This is a reasonable lead time. It is a significant change in the way that agencies and various departments do business, so that time allows them to coordinate their efforts. It is one thing to say, `Let's do it all at once.' It is another thing to introduce legislation and be caught by agencies not being prepared. It is appropriate that we have a smooth transition. This will be with us for a long time. It is important we get it right and that the agencies are ready for this. Also, after 1 July 2001 this bill will apply to all areas of government activity, not only those where specific regulation has been made for electronic commerce, so it is a totally revolutionary approach. If we think of the changes that have occurred in the way that the government does business over the last century, this is amongst the most significant changes that we have seen.The bill has also come under criticism for doing little to solve the uncertainty of electronic commerce. For example, clause 10 provides that, if there is a requirement for a signature under a Commonwealth law, an electronic communication may meet this requirement if, amongst other things, the method used was reliable. The recent announcement by the government of the establishment of the National Electronic Authentication Council may go some way towards solving this problem. NEAC will oversee the development of a national framework for electronic authentication of online activity. It will not require that a particular form of digital signature be used, but will oversee the development of technical standards and codes of practice. This measure will add to consumer confidence.Obviously, authentication of signatures is a vexed problem. While no-one is offering magical solutions at this point, it is an evolving process and NEAC's suggestions as to how it can be verified seem an appropriate way to go. Other comments on this have been that the enactment of a legislative framework for electronic commerce may also require the enactment of data protection legislation to ensure privacy. I think we are all concerned about aspects of privacy, and it is only appropriate that we should raise those questions.In December 1998, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts and the Attorney-General announced the government's intention to develop legislation to support a self-regulatory regime for privacy protection. The government is currently engaging in a program of consultation. According to the Attorney-General:The legislation will support businesses that self-regulate to strengthen privacy protection and provide a default legislative framework. Self-regulatory privacy codes will be able to be approved by the Privacy Commissioner and have the same force as the legislation. Where there is no approved privacy code default legislative principles and a complaint handling regime will apply.It has been argued that such a measure is needed to facilitate e-commerce with members of the European Union in the wake of the data protection directive in October 1998. The EU directive prohibits the release of personal information online into jurisdictions that do not have adequate data protection arrangements.I think it is appropriate that all members should have regard to the question of privacy; it is going to be an ongoing development. As we see the burgeoning of e-commerce, it will be something that we as parliamentarians will need to protect. It obviously provides an opportunity for those who would want to exploit it to make us vulnerable in terms of privacy issues, so we as parliamentarians must constantly monitor that aspect of it.Overall, it is a significant step forward. It is quite a major breakthrough in the way we do business not only by empowering the private sector and providing the necessary safeguards but also by providing the necessary framework in which the government can move into the new electronic era, which will be the way we all do business in the new millennium.11:48:0011004McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—It is a pleasure to rise today to speak generally in support of the Electronic Transactions Bill 1999 . It amazes me, at times such as this, when I reflect on the technological advancements that I have witnessed so far in my lifetime. I can but wonder what the future holds! I very much enjoy the benefits of the `e' phenomenon. Email is a fantastic tool which I would encourage all my colleagues from all sides of the House to explore. But be warned, once you start using it, you will get hooked.The Internet is a resource that is beyond comprehension. I notice in news reports that there is growing concern about people becoming addicted to spending time surfing the Net. I am not surprised. Its interactivity, visual interest and sheer scope of activities are attractive to anyone. For many it is not just a plaything but a business tool, and it is the more serious business side of the electronic industry that we are discussing today.I must say that I had some concerns about this bill before I saw it. The government's recent Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999 was such a fiasco that it left many of us with the view that this government did not understand the positive potential of the online industry, or support it in its aims and objectives. As the Internet censorship bill was being processed through to the parliament, the government did not hear, or refused to hear, the voices of families and individuals who said, `Let us take responsibility as end users for filters and what comes down the line into our computers.'A recent Australian Broadcasting Authority attitudinal survey showed that some analysts are concerned that this ill thought out, politically motivated legislation will cost the industry approximately $150 million in compliance costs. Telecommunication analyst, Paul Budde, commented that not only did this legislation place enormous compliance costs on the industry, it also, even with complete compliance, would be less than 10 per cent effective. This bill will impact adversely on the emergent Australian e-commerce and Internet industries which are strong employers of young Australians. This will mean opportunities lost for industry and Australia.It was therefore a pleasant surprise to discover that the Electronic Transactions Bill 1999 is, as promised by the Prime Minister in December 1997, a `light handed regulatory framework' that does appear to be workable. The bill seeks to facilitate electronic commerce in Australia. It enshrines the principle that electronic communications can satisfy the requirements of Commonwealth law in relation to writing, signatures, and the production of original documents and records.This bill intends to promote business and community confidence in the use of electronic transactions and enable business and the community to use electronic communications in their dealings with government. This is a giant leap forward. As a society, our psychological orientation is very focused on the superiority of the concrete, in this sense the written word, the original signature. Up until now the law has confirmed that hierarchy. We must now alter our thinking. For some, this is a great challenge—how to feel secure without putting pen to paper and signing the cheque or other such document. But like everything, we will get used to it.Perhaps now is a good time, however, to enter a small plea to remember those who may be left behind in this new and somewhat frightening e-driven world. It is fine for us to talk blithely about e-commerce and e-trade, but this government also has a responsibility to ensure that older members of our community, and those who are not technologically literate, are not locked out of access to employment opportunities or fundamental services. It is a good thing to facilitate electronic transactions, but we should not allow the commitment to providing services the good old-fashioned over-the-counter way to disappear for those who choose to continue to operate in that way.Of concern to many people is an escalating trend to cut costs by reducing staff and increasing reliance on technology. Phone queuing, voice mails and automated systems are examples of that. Automatic teller machines and reduced counter staff at banks are another. Yes, we must move on, but let us not forget the universal social and moral obligation to continue to provide services to those who, for whatever reason, cannot grasp technology with both hands. The government must also ensure that its economic goals and policies have outcomes with net positive social effects, rather than the current negative impacts people are experiencing.Australians have always embraced new technological developments. This is especially true in the field of e-commerce. According to data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 650,000 Australians used the Internet to purchase goods for private use in the 12 months to May 1999, up from 409,000 Australians in the 12 months to May 1998. These figures highlight the need for protective legislation for both business and the consumer.As I have already indicated, in general, Labor supports this bill. I am pleased also to be able to support the process that led to its development. So often this government has failed to consult with the community and small businesses, or it has held token consultations and then ignored the stakeholder's view in pursuit of its own agenda. But I note that most of this bill reflects the recommendations of the Attorney-General's Electronic Commerce Expert Group which was formed in 1997.There are, however, a number of weaknesses in this proposed legislation. Firstly, the bill only applies to transactions under Commonwealth law. This is contrary to the recommendations of the expert group. I know the Attorney-General is of the view that to attempt to apply the bill to states law could be unconstitutional. I can only hope that he has researched this matter carefully and taken advice from all quarters on this because what we have left is a proposed Commonwealth law, with the possibility of the states and territories bringing in their own contrary laws, thus leading to chaos.We have been assured that the government has obtained an in-principle agreement from states and territories that they will legislate in line with this bill. Based on the history of agreements between the states, territories and this federal government, I say, `Don't hold your breath.' I would therefore urge the House to support our amendments that seek to firm up the commitment of the states by way of a referral of powers or at least a national uniform scheme.My colleagues on this side of the House have spoken eloquently and at length about this matter and the need to legislate to the maximum extent possible. Therefore, I want to turn my attention to another issue which is of great concern to me. This bill represents, I believe, a lost opportunity to reform Australia's hodgepodge of consumer protection laws. As I understand it, the legislation will, by default, apply the consumer protection laws of a given jurisdiction in each case. This just exacerbates the problems businesses and constituents in my electorate, and across Australia, are already dealing with.If one of my constituents in Stirling purchases a product or a service via the Internet from a business registered in New South Wales, they are then subject to the consumer protection laws in that state. So businesses and consumers are placed in a situation where the only way to be sure about their rights and obligations in relation to trade is to understand each and every jurisdiction they deal with.We are familiar with this problem. It comes up all the time—for instance, defamation laws, state industrial relations legislation and the list goes on. I worked for a community legal centre for the past 6½ years and many of the issues we helped people with were sorting out interstate transactions, purchases or matters of employment. It is a difficulty, particularly when departments and community services in each state have different names.I am disappointed that, when a prime opportunity arose for this government to nationalise consumer protection laws, they did not seize it. I suspect that, in the future, as we hear of cases where people have been caught out because of this jurisdictional demarcation, we will regret this opportunity lost. Not all people have the money to employ a lawyer in their own state and in another state to sort out a problem because there are no national consumer protection laws.As I and other speakers from this side of the House have pointed out, this bill is somewhat flawed. We have put forward amendments to address the most problematic of these flaws. But I think we all agree that, despite its flaws, the Electronic Transactions Bill is a positive move in the right direction and it will allow for the continued development of electronic commerce in Australia.11:58:0011007Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—The opposition's spin on the Electronic Transactions Bill 1999 is becoming just a little banal. All morning I have been listening to members opposite acknowledging the aims or the objectives of government legislation, but they are not bringing themselves to embrace entirely the particular bill as it reflects inevitably Liberal philosophy—and in this case, the long-held Liberal values of minimal government interference and the rights of the states.This bill should be read and understood in the current context, and that is what the opposition has failed to do. To be sure, the member for Stirling expresses her profound disappointment but we are not operating in a static domestic environment. It is all very well for the member for Barton to say that we have been too timid and not adventurous enough. We should have been more rigid and come down in some heavy-handed fashion on the states and found the constitutional power to unify prescriptive legislation for each state. But he overlooks entirely what this legislation aims to do. It is part of an overall statutory regime. It is designed to create a framework to manage the ever-evolving and emerging challenges of the information economy and e-commerce.In formulating policy to deal with the e-commerce momentum, and in considering what role a federal government ought to play, we should be mindful of what we are dealing with here: business over the Net. A whole new mind-set is called for, a mind-set that takes account of the properties of the Internet. It is a global phenomenon knowing no national boundaries, and the depth and extent of its explosive changes are able to impact on business practices and procedures in a way not witnessed previously.Certainly, throughout this century, each wave of new technology has changed the world in unforeseeable ways, but it may take decades before we see how the Internet reshapes society and human behaviour once it becomes a mature technology. Already, irreversible social and cultural transitions have been triggered. The Economist in a recent article on the Internet entitled `When companies connect' observed that it was over 100 years ago when the British economist Alfred Marshall wrote in his Principles of economics that:The full importance of an epoch-making idea is often not perceived in the generation in which it is made . . .And there is no doubt that the Internet is an epoch-making idea. It is almost a cliche to say that the Internet is changing everything as we knew it. The challenge is to guess what is changing, how and how quickly.From its obscure beginnings 30 years ago as a computer network created by the US military's Advanced Research Projects Agency, going on line in 1969 as a form of military communication, to its evolution in the mid-1980s as the largest collection of computer networks throughout the world—from its beginnings as a form of communication for the military, then for research and intelligence, then education and now its commercialisation—it may well be a generation, as Marshall would suggest, for the full impact of the Internet to be realised in terms of the reshaping of society and human behaviour.Internet technology is making its presence felt in every corner of the globe, and the power of the Internet goes way beyond emails and online transactions. It is reshaping the way businesses operate; it is transforming the way educators teach students, doctors treat patients or governments deliver services. The information economy is the driving force in world trade today. The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has estimated that, by the year 2000, the global value of goods and services transacted over the Internet will be around $US100 billion to $US150 billion each year. In the US alone, e-commerce is set to rise from about $12 billion this year to over $40 billion within the next two years. Such predictions are conservative.Governments around the world, not just in Australia, are presently determining the most effective legal framework for the long-term management of this essentially global phenomenon. But governments as well as business and industry are stepping into uncharted territory. Issues of privacy, authentication, encryption, content control and security will continue to be issues in the legal, philosophical and technical debates surrounding e-commerce and Internet usage for some time to come.With increasing numbers of online contracts spanning different jurisdictions, there is a need for national governments to adopt common standards for the efficacy of electronic contracts, and Australian businesses realise that, to remain competitive in a global market, they need to embrace the benefits of e-commerce. The Australian government supports business in that aim by our commitment to promoting e-commerce by working to, in the words of the Prime Minister in the Investing for Growth policy statement:. . . foster business and consumer confidence through a light touch regulatory framework.In that December 1997 statement, the Prime Minister also committed the government to bring appropriate services online by 2001, the intention being for the government to provide leadership in e-commerce by becoming a leading edge user of information technology.In framing legislation for legal recognition of technological devices, such as electronic authentication, the government understands that cooperation with private sector industries is essential. I reject entirely the suggestion emanating from the member for Stirling that such cooperation has not been sought or, indeed, given. So in the context in which we consider this legislation, we have got to include the government's commitment to ensuring Australians enjoy the social and economic benefits offered by the explosion in the information economy and that such legislation reflects the reality of the community's increasing recognition of the value of the Internet and e-commerce.Statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics bear out the belief that Australia has one of the highest take-up rates in the world of digital and information technology. Virtually all businesses use computer technology in some form and even a high percentage of small businesses are connected to the Internet. The business user statistics tell their own story. In May 1999, 48 per cent of small businesses and 82 per cent of medium businesses were connected to the Internet. Those are increases of 41 per cent and 26 per cent respectively from the previous 12 months. In May 1999, 12 per cent of small businesses and 18 per cent of medium businesses were selling online. Those are increases of 140 per cent in the case of small businesses and 50 per cent in the case of medium businesses over the previous 12 months.The value of private electronic transactions in the 12 months to November 1998 was in the order of $110 million, according to an ABS estimate. About 18 per cent of small businesses and 48 per cent of medium businesses have a home page. Nearly all large businesses have a home page. I am particularly interested in these statistics, there being about 10,000 registered businesses in my electorate of Curtin. They are mostly retail and service businesses.The user statistics of Australian households online are equally impressive: 5½ million adult Australians accessed the Internet in the 12 months to May 1999. That is an increase of 500,000, or 9.3 per cent, from the February 1999 figures, compared with 1.5 million, or a 53.7 per cent increase, over the same 12-month period to May 1998. Households with Internet access rose to 22.2 per cent. There were 1.52 million households in May 1999, compared to 14.2 per cent in May 1998. Personal home pages abound. Most significantly, over 650,000 Australians used the Internet to purchase goods and services for private use in the 12 months to May 1999, up from 409,000 in the 12 months to May 1998. So I think rapid uptake is a given.The challenge for the federal government is to make policy for this global phenomenon and, in doing so, determine the extent of direct government regulation of the Internet infrastructure. There was some argument early in the piece that we should not legislate and that we should allow e-commerce impediments to be removed either by individual contractual arrangements or by self-regulation. The government rejects this argument. It would not give the expected level of certainty for business. Minimalist legislation will facilitate the development and usage of e-commerce. It will provide the vehicle for harmonising the laws governing e-commerce across Australia. It will facilitate international recognition and enforcement of Australian electronic transactions. It will streamline regulatory processes and reduce administrative burdens.The guiding principle for the government in establishing a legal framework was to reflect that competitive based market solutions are to be favoured, wherever possible, with intervention in the market by the government only to ensure that the online environment is a safe place to do business. The government's approach, as demonstrated by this bill, includes ensuring equitable access to the Internet, favouring industry self-regulation and ensuring national approaches are consistent with internationally agreed positions. Because of the very nature of the Internet, it is the policy of the government to keep regulation at a minimalist position at this stage.Essentially, the bill gives legal efficacy to electronic communications when dealing with government agencies. The bill removes legal impediments that may prevent a person using electronic communications to satisfy obligations under Commonwealth law. The bill echoes many of the sentiments of various reports that were prepared during 1998. It is, as the member for Stirling pointed out, specifically based on the recommendations of the Electronic Commerce Expert Group, which reported to the Attorney-General in March 1998. This group recommended that legislation be enacted on the basis of the United Nation Commission on International Trade's Model Law on Electronic Commerce of 1996 with some modifications. That is what this bill is.It recognises that it is essential for there to be a degree of international cohesiveness in what we introduce by way of legislation. The model law was designed as a template to provide national legislators with a set of internationally acceptable rules designed to remove legal obstacles for the use of electronic communications. In doing so, the model law created a more secure legal environment for e-commerce. Its aim was to provide some prospect for uniformity on a global level, something needed for a technology that does not easily recognise national or international boundaries.Following the expert group's recommendations, the government developed a uniform national legislative scheme for e-commerce, in consultation with the states and territories. This bill is part of that scheme, a minimalist approach to regulating online transactions. The criticism of the member for Barton, I suggest, is off the mark. The light touch approach is indeed the right one at this time. It is criticised as a somewhat contemplative or timid approach. But many jurisdictions, including the US, have now implemented or are implementing their e-commerce laws. Given the need for international consistency in e-commerce regulation, our approach gives us the opportunity to test the waters, to be flexible.For example, some jurisdictions have enacted technology specific legislation dealing with `digital signatures', a term which refers to a particular type of signature technology. An electronic signature is the electronic method of identification that is adopted by a person with intent to be bound by or to authenticate a record. A digital signature, on the other hand, is a subset of electronic signatures that transform a message through the use of an asymmetric cryptosystem.QK6SERCOMBEMr Sercombe—That is an interesting term. Can you explain it to me afterwards?83PBishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP—I am about to. This is fascinating. It is not a digital copy of your handwritten signature. It is created by the generation of two mathematically related keys. Each party in a transaction has two keys, a public key and a private key. The sender of the message encrypts the document with the public key of the recipient and then sends it to that person. The recipient is then able, using the private key, to decrypt the message. The private key can be used to sign a document, and the public key is able to be used to read the signature.The law in the field of digital signatures is very much emerging. It is very popular in some US states, from an extremely comprehensive approach taken in Utah, for example, where the legislation was devised to permit commercial use of digital signatures, to a much more limited approach taken in other states, limiting their enacted legislation to the use of digital signatures in documents filed electronically with the particular state. So there is no uniformity state to state. There is no uniform model law.In Europe, even though the European Commission published a draft directive on the legal framework for the use of electronic signatures, which was aimed at harmonising the conditions for authenticating digital signatures at the EU level, serious divisions among the 15 European member states have prevented the approval of the proposal establishing the framework for the use of digital signatures, because of disagreement over the conditions that would have to apply to the particular technology used. We have not made that mistake. In particular, some of the member countries expressed concern that the provisions would give consumers a false sense of security because technology is changing so fast that, within three years, new technology will be on the market to circumvent the conditions applicable to the prescribed technology.It is for these and similar reasons that our bill adopts many of the model law principles, including technology neutrality—that is, no discrimination between different forms of technology—and media neutrality or functional equivalence, whereby electronic and physical transactions will be equally regulated, so payment over the Internet is the same as payment in person, for example. In other words, legal recognition of electronic equivalents to signature and paper based documents is provided.The basic rule established by the bill is that a transaction will not be invalid because it took place, in whole or in part, by electronic means. The requirement for a signature is satisfied if `a method is used to identify the person and to indicate the person's approval of the information communicated' and the method was `appropriately reliable'. Because the bill does not specify a method for the approval specification of recognition of particular signature technology and thereby endorsing particular electronic signature technologies, it does not have to be amended to take account of technological change. This is a really positive feature of the bill: it takes into account the dynamic nature of technology development and does not lock us into inefficient or less effective technologies. As a complement, the government has established the National Authentication Council to oversee the development of a national framework for electronic authentication of online activity, again not requiring a particular form of digital signature be used but overseeing the development of technical standards and codes of practice.By virtue of the provisions of this bill, the requirement to give information in writing to produce a document, record information or retain a document can also be met in electronic form. Electronic transactions currently operate on the basis of the law as it has evolved over centuries with respect to the more traditional business transactions, practices and procedures.Contract law, as I was taught at law school, certainly highlighted the need for certainty, the need for writing, the need to identify the parties, authentication of signature or corporate seal, the best evidence rule—sight the original not the copy—and the assumptions that are made about the date and time of dispatch and the receipt of communications, all underpinning business confidence. It enabled business to be conducted in a stable, reliable environment based on a body of law giving predictable legal effects. But the growth of Internet based e-commerce has turned all these concepts on their head—fundamental concepts like writing, signature, witnessing, original, copy, service by post and the like. Things my contracts lecturer could not have even dreamt of teaching me.This bill recognises that the continually evolving nature of technology and its continually evolving impact on the way business is conducted mean that we have just got to accept that some of the new working practices and the dazzling new technology, the virtual environments and the like, can be approaching an `old hat' status even before some of us come to hear of them. The criticism of those opposite essentially is that the bill is too restricted in its application, applying as it does to transactions, communications, signatures and record keeping requirements of specified Commonwealth laws, and then, from 1 July 2001, applying to all Commonwealth laws unless specifically exempted. And the opposition asks why the Commonwealth has legislated in respect of its own laws and not those of the states.The Attorney-General has confirmed that national agreement has been reached on uniform legislation to remove legal obstacles to e-commerce in Australia. That agreement was by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, which has agreed in principle to the proposal for an Australia model law to facilitate e-commerce. I suggest that is the correct approach. While this bill is part of a national scheme, through enactment by the Commonwealth and the states and territories, it will operate independently of any legislation in any other jurisdiction and takes effect immediately upon its commencement. There is clear constitutional authority for each jurisdiction to enact legislation within that jurisdiction dealing with e-commerce.Mr Deputy Speaker, this is like Groundhog Day with the clock going that way! As the Managing Director and CEO of IBM Australia, Mr Robert Savage, said to the Business Council of Australia recently in respect of this bill:In the long term, the success of e-business in Australia will depend on a balance being achieved between the flexibility required by individual organisations and the need for a legislative framework that provides standards and methods in this new paradigm.I commend this bill to the House.12:17:0011011Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—At the risk of adding to the hype that is often talked about electronic commerce and the Internet, I think it is no exaggeration to say that we are living through a technological revolution which, in a very short time, is changing our society and our economy and that that change is global. There is change on a scale probably even greater than that of the Industrial Revolution of the 18th century.Concerning the Internet, the global user population is expected to grow at 30 per cent per annum to over half a billion people by the year 2003, and global electronic commerce this year is expected to top $US100 billion on its way to over $US700 billion in three years. Australia must position itself so that our business and economy are taking advantage of the opportunities of this technological revolution; otherwise we will lose out to others, most probably the United States. It is worth noting that a high level of business and consumer confidence in electronic commerce is a necessary condition for Australia to maximise its advantage.The Electronic Transactions Bill 1999 , which has come before the House after a very lengthy time, is really a pretty minimal approach to this matter, as the government itself says. From the opposition's point of view it has a number of significant deficiencies, although we are going to support it in the absence of anything better. It is pleasing to hear the member for Curtin indicate that apparently, according to her, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General has now agreed in principle to some uniformity in relation to these matters. I must say that that has taken an extraordinary length of time, if in fact it is correct. I do notice it is only an in-principle agreement, according to the member for Curtin. I certainly hope, in the interests of maximising certainty, that the information is correct.ZJ6BARRESIMr Barresi—It was in May this year.QK6Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBE—Thank you. One problem the Commonwealth faces in this area of law—as it does in responding quickly in a whole range of areas of business regulations—appears to be some sort of demarcation dispute that exists between the Attorney-General and the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. The extraordinary length of time the Commonwealth is taking to respond to the High Court decision in relation to the cross-vesting of powers is an example. The sort of conflict that seems to exist—the demarcation dispute that seems to exist—between the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation and the Attorney-General is, I suspect, one of the reasons why this bill has taken so long to get to the House.I think the shadow Attorney-General has fairly adequately discussed a number of issues in respect of the legislation. From the point of view of the legislative base from which the Commonwealth seeks to operate, this government appears to have failed to provide the strong national leadership that the Electronic Commerce Expert Group called upon it to provide. The bill has not been set up as a national scheme law. This can lead to divergence in approaches between the states, although one hopes that the in-principle agreement that the member for Deakin advises me was reached in May will hold up.The position, certainly in the member for Deakin's and my home state, has been that the Victorian government has had a discussion paper on its electronic commerce framework bill before it for some time—in fact, I think since December of last year. That particular discussion paper makes remarks about the absence of suitable federal initiatives being the basis upon which Victoria has felt the need to proceed.ZJ6BARRESIMr Barresi—Bracks will fast-track it.QK6Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBE—Yes, I would think so. The discussion paper also states that it would remain Victorian policy to modify its bill, as necessary, if substantial uniform national legislation were enacted. For the government to appear to claim that there has been some sort of states rights issue here in relation to it establishing a national framework in this matter does not seem to be borne out by the Victorian government's approach under the soon not to be so lamented Kennett government. It really is difficult to understand why the federal government has not taken a more creative and leadership oriented approach as its own experts have asked it to do.The problem with not having a national approach can be seen in the United States, for example, where I understand jurisdictional disputes are very much at the heart of early litigation in relation to Internet services. I understand that in a number of cases courts have found that a service provider or a content provider in a remote web site can be held liable under the law of the state where the person accessed the web site. Other cases have found that more than merely offering or accessing a web site is required to ground jurisdiction. So the experience in the US certainly adds weight to the need for a national approach on this, given that the purpose of legislation in this area is to provide the sort of business and community certainty necessary for electronic commerce to flower.For example, the government could well have adopted the approach that under the telecommunications power in section 51 of the Constitution it has the power in this respect, and it could have legislated to the extent of its powers in that respect. The bill could have provided a more adequate framework, as in the Federal Evidence Act, or an alternative framework, as in the Year 2000 Information Disclosure Bill, to make it clear that the Commonwealth was legislating to the maximum of its powers. But that has not happened. We have a very minimal bill, and that is disappointing.The legislation, as I indicated, is supposed to address the issue of providing a greater degree of certainty. A crucial issue in relation to certainty is the matter of the reliability of electronic commerce. Section 10 of the bill illustrates this issue. That section provides that if, under the law of the Commonwealth, the signature of a person is required, that requirement can be taken to have been met in an electronic communication if a person can be identified and indicates their approval to the information communicated and `having regard to all of the relevant circumstances at the time the method was used, the method was as reliable as was appropriate for the purposes for which the information was communicated'.It would appear that that definition really is leaving it very much to the market to determine what is reliable. The government is not seeking to provide an adequate definition of what reliability is. So much for national leadership! There is no progress in the bill in establishing an adequate framework for the authentication of electronic messages. There is no progress in providing a widely accepted framework for determining what is reliable for electronic signatures and the reliability, security and confidentiality of electronic messages, despite the work that has been done on these very issues by Standards Australia and the National Office of the Information Economy on identifying possible approaches for the federal government to take in this matter.Section 14 of the bill, dealing with time and place of dispatch and receipt of electronic communications, also leaves a number of uncertainties. For instance, section 14(1) attempts to determine the time of dispatch of an electronic communication by stating that the time of dispatch will occur when the communication enters an information system outside the control of the sender. This appears to disregard some technical aspects in the sending of emails. For instance, will an electronic communication be regarded as dispatched even if it is bounced from one server to another and eventually comes back to the sender without actually having arrived at its original destination?Another similar issue occurs in section 14(4). That section provides that, if a recipient of an electronic communication has not designated an information system for the purpose of receiving an electronic communication, then, unless the parties otherwise agree, the time of receipt of the electronic communication is the time when that communication `comes to the attention of the recipient'. Determining this time may be extremely difficult. Is it that time when the message was received by the server or the particular mailbox to which a message was originally dispatched?Also missing in the legislation is an adequate provision for data protection, and that is particularly important in the context of the decision of the European Union to establish a framework. There has been real concern in Australian industry that participants in electronic commerce will be impeded in transacting online with European Union members, as our current data protection laws are not as stringent as those required by the European Union directive. I think that, here again, there are serious problems which need to be adequately addressed.The member for Curtin referred to comments made in relation to this legislation by Robert Savage, who is the Managing Director and CEO of IBM Australia, in a recent publication of the Business Council of Australia and seemed to be quoting some of his remarks as some sort of support for the approach the government is taking. Mr Savage is quoted as saying:. the Commonwealth Bill as it presently stands provides little guidance to the courts on whether a particular technology satisfies each particular legal requirement. On the first occasion that any particular issue arises, it will therefore need to be the subject of careful argument by the protagonists before the court;. the Commonwealth Bill establishes no mechanism whereby any particular technology could be declared to satisfy any particular legal requirement. Adoption of formal standards and careful drafting of contractual terms might help, but for them to deliver a high degree of confidence, they would still need to be tested in the court.It is difficult to see how this bill is going to provide the sorts of levels of certainty and confidence that Australians need in electronic commerce when so much of it is still subject to what may well be lengthy and protracted litigation. The approach the government is taking and their rationalisation of that approach on the basis of being light handed and minimal is not really fundamentally addressing some of the issues that I have referred to, and that view is supported, as I indicated, by no less a person than the Chief Executive Officer of IBM.The bill also fails to address appropriate consumer protection measures. Once again the question of confidence is important in terms of electronic commerce, and the differences that may very well arise because of the Commonwealth's failure to provide national leadership across jurisdictional boundaries in this matter will impact adversely on consumers and is a failure of this particular legislation.This government in its approach to the Internet, and its approach to electronic matters generally, is guilty of sins of both omission and commission. We have seen sins of commission with its unworkable attempts to regulate some aspects of Internet content in a very heavy-handed way. That approach to the Internet and the problems that arise on the Internet, which all members of this parliament agree need to be addressed, is simply not going to be workable in the form in which the government has approached it.In this particular case we have got a government that is guilty of sins of omission simply because it is not adopting the approach that is needed by Australian business and Australian consumers for higher degrees of certainty in terms of access to electronic commerce and the use of electronic commerce. As I started off by saying, given the massive growth in electronic commerce that we can envisage into the very near future, and the importance of that in terms of the competitiveness of Australian business and Australian industry, this government's failure in that respect is something that is pretty appalling.The opposition, as the shadow Attorney-General has indicated, supports the legislation in the absence of anything better, but the government really should not take any great credit for this particular bill. It is very minimal, it is very inadequate, and I am sure we are going to be back here on a number of occasions addressing those matters. Regrettably, it is typical of the government's approach to business regulation generally. The Prime Minister really ought to do something about sorting out this jurisdictional blue that is going on between his two ministers because, as I indicated earlier, as in that massively important area for Australian business, the High Court's intervention on cross-vesting, it is just not good enough for Australian business to have to wear the consequences of this government's failures.12:32:0011015Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—I am pleased to speak in the debate on the Electronic Transactions Bill 1999 as it is an example of the Commonwealth taking the lead and setting an example. By giving official and legal status to electronic transactions we are sending a message to the community that this method of doing business is with us to stay. We are saying you can have full confidence and trust in it as a means of conducting your business transactions. We are sending a message that it is safer and quicker to engage in electronic transactions rather than the traditional, time consuming, but often comfortable paper and face- to-face transactions. We are also conveying the message to the states that we expect them to honour their commitment to introduce complementary state legislation, as they indicated they would to the Attorney-General as recently as May this year.In order to understand the reasoning behind this bill it is important to understand how electronic commerce and the entire Internet industry have changed dramatically over the last few years. There are any number of issues related to business and vast opportunities presented to business by the expansion of electronic commerce. I remember a few years ago the Microsoft ad for its Internet browser. Very simply, it posed the question, `Where do you want to go to today?' A couple of years later I am just starting to comprehend the depth of that question. The answer, of course, is anywhere your imagination can take you. Believe me, there are some people out there with an extremely vivid imagination and it has taken them places hitherto undreamed of.The Internet is the prime example of globalisation. It has brought the world not just into our boardrooms but into our living rooms at home. It is television with which we can interact. Recently, I connected my home computer to the Internet and I have been amazed at how quickly one can become hooked. While helping my son surf the Net, he said to me, `Dad, the Internet is telling us to buy this product now. We'd better go and do it.' How times have changed. The old belief that if it is in the newspaper it must be true apparently has been supplanted by belief in the Net.How big is the Internet today? It is a hard question, but we can say that it is nowhere near as big as it will be in 10 minutes time. One recent estimate put the contribution of e-commerce in the US economy last year at $455 million in revenue and 1.2 million jobs.The Australian evidence is just as compelling. Small to medium enterprises have responded to the technology age, with 82 per cent of small businesses and 99 per cent of medium sized businesses using computers. Thirteen per cent of all small and medium enterprises are using the Net to sell products and services. Estimations are that will more than double in the next year.Given the amount of activity in the sector, this bill is a timely contribution to the future of electronic commerce in Australia. That we are debating it here in the Main Committee, the chamber reserved for non-controversial legislation, is somewhat ironic, given the ever-growing and ever-changing nature of cyberspace. Recently, I challenged an audience to find a page in a newspaper or a magazine that does not contain the word Internet or list at least one web site address. Today, it is a difficult, if not impossible task.Electronic commerce, as we term transactions conducted via computer hook-up, is a growing business and it is growing fast. Many have asked if this boom is for real. Kerry Packer thinks so. He recently launched his second major cyber venture and backed it with a lot of money. Merrill Lynch, the respected multinational broking firm, now allows its 5.4 million customers to do their dealings on the Net at a substantial discount. I somehow believe this is not an act of altruism on the part of Merrill Lynch, rather an acknowledgment that e-commerce cuts the cost of doing business rather substantially.We now see on television ads promoting E-Trade Australia, which is encouraging us to use the Net to buy and sell stocks. IBM Business Solutions have weighed in heavily of late, advertising during prime time. Tuesday's Financial Review has an e-directory of online business players. At present, it is a full page of companies and web site addresses, and I predict that the Australian Financial Review will have to, in the very near future, discontinue this feature because there will be too many to list.According to a recent survey, 23 per cent of small businesses are connected to the Internet, with 69 per cent planning their own home page. Australia today ranks eighth among 55 surveyed countries as an information based economy. We boast 27 computers for every 100 people. In our household, there are three computers—one for each child, and mum and dad have to wait their turn. Aside from business applications and retailing of goods, provision of financial services, banking and legal and medical services are all part of e-commerce. Amounts spent in these areas are already substantial.The percentage of users buying goods and services on the web is expected to grow from 8.8 per cent in 1996 to 33.4 per cent in 2001. This explains why our retailing sector is increasingly worried about the future of patrons coming through doors. An interesting statistic from the United States shows that new car sales from showrooms in California are down 40 per cent because of online competition. People are buying their cars through the Net in California. Therefore, it is conceivable that, within 10 to 15 years, car dealerships as we know them will be a thing of the past. Why have such a valuable floor space taken up by thousands of dollars of automotive stock? The same will take place in other retailing businesses.Simply put, the Internet presents endless possibilities for rapid delivery of services. While there is considerable angst in rural and regional Australia on a perceived loss of services such as banking, it may be that e-commerce will be able to breach this shortfall. That will be so particularly if those communities that are more comfortable with person-to-person dealings can embrace a perhaps colder but more efficient way of doing business.I represent Deakin, an electorate that is becoming the IT and communications centre of Australia. I am keen to see the expansion of and further advancements in communications. There is a proposal in my electorate by one particular businessman to set up a virtual reality village, whereby all the services in the area will be accessible through the Net supported by the local city council.These sorts of ideas will, in the next few years, start to overtake our own imagination. This legislation will help to give confidence, trust and credibility to industries to be able to embrace these ideas knowing that their transactions are secure.New technologies have enormous potential to foster legitimate and new commercial activities. In the 1990s the Internet has become accessible to an ever-increasing number of individuals, corporations, governments and interest groups. It is a decentralised tool. Data can be accessed and distributed from just about anywhere in the world. It is used as a means of communication by individuals, groups and organisations, as a source of information and education, for entertainment and for business.The potential for business to be transacted and goods and services to be sold and purchased over the net creates an enormous potential for commerce in markets worldwide. Efficiency gains from the use of electronic commerce can be enormous. For example, the costs of transacting business and defining, protecting and enforcing the property rights to goods and assets amount to a staggering 45 per cent of the United States national income.This bill will aid the further development of the information economy of Australia by broadly removing the existing legal impediments that may prevent a person using electronic communications to satisfy obligations under Commonwealth law. It will give business and the community the option of using electronic communications when dealing with government agencies.Using recommendations from the Electronic Commerce Expert Group, the legislation is based on the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law on Electronic Commerce of 1996. The model law contains a set of internationally acceptable rules designed to remove a number of legal obstacles to the use of electronic communications for the communication of legally significant information, thereby creating a more secure legal environment for electronic commerce.The bill will allow electronic communications to satisfy existing legal requirements for writing, signature, document production and the retention of documents, subject to certain minimum requirements. It does not discriminate between different forms of technology. All governments in Australia are trying to maximise their opportunities in the information age and have given their in-principle support to writing legislation based on this bill.It is appropriate at this time to also talk about the fact that electronic commerce can be subjected to criminal manipulation. There is a need for us to make sure that we present opportunities for electronic commerce through legislation but we must do so in a way which guards against endless possibilities of illegal activity, which includes such things as damaging or interfering with defence and other data processing and telecommunications systems; the electronic funds transfer crime—electronic money laundering to disguise the proceeds of crime or to avoid taxation of legitimately gained income; the use of telecommunication systems to further organise drug trafficking, gambling, prostitution, arms trafficking and other illegal activities; and, of course, the scourge of all of us, the spreading of viruses through the Internet and on the email.The very features of the Internet which make it such an exciting medium—its enormous reach and anonymity for users—also create enormous potential for it to be used to aid existing forms of crime and to generate new crimes.The Internet does, however, have potential uses as a crime prevention tool. As one leading criminologist said recently, although its potential is yet to be realised, the use of technology for general public relations, for the communication of basic information for crime prevention and for the exchange of information in furthering of criminal investigation, may be expected to increase dramatically in the years ahead. Already, photographs displayed on the Internet have led to the arrest of fugitives. The activities of pornographers and software pirates may be traced effectively using the information available on the Internet.Australians are enthusiastic users of new technologies, and in no way are we immune from those perils. In terms of reducing risk to legitimate e-commerce, the developments of an effective encryption system is vital. Australian criminologists and lawyers are among the foremost analysts of telecommunications and technological crime in the world.Cryptography is being used by the Australian government as a means to combat fraud in the conduct of electronic transactions. Encryption ensures confidentiality of data by transforming it into data which is unintelligible to third parties. Decryption converts the unintelligible data back into its normal intelligible form. The uses of cryptography, including encrypting communications and the creating of digital signatures, will help in safeguarding against such criminal activity. It is important that we create and maintain a climate that encourages technology innovation, supports legitimate electronic commerce, and ensures privacy and security for consumers who use the Internet.This legislation is part of that wave of ensuring that we have provided safeguards to consumers not only, in the first instance, in their dealings with the Commonwealth, but also in having that confidence to go out and create new products, look at new service deliveries and know that their transactions have the full backing of law. The opposition has pointed to some shortfalls. I believe that anything that moves as fast as this particular industry is something with which we are going to be tested and which we will have difficulty in being able to keep up with. This legislation is the first part of that process. I look forward to state governments and other jurisdictions following suit and the public in general embracing electronic commerce as a new way of doing business.12:46:0011018Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—As my colleague the shadow Attorney-General has indicated, the opposition is broadly in support of the Electronic Transactions Bill 1999 . It seeks to enable electronic commerce to have the same kind of sound legal footing that ordinary commerce has enjoyed under common and statute law in this country for well over 100 years now. As electronic commerce moves throughout the world, recent OECD and United States reports have indicated that we will be talking many hundreds of billions of dollars in a few short years time.Clearly electronic commerce needs the same kind of statutory and common law footing for its undertakings as ordinary commercial transactions have had. This will guarantee that citizens can rightly have confidence in the way in which those transactions are undertaken and be certain that the legal system will stand behind them in disputes. Businesses can be sure that they have a solid basis to undertake the transactions with consumers. People will not be able to walk away from those transactions, and businesses can gain the productivity and efficiency benefits which electronic commerce promises. Without a sound legal footing, those efficiency and productivity gains will be very light indeed and very difficult to put into effect. It is the basis of law on which the system operates which guarantees that those efficiency gains offered by electronic communication, the Internet and e-commerce in general can be translated into real gains for business and consumers throughout the country.This legislation represents a very good tentative and first step into the area of electronic commerce regulation by the government. It is unfortunate, as my colleague the shadow Attorney-General has said, that this did not come sooner. It is unfortunate that the government has not taken the opportunity to more aggressively pursue with their colleagues in the states a more national basis for this legislation. Nonetheless, that does not in any way counter the beneficial effect of this legislation. I certainly encourage the government to proceed further with it to see how a more national approach can be adopted.The referral of powers by the states is one option, but a more aggressively pursued cooperative regime by the Commonwealth will be very important. It needs to take place very quickly because this, as honourable members opposite have said, is a rapidly evolving area and we do not want to wait too long. Also, as other speakers have indicated, we do not want to be too prescriptive about the technology which we are supporting in the law.The legislation must be enabling but it must not be prescriptive or attempt to pick winners in the area of particular technologies. The market should be allowed to determine what it will support by way of digital signature verification, for example, and all those areas of technology which underlie electronic commerce transactions. The parliament should attempt to enable those areas. It should attempt to give legal and statutory underpinning to electronic commerce without attempting to determine which technologies will be the winning technologies in the years ahead. No doubt they will change many times over the next few years.The parliament must move aggressively to secure people's rights and to ensure that dealing with the Commonwealth in an electronic form is even more convenient than dealing with the Commonwealth in person or by correspondence. That is an area in which the Commonwealth has a long way to go. I encourage the government to look further at ways in which it can be a market leader and a principal investor in this technology, ensuring that its own business affairs are conducted via the Internet so that people can ensure a sound domestic base is established for these transactions and business is encouraged to move because of market leadership by the Commonwealth.The investment which the Commonwealth can make in these transactions will underpin investment by business. Again that is not in specific technologies, in terms of the legislation, but very much in terms of enabling those processes to occur and in being a leading investor in these technologies so that the public can gain confidence in them and so that business will have a sound domestic base on which to build its own investment in this area.I would like to turn to areas of this debate which might appear at first sight to be more esoteric but which I think will underpin electronic commerce in the future and which we ignore at our peril. One of those is the encryption debate. Colleagues opposite have indicated the importance of encryption as an underlying means of securing electronic commerce, of securing privacy over the Internet, of securing the protection of data and of generally providing for public and business confidence in the integrity of these systems and the validation of identity by electronic means—something which it is not so easy to do. As the saying on the Internet goes, `On the Internet no-one knows you are a dog.' The reality is that over the Internet no-one knows either that you are Martyn Evans or Alan Cadman or whatever. So some method of evaluating people's identity, of confirming that the transaction is indeed taking place between the parties that they represent themselves to be, is also very important. Those things are all underpinned by encryption.Encryption was once the sole preserve of secret agents and defence departments, and indeed was jealously guarded by those people and held tightly to their electronic chests so that they were the only ones who had this technology. And, indeed, in the fifties and sixties that was a valid assumption for government to make. It was important that government held those secrets as national security issues and preserved its own ability to undertake secret communications, but excluded the general public, and in particular criminals, terrorists and the like, from undertaking those kinds of secret communication.However, the reality is that electronic commerce has turned this whole argument completely on its head and it is now fundamental that government encourages—indeed, almost mandates—the use of strong encryption in the community and in business, not only to ensure privacy but to ensure the invulnerability from attack by criminals, by terrorists, of private financial transactions, of our national information infrastructure, as the Americans call it, and of our telephone networks, electricity networks, even the water supply network and so on. All of these things are underpinned by electronic commerce and by computer systems. It is only through the use of encryption technology that they can all be properly safeguarded and protected and that public confidence in electronic commerce—which will be absolutely critical to the future building of electronic commerce in this country and throughout the world—can be sustained by strong encryption, as can the establishment of identity over the Internet.Governments still tend to cling to those 1950s national security/secret agent agendas. This government has made some attempt to move out of that era but, unfortunately, like the government in the United States, it still clings to some of those old ideas. I hope, in a spirit of bipartisanship in putting this idea forward, that the government will seriously examine its commitment to open, strong encryption technology in this country, with a view to supporting that solidly. Instead of holding back as if from the edge of a precipice, it should step forward and admit that the technology is now essential to electronic commerce and important to the average citizen and to business, and can no longer be held back from open use in the community because of fears about national security, criminal activity and the like.The reality is the whole debate has now been turned completely on its head. In order to protect citizens and business and government infrastructure from terrorists, criminals and others, it is essential that it is the good guys who now use the strong encryption technology, even if this will in some cases allow criminal elements to use that technology as well. The reality is that terrorists and criminals can buy strong encryption technology on the open market in the United States, they can download it from the Internet and they have access to it. We are excluding in some cases and we are failing to encourage the public to adopt this technology because of some lingering national security fears which are now very much outdated.It is possible to use strong encryption in this country without too much restriction. If you want to put that on your own computer, you can do so. But if you want to export that technology you face interrogation by the government. If you want to ensure that you are able to use that technology in your own networks, you face real bureaucratic difficulties in importing this technology from the United States and implementing it on your own network for electronic mail security. For example, the parliament has recently sought to bring into this country a security certificate for 128-bit encryption technology to use on our own internal mail system in Parliament House. It took months to get that technology validated from the United States, and that only brings us to 128-bit encryption. The average Internet browser in this country used by ordinary citizens is only good for 40-bit encryption.The technology we are proposing to use in Parliament House, which has taken much bureaucratic effort to get in place, is only 128-bit encryption. A few weeks ago, in the United States, scientists broke 512-bit encryption. It took them a fair bit of effort, they had to use a number of computers to do it, but the reality is that 512-bit public key encryption is now suspect. Yet we are encouraging the public to use 40-bit encryption and the parliament itself, after much effort, has only just proposed to move to 128-bit encryption. Clearly, we have a long way to go in this debate.It is time the government said, `This whole thing is now completely different. We must insist on the public using very high levels of encryption, beyond 512-bit. The average person should be using 768-plus bits of encryption. For really sensitive material you would use much more. It is overkill, of course, but it does guarantee privacy, it does guarantee certainty of transactional identity and it does guarantee public confidence in the system. It secures our transactions against invasions by criminals.'Some people will say and the law enforcement agencies will say, `This prevents us from listening in on other people's transactions. This prevents us listening to drug dealers who wish to exchange communications over the Internet on drug deals. This prevents us from deciphering and decrypting child pornography over the Internet.' If those people are serious, they can already use very strong public key encryption which they can download over the Internet. I downloaded, quite legally, pretty good privacy PGP encryption from Norway, where it is up on the Internet. Many other people in this country have done the same thing. That offers 2,000-bit encryption and is unbreakable, I would suggest, even by the National Security Agency of the US—but who can tell? It is certainly unbreakable in Australia.The reality is that if you can download that in 20 minutes over the Internet, then if you are serious about child pornography or you are serious about drug trafficking you will have already done that and you will not have any problem in defeating the law enforcement agencies. So those people already have that technology. It is important that we now get the rest of the community using it so that they can be safe from the people who would threaten their transactions, who would threaten their privacy and who would threaten the very foundations of electronic commerce.The fact that some people will continue to use that for criminal purposes should be made a serious offence. The use of cryptography to cover criminal transactions ought to be a serious offence in this country, because that would have put us on the correct basis for penalising the criminals while encouraging the public and business as a whole to use encryption technology for what it is meant to be used for. And the government should be behind that.Law enforcement has been greatly assisted by technology in recent times—DNA fingerprinting, cameras in public places, the use of neural networks to track financial data transactions. In all those areas technology has delivered massive gains to law enforcement, and so it should—I am not against any of that at all. I think it is very important that law enforcement agencies stay on top of all of these new technologies and take maximum advantage from them. One technology offers a small degree of detriment to them. They should overlook that, see the greater good of electronic commerce in this country, take the other benefits which technology has delivered to them—DNA testing itself has delivered enormous benefits to law enforcement in this country and throughout the world—and live with the small problems, which they are already going to have to live with anyway, due to encryption technology. (Extension of time granted)Obviously, one of the few ways we can address this sensibly in the modern climate is to enter into some treaties with countries like the US and Europe to ensure that we have reciprocal obligations and rights between our countries to allow encryption to flow between these countries and to allow export and development in the domestic market without restriction. I think the government should then proceed, having negotiated some international agreements in this regard, to review its domestic laws and to repeal some of the measures which we adopted here last year—for example, to force telecommunications companies and ISPs to decrypt on demand of the government any transmission which they have encrypted.I debated with honourable members in this very place a year ago the government's legislation which mandates the decryption without reference to the consumer or the business of any encrypted message which an ISP or a telecommunications service provider has encrypted. That technology itself, once the public understands that measure, will severely undermine confidence in electronic commerce. The government should step back from that and criminalise the use of cryptography for criminal purposes but at the same time encourage and remove those laws which provide for the decryption of those messages because they will undermine public confidence. That is the reality of this, and there is no way of avoiding that outcome when the public know that their messages can be decrypted.It is for that very same reason that mandatory key escrow systems will also not work. If the public know that either the government or some third party is holding decrypt keys for their messages, then they will not trust the security of those messages. Any attempt to use those mandatory key escrow technologies will also be unsuccessful in the long run. We might as well admit that now and make a virtue of the necessity and move forward on the legislation and the technology and gain the maximum advantage for Australian business.The reality is that the United States is very rapidly moving in this direction. Having resisted it strongly for years, having declared the export of encryption technology be the same as the export of dangerous munitions, the United States a few days ago announced new policies on encryption technology which I think will rapidly lead to the removal of all restrictions on the export of escrow encryption from the United States, meaning that Australia's window of opportunity to capture this international market will be lost once the US moves into it. Instead of having only a toe in the water, so-to-speak, at this stage, the government should move forward much more aggressively in this area and in the area of electronic commerce to ensure that Australia's place in the world in this area can be well captured.Earlier this year the government also put in place Internet censorship rules which I think will damage electronic commerce severely in the long run. Honourable members opposite congratulated themselves on saving Australian children from being exposed to unsavoury images and practices over the Internet because of their censorship regime. Of course we all support that kind of outcome, but the reality is that the government's legislation will go no way to achieving that outcome and it will seriously undermine some aspects of Australia's e-commerce. Again, we must review all of those laws which put roadblocks on the `electronic superhighway'—to quote the Vice-President of the United States—and ensure that Australia's place in pursuing electronic commerce can be a very strong one.That is our role in this region. We have a very good telecommunications base. We have a strong legal base and very competent financial and other work force employees. We could adopt a very strong role in this if people had confidence in our legal system and in our technology, which they will only get if the government removes these kinds of restrictions from its legal base.I strongly commend this legislation to the committee. I ask the government to review exactly the role that it is pursuing and, instead of adopting this more timid approach, to move forward more strongly to ensure Australia's place in the e-commerce world. Debate (on motion by Mr Cadman) adjourned.Main Committee adjourned at 1.06 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing11024The following answers to questions were circulated:11024(Question No. 793)79311024Zahra, Christian, MPMr Zahra84HMcMillanALP00 asked the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, upon notice, on 9 August 1999:(1) Has the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) received complaints or expressed concerns about the behaviour of (a) Croft Health Care Pty Ltd, (b) Croft Health Care Vic. Pty Ltd, (c) Croft Health Care Properties Pty Ltd, (d) G&L Croft Pty Ltd, (e) Millennium Aged Care Pty Ltd, (f) Ringwood Drive-in Shopping Centre Pty Ltd, (g) Croft Management Services Pty Ltd, (h) Gracedale Manor Pty Ltd, (i) P&C Nominees Pty Ltd, (j) Sixty Ninth Octex Pty Ltd, (k) Private Hospital Management Systems Pty Ltd and (l) Third Ocwood Pty Ltd; if so, in each case, (i) what was the nature of the complaints or concerns and (ii) what action did ASIC take.(2) Is he able to say whether there are instances of a company referred to in part (1) not meeting all its requirements under corporations law; if so, in each case, (a) which company, (b) which requirement was not met and (c) when did the breach occur.11024Hockey, Joe, MPMr HockeyDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) It would be inappropriate for me to say publicly whether the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has or has not received complaints or expressed concerns about any particular company. As complaints are not always well founded and substantiated, disclosure that a complaint has been made could harm the business and reputation of a company which is operating within the law. In other cases, such disclosure could compromise ASIC investigations. Partly reflecting these concerns, ASIC is subject to strict confidentiality requirements under section 127 of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 1989.11024(Question No. 837)83711024Albanese, Anthony, MPMr AlbaneseR36GrayndlerALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 11 August 1999:(1) Does the Government have a policy in regard to the north west African state of Western Sahara. (2) Has the Government's attention been drawn to alleged human rights abuses in this area; if so, what assistance has the Government provided to the UN in order to stop the abuses from occurring.(3) Has the Government made representations to the Moroccan Government about the alleged human rights abuses in the Western Sahara.(4) Will the Government (a) re-introduce its contingent to the UN mission in the area and (b) consider sending independent observers to monitor the UN referendum scheduled for July 2000.(5) Has the Government provided humanitarian assistance to the Saharawi people who have been described as refugees.11024Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Australia considers the Polisario Front to be representative of an important body of West Saharan opinion, but does not regard it as the sole representative. Australia does not recognise the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR), proclaimed in Algeria in February 1976. Australian Parliamentarians and officials may meet the Popular Front for the Liberation of Saquila el-Hamra and Rio de Oro (Polisario Front) representatives informally. Since many Polisario representatives also hold SADR positions, Australian Ministers do not normally receive them, because to do so might be presented as Australian acceptance of the SADR as the government of Western Sahara.(2) The Government continues to monitor the human rights situation in the Western Sahara as part of its commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights internationally. While Amnesty International's Reports on the Western Sahara dated June and August 1999 outline the organisation's continuing concerns over the human rights situation, in particular on torture and ill-treatment in detention, freedom of expression, association and movement, the organisation acknowledges there have been improvements in recent years, including in the release of hundreds of "disappeared" and also of prisoners of conscience.Australia contributed defence force personnel to the UN MINURSO Mission in the Western Sahara from 1991-94. One of the functions of the MINURSO peacekeeping operation was to ensure the release of all Western Saharan political prison ers and to oversee the exchange of prisoners of war. Australia has joined consensus on the UN General Resolution on the Question of Western Sahara which stresses the importance of a full, fair and faithful implementation of the settlement plan and the agreements aimed at its implementation.(3) Over the last few years, individual cases of alleged human rights abuses in the Western Sahara have been brought to the Government's attention through a longstanding arrangement set in place whereby Amnesty International "Urgent Action" cases are pursued by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on behalf of the Amnesty International Parliamentary Group. The Australian Embassy in Paris, which has responsibility for Morocco, has made representations to the Moroccan authorities.(4) (a) Australia contributed defence force personnel to the UN Mission for the Referendum in the Western Sahara (MINURSO) from September 1991—May 1994. The Australian withdrawal in no way reflects a diminution of Australian support for the UN operation. There are no current plans for Australia to re-introduce its contingent.(b) The Government would carefully consider any formal request to send observers to monitor the UN referendum scheduled for July 2000 taking into account our established policies on peace-keeping and the fact that the Western Sahara is not central to Australia's foreign policy interests.(5) Australia has not to date provided any direct humanitarian assistance to the Saharawi people of the Western Sahara. However, in 1998, through AusAID's emergency standby staffing arrangement with the Registered Engineers for Disaster Relief Australia (RedR), two Australian hydro-geologists were deployed to the Western Sahara for four months to identify water resources for the Saharawi people.11025(Question No. 847)84711025Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 12 August 1999:(1) When did Australia first establish an embassy in Copenhagen, Denmark.(2) Did the Howard Government close the Australian Embassy in Denmark; if so, (a) when and (b) why.(3) Did the Danish Government issue an official response to the Commonwealth's decision to close its embassy in Copenhagen at the time: if so, what was it.(4) Will the Howard Government re-establish an Australia Embassy in Copenhagen, Denmark; is so (a) when, (b) why and (c) what circumstances have changed since the embassy was first closed.(5) At the time of its closing, (a) what was the address of the Australian Embassy in Copenhagen, (b) what was the total annual running cost, including staff salaries, of operating the mission and (c) how many staff were employed at the embassy.(6) At the time of its closing, did the Commonwealth rent or own the building in which the embassy was located.(7) If the Commonwealth owned the building, did it sell it once the embassy was closed; is so, (a) for what price was it sold, in Australian dollars.(8) If the Commonwealth maintained ownership in the event it decided to re-open the embassy at a later date, has it been rented throughout the period since it was closed; it sos (a) by whom and (b) for what annual rent in Australian dollars; if not, why not.(9) If the building that housed the embassy was sold when the mission was closed, has the Commonwealth decided where it would locate a new embassy; if so where; if not, (a) how long before a site is located and (b) when will a new Australian Embassy be opened in Denmark.(10) Will the Commonwealth purchase or rent a new building for its new embassy in Denmark; if it has purchased a new building, (a) for what sum, in Australian dollars, was it purchased and (b) from whom; if it will rent a building, (c) for what sum, in Australian dollars, and (d) from whom.(11) Before the embassy was closed, was the residence of the former Australian Ambassador located at the same site; if not, (a) where was it located and (b) did the Commonwealth sell it when the mission was closed; if so, for what price was it sold, in Australian dollars; if it maintained ownership of the residence, has it been rented throughout the period since the embassy was closed; if so, by whom and for what annual rent, in Australian dollars; if not, why not.(12) If the residence of the former Australian Ambassador to Denmark was sold when the mission was closed, has the Commonwealth decided where it will locate the new Ambassador's residence; if so, where will it be locate; if not, how long before a site is located.(13) Will the Commonwealth purchase or rent a new residence for the new Australian Ambassador to Denmark; if it has purchased the building, (a) for what sum, in Australian dollars, was it purchased and (b) from whom; if it will be renting a building, (c) for what sum, in Australian dollars, and (d) from whom.(14) What will be the estimated cost of completely refitting both (a) the new Australian Embassy in Denmark and (b) the residence of the new Australian Ambassador to Denmark in order to bring both buildings up to the standard required for an Australian Embassy and Ambassador's residence.(15) How many staff will be employed at the new Australian embassy in Denmark.(16) Was the decision to close the mission ill considered; if not, why not.(17) Does closure and subsequent re-opening of the Australian Embassy in Denmark portray Australia's foreign policy in Europe, particularly in relation to Scandinavia, as unplanned, haphazard, thoughtless and undermine Australia's credibility in dealing with nations in that region; if not, why not.(18) Has he decided upon the new Australian Ambassador to Denmark; if so, who; if not, (a) when will he make a decision and (b) will he rule out announcing a former liberal or national party State or federal member of parliament or Senator as the new Australian Ambassador to Denmark; if not, why not.11026Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) November 1970, when the Consulate-General in Copenhagen was raised to the status of an Embassy.(2) Yes.(a) May 1997.(b) Australian Government budgetary pressures at the time.(3) Yes. The Danish Government expressed its regrets and disappointment about the decision to close the Embassy, but conveyed its wish to continue developing close and friendly ties between Australia and Denmark.(4) Yes.(a) It is expected that an Embassy will be re-opened around May 2000.(b) The decision to re-open was made in light of Australia's growing trade interests in Denmark, the Australian Government's commitment to boost bilateral relations with Denmark and to enhance our ability to represent Australia's interests within the European Union and Scandinavia.(c) In addition to the reasons provided in (4) (b) above, the budgetary pressures which impelled the closure are no longer applicable.(5) (a) Kristianigade 2 1, DK 2 1 00, Copenhagen, Denmark.(b) The total running cost, including staff salaries was $1,885,216.(c) The Embassy employed S Australian based Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) staff, 9 locally engaged DFAT staff, 3 locally engaged Austrade staff and 3 locally engaged Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs staff.(6) The Chancery was Commonwealth owned.(7) As the building was Commonwealth owned, this question should be directed to my colleague the Minister for Finance.(8) As the building was Commonwealth owned, this question should be directed to my colleague the Minister for Finance.(9) No.(a) A decision on this matter has not been made.(b) It is expected that an Embassy will be re-opened around May 2000.(10) A decision on this matter has not been made.(11) No.(a) Solbakkevej 23, GentoRe, Copenhagen Denmark.(b) As the building was Commonwealth owned, this question should be directed to my colleague the Minister for Finance.(12) No. A decision on where the new Ambassador's Residence will be located is yet to be made.(13) It is likely that the Commonwealth will rent a residence for the Ambassador when the post is opened. This decision will be taken following market analysis after the post is opened.(14) Such costs can only be established following selection of appropriate premises.(15) Preliminary planning is for the Embassy to have 3 Australian based DFAT staff and 5 locally engaged DFAT staff.(16) No. The decision to close the Embassy was appropriate in the prevailing circumstances.(17) No. The Australian Government has continued to pursue its interests effectively, and to maintain close, friendly and cooperative relations with Europe and Scandinavia.(18) No.(a) and (b) I will not speculate about fixture appointments. Standard practice is that issue press releases on all Head of Mission appointments when it is appropriate to do so. When the Government makes a decision on an appointment to Copenhagen, it will be announced in the usual way.11026(Question No. 848)84811026Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 12 August, 1999:(1) When did Australia first establish an embassy in Damascus, Syria?(2) Will the Howard Government close the Australian Embassy in Syria; if so, (a) when and (b) why.(3) Has he received correspondence from the Syrian Government or its representatives registering an opinion on this decision; if so, is he able to say what is the Syrian Government's opinion, if not, why not.(4) What is the address of the Australian Embassy in Damascus and what is the total annual running cost, including staff salaries, of operating the mission.(5) At the time of his decision to close the embassy, how many staff were employed at be embassy.(6) Does the Commonwealth rent or own the building in which the embassy was located.(7) If the Commonwealth owns the building, will it sell it once the embassy is closed; if so, (a) for what price is it expected to be sold, in Australian dollars.(8) If the Commonwealth intends to maintain ownership in the event it decides to re-open the embassy at a later date, will it be rented after it is closed; if so, what annual rent, in Australian dollars, will it seek.(9) Is the residence of the Australian Ambassador located at the same site; if not, (a) where is it located and (b) will the Commonwealth sell it when the mission is closed; if so, for what price does it expect to sell it, in Australian dollars; if it will maintain ownership of the residence, will it be rented after the Ambassador departs; if so, what annual rent, in Australian dollars, will it ask.(10) Did he state in June 1998 that Australia valued its relations with Syria and looked forward to achieving a deeper dialogue on a range of political and economic issues; if so, how will Australia's relationship with Syria progress and develop without Australia maintaining its embassy in Damascus.(11) Does the closure of the Australian Embassy in Syria so soon after announcing his hopes for a close and developing relationship between Australia and Syria portray Australia's foreign policy in the Middle East, particularly in regards to Syria, as unplanned, haphazard, thoughtless and undermine Australia's credibility in dealing with nations in that region; if not, why not.(12) How many persons annually access the Australian Embassies in (a) Syria, (b) Jordan and (c) Israel, seeking to travel to Australia as (i) a visitor, (ii) a permanent resident, (iii) a refugee or (iv) other categories. 11027Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) 28 December 1978.(2) The Australian Embassy in Damascus closed to the public, except to deal with emergency cases, on 19 August and will cease all operations on 17 September 1999. (b) The decision to close the embassy in Damascus was the result of a wider Government review of where it could best utilise the resources at its disposal in Australia's overall national interest.(3) The Syrian Foreign Minister, Mr Farouk Al-Sharaa, wrote to me seeking a review of the Government's decision. In response I noted that the decision would stand and had been based solely on resource considerations. I emphasised that the decision in no way reflected the value Australia placed on maintaining a sound and mutually productive relationship with Syria, that we remained committed to that relationship and that we would be concluding arrangements as soon as possible for effective diplomatic accreditation to Syria from one of our other regional missions.(4) The Embassy is located at 47 Karabi Street, Mezzeh, Damascus.The total running costs in 1998/99, including staff salaries, was $1,457,772.(5) The embassy's staffing numbers were: 2 Australia-based officers; 10.5 DFAT permanent locally engaged staff (LES); 2 DIMA LES; and 0.5 LES Austrade officers. There were also 2 DFAT-contracted LES.(6) The Chancery is rented.(7) N/A(8) N/A(9) The residence of the Australian Ambassador is leased and is not co-located with the Chancery. The address is, 17 Refai Street, Mezzeh, Damascus.(10) As I indicated in my recent letter to the Syrian Foreign Minister, Australia certainly continues to value its relationship with Syria and looks forward to achieving a deeper dialogue on a range of political and economic issues. Our decision to close Damascus is in no way a reflection of the value Australia places on maintaining a sound and mutually productive relationship with Syria. The Government is confident that Australia's interests in Syria can be pursued effectively with non-resident accreditation.(11) The Government's decision was taken purely on resource grounds and reflected an assessment of where scarce resources would be best utilised for support of Australia's national interests. It was part of a wider review of representation which also saw the closure of Australia's embassy in Kazakstan and the opening of new missions in Copenhagen and Los Angeles. It thus demonstrably did not reflect a "haphazard" decision in relation to the Middle East. On the contrary, Australia has moved to strengthen its ties with the Middle East, especially in our major trading partners, including through the opening this year of an embassy in Abu Dhabi. I should note that Australian exports to Syria in 1998-99 amounted to $14.3 million, compared (for example) with exports to the U.A.E of $834.8 million in the same year. Australia is conscious of the important role Syria plays in the region. We look forward to continuing to develop a sound relationship with Syria in the years ahead.(12) In 1998-99, the Australian embassy in (a) Damascus issued 614 visas, 145 for permanent residency and 469 for temporary residency. (b) In the same year, the embassy in Amman processed a total of 773 visas; 212 for permanent residency and 561 for temporary residency. Syria and Jordan's refugee and humanitarian cases are processed from Beirut. The Australian embassy in Tel Aviv (c) issued a total of 13.021 visas, 236 for permanent residency and 12,785 for temporary residency. Its refugee and humanitarian cases are processed from Athens.11028(Question No. 863)86311028McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 24 August 1999:(1) Did Australia on 1 November 1973 deposit an instrument of acceptance in respect of the 1967 Statute of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, known as Hague 1 in the Hague Conference System.(2) Did Australia on 20 July 1999 deposit an instrument of acceptance in respect of the accession of China to the 1970 Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, known as Hague XX in the Hague Conference system.(3) In respect of what other conventions in the Hague system have instruments been deposited by (a) Australia or (b) China.(4) Which departments are responsible for the conventions in the Hague system to which Australia is not yet a party.11028Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) Yes. This convention will enter into force between Australia and China on 18 September 1999. (3) I attach a list of conventions in the Hague system to which either (a) Australia or (b) China have deposited instruments.(4) The conventions in the Hague system deal with a wide range of matters under the general description of private international law. These matters would, in Australia, be the responsibility of the Attorney-General's Department.The Hague Conventions on Private International Law to which Australia and/or China are PartyStatute of The Hague Conference on Private International Law(The Hague, 31 October 1951)Known as Hague I.(a) Australia deposited an Instrument of Acceptance on 11 November 1973.(b) China deposited an Instrument of Acceptance on 3 July 1987.Convention on the Conflicts of Laws relating to the Form of Testamentary Dispositions (The Hague, 5 October 1961) Known as Hague XI.(a) Australia deposited an Instrument of Accession on 22 September 1986.(b) Hong Kong only:United Kingdom extended the Convention to Hong Kong on 24 June 1968;continued by China from 1 July 1997.Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents (The Hague, 5 October 1961) Known as Hague XII.(a) Australia deposited an Instrument of Accession on 16 March 1995.(b) Hong Kong only:United Kingdom extended the Convention to Hong Kong on 24 February 1965; continued by China from 1 July 1997.Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra-Judicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (The Hague, 15 November 1965) Known as Hague XIV.(b) China deposited an Instrument of Accession on 1 December 1991.Hong Kong: United Kingdom extended the Convention to Hong Kong on 20 May 1970; continued by China from 1 July 1997.Convention on the Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations(The Hague, 1 June 1970) Known as Hague XVIII.(a) Australia deposited an Instrument of Accession on 24 September 1985.(b) Hong Kong only: United Kingdom extended the Convention to Hong Kong on 28 January 1977; continued by China from 1 July 1997.Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (The Hague, 18 March 1970) Known as Hague XX.(a) Australia deposited an Instrument of Accession on 23 October 1992.(b) China deposited an Instrument of Accession on 8 December 1997.Hong Kong: United Kingdom extended the Convention to Hong Kong on 23 June 1978; continued by China from 1 July 1997.To bring this convention into force between Australia and China, Australia deposited an Instrument of Acceptance of China's accession on 20 June 1999.Convention on Celebration and Recognition of the Validity of Marriages (The Hague, 14 March 1978) Known as Hague XXVI.(a) The convention was signed for Australia on 9 July 1980, and an Instrument of Ratification deposited for Australia on 29 December 1987.Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (The Hague, 25 October 1980) Known as Hague XXVIII.(a) The convention was signed for Australia on 29 October 1986, and an Instrument of Ratification deposited for Australia on the same date.(b) Hong Kong only:United Kingdom extended the Convention to Hong Kong on 10 June 1997; continued by China from 1 July 1997.Convention on the Law Applicable to Trusts and on their Recognition (The Hague, 1 July 1985) Known as Hague XXX.(a) The convention was signed for Australia on 17 October 1991, and an Instrument of Ratification deposited for Australia on the same date.(b) Hong Kong only: United Kingdom extended the Convention to Hong Kong on 30 March 1990; continued by China from 1 July 1997.Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (The Hague, 29 May 1993) Known as Hague XXXIII.(a) The convention was signed for Australia on 25 August 1998, and an Instrument of Ratification deposited for Australia on the same date.11029(Question No. 892)89211029Horne, Bob, MPMr HorneUU5PatersonALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 30 August 1999:(1) Will the Hawk lead in fighter be phased in as the fighter trainer at RAAF Base Williamtown during 2000.(2) Has his Department conducted an environmental impact statement on the impact of the Hawk aircraft on the area around RAAF Base Williamtown and the Salt Ash Bombing Range; if so, do the noise levels of the Hawk aircraft vary significantly from the existing Macchi trainer.(3) Has his attention been drawn to letters to residents from the commander of RAAF Base Williamtown stating that the noise level contours for the Hawk aircraft are not the responsibility of the RAAF.(4) If it is not the responsibility of the RAAF to determine noise level contours, (a) is it his and his Department's responsibility and (b) will he, as a matter of urgency order that noise level contours for the Hawk aircraft be determined for areas adjacent to RAAF Base Williamtown base and the Salt Ash Bombing Range.(5) What measures will be taken by his Department to ensure that residents in the area around RAAF Base Williamtown and the Salt Ash Bombing Range will not be adversely affected by the variation in aircraft.11029Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) No. Data currently available indicates that the noise level of the Hawk aircraft is slightly higher, when compared to the Macchi aircraft at the same flight configuration, power setting and altitude. However, the Hawk will be capable of a higher rate of climb and faster transient speed and is expected, therefore, to have less noise impact on the ground.(3) No. However, correspondence issued by RAAF Base Williamtown on the issue infers that the Defence Estate Organisation within the Department of Defence has prime responsibility for preparing Australian Noise Exposure Forecasts (ANEF).(4) (a) Yes.(b) The Department of Defence will arrange the production of a revised ANEF for RAAF Base Williamtown and the Salt Ash Air Weapons Range, following the introduction of the Hawk aircraft.(5) The RAAF is acutely aware of the impact flying training has on the local community near the Salt Ash Air Weapons Range and at RAAF Williamtown and tailors its operations to minimise any disturbance for residents in the area. The introduction of the Hawk aircraft will be closely monitored to ensure its operation accords with this policy. 11030(Question No. 896)89611030Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 September 1999:What sum was spent by the Defence Science and Technology Organisation in (a) 1995-96, (b) 1996-97 and (c) 1997-98 on engineering and scientific software, including purchase and lease costs, contributions to joint development and grants to develop software.11031Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) $3.7 million(b) $4.6 million(c) $5.4 million.General software, such as personal computer software has not been included.