1999-09-303914REPS1103101999-09-30Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills11031r92711031Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.1103109:31:0011031Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The legislation enacting the new tax system was passed by this parliament last June and came into effect after Royal Assent on 8 July 1999. The most visible impact of the new system so far has been the price reductions for goods including TVs, video recorders, stereos and cameras as a result of wholesale sales tax on those items being reduced from 32 per cent to 22 per cent on 29 July.Since the legislation came into effect, many industry groups and practitioners have identified and brought to the government's attention a number of issues. We have noted where improvements could be made, and we have taken on board constructive suggestions concerning the legislation.This bill includes amendments which the government considers are necessary to ensure that the original intention of the law has been enacted and to ensure smooth implementation of this historic tax reform. Further consultations are continuing, and in particular areas—for example, financial services—the need for further amendments is being considered. However, I can inform the parliament that, barring unforeseen events, it is the government's intention to have further finetuning completed and legislated by the end of the year. This will provide business with a clear six-month period before implementation of the GST on 1 July 2000.Turning to the specific changes, the amendments in this bill provide some necessary and worthwhile concessions, amendments to clarify the existing rules, and some revenue and consumer protection measures.The government has always been concerned to ensure that the GST is not used as an excuse by unscrupulous operators to unfairly increase prices. While we have provided the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission with powers to monitor prices and impose tough penalties for exploitation, we have been made aware of a view that the ACCC's powers do not cover situations where prices are unfairly increased prior to 1 July 2000. To put the issue beyond any doubt, the government will amend the Trade Practices Act 1975 to ensure that, in addition to their post 1 July 2000 powers, the ACCC's powers enable it to take immediate action in respect of any unreasonable price rises before 1 July 2000.During the negotiations with the Democrats over the initial package of tax reform legislation it was agreed that a charities consultative group would be established with the Australian Taxation Office. This group is assisting in clarifying the effect of the GST on the sector and will develop rulings well in advance of the introduction of the GST.As a result of these consultations, this bill will extend the definition of non-commercial supplies of residential accommodation by charities. The market value and cost of supply tests will be extended for the non-commercial supplies of residential accommodation by charities from 50 per cent to 75 per cent.The measure only applies to non-commercial supply of residential accommodation by charities, because the client income based contributions associated with residential accommodation are often only marginally above the current 50 per cent market value test. To not meet this test would make the supplies input taxed as residential rents or taxable as commercial accommodation for some boarding houses, which would significantly increase compliance costs. This is an important measure which will reduce compliance costs while maintaining the principle that all commercial supplies should be subject to GST. The 50 per cent market value test remains for other non-commercial supplies.The government will also take this opportunity to insert measures to provide further assistance to small business. In particular, the government will provide special rules for retailers with a mixture of taxable and GST-free supplies so that the Commissioner of Taxation will be able to determine alternative, simpler methods of calculating GST liability for retailers selling such goods. This provision for simplified accounting methods is an important measure to reduce compliance costs of small business. In addition, the Treasurer has already announced that the government will extend the cash basis for accounting for GST by doubling the existing cash accounting threshold to $1 million.The government has also decided to provide relief for vehicle lessors in certain circumstances. Currently, motor vehicle lessors with operating leases are required to pay GST on the disposal of vehicles acquired before 2 December 1998—that is the date the GST bills were introduced into parliament—and sold after 30 June 2000, without any ability to recover that tax from lessees. To alleviate this problem, we will allow a notional input tax credit on the sale of these vehicles to offset the GST imposed. The cost to revenue of this measure is $150 million over four years.Amendments in this bill also clarify the operation of the GST in several areas. We will make clear that exports acquired by an overseas business in Australia will be GST free even when ownership of goods passes to the overseas purchaser, who is not registered or required to be registered, before the goods are removed from Australia. This amendment will be welcomed by a wide range of industry bodies who have raised the GST treatment of free on board exports with the government.We will also clarify the definition of wine products so that the wine equalisation tax extends, as was intended, to fruit or vegetable wines and grape wine products such as wine cocktails, flavoured wines and a range of cream drinks.As an important revenue protection measure, this bill clarifies the application of the transitional measure denying input tax credits for the GST on business insurance premiums. The current legislation allows businesses to choose to claim an input tax credit on their business insurance premiums at the end of a quarterly or monthly tax period.The government will amend this to make the election prospective rather than retrospective. The option to elect to claim the input tax credit would be available at the time of registration or subsequently at the time of lodging the business activity statement. The option will be confined to one election per entity, rather than per policy, to minimise compliance costs. The revenue consequences of the amendment are nil because it essentially gives effect to the intended policy. However, if the measure were not adopted, then the cost to revenue would be significant.To accord with international practice, this bill will ensure that GST applying to goods and services supplied is to be excluded from assessable income, and input credits on acquisitions are to be excluded from allowable deductions, except to the extent that input tax credits are denied in respect of the purchase.There are also a number of other minor policy changes and technical amendments. These amendments show the government's commitment to working with businesses and charities on tax reform and responding positively to constructive suggestions.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills11032r92811032Bill presented by Dr Stone, and read a first time.1103209:41:0011032Stone, Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill amends the Australian Federal Police Act 1979.The bill will move the primary legislative basis for employment in the Australian Federal Police, the AFP, from the AFP Act to the Workplace Relations Act 1996, consistent with the government's policies for workplace and public sector reform.However, the bill achieves much more than mere housekeeping.As the Commonwealth's primary operational law enforcement agency, with a key role in the prevention, detection and investigation of the most serious crimes, the AFP is at the centre of the Commonwealth's law enforcement effort.It plays a particular role in fighting drug trafficking, fraud, organised crime and money laundering.The bill will make the AFP a vastly more flexible, professional and dynamic organisation.Criminal activity in Australia has been greatly affected by two interrelated factors: the globalisation of the world economy and huge advances in information technology and telecommunications. Criminals have been able to exploit the complexity of the global economy and differences in national regulatory and enforcement regimes.Further, advances in information and communications technologies have provided crime groups with greater geographic reach and an increased ability to avoid detection.The dynamic and unpredictable nature of criminal activity requires law enforcement bodies such as the AFP to be highly skilled, adaptable and mobile.The government has recognised the importance of positioning the AFP to tackle crime in the 21st century.The government's AFP reform program, announced in July 1998, is providing an additional $115 million over three years to assist the AFP to increase its staffing, maximise its capabilities and concentrate resources on fighting crime.Under the reform program, significant progress has been made in both management and operational areas. However, the key to building on the existing strengths of the AFP is to create a more flexible and highly skilled work force.Currently, the AFP Act governs employment in the AFP. The provisions are in some parts prescriptive and inflexible.Accordingly, amendments to the act and regulations are required to complete the government's reform program.This bill amends the AFP Act by replacing the existing statutory employment regime with a general employment power vested in the commissioner.The bill abolishes the current rank based structure, creating a more flexible and responsive organisation which will be able to anticipate and respond to Australia's rapidly changing law enforcement priorities.There is a need for the AFP to balance greater operational flexibility with the requirement to remain a disciplined force. The bill will expressly recognise the roles of command and discipline and distinguish them from matters relating to employment.The obligation to obey lawful orders, formerly contained in the regulations to the act, will be recognised more formally in the provisions of the act.The commissioner's power to deploy AFP employees and to assign duties is reinforced as an important element in commanding a police organisation in both domestic and international activities.The Australian community has a right to expect that the highest standards will continue to be demonstrated by all AFP employees and that strong anticorruption measures will be improved and maintained. Accordingly, the bill provides for employees to submit financial declarations and cooperate with drug and alcohol testing.The bill complements and builds on a range of initiatives introduced by the commissioner across the AFP's management and operations. It also establishes a framework through which more flexible and efficient workplace arrangements can be implemented.In this way, the bill will enhance the government's AFP reform program. It also brings the AFP employment regime into line with the government's wider workplace reforms while respecting the unique features of that regime.The bill is further evidence of the government's commitment to ensuring that the Commonwealth has, in the AFP, an agency which is second to none in law enforcement. I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills11034r92911034Bill presented by Dr Stone, and read a first time.1103409:46:0011034Stone, Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLP10—On behalf of the Attorney-General, I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This is a bill to give Australia a modern crimes at sea scheme. The increasing incidence of people smuggling in the last year has highlighted the importance of having an effective legal regime to govern the seas around Australia's coastline. This bill complements the important measures that the government has announced in the coastal surveillance context.The new crimes at sea scheme will be simpler to understand and apply, and will result in more effective law enforcement.The bill implements a new national, uniform, cooperative scheme to apply Australian criminal law offshore. The scheme was developed by the Special Committee of Solicitors-General and has been endorsed by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General.The existing crimes at sea scheme under Commonwealth, state and Northern Territory legislation is seriously flawed. In many situations, it is a complicated and confusing task to identify the law that applies in connec tion with a suspected offence. This creates difficulties for law enforcement and prosecution authorities and could mean that an offender escapes conviction because of a technical error.Under the current scheme, the criminal law applicable to a vessel is determined by reference to whether it is registered in Australia or overseas, and, if registered in Australia, to the state or territory in which it is registered and whether it is engaged in an interstate or intrastate voyage.This mishmash of rules is not only difficult to understand and apply, it can also give rise to an overlapping application of laws, adding to the confusion. The uncertainty relates not only to determining which body of law applies but also to determining who is responsible for enforcing those laws and which set of procedural rules apply to their enforcement.Even when the applicable law is clear under the existing scheme, the results are not always sound. For example, the scheme contemplates the possibility that investigators from one state would be obliged to operate according to the investigatory laws of another state.That is why the Special Committee of Solicitors-General devised a clearer and simpler scheme, which has been approved by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and has Australasian Police Ministers' Council support.Under the new cooperative scheme the states and the Northern Territory have agreed to enact uniform crimes at sea acts that will apply their criminal laws in their respective offshore adjacent areas out to 12 nautical miles. The Commonwealth bill will, in turn, apply the criminal law of each jurisdiction, as Commonwealth law, to the respective offshore adjacent area of each State and the Northern Territory from 12 to 200 nautical miles or the outer limit of the continental shelf, whichever is the greater.The adjacent area of each jurisdiction is defined in part 6 of schedule 1 of the bill. For ease of reference, a map showing the adjacent area of each state and other legally significant boundaries has been incorporated with the bill. The scheme will not apply to Common wealth, state and Northern Territory laws excluded by regulation from the ambit of the scheme. This is to cater for currently operating schemes applying in the offshore zone relating to subjects such as fisheries.Under the new scheme the authority that is investigating an offence will do so in accordance with its own procedures. For example, Victorian police investigating an offence which under the scheme is an offence under New South Wales law will investigate according to Victorian investigative procedures. When a state offence and a Commonwealth offence are being investigated simultaneously the investigating authority will, as at present, follow the procedural requirements which are the more stringent.Prosecutions under the new scheme will be conducted on a similar basis. Commonwealth proceedings will be run according to the law of the Commonwealth. State and Northern Territory proceedings will be run according to the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings started. In the example I have just given the New South Wales offence would be tried in a Victorian court according to Victorian procedural law.Under the new scheme, a single body of law will apply in the adjacent area of each jurisdiction, regardless of whether a vessel is `connected' with another jurisdiction or is on an interstate or intrastate voyage or is an Australian or foreign vessel. These archaic and unnecessary distinctions will simply have no place in the scheme.Greater simplicity is a central aim of the scheme so that crimes do not go unpunished because of legal technicalities. The bill will eliminate the situation in which determining which body of law applies depends upon facts unrelated to the offence itself—such as the state with which a vessel is connected. It will also put an end to the situation where the applicable law depends upon facts which may be particularly difficult to establish—like the vessel's intended destination before an event occurs.The new scheme will also be more effective because all jurisdictions will enter into an intergovernmental agreement to enforce the criminal law under the scheme. These agree ments will also enable the Commonwealth to confer powers, duties and functions on state and Northern Territory authorities under the new Commonwealth Act.The agreement has been endorsed by both the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and the Australasian Police Ministers Council.A significant feature of the agreement is that the states and the Northern Territory will have primary responsibility for investigating and prosecuting crimes committed in their respective adjacent areas. However, where practicable, the jurisdictions will provide assistance to one another in the investigation of offences arising under the scheme. The agreement will also provide that where more than one jurisdiction is empowered to prosecute they should consult to determine the jurisdiction most convenient for prosecution.The agreement will provide that the Commonwealth also has the primary enforcement responsibility for criminal conduct on or from a Defence Force ship when it is outside the limits of a state or the Northern Territory.As well as the uniform provisions that I have outlined, the Commonwealth bill also applies the Jervis Bay Territory's criminal law to certain criminal acts committed outside the new scheme's coverage area.Jervis Bay Territory law will apply on Australian ships, to Australian citizens on foreign ships who are not members of the crew and on a foreign ship that first lands in Australia after an offence is committed.In these cases, the procedural rules for investigating and prosecuting offences will be the same as those applying to any other offence under Commonwealth law.Further, in accordance with Australia's Timor Gap Treaty obligations, the Commonwealth bill also includes special provisions to apply the Northern Territory's criminal laws to criminal acts connected with the exploration and exploitation of petroleum resources in Area A of the Zone of Cooperation. On the other hand, the investigation and prosecution rules for offences applied by this bill in Area A of the Zone of Cooperation will be the same as the rules applying in the cooperative scheme area. Put simply, that means if North ern Territory authorities are investigating or prosecuting an offence Northern Territory procedural laws will apply. If Commonwealth authorities are investigating or prosecuting, then Commonwealth procedural laws will apply.The new regime will not affect the substantive criminal and procedural laws that currently apply in the 12 nautical mile territorial seas of the external territories. The criminal law of Norfolk Island, for example, will apply in the territorial seas around the island and Western Australian criminal law will apply in the territorial seas around Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands.Finally, the Commonwealth, state and Northern Territory bills all provide that the Commonwealth Attorney-General's written consent must be obtained before a prosecution can proceed in cases in which the alleged offence also falls within a foreign country's jurisdiction. This requirement is necessary to promote compliance with Australia's international obligations. Before granting approval the Commonwealth Attorney-General must take into account any views expressed by the country concerned. The absence of consent, however, will not prevent preliminary steps such as arrest, charges being laid, or extradition proceedings beginning.In accordance with the agreement reached by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania have enacted the uniform state model bills required for the new regime. After the Commonwealth and the remaining jurisdictions have done the same, the new scheme will be uniformly proclaimed by all the jurisdictions.The new scheme is, as I said in my introduction, simpler to understand and easier to apply, making it more effective and convenient for law enforcement. Although policing offences at sea still present operational and logistical challenges, this scheme will give Australian authorities the legislative basis they need to enforce the criminal law off Australia's coastline.I commend this bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills11036r88811036Consideration resumed from 29 September.Senate Amendments—(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 6 (line 14), omit "by an eligible actuary".(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 6 (line 31), omit "takes into account contributions", substitute "excludes contributions made by the member".(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 7 (line 7), omit "by an eligible actuary".(4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 7 (line 9), omit "takes into account contributions", substitute "excludes contributions made by the member".(5) Schedule 1, item 3, page 7 (line 15), omit "takes into account contributions", substitute "excludes contributions made by the member".(6) Schedule 1, item 28, page 22 (lines 26 to 31), omit subsection (3).(7) Schedule 2, item 3, page 30 (line 25), omit "by an eligible actuary".(8) Schedule 2, item 3, page 31 (line 8), omit "takes into account contributions", substitute "excludes contributions made by the member".(9) Schedule 2, item 3, page 31 (line 18), omit "by an eligible actuary".(10) Schedule 2, item 3, page 31 (line 20), omit "takes into account contributions", substitute "excludes contributions made by the member".(11) Schedule 2, item 3, page 31 (line 26), omit "takes into account contributions", substitute "excludes contributions made by the member".(12) Schedule 2, item 14, page 40 (lines 15 to 22), omit the item.09:57:0011036Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.Government amendments (1) to (5) and (7) to (11), which are technical, have been made to accommodate comments made to the Australian Taxation Office and in submissions to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee by William M. Mercers and the Institute of Actuaries. Amendments (1), (3), (7) and (9) remove the requirement for an eligible actuary to work out the actuarial value of the benefits that accrued to and the value of the administration expenses and risk benefits provided in respect of a member of a defined benefits superannuation scheme using the formula set out in the bill or the method set out in the regulations. This amount is worked out by the trustee of the defined benefit fund and not by the eligible actuary. The eligible actuary merely supplies the necessary actuarial figures to the trustee so that the trustee can work out the contributions to be reported.Amendments (2), (4), (5), (8), (10) and (11) remove any doubt that a method approved by the Commissioner of Taxation for working out the actuarial value of the benefits that accrued to and the value of the administration expenses and risk benefits provided in respect of a member of a defined benefits superannuation scheme excludes personal undeducted contributions.Opposition amendments (6) and (12) passed by the Senate omit the provisions which enable the making of the regulations to apply from the commencement of the original legislation. The decision to insert provisions to enable the making of regulations with effect from the commencement of the original legislation was made to give the ATO the flexibility to address particular issues with some defined benefit funds which are required to submit new reports for the financial years 30 June 1997 and 30 June 1998.The opposition amendments, unfortunately, remove the flexibility that the government intended. However, they do not change the substance of the bill and, given the reality of the numbers in the Senate, the government is prepared to accept the amendments. On this basis, I commend these amendments to the House.10:00:0011037Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—We are considering the Senate's amendments to the surcharge legislation. First, I point out that we had a second reading amendment which urged the government to fix the situation of workers at Pasminco sites around Australia. Those workers have the superannuation guarantee paid only on their ordinary salary, which is fixed at a level far less than their actual salary which is based on overtime, shift work and things of that character. On the one hand they are having the superannuation guarantee paid on that lesser amount but because they in fact earn more money than that they find themselves liable to pay the superannuation surcharge. This strikes us as being an inequitable situation, and we have called on the government to take some action in relation to it.Two of our detailed amendments concerning retrospectivity have been passed—and I want to come to those in a moment—but the Senate did not support the other amendments which would have stopped the retrospective insertion of a new method of calculating notional surchargeable contribution factors. That will mean that between 1,000 and 1,500 defined benefit funds who reported nil contributions to the tax office will have to recalculate all of their members' contributions under the new laws. That has been estimated to cost between $40,000 and $50,000 and some of those defined benefit funds have reported that the computer programs that they used in the past to calculate those factors are no longer present, and that it gives rise to Y2K compliance issues and various other problems for them. We are disappointed that the Senate has not picked up our amendments in this area.The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration referred to the amendments which the Senate did accept and which the government are now accepting. He endeavoured to make these amendments sound relatively innocuous—just matters providing the government and the tax office with some flexibility. The House should be aware that the government were endeavouring to override the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. If they had been successful with their Superannuation Contributions and Termination Payments Taxes Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 in unamended form, in future they would not have had to come back with legislation to amend the surcharge calculation factors but would have been able to do this via regulation. Although regulations made under the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 are disallowable, regulations do not have the same status as ordinary legislation because the Senate cannot amend them and they are generally not debated unless they are to be disallowed. That means less transparency.It is quite clear to us that the government was endeavouring to set up a fall back position in the event that its legislation is the subject of successful legal challenge in the Federal Court or elsewhere. We believe that is not satisfactory. If the government does get rolled in the courts on this legislation, it ought to come back to the parliament with legislation to amend it.I point out that the Acts Interpretation Act is legislation of 1901. We are coming up to celebrating the centenary of Federation. It seems to me pretty ironic that one of the government's apparent proposals for celebrating the centenary of Federation was to attack the Acts Interpretation Act. I am pleased that the Senate did not support the overriding of the Acts Interpretation Act and give the government the power to at any time introduce fresh regulations requiring the defined benefit funds to recalculate their surchargeable contributions reportable to the tax office.The next observation I want to make concerning the Senate's consideration of this legislation is that the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp, was forced to withdraw several amendments and redraft them after the Labor opposition—Senator Sherry in particular—pointed out errors in their legislation. It was pointed out to the government that five technical amendments should also be made to a companion act, the Superannuation Contributions Tax (Members of Constitutionally Protected Superannuation Funds) Assessment and Collection Act. (Extension of time granted) Senator Sherry pointed out to the Senate that if you are changing the main act then the supplementary act should require the same change and that the government's amendments did not reflect that. He pointed out:. . . with all the government's advice, the tax office advice and all the experts, 2½ years down the track Senator Kemp has just acknowledged that the amendments that have been circulated are incorrect.Senator Kemp agreed that the amendments would have to be changed. He said:So what is the big deal? We will fix it up.That is the kind of performance from Senator Kemp which has left the superannuation industry absolutely numb with horror at the fact that Prime Minister Howard has seen fit to, firstly, choose him as a minister and, secondly, give him superannuation. Everywhere I go around the superannuation industry, Senator Kemp's lack of credibility and lack of clout is the subject of adverse comment and reflection. There is concern within the superannuation industry that superannuation has been relegated to the bottom of the public policy totem pole as a result of the fact that he is the minister.The final point I want to make about this issue is that Senator Kemp made an allegation in the Senate that Labor's amendments were seeking to exempt politicians from paying the superannuation surcharge. I am astonished that Senator Kemp sees fit to open up this issue but I am delighted that he has seen fit to open up this issue. In fact, the only politicians in Australia who are not paying their own superannuation surcharge are those of the Victorian parliament. The reason for this disgraceful state of affairs is quite simple: Senator Kemp himself and Treasurer Costello have lacked the guts to stand up to Premier Kennett in Victoria and demand that he pass legislation which would impose the superannuation surcharge on Victorian senior public servants and politicians.I think that as the people of Frankston East in Victoria consider how they are going to vote in a couple of weeks time they ought to reflect on the fact that Premier Kennett thinks it is good enough for ordinary Victorian taxpayers to pay the superannuation surcharge for high salaried senior Victorian public servants and Victorian members of parliament. These are the only members of parliament who are not paying their superannuation surcharge. I am astonished that Senator Kemp has seen fit to reopen this issue for debate in the parliament today, but I welcome the fact that he has given me this opportunity to point out to the people of Frankston East that this continues to be the case and that the Victorian parliament has not passed the legislation which would require those senior public servants and those politicians to pay their own superannuation surcharge in the way that people around the rest of Australia are doing.Once again, it has been left to Labor to improve the government's legislation by moving amendments, in this case amendments preventing the government from overriding the Acts Interpretation Act and giving itself a power to, by regulation, amend the contribution factors for defined benefit funds. We think it would have been most inappropriate if the government had been able to give itself that power. If it needs to once again amend its superannuation legislation, and we regret the fact that it is constantly amending its superannuation legislation because it keeps on getting it wrong, it should do it in the proper way, coming back before the parliament, giving the parliament the opportunity for scrutiny of the legislation. But we are pleased that the government has seen fit to accept our amendments and will not be opposing this motion.10:09:0011039Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—The Labor Party huffs and puffs in relation to superannuation, but every time these matters come back before the chamber they try to reopen matters which were covered in earlier debate. The Labor Party does not have a really good record in relation to the area of the superannuation surcharge, and although Labor said that it supported the surcharge following the 1996 budget it opposed the superannuation surcharge in the Senate and voted against the third reading of the bill. If Labor had succeeded in blocking the surcharge, there would not be one dollar of surcharge being collected, and the equity that the coalition has brought into the superannuation system would not have been achieved. If Labor had succeeded, high income earners, including parliamentarians, would have continued to benefit from the superannuation tax concessions to a much greater extent than ordinary Australians. So Labor's record in this area is very bad indeed. All of the issues have, however, been canvassed and I commend the amendments to the chamber. 10:10:0011039Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I cannot allow the observations of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration to pass without comment. He claims that the surcharge is an equitable measure. In fact, what it has done is to cost superannuation funds many tens of millions of dollars to collect. In so doing, the administration costs to all superannuation funds end up taking money from the retirement incomes of all working Australians. So all Australian workers are bearing the extraordinarily high level of administrative cost of this surcharge. So it is not equitable on that count.Secondly, it is not equitable because anybody who does not provide their tax file number to the tax office has to pay the surcharge irrespective of their income. So it is not equitable on that count. Thirdly, it is riddled with anomalies. We have pointed out to the House the situation, for example, of mine workers or Bridgestone tyre workers in South Australia who have relatively modest incomes but, because of overtime and shiftwork and other things, get into surcharge territory and have to pay the surcharge. It is inequitable for them. It is also inequitable for workers who find themselves paying a higher level of surcharge than people working alongside them on higher salaries simply because of the way in which the surcharge contribution factors are calculated. So it is not equitable on those grounds as well. It introduces all sorts of anomalies. Finally, as I pointed out, the crowning glory of the inequity of the surcharge is its application in Victoria, where ordinary Victorian taxpayers are paying the surcharge for senior public servants and politicians. That is anything but equitable, and the claims of the government in relation to the surcharge have been exposed in debate in this House time and time again.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills11039r88011039Debate resumed from 23 September, on motion by Dr Kemp:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr Martyn Evans moved by way of amendment:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading the House:(1) notes that indigenous Australians are the most educationally disadvantaged group in the country;(2) condemns the Government for: (a) failing to release the findings of the 1997-98 review of ABSTUDY; and (b) cutting ABSTUDY payments to some categories of indigenous students; and(3) calls on the Government to legislate to re-direct savings from its ABSTUDY changes into indigenous education".10:14:0011040Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—It was opportune that the debate on the indigenous education legislation should have been adjourned for a short time because yesterday in the Australian , and reported also in other newspapers, there was a timely bit of advice about expenditure on Aboriginal education. It was looking at issues in relation to Aborigines and funding in general. It was a study by the Australia Institute, which found that public expenditure in the priority areas of education, health and employment amounted to thousands of dollars more over a year for each Aborigine and Torres Strait Islander than for their non-indigenous counterparts. The report, by three Australian National University academics, found that, over a year, indigenous students each received $765 more than their non-indigenous counterparts in education expenditure. It went on also to find that, in relation to employment programs, indigenous recipients received $16,300 each, a 48 per cent favourable margin over the non-indigenous.That is a timely study and an interesting fact to take into account. Aboriginal education is a very costly exercise, but it is a worthy exercise and something that we must contribute to. Looking at some statistics, in 1996 around 1.9 per cent of Australia's population was indigenous. In 1998 indigenous people comprised 3.5 per cent of all primary school students, 2.1 per cent of all secondary school students, 2.5 per cent of VET participants and 1.1 per cent of all university students.If we look around the country at the universities that are doing the most to encourage Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participation, I have to once again laud the efforts of the Batchelor College in the Northern Territory, which has 100 per cent of its students from the indigenous community. James Cook University in Queensland has 380 indigenous students out of over 9,000 students, which is 4.1 per cent. The Northern Territory University has 4.2 per cent and Edith Cowan University in Western Australia has four per cent of its student body from that background.I have already covered a number of issues in relation to this in my earlier contribution. I should start off again today by quoting the minister, who said:Indigenous education is an area which requires special attention. Much has been achieved and much remains to be done. The Commonwealth Government continues to be committed to ensuring that Indigenous Australians are educated to a standard equal with non-Indigenous Australians, and that they are able to take their place as equals in the community.I thought I would look overseas and see what is happening in the indigenous communities in some other countries. In Australia between 1986 in 1996, higher education participation rates for indigenous Australians aged 18 to 20 years increased from two per cent to 5.2 per cent, and those between 21 and 24 years increased from 1.4 per cent to 3.9 per cent. In Canada the post-secondary enrolment rate for the registered Indian population aged 17 to 34 increased from six per cent in 1993-94 to 6.9 per cent in 1995-96. In the USA the only figures that could be dredged up were from 1990, when nine per cent of the US Indian population were tertiary graduates.Those facts provide some of the framework for where we are at the moment. In looking at where we currently stand, I would like to firstly discuss some of the exercises that have been undertaken to encourage, in particular, parental involvement in education and to encourage the indigenous students into education with the support of their families. One of these was the establishment of the Aboriginal Student Support and Parent Awareness, ASSPA, program which is aimed at getting indigenous parents and secondary students involved in school decision making processes by setting up committees around Australia.There is a lot of ad hoc evidence to suggest that schools have become much more accommodating of indigenous views and requirements as a result of the work of these ASSPA committees. Around 3,600 ASSPA committees have been established in Australian schools, covering nearly 100,000 indigenous students. Total ASSPA funding in 1998 was around $18.5 million. Each committee has between three and 12 indigenous members.One of the reasons why ASSPA has been successful is that it gives parents control of the schooling agenda. One of the things that is a big issue in Aboriginal communities is attendance. I remember visiting a school which had a local resident Aboriginal population of 300 children. This was a school built to cater for 300 students. Unfortunately, only 30 students were attending school every day, and it was a different 30 that attended school each day. So you can see the depth of problems associated with attendance.ASSPA programs in the Northern Territory offer either a cultural or a language program. Many schools, particularly remote schools, are running both through their ASSPA program. This does not include additional moneys communities receive from other funding bodies or sources for language and culture maintenance programs. Language and cultural teaching and learning take place within the child's home and as part of the child's way of life in the community through ceremonies and other community business.At this point I would like to digress to the controversial issue of bilingual education. There have been some quite heated exchanges between the Northern Territory minister, ATSIC and other bodies over the intention to discontinue bilingual education in the Northern Territory, which is costing $4 million a year. Seventeen bilingual schools are involved in that and they are now going to be converted to English as a Second Language programs. One of the things I have noticed is that the Labor Party really does pine after bilingual education, but the facts are that bilingual education is very expensive and it does not generate the sorts of results that would warrant the kind of funding that amounts to $4 million for seventeen schools.The debate in the Northern Territory took a particularly strange turn when a press release from the Indigenous Education Council of the Northern Territory was issued, withdrawn and then reconfirmed later on as being a legitimate release from that body. The Indigenous Education Council of the Northern Territory, which contains representatives of the Aboriginal communities themselves, said:From discussions with Aboriginal teachers who work in Bi-lingual Schools it was also evident that there seems to be a lack of understanding about what the goal of their program is ie. one person thought that it was language maintenance and that without the Bi-lingual program her children would lose their language. This was the argument used by most people to keep the Bi-lingual program.Bilingual education is not about language maintenance; bilingual education is about taking children from a remote Aboriginal community who only speak their mother tongue, beginning at year 1. They are learning in that language and, by the time they finish their primary education, the idea is that they gradually convert to English so that there is the opportunity to communicate in English, even if that is not your mother tongue and not the language that is taught in your entire community, so that you can go out into the world and proceed to higher study. That is the aim, but when you consider the low attendance rates and different people attending school every day of course the problems with such a program become apparent.I will not continue with that particular element because time has escaped me. But I have noticed in looking up other states—Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia—that none of those states have bilingual education programs. They seem to be present only in the Northern Territory. I truly believe the $4 million that was being spent on those 17 schools would be better spent in other ways, particularly through the English as a Second Language program which is used in those other states, particularly in Western Australia.10:22:0011042Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—The Indigenous Education (Supplementary Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999 seeks to provide $126.1 million to the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program, extending funding to June 2001. The bill will also provide for block grants to participating educational institutions incorporating the mixed mode course delivery away-from-base element of the Abstudy scheme within that program. This bill implements some of the changes to the Abstudy scheme announced by the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs in December last year.While not opposing the passage of this bill, the opposition has moved an amendment which condemns the government for failing to release the findings of the 1997-98 review of Abstudy and for cuts to Abstudy payments for some categories of indigenous students. There is little doubt that indigenous Australians are disadvantaged in pursuing education in Australia. The 1994 national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander survey reveals that, of indigenous Australians aged 15 and over, nearly half had no formal education or had not reached year 10 levels. The year 10 certificate was the highest educational attainment of nearly three in 10 indigenous Australians. The year 12 retention rate for indigenous students was 33 per cent compared with 76 per cent for the non-indigenous population. The participation rates at universities show that indigenous students are still severely unrepresented compared with non-indigenous students. Indigenous students remain severely disadvantaged in terms of post-secondary education qualifications.The comparative situation between indigenous and non-indigenous students in Australia discloses a disturbingly wide gap in educational standards. This is not to say that there have not been improvements in the attainment of education by indigenous students. This government has often criticised the former Labor government, accusing it of throwing money at indigenous affairs without any improved outcomes. But the record exposes the hollowness of this criticism. The report Making the difference—the impact of Australia's indigenous education and training policy shows that retention rates to year 12 for indigenous students rose from 12.3 per cent in 1989 to 29.2 per cent in 1996. At the higher education level, participation rates for 18- to 20-year-old indigenous Australians rose from two per cent in 1986 to 5.2 per cent in 1996.These figures are supported by the present government, being included in the minister for education's 1999 budget fact sheet on indigenous education. This is not to say that we have done enough. We have not. These are significant achievements, although we have a long way to go. But it does refute the government's criticism that Labor threw money at indigenous programs without results. The facts prove that, if the government is prepared to work with indigenous people, to properly consult on the design and implementation of programs, government can effectively assist indigenous Australians in gaining the knowledge they need to advance their own aspirations. These were achievements under a Labor government.I am sure that most members of this House would agree that education is the great social equaliser. Through education we can pursue excellence and knowledge regardless of our level of affluence. It can unlock many doors that would otherwise be firmly closed to people from more disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds. Education is the one tool through which people can empower themselves to reach their aspirations if they have access to it. Throughout our years in government Labor maintained its commitment to providing access to education not only for those who could afford it but also for those with the will and the ability.Coming from a greatly disadvantaged position in Australian society, education for indigenous Australians is of primary importance, especially in addressing indigenous unemployment. The Centre for Aboriginal Policy Research, CAPR, has pointed out that completing year 10 or 11 increases an indigenous person's chance of employment by 40 per cent. Completing year 12 increases employment prospects by a further 13 per cent. Having a post-secondary qualification increases employment prospects by between 13 and 23 per cent. The importance of education for indigenous Australians is further illustrated by the fact that half of Australia's indigenous population is under 25 years of age. We need effective indigenous education programs to even maintain the appalling standards of current employment amongst indigenous Australians.It has been pointed out by CAPR that, due to the young ages of many indigenous Australians, the indigenous unemployment rate could increase to 47 per cent by 2006. Education plays a vital role in addressing these employment problems. This is a dire warning and should be regarded carefully by anyone wishing to tamper with Abstudy, a proven and successful education program for indigenous Australians.For indigenous Australians, Labor maintained and expanded upon our commitment to accessible education. A large part of that commitment was the scheme for indigenous students that has evolved into Abstudy. Labor's record in increasing indigenous retention rates to year 12 and in raising education participation rates owes much to the workability and success of the Abstudy scheme. Most importantly, the Abstudy scheme has the support and confidence of indigenous Australians. The report of the 1994 Abstudy evaluation revealed that approximately half of tertiary students and just over one-third of secondary students indicated that they would drop out of education if Abstudy were unavailable, while two-thirds of those surveyed indicated that the level of support given by the Abstudy scheme was adequate for their needs.Abstudy is not just a student support scheme for indigenous Australians. Its rationale is to provide an incentive to get indigenous Australians into education to allow them to tap the advantages the Australian education system has to offer. This government has often said that it is about empowering indigenous Australians to help themselves. Indigenous access to our education system must be one of the primary pillars of this policy. Yet we now have before us a report commissioned by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission entitled Analysis of the proposed changes to Abstudy on indigenous students. The report looks at how the changes proposed by the minister for education to the Abstudy scheme will affect those indigenous students already engaged in the education system. The findings are of extreme concern. The changes to Abstudy to come into effect on 1 January 2000 will advantage some indigenous students. Indigenous TAFE and university students who are under 21, independent and single will be better off if they are eligible for rent assistance. So too will those students 21 years and older and living at home be advantaged. In total, on 1998 figures, 895 indigenous students were in these situations.But these advantaged students are far outweighed by those indigenous students who will be disadvantaged, according to the report. These include those indigenous students 21 years and older who are independent, single or with a partner and those indigenous students who receive a sole parent pension, disability support pension or are studying as part-time pensioner students. In 1998, 14,760 indigenous students fell into these groupings. In other words, nearly 15 in 16 indigenous students currently engaged in TAFE and university will be disadvantaged by the minister's changes to Abstudy. The changes benefit only a small proportion of the indigenous student population. Notably, these are the young and the single, and at initial glance there would be significant benefit to involving young people in education. However, unlike the non-indigenous student population, which contains a majority of young people, 80 per cent of the indigenous student population is of a mature age. These are the people who will be disadvantaged by the minister's changes.It is significant that the report shows that the changes to Abstudy proposed by the minister will hit hardest at those most ready to undertake TAFE and university education. It is mature age students, those with community and family responsibilities, who are most likely to return to education. Whilst it is normal for non-indigenous students to continue straight from school to further education, this is not the norm for indigenous Australians. Indigenous students at school more often establish themselves with family and community before continuing their education. Only after this establishment of a firm base do they move on later in life to further their educational achievements. It would appear that the government's proposed changes to Abstudy are not sensitive to the cultural differences between the life experience of indigenous and non-indigenous students. As the ATSIC report rightly points out at page 2:The changes to Abstudy will diminish the effectiveness of this study support scheme in terms of its continuing contribution to indigenous community development. . . . the alignment of Abstudy to Youth Allowance and Newstart in 2000 damages the opportunity for life-long learning for indigenous Australians, attempts to force indigenous Australians into a pattern of further study most suited to non-indigenous middle class Australians, and reduces the financial support for those indigenous community members most ready and equipped to contribute to their community's economic, social and political determination.These are not my words but those of a report commissioned by the government's principal advisory body on Aboriginal affairs, ATSIC.We are in the position that, while outcomes have improved in the decade since 1986 for indigenous participation in education, Australia is still well short of any sort of parity between indigenous and non-indigenous education standards. We still have a long way to go before parity is achieved. Yet this report shows that, instead of encouraging more indigenous Australians into the education system, this government is actually in danger of providing a disincentive to indigenous people already in the system to continue their education. How can this government honestly say it is encouraging more indigenous Australians into education when the same government's proposed changes to Abstudy risk pushing people out of education?The government in general, and the education minister in particular, would do well to listen to the criticisms of the changes to Abstudy made by their principal advisory body on Aboriginal affairs. The Chair of ATSIC, Mr Gatjil Djerrkura, has criticised the government's proposed changes, explaining that they would `lead to a sharp decline in mature age indigenous students enrolling for TAFE and university study by substantially reducing their financial support'. He went on to illustrate that the further disadvantage that will be faced by mature age students will affect Aboriginal communities because `mature age students serve as the role models for our young'.The minister for education has replied to this criticism with outright denial but little evidence. In his press release of 23 September, he denied claims that $80 million will be cut from the Abstudy budget, yet he did not reveal what the true figure is. He stated:Changes to Abstudy for 2000 are to bring benefits into line with those payable to non-indigenous students, unless the disadvantage addressed by the benefit is unique to, or disproportionately concentrated upon, indigenous students.Yet he does not state the measure of disadvantage that he would use. Even the minister must agree that the low participation rates, low educational outcomes, poor health, poor housing, bad employment prospects and lack of basic infrastructure, among other disadvantages experienced by indigenous Australians, are surely enough to justify the existence of a robust and successful incentive to get indigenous people into, and encourage them to continue, education. What further evidence does the minister need before he acknowledges the shocking disadvantage?The opposition is willing to engage this government in a bipartisan approach to tackle the disadvantages faced by indigenous Australians. We have welcomed the initiatives of the Minister for Health and Aged Care and the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business in addressing the disadvantage faced by indigenous people in their areas of responsibility. They genuinely consulted with indigenous Australians and put in place proposals with the support of indigenous Australians. It cannot be said that the opposition have blindly opposed each and every government initiative. We have not. We have looked at each initiative on its merit.But this minister, the minister for education, has been secretive and sly in his changes to Abstudy. He has refused to release the findings of the 1997-98 review of Abstudy on which he based his proposed changes. He refuses to acknowledge the amount his government will be transferring from Abstudy to the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiative Program or to demonstrate how his proposed changes to Abstudy will be budget neutral, as he claims. He has proposed cuts to financial support for indigenous students that will impair their participation in education—cuts which are opposed by his own government's indigenous advisers and indigenous communities generally. He has refused to treat openly and honestly with the opposition on the subject of indigenous education, despite the immediacy and severity of the disadvantage faced by indigenous people.It is for this reason, this sly and secretive approach by the minister for education, that we have called for a guarantee that the government legislate to redirect the savings from its Abstudy changes into indigenous education. This parliament should not be addressing the problems faced by indigenous Australians in education by further slashing and burning. It should be working with indigenous people, engaging them in negotiation and seeking their support for effective and culturally sensitive programs. It should be supporting proven successes like Abstudy, not creating speculation about their survival.The opposition is facilitating the workings of the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiative Program by supporting this legislation, guaranteeing its funding into 2000-01. But we are genuinely concerned about the government's changes to Abstudy and the lack of accountability by the minister for education. We have made our concerns known through the amendment moved in the name of the member for Bonython. I urge members to support the amendment and ensure that this government maintains spending on indigenous education.10:38:0011045Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Indigenous Education (Supplementary Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999 . Can I thank my colleague and my friend the honourable member for Banks, Daryl Melham, for his contribution to the debate today. I think that the people opposite would do well to read the remarks which the member for Banks has made today and, hopefully, to accept his offer of a bipartisan attempt to deal seriously with the substantive issues which face us.The member for Banks made a number of important points, one of which was that we on this side of the House have supported a number of initiatives which have been brought forward by the government in an attempt to deal with matters relating to the Aboriginal community in Australia. I will place on the record at least one of those initiatives which it has been my and the opposition's pleasure to support, namely, the Indigenous Employment Program. I think the way in which that was conducted should stand as an example of the way in which this government should deal with Aboriginal communities. They went out quietly and consulted with key Aboriginal leaders and stakeholders and engaged them in a sensible debate, engaging with them in a way that was respectful and that also offered an opportunity for those people to contribute substantially to these matters which so profoundly affect the communities of which they are a part. So the Indigenous Employment Program was something that we were very pleased to support.I also draw your attention, Mr Deputy Speaker, to comments I made at another venue, only a week or so ago, where I talked about the role of the member for Indi, Mr Lou Lieberman, who has made an important contribution as the Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. He has acted in a bipartisan manner and in a respectful manner towards the Aboriginal communities in Australia. I make that point so as to state from the outset that we on this side are not about blind opposition and are not about opposing things simply because they come from the government benches and from the Liberal and National parties. We are interested in looking sensibly at legislation which is going to help Aboriginal people. Legislation for programs which will actually support and encourage Aboriginal people to get on in Australia will be the type of legislation which we will be pleased to support.We have had a fairly dry debate about the provisions of this bill, about what amount of money it is going to provide and about which program is going to benefit from that and all the rest of it. I think that sometimes we can lose a bit of the substance and the heart of what this type of legislation is really about. The member for Banks spoke about the 33 per cent year 12 retention rate which exists for Aboriginal people in Australia. Everyone in this House should be profoundly affected by that statistic. They should be profoundly affected and alarmed that only 33 per cent of all Aboriginal people are completing year 12. Education, as we all know, is the tool of empowerment. If we do not have an empowered Aboriginal community in Australia, we can look forward to more of the same in terms of its dependence on welfare. We all know the ramifications of that. They have been well explained in recent months by Noel Pearson, the Director of the Cape York Land Council, in an important speech which he gave to the Brisbane Institute.So, when we are talking about the provisions of this bill, we need to get away from some of the more dry provisions of exactly the amount of money and exactly the type of program and talk about profound movements away from a dependence on welfare to an educated Aboriginal community whose members will be able to interact with mainstream Australia and be able to get ahead and choose their own future. Until we have education rates in Aboriginal communities at the same levels as they are in non-Aboriginal communities, there will still be a great divide, a huge divide, between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australia. This will have a profound impact on whether or not we are able to successfully achieve reconciliation in this country.I will mention a story which was told to me by someone in the Aboriginal community in my electorate who lives in the Latrobe Valley. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will not mention the names of the Aboriginal people involved, out of respect for them and their families, but I will tell you the substance of the story. We heard a little bit today about how, when people in the Aboriginal community who are older get into education through mature entry, this can often be a stimulus for other people in the family who look towards the elders in their community as a role model. We have had exactly that situation happen in the Latrobe Valley. I was saddened to hear, about two or three weeks ago, of the death of an elder in the Aboriginal community in the Latrobe Valley, someone who was very widely respected and who had made a real go of her life. This woman had made a genuine attempt to get away from the alcoholism which had dominated at least part of her life. In doing that, in pulling herself up and in having a real go at moving away from the damaging circumstances in her life, she had been able to provide a positive role model for her family to do the same.So in this instance the gutsy actions of this one elderly Aboriginal woman in that family were able to provide a stimulus and a role model for the rest of the members of her family—namely, her children—to move away from alcoholism as well. The good work of the likes of the Koorie unit of the Central Gippsland Institute of TAFE needs to be acknowledged and I think we need to respect the types of contributions which such organisations make in genuinely empowering Aboriginal people. In this particular case, the leadership of this elder in the Aboriginal community was enough to provide the stimulus to change the lives of four or five members of her family as well.The only reason that she was able to pluck up the courage and make a real go of getting away from the alcoholism that had dominated her life was through the programs offered by the Koorie unit of the Central Gippsland Institute of TAFE, and the only reason she was able to access that program was through Abstudy. So we must not lose track of the significant impact this legislation will have on Aboriginal people's lives. It is not a dry debate. We are not talking only about dollars and cents and different programs; we are talking about profound impacts on Aboriginal people's lives. I mention this story to paint a picture to the House of the difference which programs of this nature can genuinely provide to Aboriginal people in our community.It is also worth mentioning some of the other good work that is done in Koorie education in Victoria. In my part of the world we are very fortunate to have some wonderful Koorie educators in most of our public schools. These people do a great deal of work to advance the interests of Aboriginal people in the district by providing an environment where Aboriginal people are comfortable sending their children to the various state schools which make up the region. I was pleased to visit the school in Liddiard Road in Traralgon, which is my home town, and to see the good work of the Koorie educator who has made sure that Aboriginal culture is very much a part of the mainstream of the school's activities. Plenty of activities are organised to promote reconciliation and to teach Aboriginal culture and respect for it. These types of initiatives, whilst often not talked about, play an important role in encouraging Aboriginal students to go on to complete high school education and, hopefully, to go on to university.It is also worth mentioning the important role of Koorie units in higher education. I have mentioned already the important work of the Koorie unit at the Central Gippsland Institute of TAFE. We also have a Koorie unit at Monash University's Gippsland campus. The unit has had a name change in the last six to 12 months or so and I think it is now called the indigenous studies unit. The programs which are offered to help Aboriginal students go on to higher education must not be understated. This is exactly the type of work which will ensure that more Aboriginal people will go through higher education and thus be given the tools of empowerment to help them and their communities to get ahead in Australia. I think this is profoundly important.There has been a bit of talk about literacy. I am continually amazed at the poor levels of literacy that still affect a number of people in the Aboriginal community. We need to be serious about engaging with the Aboriginal community in a meaningful way so we can deal with this issue. We cannot afford to berate Aboriginal people about obtaining higher levels of literacy, which is what we see from the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs when he stands at the dispatch box giving a tirade about literacy. This is not an approach which will necessarily improve the lot of Aboriginal people in Australia. We need a more sensitive and respectful approach, such as that taken by the member for Banks in his dealings with Aboriginal people. It would be wise for government members and ministers to try to emulate his decent and respectful dealings with Aboriginal people.22:49:0011047Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I am pleased to participate in this debate on the Indigenous Education (Supplementary Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999 . This is a subject about which I have some knowledge and a great deal of experience. Many people in my electorate—around 28 per cent to 30 per cent—are indigenous Australians and are directly affected by the legislation before us today. Effectively, the bill will terminate Abstudy away-from-base payments to individual students and replace them with payments to institutions as an additional specific amount within the IESIP grants paid to those institutions under indigenous education agreements.A number of questions arise out of the legislation, which I will address quickly. Institutions in my electorate have asked me to express their concerns. What courses will be Abstudy approved under this legislation? Payments will be made only for Abstudy approved courses, but the process of obtaining that approval needs to be clear, transparent and negotiated. Under current arrangements, students in certificate level courses have been unable to access away-from-base except in special circumstances. It has been argued that the community control providers meet the needs of a special group of students which other institutions do not meet—I refer particularly to the Institute for Aboriginal Development in Alice Springs. This has been verified in an independent report entitled Succeeding against the odds, which is about to be published by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research. On this basis certificate level courses should attract away-from-base, even if similar courses are available close to the student's own community.We need also to ask whether the Abstudy approved courses are fixed in time, and whether they will vary from year to year at the discretion of DETYA. It appears as though the 1998 approved courses will become the year 2000 courses, and new courses will be outside this list. This raises serious concerns for education providers. There are concerns about the calculation of the unit cost and in particular that, as new courses are added, there is within the move towards median funding the potential for the overall sum available to decrease over time. This is another issue of great importance.The other issue which warrants some consideration is the question of the indexation which is included in the formula. There is concern that the indexation factor may not adequately reflect the increase in costs of travel in remote Australia and the effect of a GST. Is there a transport and/or accommodation index available that may be appropriate? What is the government considering when it looks at the index factors? It is worth noting, for example, that Qantas and Ansett announced an increase in airfares this week. That will affect the ability of institutions, such as those in the Northern Territory—whether it is the Institute for Aboriginal Development in Alice Springs, the Northern Territory University or Bachelor College—to provide courses.So we have to ask: will the indexation factor for 2000 reflect the full seven per cent rise in airfares which Qantas has forecast and attributed to the effect of the GST? Above all else, there is concern to ensure that the figure for 1998 actual costs is correct, as this is the basis for all further calculations and future funding levels. Currently, the sums indicated to some of the institutions in the Northern Territory by DETYA remain the subject of some dispute. It seems to me that we need to make sure these are settled and institutions and students are not disadvantaged.Those are some general concerns which have been expressed to me by educational providers in the Northern Territory about what is in the legislation and the effects on them in terms of delivering courses, but I want to make a couple of observations. It is of some concern to me that the government should actually choose this course. As I have said, under the new arrangements as a result of this legislation, the government will settle individual agreements with institutions for the purpose of achieving improved educational outcomes for indigenous students from remote communities. But there has been no other explanation as to why the change should take place other than to ensure flexibility. Why should the away-from-base component cease to be paid as an individual benefit? Why has it been transformed to an IESIP payment to an institution? How would this move promote the policy which underpins the away-from-base allowance? This raises some very serious questions which I am sure my constituents—the Aboriginal community in the Northern Territory—would be concerned about.The main policy question raised in this bill is whether the institutions themselves could use the money to remove barriers and actually achieve enrolments, participation and completion more effectively than if the money were put into the hands of intending students. I do not want to sound too cynical but I have a suspicion that there is a bit of `We know better than you'—that is, the students—`as to how you should use your funds.' In fact, being a little bit more cynical, I suspect there is an element of lack of trust and that there is a view in this legislation which some might see as a little racist—that somehow or other beneficiaries of these entitlements should not receive them directly because they cannot be trusted to use them properly, and that the only way to make sure that the entitlements are used properly, to make sure they are used the way the government wants them to be used, is to fund the institutions. I hope I am wrong, but I have not seen an explanation from the government about this issue.If the government's purpose is to say to the Aboriginal community of the Northern Territory—and, indeed, Australia generally—that it does not trust them to use the funds which have been given to them for the purpose of achieving better outcomes in education when they are given to them as personal contributions in the form of these benefits and that it cannot trust them because the level of educa tional outcomes have not improved significantly enough therefore the government will take away their direct benefit and give it to the institution to administer, that raises very serious concerns. If that is the case, I would like an explanation from the government as to why it is the case. I do not believe the government should be using that sort of discriminatory attitude in dealing with anyone, let alone Aboriginal people in my electorate.The other point which I think is worth contemplating is the importance of these sorts of funds to improving educational outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. Recently a report was released entitled Public expenditure on services for indigenous people by Max Neutze, Will Sanders and Giff Jones. This report reaches a number of conclusions. One of the key conclusions to emerge from the study is that a focus on special programs for indigenous people alone will provide a very misleading picture of the distribution of public expenditure between indigenous and non-indigenous people.We know where the government's attitude to indigenous expenditure is coming from. It has picked up the Pauline Hanson stuff about whether or not we should be expending amounts of money on Aboriginal people for special purposes, such as education, and that Aboriginal people should be only getting the same benefits as the rest of the population. That is the sort of rhetoric that is being used. What I think we are seeing here is a very subtle attempt by the government to play to the crowd. The report says:A full picture must include both special programs and general programs. While indigenous people benefit substantially more than other Australians from specific programs, they benefit substantially less from many much bigger general programs.In the report they make a special reference to the issue of general programs. On page 13 of their report under the heading `General Programs' they look at table 5.2 and say:On the assumptions made in this study public expenditure through general programs per three 24-year-old indigenous persons was 11 per cent less than per non-indigenous persons. These results occur because of the low retention rates for indigenous students. I have addressed this issue before in this parliament. What is very clear from those results is that the amount of money that the Northern Territory government says is expended on education for Aboriginal students is on a per capita basis less overall for any group of students than it is for the non-indigenous population. I do not think that exacts the need to express the disadvantage that Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory suffer in terms of educational outcomes.The point is of course that these Abstudy payments which are made by the government are important. They are important because they are targeted payments for Aboriginal students, the purpose of which is to improve educational outcomes. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind about the importance of these arrangements. They should not be reduced or sidelined to mirror some argument out in the general domain about whether or not Aboriginal people can be trusted to spend their own funds. Whilst it is very important that we maintain these arrangements—that we maintain these special purpose programs—as has been indicated by Sanders and others, we must ensure that we do not discriminate against Aboriginal people in the way in which we deliver those payments.In their conclusions to this report they also made it very clear that if you look just at the dollar figure you are not going to get a proper assessment of the educational attainment levels or indeed of service levels generally. They also pointed out that the amount of money currently going into special purpose programs such as Abstudy and other educational programs is not sufficient to overcome the relative disadvantage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in terms of educational outcomes.11:00:0011049Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—The Indigenous Education (Supplementary Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999 transfers a component of Commonwealth support for indigenous education from the Abstudy program to the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program. Basically, this bill allows for away-from-base allowances currently paid to individuals studying mixed mode courses to be paid not to individuals but directly to the institutions providing such courses in the form of block grants linked to the number of Abstudy recipients enrolled in such courses.Mixed mode courses are delivered in such a way as to enable students to study, while at the same time allowing them to meet their family, community and cultural commitments. The away-from-base allowance, which this bill proposes to take away from the student and give to the course provider, has been integral to improving access to education for indigenous Australians. The reality is that this bill seeks to give the illusion that Abstudy recipients receive the same benefits as recipients of the youth allowance. As such, it is a weak response to the prejudices expressed by some ill-informed sections of the community.Charles Sturt University, with a campus in Bathurst in my electorate, is one institution that has been a leader in providing block release courses. By covering students for the costs associated with the residential component of their courses and allowing those courses to be taught in a flexible way, the away-from-base allowance has done much to encourage indigenous participation in tertiary education. The Centre for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research concluded in a 1997 study:Through the Block Release mode of delivery, individuals are able to engage in study to improve their employment and career prospects while at the same time remaining in employment and/or within their communities.The bill follows the government's internal review of Abstudy announced in the 1997 budget and conducted last year in the context of the introduction of the youth allowance. As I said a moment ago, that was a review obviously in response to criticisms from some about the alleged generosity of Abstudy compared to Austudy. After that review, the government announced it would maintain Abstudy as a separate scheme targeted at indigenous people but align it with rates of payment available under the youth allowance for students aged 16 to 20 and Newstart for those over 21.I am glad that after reviewing the Abstudy scheme the government has decided to keep it as a separate scheme. However, I am concerned that, rather than improving access to education for indigenous people, changes proposed in this bill will discourage the attainment of tertiary education. If this is the result, it will be a backward step in the slow process of bridging the great divide between indigenous Australians and the rest of the community. Much will depend on the role of the institutions and whether the new arrangements will continue to improve access to education for tertiary students.By any measure, indigenous Australians are the most disadvantaged group in our society, without even going into things like health or incarceration. According to the 1996 census, 40.7 per cent of the indigenous population was employed, compared with 56.2 per cent of the total population; 22.7 per cent of indigenous people were unemployed, compared with 9.2 per cent of the total population. Median personal income of indigenous people was $218, compared with median weekly income for the wider population of $294. In terms of education, 4.5 per cent of the indigenous population had skilled vocational qualifications, compared with 10.7 per cent for the broader population; 1.5 per cent of indigenous people had bachelor degrees, compared with 7.7 per cent for the wider population; 1.2 per cent of indigenous people had associate diplomas, compared with 2.6 per cent for the general population.But, while the degree of disadvantage remains stark, there have been small improvements, and these are detailed in the census figures too. Aboriginal students are leaving school at an older age. In 1996, twice as many were attending tertiary education as did 10 years earlier. Similarly, more than twice as many had gained bachelor degrees in 1996 as did in 1986. These gains, although very small, can be largely attributed to targeted programs such as Abstudy and its predecessors, programs that have recognised that, to address disadvantage, positively discriminating programs that are sensitive to the cultural needs of indigenous people are essential. But, as the census figures show, the gap in educational attainment between indigenous Australians in the wider community—like all indicators—remains far too wide.In assessing this bill it is worth while to examine the history, purpose and achievements of federal involvement in indigenous education. Commonwealth involvement in indigenous education began in 1969 when William Wentworth, the Gorton government's minister in charge of Aboriginal affairs, introduced the Aboriginal study grants scheme. That scheme intended to foster indigenous participation in tertiary education by offering a living allowance to indigenous Australians who were offered places in tertiary institutions. It also provided financial assistance to Aboriginal people who had left school early, so that they could complete their studies in order to qualify for tertiary education. It is worth contrasting the thinking of the coalition on that first scheme against the thinking behind the bill currently in front of us.On 24 January 1969 William Wentworth declared that the Aboriginal problem was far more complex than simply changing the Aboriginal way of life for a European one. It was a recognition that assimilationist policies were not the way to go. He had previously told the Sydney Morning Herald that, with an ever-increasing premium placed on education, Aborigines would need an education as good as that of white Australians if they were to achieve an equal place in society. But, significantly, he recognised the fundamental role of indigenous culture in Australia. As the Sydney Morning Herald reported on 17 June 1996, according to Wentworth:The Aborigines are the remaining heirs to Aboriginal culture—if we further destroy Aboriginal culture, it will not only be Aborigines, but the whole national life of Australia that will be the poorer.So back in 1969 the coalition government and William Wentworth were the first at a federal level to recognise the special needs and disadvantages of indigenous people and the need for special measures to address such abject disadvantage. The Aboriginal secondary grants scheme soon followed the Aboriginal study grants scheme after it was realised that there was little use providing access to tertiary education if there were not enough secondary qualified students to take up that tertiary education. In 1970 only a very small percent age of indigenous students were staying at school past 15. That second scheme provided a living or boarding allowance, a book and equipment allowance and a small personal allowance paid directly to the student. As the Age 's editorial of 23 January 1979 noted:Only when Aboriginal youngsters are as well qualified scholastically as their white contemporaries will they be able to compete on an equal footing for satisfying jobs. Even then, they may run into discrimination from a small-minded minority, but until then they will have no effective answer to it.Some 30 years later it is interesting to see the circle the coalition has come. From a policy stance in the 1960s recognising difference and the need for targeted policies to address these to a position where the rhetoric is now all about sameness and equality, the fact is that in winding back Abstudy, the coalition is simply pandering to prejudices nurtured by the likes of Pauline Hanson, who called for Abstudy to be abolished in 1996. And while Minister Kemp has denied the proposed changes are driven by ill-informed criticism, that such prejudices are behind the changes seems fairly clear to me from the government's statements on this matter. For example, the minister stated on 11 May 1999 in his budget press release:The changes will ensure that benefits payable to indigenous students will be the same as those paid to non-indigenous students, except in cases where such alignment clearly did not cater effectively for the particular disadvantages faced by an indigenous student.It is a bit of the old mirror trick here, to try to get the impression out for electoral purposes that we are pandering to those prejudices and on the other side trying to maintain the good spirit and intention of what should be positive discrimination in favour of those so badly and abjectly disadvantaged in our community. Why aren't we game to say it? Why aren't we game to say this is positive discrimination in favour? It is the same sort of rhetoric that surrounded the youth allowance, a policy designed to give an illusion of simplicity, but the reality of which is an enormously complex payment under which people are still treated differently depending on their circumstances.I had planned to continue with a much more detailed speech on these issues, but as the debate has been limited to 10 minutes I will sum up. As the figures I have outlined above show, far more must be done to bridge the social and educational divide between Australia's indigenous and non-indigenous people. Past programs have been enormously successful in at least addressing the educational divide. From 115 students accessing the first scheme in 1969 to 19,600 tertiary students receiving Abstudy in 1997, there is a heck of a long way to go still. While the government has thankfully decided to retain Abstudy as a separate scheme, it is clear that the way these changes are being contrived is designed to hide the reality.It is sad, after 30 years of progress, that due to ill-informed criticisms we are taking at least that symbolic step backwards. This is the type of policy that makes the people out there cynical about politics. It is obviously designed to maintain different funding for a group in need but to give the illusion of equality. What is the difference between treating indigenous people as a disadvantaged group more beneficially than other groups? We do it for job seekers with flex 1, 2 and 3. The special disadvantage faced by indigenous people is similar, but for some reason the government now cannot bring itself to call a spade a spade. I recommend the second reading amendments to the House on the grounds that I have outlined: we must be bold enough to talk about positive discrimination on behalf of our indigenous people.11:12:0011052Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—I thank colleagues who have taken part in this debate and remind them that this bill will amend the Indigenous Education (Supplementary Assistance) Act 1989 to ensure the continuation of the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program, otherwise known as IESIP, for the 2000 calendar year, including the mixed mode course delivery away-from-base element of Abstudy that will operate under this program. Funding for the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program from 1 January 2000 is contingent upon the passage of this legislation.A number of issues have been raised and I will deal with them in order. It was claimed by the member for Bonython that all of the Abstudy changes have been shrouded in secrecy and that the government has failed to release the findings of the 1997-98 Abstudy review. The Abstudy review was commissioned to inform the government about the retention of Abstudy as a separate scheme in the context of the introduction of the youth allowance in December 1998. The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr David Kemp, announced the changes that would be made to Abstudy following that review. It was also claimed by the member for Bonython, citing a recent report commissioned by ATSIC, that some 15,000 students would be worse off under the new arrangements and only 900 students would benefit from those changes. The ATSIC report contains a number of incorrect assumptions and therefore is misleading. In many cases too much has been extrapolated from insufficient data. Claims within the ATSIC report that $18 million will be cut from the Abstudy budget are clearly wrong, as are claims that 15,000 students will be worse off as a result of these changes. The vast majority of Abstudy recipients will be unaffected or will gain significantly.It is further claimed that the government should legislate to redirect the savings from the changes to Abstudy into indigenous education. I remind members opposite that that is precisely what this bill will achieve. If the member for Bonython does read the 1999-2000 budget papers he will find that this money is to be redirected from Abstudy to the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program through this amendment bill. Perhaps in defence of the member for Bonython, no doubt his speech was prepared with the assistance of the office of the member for Dobell.The member for Bonython has asked for clarification about the use of program funds for institutions to administer away-from-base funding. Institutions already have to provide details about these activities so students can access benefits from Centrelink. Institutions should be able to redeploy these resources for the administration of new arrangements. In addition, any interest payable for IESIP funding will be available to institutions to use for indigenous education purposes if they desire. For example, Batchelor College in the Northern Territory is expected to receive over $5 million per year under these arrangements. It is obvious that the interest from this amount of money is a considerable additional resource to the college and will more than compensate the college for additional administrative detail.I note in other material circulated about the bill that it has been claimed that the transfer of Abstudy away-from-base funding to IESIP will deny individual students access to individual benefit. This is not the case at all. Students do not currently usually receive this element of Abstudy funding in their hand. Students are not sent a cheque to purchase tickets to travel just like members of parliament are not sent cheques and told to purchase their own airline tickets. Given the lack of banking facilities in some remote areas, to suggest that money should be paid to students in the hand is obviously quite ridiculous. Centrelink pays travel and accommodation providers on behalf of students now and institutions will continue this practice in the future.In closing, I commend the bill to the House. It secures funds for the continuation of IESIP in the year 2000 and ensures this very worthwhile program will continue to improve educational outcomes for indigenous Australians. I foreshadow that the government will be moving amendments to this bill. The amendments will update funding amounts to reflect the supplementation for price increases in 1999. These amendments reflect the government's commitment to maintaining the real value of funds appropriated.Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Martyn Evans's amendment) stand part of the question. 11:22:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl)72Mr AbbottMr 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. MacfarlaneMr McGauranMrs MayMr MooreMrs MoylanMr NairnDr 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 Worth54Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr AndrenMr CoxMr CreanMr DanbyMr EdwardsMs EllisDr EmersonMr G. J. EvansMr M. J. EvansMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr HattonMr HollisMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMs KernotMr KerrMr LathamDr LawrenceMs LivermoreMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr MartinMr MelhamMr MossfieldMr MurphyMs O'ByrneMr O'ConnorMr O'KeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*The Hon SciaccaMr Sercombe*Mr SidebottomMr SmithMr SnowdonMr SwanDr TheophanousMr K. J. ThomsonMr WilkieMr WiltonMr ZahraMr HowardMr BeazleyMr CostelloMr McLeayMr DownerMr BreretonMr 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 for the bill and proposed amendments announced.11054Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.11:29:0011054Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—by leave—I move:(1) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 13), after item 8, insert:8A Subsection 13B(7)Omit "$121,976,000", substitute "$124,249,000".Note: The heading to section 13B is altered by omitting "2000 " and substituting "2001 ".(2) Schedule 1, item 9, page 6 (line 16), omit "$126,100,000", substitute "$127,991,000".I present the signed explanatory memorandum.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.11054Bill (on motion by Ms Worth)—by leave—read a third time.Bills11054r91311054Debate resumed from 2 September, on motion by Mr Anthony:That the bill be now read a second time.11:30:0011054Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—In the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (1999 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 1999 we have yet another example of the government's `death by a thousand cuts' approach to the wrecking of welfare in this country. The bill sits proudly alongside other recent efforts by this government to grab money from pensioners by reducing their access to benefits. I would like to foreshadow that we will be seeking to amend this legislation when it gets to the Senate.I would like to make some comments on events of recent days. Yesterday we saw Senator Newman's so-called seminal address to the Press Club. This was the address where the real speech was actually locked in the bottom drawer of the minister's office, because the Prime Minister had rolled her on a number of proposals she had been progressively floating in recent days. I am told that the reference group which is now being put together to prepare a green paper was only conceived of as late as yesterday morning. This reveals the extent to which the government is desperate to cover up a range of callous cuts that it has planned. It is now seeking the coverage or the smokescreen of the green paper process to cover up what has been a debacle.Over the last four years we have seen the biggest cuts to community services in Australian history. We have seen something like $1.8 billion in cuts to labour market assistance. All of these cuts have been carried out under the guise of mutual obligation, but they are cuts of a fundamental nature which are producing a blow-out in the welfare bill in this country. We just need to have a look at some of the figures, many of which were referred to by Senator Newman in her speech to the Press Club yesterday. There are now something like 770,000 children growing up in families where neither parent has a job. That is an increase of almost 100,000 during the period of the Howard government. Almost one in three households are now dependent on welfare as their main source of income. The unemployed now spend on average seven weeks longer on benefits. More than half of those out of work for longer than two years cannot read or write. The number of people on disability support pensions has blown out by 80,000 and the number of people on sole parent pensions by 43,000.If you think that is bad, it is set to get much worse. The GST will push more of the most vulnerable members of our community over the edge, as the four per cent rise in social security benefits is eroded and taken away by an expected rise in inflation in excess of five per cent. The cost of compensation for the GST alone will drive welfare spending from $44.5 billion to a massive $50 billion in the first year of the new millennium. That is an increase of $5,500 million in just one year. The combination of the GST compensation and this government's radical cuts to labour market programs and other assistance for the unemployed and the most vulnerable has produced a blow-out in the welfare budget.What does the government do? It turns around and says, `Well, it is not our fault. It is not our fault that we have abolished all those programs which give individuals the means to move from dependence to independence, it is not our fault that we have got to put all this extra money into the welfare system just to compensate for this massive tax. It is not our fault that the blow-out in the welfare bill is so massive—it is the fault of the people on welfare.' So what the government is going to do about that is cut their benefits. It will cut their benefits; that will be its solution to this.Genuine reform—genuine reconstruction of the welfare system—means that you must invest in programs which give people the capacity to move from dependence to inde pendence, invest in labour market programs and in programs that give people the capacity to build their own capacities. But the solution that this government has in mind is very clear. Unfortunately, it is now locked away in Senator Newman's bottom drawer. She has been forbidden by the Prime Minister to continue to outline those cuts to the welfare system that she has been briefing the media and other opinion leaders about for the past month. One of those cuts—or one of those anticipated revenue saving measures—is aimed at sole parents, withdrawing support that sole parents and some partnered parents have for children aged between 12 and 16 years. Nothing could symbolise the callousness of this government more than that measure. Nothing exposes the fraud of their family-friendly rhetoric more than that measure which is hidden away in Senator Newman's bottom drawer.The relevance of that to this bill is fairly precise. This bill contains a further attack on parents looking after children. The changes to the shared care arrangements in this bill are a further attack on the living standards of parents on very low incomes. When it comes to the shared care arrangements, in this bill you have a brief insight into all of those other measures which are locked away in Senator Newman's bottom drawer. It is clear from this bill and it is clear from those measures locked away in Senator Newman's bottom drawer that the only solution that this government has to moving people from dependence to independence is further cost cutting. Blame the victim. Blame the recipient. It is their fault that they are dependent. It has nothing to do with the fact that we have got a blow-out in welfare expenditure precisely because the government will not invest in those programs which give people the wherewithal to move from dependence to independence.This government has the most vulnerable sections of our community clearly in its sights. Not only is it attacking low income parents with children aged 12 to 16; it is also moving to attack people on disability support pensions. If there was some rhyme or reason to these so-called changes we might be able to support them, but when it is in the parlia ment and when it is withdrawing funds from successful programs like the MIFS program, which actually gives people the wherewithal on disability support pension to get some skills, to get some education, so that they can move into the work force if they have the capacity, it has no right to claim that it has a program of reform.Look at what they do; do not look at what they say. This record, this report card on the first four years of the Howard government and welfare, is damning. We have a blow-out in welfare expenditure precisely because of the actions of this government. They are responsible for it. At a time of relatively strong economic growth, why is welfare dependence growing? It is growing precisely because the government have abolished the essential programs which could prevent it.So Senator Newman has a callous, cost-cutting program locked away in the bottom drawer. It was all set to go. There was Senator Newman at the Press Club, all dressed up, but every single cut was ripped out of the speech by the Prime Minister—ripped out of the speech. It was such a panic at the end that, as late as yesterday morning, they did not even have the membership of the reference group sorted out. If they did, why was it not announced yesterday? Why were we not told who are the members of this reference group that are going to be responsible for preparing the green paper? Why weren't we told yesterday if it was ready? Where were the terms of reference? Nowhere.The problem is that this smokescreen erected around the green paper process and inserted into Senator Newman's speech by the Prime Minister leaves the public in the dark—leaves all those people on disability support pensions and all those sole parents in the dark—wondering where and when the next wave of cutbacks is going to come. It leaves all of these people here who are dependent on welfare wondering when the government is going to come to grips with the nature of the problem. At a time of relatively strong economic growth, why is it—it is a disgrace—that 100,000 more children are living in families where neither parent works, at a time of relatively strong growth? I will tell you why. Because the growth is not being fairly shared.The benefits of growth are not being fairly shared. One of the ways they are not being fairly shared is the $1.8 billion worth of cuts in labour market assistance. It is no secret that those people at the bottom end of the unemployment queue, the most vulnerable, need a helping hand, a hand up, if they are going to move into employment. They are always the last to get the benefits of growth as it flows through the economy. They will never move back from dependence to independence unless the government is prepared to invest in programs that give them the wherewithal to compete in the labour market.But the government has been spooked—spooked by the Victorian election result, spooked by the advance publicity that came out about the cuts to DSP and sole parents—so it backed away. It backed away because it knows that it has a big problem coming down the track. The blow-out in welfare expenditure caused by its abolition of labour market programs plus inadequate GST compensation are sending the welfare bill to $50 billion a year. Wouldn't it have been a bit smarter, a bit cleverer, a bit more active, a bit more intelligent, if it had actually invested some of that money in giving people the wherewithal to stand on their own two feet, giving them a helping hand, not ripping all those programs away, not abolishing successful pilot programs like the MIFS program? Wouldn't that have been better?The way to reconstruct our welfare system is to invest in people, to invest in their skills, to give them a helping hand, to invest in the programs, not to rip them away. These people that are trapped because of government inaction or government cuts are going to suffer again when the GST comes in. We all know the compensation is inadequate—based on a 1.9 per cent inflation rate. That is insane. How this government can walk around the country and pretend that an assumption of a 1.9 per cent inflation rate is going to adequately compensate people on benefits is beyond me. They know there is going to be a very substantial backlash in that area after the GST is introduced next year.This bill before us today is very much like Senator Newman's speech yesterday. It is yet another attack on low income earners, hidden behind a veil of rhetoric about mutual obligation. The veil in this bill includes a number of measures which I will not dwell on too long in my speech but which we will support because they relax, a little, the tight grip the government has around the throats of low and middle income earners, particularly those in rural and regional areas—the relaxation of the definition of independent employment for the purposes of accessing youth allowance, for example, recognising the practice of allowing children of parenting payment recipients to be away for eight weeks without this affecting parent entitlements, extending access to student loans and simplifying the formula for concessions to parents of isolated students. We will support those. While not providing comfort for everyone, or making the youth allowance fair, these measures will assist some families with children, particularly those outside the capital cities, to make sure their children can get a decent education. We support that.I want to draw attention today to what lies behind the veil, to what is actually hidden in Senator Newman's bottom drawer. I can tell you there is no bride behind the veil. Submerged in this bill is the bottom drawer measure, just like those that were ripped out of the speech yesterday at the last minute, which is part and parcel of Jocelyn Newman's secret welfare discussion paper. This is the measure that deals with people on parenting payment who share the care of a child.This measure is anti-family. Of that there is no doubt. It will rob parents of much needed benefits and entitlements that they rely on to bring up their kids. If this measure is introduced, it will mean that both parents caring for a child will be taken off the parenting payment and placed on Newstart or youth allowance. As a result, they will have their entitlements slashed. In fact, parents taken off the parenting payment by the government could lose up to $80 a fortnight. They will lose $12 when they move from the parenting payment to Newstart. They will lose their pharmaceutical allowance. They will lose access to the pensioner education supplement. They will lose their telephone allowance. They will face higher effective marginal tax rates because the taper is much higher for Newstart.You would think that this money was going to be given to the other parent in recognition of that parent's caring role—that if you were going to take it off one person you might give it to the other. The demands of a child simply do not lessen because the government changes its arrangements. But it will not be. As a result, many families are going to be up to $50 a fortnight worse off. The benefits for families under this government keep getting smaller and smaller. It is a bit like Senator Newman's amazing shrinking speech yesterday. What the government is doing with this measure is taking the lowest common denominator in its approach to families. It simply blows away all of the sugar-coated rhetoric that we had from the minister about caring for families.The fact is that in shared care cases both parents have to maintain a household suitable for a child. Their expenses do not get proportionately less because they are sharing a child. Each parent has to budget for additional expenditure on all the sorts of things they spend on children, perhaps even an extra room in a house. With 80.6 per cent of all parenting payment recipients being renters, that could mean significant additional costs just in terms of accommodation.The government are trying to force single parents on to Newstart and youth allowance. What that means is lower benefits, loss of entitlements and activity tests that will simply not allow parents the time and the flexibility that they need to raise children. This measure is just a sign of things to come. It is the thin end of the wedge and it is the pointer to what is locked away in Senator Newman's bottom drawer. These were measures that they were spooked out of providing yesterday, measures that they went around the country and gave background to people about over the last month. These were measures that they compared in their background briefings to the introduction of a GST and Peter Reith's new wave of industrial relations reform. They said we were going to have a third wave—a third wave of welfare cuts.Peter Reith blew the whistle on all of this at the end of last year in that leaked strategy document in which he pointed out that, if you drove down wages, naturally you would have to be driving down and cutting benefits. That is what is locked away in Senator Newman's bottom drawer, and part and parcel of that are the shared care arrangements in this bill which take money off parents who are sharing the caring arrangements. The Council of Single Mothers and the Children claimed this week that:. . . if the Government had a true commitment to the promotion of shared care arrangements then it should be honoured through additional expenditure rather than robbing Peta to pay Paul.This measure exposes the fraud of the government's family friendly rhetoric. In June this year the Prime Minister said:Families are the essential building block of a strong dynamic and decent Australian society . . . the foundation of stable family life in this country is stable economic and social conditions . . . that is why the government is dedicated to doing what it can to strengthen its support for family life.Not if you share the care of a child, according to this bill, because this is a fundamental attack on parents in those situations. Yesterday the Minister for Family and Community Services went further, claiming:. . . a modern safety net is not about blaming the victim, or penalising or punishing disadvantaged people.Not according to this bill. Does the government have two family policies—one it talks about at the Press Club and one it delivers in here in legislation? Just look at what this government does, do not look at what it says. This government has one family policy for the well off and one for the rest.People on a single parent benefit who are already struggling financially and who try to do the right thing by their children through shared care arrangements are being punished financially in this bill. Their capacity to look after their children is greatly diminished. The government says, `We are quite happy for better off families to choose whether they stay at home with their children or not, but we are not going to give that choice to lower income earning Australians.'I would like to read from a letter that I received from the Sole Parents Union earlier this week. It is a letter that Kathleen Swinbourne sent to the Prime Minister. She told Mr Howard that, while she was sure they shared a `mutual desire to decrease welfare dependence and any resulting disadvantage experienced by families', they were very concerned about what appeared to be the government's proposed methods of achieving such a decrease. Ms Swinbourne told the Prime Minister that forcing people to live in greater poverty by reducing their support eligibility had not been shown to be of advantage in reducing dependency or disadvantage. She went on to question those measures that are locked away in Senator Newman's bottom drawer—the ones they told the media about for the past month—that were going to take support away for children aged between 12 and 16. Ms Swinbourne made these points:Is it the government's intention to reduce the age of the youngest child from 16 to 12 . . . ?If this is true, what is the government's rationale for doing so? As a parent yourself I am sure you are personally aware that adolescence is a time when many children require close parental supervision in order to help them through a tough time in their lives.Are you aware of research undertaken by the Social Policy Research Centre for the University of New South Wales into sole parent families during adolescence? That research shows that many sole parents have a strong desire to give their children additional, closer, parental support at a time when they feel children face additional burdens and emotional hardships.Does the government really consider that sole parent families are real families?That may be getting to the nub of it. She continued:Does the government consider that sole parent families are entitled to the same respect for their parenting role that dual parent families receive?If so, why does the government consider that young children in sole parent families do not need a parent at home caring for them full time, yet children in dual parent families are considered to benefit by such an arrangement?Do you personally see any discrepancy or hypocrisy in the above positions? Of course there is hypocrisy in those positions. Under this proposal, when parents are forced onto Newstart and they accept part-time or casual work, they will be slugged by effective marginal tax rates nearing 90 per cent—yet another penalty if they move out into the work force and take that small step from dependence to independence. It is just another measure in this government's one-way street to create increasing welfare dependence, as its record shows. It is punishing people, trapping them in a situation that they do not necessarily want to be in.A single parent earning $300 a fortnight from casual employment will lose $90 more if they are receiving Newstart as compared with staying on parenting payment. This is another punishing blow to low income families. Of course, that difference will be far greater under the GST. Whichever way you look, this government is punishing those people who are trying to take that step from dependence to independence, trying to stand on their own two feet. The abolition of labour market programs, the changes in the tax package and changes contained in this bill are going to trap more and more people in that position.What is the government's solution? `Oh well, we'll just cut the overall level of their benefit. That's how we'll save the money. There is a bit of a blow out—welfare bills heading to $50 billion, pushed up principally by our stinginess and inability to recognise the importance of labour market programs, blown out by the GST compensation, which is in itself inadequate. Our solution to that is to cut the overall level of benefits.'Senator Newman was at least honest. She walked around the country for a month admitting that that was what she was going to do. Suddenly she got rolled by the Prime Minister, and all the nasty, callous cuts are locked away in the bottom drawer. The government have to scramble: `How are we going to get over this embarrassment? Oh well, maybe we'll have a reference group which will work its way through a green paper.' Unfortunately, they do not know who is on the reference group because they made it up only yesterday morning to give Senator Newman a fig leaf at the Press Club. Only yesterday morning did they decide that they were going to have a reference group. It is a farce.The measures in this bill, which are trying to shift people from parenting payment to Newstart to claw back assistance, are just typical of a raft of measures that are locked away in Senator Newman's bottom drawer. This government is as cocky as it is callous, and the measures in this bill and the ones locked away in Senator Newman's bottom drawer form the final element of the trilogy of the anti-family policies of this government. The GST, of course, is by definition anti-family. Every time you have a child you just ratchet up a tax bracket. A tax on consumption punishes those people who consume all their income. Who consumes all their income? Families consume all their income. Families are going to do it very tough when the GST starts. So No. 1 anti-family measure is the introduction of the GST, which punishes lower and middle income families with children. No. 2 anti-family measure is Peter Reith's first and second wave of industrial relations reform, which pushes down wages. In that leaked strategy document earlier this year he said, `If you are going to push down wages you have to push down social welfare benefits.' The third element of the trilogy of anti-family measures is now locked away in Senator Newman's bottom drawer.That trilogy of anti-family measures that this government has put together is dividing the nation. It is erecting a barrier between the few who are doing very well and the many who are slipping backwards. Over the last four years the number of people living in families where neither parent works has increased by 100,000. If you are left in any doubt about the extent to which this government is playing politics with the welfare portfolio, just have a look at the measure in this bill. It is going to create very substantial difficulties—financial and otherwise—for parents who share the care of children. It will pit them against each other. In its construction, this measure encourages the parent who does not currently provide more than 40 per cent of the care to try to increase their sup port. In return, the government is offering them an extra $26 a fortnight. But the other parent, who might otherwise have provided most of the care, stands to lose if the other parent seeks greater access in order to gain extra money. This is a nightmare. This is a disaster. We will be back in this House talking about this in the not too distant future no doubt, because it is another nasty savings measure from this government. It is just another mean, callous nasty savings measure, just like the rest of them locked in Senator Newman's bottom drawer.The parent who might otherwise have provided most of the care stands to lose if the other parent seeks greater access in order to gain extra money. The government is trying to pit parents against each other in a competition for benefits, and that undermines the aims of the Family Court and the rest of it, which I do not have time to go into. This measure will only encourage tensions between separated parents—as if there are not enough, as any member in this House knows. It is going to make it worse—more tension, more pain, more upset. Do you think that helps children? During its time in office the government has attempted to drive a wedge between people who receive social security payments and the rest of the country, and this bill continues in that fine tradition.Senator Newman said with little sincerity yesterday that the government was not into blaming people. Well, it is, and this bill proves it, as do all the measures locked in her bottom drawer. We have Tony Abbott going round the country saying that we must administer tough love to the unemployed. `Tough love' is a term used in dog obedience training. What is he going to do next: bark at them? This government has been using that rhetoric around the country as a wedge to drive people on benefits against people in work, and it is disgusting. Not content with their efforts, they are now trying to drive a wedge between separated parents. They do not attempt these experiments on high income earning families—not on your life. They pick on those who are less well-off. It is a constant feature. They are big on tax breaks and exceptions for the well-to-do and they are tough on everybody else. This is a government that is weak in controlling the strong and very strong in controlling the weak; weak in taxing the strong and strong in taxing the weak. (Time expired)NaN:00:0011060Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—Before I start my remarks on the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (1999 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 1999 , I say that I think it is time that the Labor Party thought about locking the member for Lilley in their bottom drawer. From the conspiracy theories and the scare tactics that we have heard here today, I am sure he is taking lessons from another particular political party. One would also have to ask the member for Lilley whether he had a memory loss in the three years that he had a holiday from this place because I well remember how those opposite wrecked the family unit in the 13 years that they were in government and we were left with the mess. We are doing a darn good job in fixing up that mess. I can assure you that we are rebuilding that family unit and we are giving respect, responsibility and support to those families, and especially the low income families.83VEMERSONMr Emerson—Unemployment in Beenleigh has hit 16 per cent and in Loganlea 18 per cent.6K6Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON—I will speak on that one later. I am pleased to speak in support of the number of positive changes this bill gives effect to. It is a hallmark of the Howard government that we continue to respond to the Australian community and make improvements to government services wherever necessary to provide a greater level of assistance, particularly through Centrelink. The government's efforts are consistently aimed at simplification and ensuring that assistance is targeted where it is needed most. It is a commonsense approach which strikes a chord with my community, the community of Forde.For far too many years under the previous Labor government, government assistance increasingly became a complicated maze of programs, impossible to sort through, which also left the system open to fraud and abuse. Everyone knows that the system was being abused, but Labor, in their traditional style, pretended there was no problem at all. Labor failed to provide any leadership or accountability, and it was a failure that cost the Australian taxpayer more than $1.5 billion a year. That is over $1,500 million each year just through fraud. That is precisely what the Howard government has saved, not by cutting benefits but by ensuring that only those who are entitled to assistance actually receive it. What is more, we have made the system a lot more simple and better suited to the community needs.The youth allowance, which we are discussing with this bill, is a prime example. It is a simple, flexible system which gives security and equality for all young Australians, whether they are studying, training or looking for work. Under the coalition, young people are able to switch from studying to job hunting or vice versa without the difficulties and enormous bureaucratic red tape involved in changing payments that was the case under the previous government. Youth allowance also means that, if you are studying or training, you will get the same amount of income support as young people who are unemployed. This is a big step forward. When I was first elected, many young people in my electorate contacted me wanting to know why it was that they would receive higher payments if they opted to receive unemployment benefits rather than study or train to improve their job prospects. These young people quite rightly believed that the system robbed them of incentive and that they were rewarded for inactivity. I am pleased to say that with the youth allowance we have removed that inequality. What is more, with the concept of mutual obligation, job seekers have been given the chance to play a more productive and rewarding role in the community through the highly successful Work for the Dole program.This bill makes several changes to the youth allowance which are of particular benefit to young people living in regional areas. As someone who represents the largely farming shires of Beaudesert and Boonah, I welcome these measures. Australians living in rural and regional areas do have special needs, and this has been reflected in the full range of the government's policies. We have also been conscious of the need to bring these services more directly to the people. Just earlier this year, we announced an additional 100 Centrelink service outlets to be opened throughout rural and regional Australia to ensure that all Australians have better access to these services. Medicare outlets in pharmacies throughout Australia also have been a big success. As well, we have seen the establishment of a local tax advice office at Beaudesert in my electorate. Working in conjunction with and building on links between state and local government, we will continue to improve access to services, at the same time ensuring that our policies are meeting the needs of Australians, no matter where they live.Specific changes in this bill include extending the definition of independent employment under the youth allowance family actual means test so that it includes work in a farm business or family business. This will mean that up to $6,000 a year derived from sibling income will not be included as family income under the family actual means test. It will also mean that the income earned from employment on the family farm or business by the youth allowance applicant can be excluded up to the existing allowable levels. This bill will also simplify the amount that can be claimed as a concession under the family actual means test for applicant families where a sibling is an isolated boarder or secondary student boarder. The current complex formula will be replaced with a fixed amount of allowable spending of up to $5,274.The third change to the youth allowance is extending the eligibility for the Student Financial Supplement Scheme. The Student Financial Supplement Scheme is a loan scheme which gives dependent tertiary students the option of borrowing money from government to help cover expenses with their study. Many students may prefer this option to finding part-time work. The loan is not subject to interest charges but is adjusted annually in line with the CPI. Students can make voluntary repayments in the first five years of the loan and these payments will attract a bonus. For example, if the student pays back $85, the loan will be reduced by $100. After five years the loan is transferred to the Australian Taxation Office, and repayments are compulsory only once taxable income reaches the level of average earnings, which in July this year was $30,205.I believe the Student Financial Supplement Scheme is a positive way of helping our young people while at the same time allowing them to take responsibility for their own finances. It sends a clear message in the same way that mutual obligation does. We are saying, `Yes, the government can give you extra financial assistance while you study. In return we expect you to repay the extra financial help but only once you are earning good money.' Once again, it is a responsible and commonsense approach by the Howard government.This bill allows for more students in regional and rural areas to be eligible for the Student Financial Supplement Scheme by increasing the current 50 per cent discount for business assets, including farm assets, to 75 per cent for the purpose of the parental assets test limit. In effect, this means that students from families with business or farm assets up to $1.6 million can access a student financial supplement loan, provided of course that they meet all the other criteria. This is a benefit for farming families, many of whom are, of necessity, asset rich but have a very limited income. Once again, it reflects this government's understanding of the special needs of people living in regional and rural areas across Australia.The other budget measure that this bill addresses is the new income support arrangements for separated parents who share the care of their children. This particular measure is a reflection of the changing circumstances in the Australian community. It is a sad fact of life that not every Australian child grows up in a single household with both their mother and father. Family breakdown is a reality of modern living and, as a government, we have an obligation to do everything we can to help ensure the best possible outcome for every Australian child, regardless of their particular situation.Of course this government has taken measures, such as increased funding for marriage and family counselling, to help Australian families stay together. We have also worked hard to reduce the financial pressures on families which can often contribute to relationship difficulties. Under the coalition, Australian families are saving around $330 every single month on an average mortgage because our responsible economic policies have resulted in the lowest interest rates in 30 years.You will never hear opposition members talking about how we are looking after Australian families. They have forgotten to tell the Australian people over the last couple of years that interest rates were 17 per cent while they were in government. That translated into Australian families needing to pay hundreds of dollars extra each month just to keep the family home. We cannot begin to measure the effect these high interest rates, and the financial pressures they caused, had on Australian families. As someone who was forced to take out a second mortgage at that time, I know first-hand how incredibly difficult it made the situation within my family. It is no wonder that Labor will never talk about the benefits for Australian families of the Howard government's low interest rate policies.Nevertheless, Australian families are benefiting in a very real and tangible way and, if we can continue to ease financial pressures on families as well as provide more counselling and support services, hopefully we can help more families stay together. That said, we recognise that this is not always possible and I am encouraged by a slow, but steady, recognition that both parents have a crucial role to play in bringing up their children.There is still some way to go to bring full fairness and equity to the way men and women are treated when it comes to caring for their children after a relationship breakdown. I have heard some very sad stories from heartbroken dads in my electorate who have little or no access to their children, often in spite of court orders. As a member of the government's child support subcommittee, I also know that we still have more work to do to ensure that this particular system is fair for everyone. However, we have made some positive changes and these have been very much welcomed by the dads in my electorate.There is a growing recognition of the vital need for dads to be involved in their children's upbringing. The new income support arrangements legislated in this bill reflect that reality. They provide for Newstart or youth allowance claimants who have responsibility for 40 to 60 per cent of the care of their children to have their obligations under the activity test modified in recognition that their work force capacity is affected by their caring responsibilities. Parenting payments will be paid only to the parent who is responsible for at least 60 per cent of the care of their child. This takes away the situation in shared care where it was often a case of the first person to apply being granted the parenting payment. The other partner was disadvantaged by having to fully meet all their obligations under the activity test if they were unemployed.Finally, this bill also facilitates the smooth transition to changes in family assistance with the establishment of the new Family Assistance Office. From 1 July next year, when the new, fairer tax system begins, there will also be a vastly improved and simplified arrangement for the provision of family assistance. The 12 current family benefits will be simplified into three—family tax benefit part A, family tax benefit part B and child-care benefit. These payments will be administered by the new Family Assistance Office. All Centrelink, Australian Taxation Office and Medicare offices will have a Family Assistance Office, a one-stop shop for family assistance inquiries. These offices will also administer the new savings bonus for older Australians.While there has been a great deal of focus on the tax changes that will take place next year, it should also be remembered that there are considerable benefits for low and middle income Australian families through the new family assistance arrangements. The new arrangements provide an extra $140 per year per child and additional assistance of $350 a year per family for a single income family, including sole parents with a child under five. The new system will also increase the level of income at which family assistance begins to be income tested to $28,200—an increase of $3,850. It also allows families to keep 70c of every dollar of income above the free area instead of the current 50c. The maximum assistance for child care for lower income families will also be increased.As I said at the outset, this government is all about delivering a better deal for Australian people. We are also determined to cut through red tape and bureaucracy to make sure the provision of all government services is a lot more simple and, therefore, less costly. The measures in this bill are practical and commonsense and deliver much better outcomes.As I have said many times in this place, Labor had a vastly different approach when in office. It took the view that to solve social problems you simply had to throw buckets of money at them. This not only did not work but also left us with successive budget deficits and a huge government debt. The Howard government has approached the job very differently by finding ways to simplify and streamline government assistance. It has reduced the cost of delivering that assistance and has introduced innovative programs like Work for the Dole, which costs very little but has had wonderful outcomes in my electorate. The government has been able to reduce spending while at the same time increasing benefits and assistance for those who need it most, particularly low and middle income families. I am pleased to support this bill today and I am very proud to be part of a government which is continuing to improve upon both the nature and the delivery of important government services to all Australians.12:15:0011063Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—I rise to speak on the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (1999 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 1999 . It is astonishing to hear the member for Forde talk about welfare reform. Whenever the government uses the word `reform', it should be transposed with the word `cut' because, whenever they are talking about reform, they are actually talking about cuts.My electorate of Rankin borders the electorate of Forde. I examined some figures the other day on labour market results in our respective areas. The member for Forde boasts about the great achievements of this government in the area of welfare reform. Let me point out the unemployment rate in areas within the seat of Forde—unemployment in Beenleigh has hit 16 per cent, in Loganlea it is 18 per cent and in Eagleby it is 19 per cent. They are disgraceful figures. I am astonished that the member for Forde has come in here congratulating herself—and the government of which she is a part—on achievements in the area of welfare reform and improvements in the living standards of low income people.The member for Forde also spoke of the dads in her electorate who are enduring the stress and tension of separation and who are unable to see their children when they want to—there are plenty of examples of that in Rankin as well—but she omitted to point out that measures contained in this bill constitute a further attack on parents who look after children in a shared arrangement but are in fact separated. I know from the experience of my electorate, as the member for Forde should know from the experience of her electorate, that these family breakdowns cause enormous tension and anxiety. The measures contained in this bill will only compound that problem.I want to take members of this House for a walk through the hall of shame. This hall of shame shows the government's wrecking of the welfare arrangements in this country and the damage that has caused to low income families. It is disgraceful. I acknowledge the work of Wayne Swan, who is the member for Lilley and the shadow minister in this area, for assembling this material and for his leading work in areas such as early intervention. He has put forward positive proposals for reform of the welfare system, which do not include the cuts that are reflected in the hall of shame that I am about to take you through. The first indictment in the hall of shame is a sharp rise in income inequality under this government, with the top 20 per cent of households now earning 12.8 times more than the bottom 20 per cent. That is a sharp increase since the change of government in 1996. A recent report by Access Economics pointed out that, under Labor, the widening inequality in income was more than counterbalanced in the latter years by measures that were implemented by the Hawke government in relation to Prime Minister Hawke's much maligned child poverty pledge. I refer to the extra support that was given to families with children on low incomes. As a result of that extra support, the income inequality that increased in the marketplace was more than counterbalanced through those very sensible and decent contributions by the Hawke government towards their welfare and their living standards. This sharp rise in inequality is the first frame in the hall of shame. I will go on.There has been a surge in the proportion of households dependent on welfare for their principal source of income to nearly one in three households. The average cost to each taxpayer of financing rising welfare dependency has now hit $5,000. So there is, under this government, in fact more welfare dependency, so badly have they botched their so-called welfare reforms.The next part of the hall of shame is that now more than three-quarters of a million children are growing up in families where neither parent has a job. That is an increase of nearly 100,000 since this government was elected. It equates to almost one in three children growing up in a family where neither parent has a job. What sort of role model does this create for young boys in particular who are growing up in those families where neither parent has a job? And this is what the government calls welfare reform!Moving along the hall of shame, unemployed people now spend on average seven weeks longer on welfare. Four in 10 have not had any full-time work in the last two years, so there is increased welfare dependency as a result of these so-called reforms. More than 62,000—or one in two—of all people out of work for longer than two years cannot read or write, yet fewer than 1,000 unemployed people have begun literacy and numeracy programs under the government's wonderful new program.The number of disability pensioners has blown out by 80,000. This has followed cuts to disability services, including a number of successful pilots. If these people had kept on looking for work, the unemployment rate today would not be 7.2 per cent; it would be eight per cent. The government is shifting people onto the disability support pension so as to disguise the true level of unemployment. There has been a surge in the proportion of sole parents dependent on welfare, from 59 per cent in 1996—at around the change of government—to 65 per cent. Child-care fees have increased by about $20 a week following the $850 million that was cut from the child-care budget. This is forcing women to reduce their hours of work.As we move along the hall of shame, effective marginal tax rates for the unemployed are stuck at between 67 per cent and 87 per cent. I point out that from 1 July next year under the so-called new tax system an unemployed person who is offered a job in the range of $10,000 to $15,000 a year would face an effective marginal tax rate of 87 cents in the dollar. Where is the incentive for that person to take on that job? The so-called reforms—which should read `cuts'—to the taxation system will result in a cut in payments or net benefits for low income families and the real problem of effective marginal tax rates of 87 cents in the dollar. That 87 cents in the dollar does not include the cost of travel to and from work, any clothing requirements or child care. When you take account of those things, there is very little incentive for an unemployed person under this government to move from welfare to work.Yet what does the Treasurer want to do with the top marginal rate of income tax of 48½ cents in the dollar? He has declared, `I am an income tax cut man. I want to cut that top marginal rate.' His supporters on high incomes complain that 48½ cents in the dollar does not give them enough incentive to work, but they do not complain about and they do not care about the 87 cents in the dollar which is the effective marginal tax rate faced by someone who is unemployed and considering moving from welfare to work. Where is the fairness in that? Where is the fairness in a Treasurer who wants to cut the top marginal rate of personal income tax but—after all these so-called reforms of the tax system—leaves someone who is on unemployment benefits with an effective marginal tax rate of 87 cents in the dollar?These people will also be confronted with the GST from 1 July next year. We know the compensation is not adequate for low income earners, the unemployed and people on other government payments. The GST itself will reduce the incentive to work because it reduces the purchasing power of any income that a person earns from work. So, instead of going in the right direction of improving incentives for people to move from welfare to work, the government is taking us in precisely the opposite direction. I continue the journey down the hall of shame. Eight out of 10 callers to Centrelink received an engaged signal in 1998 and there were appointment delays of up to four weeks at some offices. This is because of the slashing of jobs in Centrelink offices and all the changes that the government is making to punish people on welfare. Centrelink staff tell me that they could possibly cope with some of the changes in the staffing arrangements if there were not all these new deals for low income people—which amount to cuts—designed to further punish people who are receiving government benefits.As we journey through the hall of shame, there is a further concentration of welfare dependants in regional areas, with one in four regions now receiving as much or more in welfare payments as they pay in income tax and 123 regions with unemployment rates that have risen above nine per cent over the last 12 months. On that unemployment situation—I have already covered some of the disastrous figures in the seat of the member for Forde—in my own electorate of Rankin, unemployment in Woodridge is now above 25 per cent and in Kingston it is also above 25 per cent. In fact, in Queensland as a whole, unemploy ment in 20 disadvantaged areas exceeds 15 per cent, despite a fall in the state-wide rate from 8½ per cent to eight per cent in the last year. In 16 of those 20 areas, the unemployment rate—already above 15 per cent—has actually risen over the last 12 months.This nation is presiding over widening inequality, and this government does not care about it. The Prime Minister chortles about this golden age. Well, I am here to tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that ordinary Australians are not sharing in the golden age and people on welfare are not sharing in the golden age. The people who are benefiting from the golden age are already high income earners. The Prime Minister does not care about people on low incomes and people on welfare.I have spoken in this place a number of times about early intervention programs. They are vital to the life chances of children in disadvantaged areas. I refer to positive parenting programs, to home visiting programs, to support for kids in disadvantaged areas to attend preschool and to literacy and numeracy programs in the early years of formal schooling. In the early intervention area, there has been minuscule investment by this government, with just $2 million spent on parenting skills. That represents—wait for it—0.00036 per cent of the total amount spent on the parenting payment. That shows the government's priorities. In terms of parenting skills, the government is not interested in programs such as the positive parenting programs, even though those programs have been shown to be very effective in improving the life chances of children from disadvantaged areas.Going a little bit further along the age grouping, in the formal education area, the Commonwealth has cut spending on education as a share of gross domestic product by more than $500 million in just two years. The proportion of children dropping out of high school has risen dramatically to a point now where four in 10 boys in state schools across the nation are not completing high school. In disadvantaged areas, that would be more than half. What are the life chances for those boys or for those people in disadvantaged areas?I want to finish by just quickly reporting on a program that I am trying to initiate in the seat of Rankin which involves unemployed people acting as volunteers—and, therefore, being eligible for their Newstart allowance—going into schools and reading to kids who have identified learning difficulties. We have been talking to Centrelink and to the schools. They think it is a good idea. We are just putting in some of the final details. I hope that this program—starting in my seat in Rankin—will be replicated across Australia. I have been contacted by the relevant department and have told them more about what we are trying to do there.People talk about reciprocal obligation. This is a classic example of a cooperative solution where people who are on unemployment benefits and who want to help out but are finding it hard to get a job will actually get points towards the Newstart allowance, and retain their eligibility for the Newstart allowance, by helping kids in schools in disadvantaged areas through the support a reader program to improve their reading skills and, therefore, their life chances.This bill contains a further attack on parents looking after children in a shared carer arrangement. It creates more tension for those parents. There are some measures in the bill that we support, but the final message is that this government is not interested in genuine welfare reform; it is interested only in further cuts to payments to low income families.12:31:0011066Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—How appropriate that today we are debating the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (1999 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 1999 , because it is just 24 hours since the Minister for Family and Community Services was totally embarrassed by being told by the Prime Minister that the great plan for her great release of the vision for the future in her portfolio had been canned. For weeks we were told through the media that there was to be this `grand vision' statement outlining changes to welfare payments and a new approach by the government to be announced in a seminal speech by the minister to the National Press Club.But what we saw was the minister going along to the National Press Club with her tail between her legs, saying, `Sorry, we actually aren't going to make any big announcements here.' Because already the community outrage at cut after cut after cut that has been implemented by this government meant that the Prime Minister felt that maybe for the moment they should just put back in the folder for another day the slash and burn paper that the minister was about to announce.What we saw from this minister was an announcement that there was going to be a green paper on the future of welfare. If that was not a spontaneous, spur of the moment crawl back into the cave, then why was it that there were, in fact, no terms of reference for that green paper? Why was it that the minister could not even announce the composition of the committee that is going to look at this issue? Because there was not one. The minister was all ready to make her grand speech, but it was vetoed by the Prime Minister. So all of those up in the gallery who had been told, day after day—for weeks, in fact—that there was to be this grand visionary statement from the government, from this minister, were just told that it was all to be put on hold. In the end, we had this rather pathetic exercise where the minister made a non-announcement about future directions.I almost felt sorry for the minister when I watched her interview with Paul Lyneham last night on Nightline where she very bravely tried to pretend that she was not disappointed. There is nothing that this government gets more pleasure out of than announcing cuts to family and community services. There is nothing it likes more than taking away benefits from people. There is nothing it likes more than causing pain and hardship and singling out the most vulnerable in our community for a bit of a whack, a bit of a touch up, because it thinks that the polling shows that some people actually like that. It thinks that the polling direction means that it should show that it is somehow tough on welfare, which is why we had in the lead-up to the minister's statement to the Press Club a whole raft of leaks about how it was going to touch up those people on disability support pen sions—it was going to make sure that they fulfilled their obligations—and all of the macho rhetoric that goes with the right-wing heartless approach of the government.This bill before the House today concerns a raft of changes to Centrelink payments. I would like to focus in particular on the changes to payments to people with shared carer arrangements for their children. The effect of this bill will be to exclude from parenting payment both separated parents where they both spend roughly equal amounts of time caring for their child or children. These parents would both be forced to apply for Newstart allowance or youth allowance.This is an extremely regressive measure which fails to recognise the additional costs associated with caring for a child. This means that people with shared care arrangements will receive the lowest rate of payment, the most restrictive income test and the least number of concessions. Surely we should be encouraging separated parents to share their role as parents, not introducing disincentives for proper family practices.This measure would also have the effect of increasing the effective marginal tax rates for sole parents when they accept part-time casual work. The government claims in its rhetoric to be encouraging sole parents to take up work. `We have to get all those single parents off benefits', the sort of rhetoric that feeds into the blame the victim mentality of this government. We have heard rhetoric aimed at people who are on disability support pensions. The other group targeted and singled out for a bit of a kick from the minister's grand vision was single parents. `We need to get stuck into them as well', the sort of redneck approach that there are all these single mothers out there who have children just so that they can get the welfare benefit that comes with that. This government has an offensive approach to this entire portfolio.In spite of the rhetoric, this bill exposes the government's reality. This bill will have the effect of discouraging sole parents from taking up work because of the impact it will have on effective marginal tax rates. This will also create additional confusion as the payment which separated parents receive, along with income tests and the activity test, may well change every single time they alter their shared care arrangements.In contrast, Labor supports a policy of support for parents. The shadow minister, the member for Lilley, has, in a number of real speeches, floated his vision for the future in this area: early intervention programs for parents; the need to address the needs of families, particularly in the first years of a child's life; and the need to provide assistance, a helping hand, advice, encouragement, support for parents—not taking away their benefits, which this government is obsessed with.Whilst this bill talks about some of the measures in the portfolio announced in the budget, I want to also focus on some of the broader problems in the family and community services portfolio that have resulted from this government's policies and the budget. In particular, I would like to address the impact these policies will have on housing. Although we still have some eight months to go before the introduction of the GST, it is already having a massive impact on the housing sector. An article published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 21 September under the headline `Shoddy building work in GST rush' stated that home renovation and building costs have risen by 15 per cent to 20 per cent in the past six months. At the same time, the quality of building work is falling drastically due to the rush to complete this work before 30 June next year. An earlier report in the West Australian published on 9 September 1999 stated that Perth is facing a critical shortage of bricklayers as home buyers rush to beat increased building costs before the introduction of the GST. Some home builders and renovators are facing delays of up to two months just to get a bricklayer for their home.But it is not only consumers who are concerned about the impact of the GST; building trades people are also fearful of a downturn after 1 July next year. In the same article in the West Australian the Western Australian Director of the Housing Industry Association said that he believed building activity would slow after the GST. This uncertainty is bad for the economy and bad for jobs. According to bricklayer Ted East, who spent 35 years in the industry, building companies are avoiding taking on apprentices for fear that there will be insufficient work to sustain them after the introduction of the GST. That feeds into the creation of a longer term problem as a result of this government's unfair new tax.This is not being helped by the confusion that surrounds the whole issue of the GST. On Thursday 23 September an article in the Australian Financial Review covered the enormous confusion in building and investment circles. On 22 September the law firm Mallesons Stephen Jaques issued an industry warning that the ruling of the Commissioner of Taxation on the changeover period could leave room for costly mistakes. In the words of Mr Geoff Wood, who is a partner at Mallesons:If the last certified milestone payment is some months prior to July 1, 2000, literally millions of dollars of pre-July 1 work will fall subject to the GST.Another partner, Mr Eric Mayen, said:On the one hand, they state that GST will only be payable on all the work performed after the operative date, but they then go on to say GST is payable on all claims lodged and paid after the operative date, which is a different thing all together.The government claims that the first home owners subsidy of $7,000 will help to stop a downturn in the construction industry. Let us examine that. This is extraordinarily difficult to believe. According to information provided to my office today by the Tax Reform Info Line, the Australian Tax Office still has not worked out how the $7,000 will be paid. Furthermore, there is no requirement that the $7,000 will go towards building costs.This is a measure that will only benefit those people who are at the more wealthy end of the spectrum, because home buyers will be required to outlay the purchase cost, which will be significantly higher as a result of the GST, before they can claim the rebate. So if you have not got the money up-front to pay for a home which is even more expensive, then the fact is that you will not be able to get the rebate because you will not be at the first step. You will not be able to afford a house—and houses are expected, in places like Sydney, to rise by up to $30,000 for an ordinary home in that market.For families struggling to get together a deposit for their first home it will be extremely difficult to find this extra money up-front. The Housing Industry Association has estimated the impact of the GST on the price of new homes to be around eight per cent. With a rise of this level, the subsidy of $7,000 will only provide adequate compensation for homes costing $87,500 or less after an eight per cent increase. This means the subsidy will fail to compensate any person wanting to buy a home in a major city.The housing sector is just one example of where this government's failure to have long-term vision and a consistent approach to reform is falling down. In each and every area of the Family and Community Services portfolio this minister is failing. It is no wonder, it is no surprise, that the minister was gagged from making her announcements aimed at so-called vision and reform.We know—and all consumers out there know—that the only reason the government put their white paper into the bottom drawer is because they do not want scrutiny of the cuts, because cuts are what they are about. They can put out a Ralph paper which is not revenue neutral—which gives a huge boost to the top end of town—with a huge gaping hole in its failure to raise even a constant source of revenue. But people know, and we know, that that shortfall will be made up by cuts to the most vulnerable in our community who can least afford it.12:48:0011069Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I want to make a few remarks about the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (1999 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 1999 and about the minister. I am pleased to say, and I want to place this on the public record, that the minister came along to the National Conference of the Lone Fathers Association held recently in Canberra. She opened the conference and addressed it, and I place on record my sincere thanks for that. Indeed, I was really pleased to speak, too, at that same conference. I talked about three things when I spoke at that conference as far as child support, family law and counselling are concerned. I said that government should not discriminate against families—that is, we should not provide more support for intact families than for separated families or, for that matter, vice versa. I think we really need to esteem all families whether they are intact or separated. If we cannot bring ourselves to do that, I certainly believe that we should esteem all children, whether they are part of an intact family or whether they are part of a separated family, and government policies should not discriminate between children.The other point that I want to make, which I made at the conference, is that there is a legitimate role for government in empowering parents to make decisions for themselves. I think that this is a very fundamental point.This government, of course, came to power promising to do a lot about the Child Support Scheme. I have to say, notwithstanding the current bout of amendments which went through both the House and the Senate and which were implemented on 1 July, that it is not universally perceived that they have succeeded in their mission. It is true to say about the pre-existing scheme—that is, before the Child Support Scheme was in place—that maintenance was a fictional thing. There was no comprehension or understanding that parents should be responsible for their children. The pre-existing scheme was a disgrace. I think one of the greatest achievements of the Child Support Scheme is that, no matter where you go around Australia, you do not hear an argument that parents should not support their children. I think that is a huge sea change in attitude. There is a legitimate amount of debate about the capacity to support and, therefore, by how much the children should be supported, but there is now universal acceptance of the idea that parents should support their children.I think it is one of the great ironies that by introducing the family law reforms in the 1970s—that is, by introducing no fault divorce—we have tended, in child support, to introduce the idea of financial guilt. This principally affects the employed partner— predominantly the male partner but it equally applies to women who do not have their children residing with them. There is an element of financial guilt now in divorce and separation which I think is very wrong.No matter how generously you review the objectives and the achievements of the Child Support Scheme, you cannot escape the reality that the most important thing to do—that is, supporting children—is not the prime objective. What has always been the prime objective of this scheme is clawing back on Centrelink payments. I am not saying that that is an inappropriate objective but I do not think it should be the first order objective. If we are going to seriously try to rectify some of the imbalances and unfairness associated with the scheme, the government is going to have to invest significant amounts of money in these families. Clawback should no longer be the prime objective and outcome of the scheme.As I have said, I believe that governments not only must invest in families but also must empower parents to make sensible choices about their responsibilities to children and getting on in their new lives. We ought not to have the Child Support Agency as the predominant institution involved in separation. In other words, like a lot of our social welfare legislation, it really should be a safety-net organisation. Parents, who often have a very sensible understanding of what each can afford and what is reasonably fair, should be encouraged to come to a binding agreement. The reality is that if it does not meet benchmarks in terms of the quantum of child support then the agreement is overturned. I think that that is a tragedy because it really does wick up the trauma that is often associated with separation and gets both parents at loggerheads.The Child Support Agency is not a safety-net organisation. It does not provide minimum payments. It is a catch-all organisation; that is, if you are a salaried worker, the Child Support Agency surely catches you, but if you are self-employed or have a small business, there are heaps of ways of avoiding and evading the Child Support Agency. I believe that, where parents cannot agree about these things themselves, we should look at the agency providing minimum payments, not necessarily maximum payments. If, after all, you have acceptance throughout the length and breadth of this country that parents should be responsible, then we should enable them to make these decisions and support their decisions. Where they fail to do so, that is where government should intervene.There has to be a better way than what we are doing at the moment. I do not care whether we are talking about Kevin Andrews's report To have and to hold. We ought to be doing more than spending more than $45 million on public education and counselling. We should be prepared to invest a great deal more than that. I am not one who says that we can reverse the separation rate, but by investing in this area the one thing that can be guaranteed is less trauma and aggravation and a better dialogue, a better basis of communication and understanding, so that it will be easier to arrive at these difficult decisions about children and about getting on with our new lives.In family law there has to be a better way. In all these areas—family law, child support, counselling and public education—you cannot solve problems in one area without addressing the others. In family law—and my views are supported by the most recent report of the Australian Law Reform Commission—we have a Rolls Royce court, a superior Federal Court which has a `one size fits all' approach to the problems. When really difficult cases present that require a great deal of counselling intervention or court time as far as the court registrars and judges are concerned, they do not have the resources. They are not able to differentiate between easier cases and the more difficult ones that require greater intervention.Why, when people are separating out of a marriage, do we need a superior court—not a district court—with its higher level of QCs and barristers attending and the more refined legal arguments applying? Why do we need that sort of a court to arbitrate about the entrails of finished relationships and marriages? I do not believe it is necessary. I certainly believe we need a Family Court, but in the state sphere, tribunals have really shown that they can overcome the difficulties of citizens not being able to afford to exercise their legal entitlements—for instance, the Tenancy and Residency Tribunal, the Small Claims Tribunal and the Guardianship Board in my own state. The real benefit is that these tribunals are not expensive. They are the `no frills' form of justice. You are not allowed to have solicitors, barristers and senior counsel representing you. You can have a friend or an advocate with you but not someone who is legally qualified and you have to sit down in front of the tribunal and talk about your case.So often with marriage break-ups and separations it is the ability of people to actually get through the grieving process by talking about it and arguing about it that we need to address. But the point I am trying to make about the Family Court is this: there are three pillars. If our new minister responsible for the Child Support Agency, Mr Larry Anthony, wants to reform child support, I really believe that we need to address the other two pillars—that is, this issue of public education and counselling as well as appropriate family law reform. When the federal magistrates bill comes before the House—it has been coming for some time; it has been listed on the Notice Paper for some time—perhaps we will have an opportunity to have a fuller debate about what we need to do to make significant reform in the family law area.Returning to the bill and the issue of child support that the minister is responsible for, I have to say that I am really disappointed—and I have said it before—about the approach to reform. All the modelling that they did to come up with a 10 per cent increase in the living allowance or reducing the exempt income for the residential parent that must have predicated their decision was not put on the public record. We have not had an opportunity to agree or disagree whether 10 per cent was appropriate, whether it was 20 per cent or whether it should be 25 per cent, bearing in mind, for example, that in 1994 we said that the very minimum necessary at that time to restore fairness was 20 per cent. In these difficult areas, I do not think it is appropriate for the department to monopolise information and not put it out to the public. We might not always agree with the decision, but I think we can have a much more informed debate if these things are put on the public record.This bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, deals with one of the areas in relation to shared parenting arrangements. I regret to say that whilst superficially the measure looks okay, of course it really is a little confusing and, indeed, it has one of the parents—that is, the parent who has the majority care of the child—receiving a cut. I do not know that that is a good thing. But it is far from what is required for real reform in this area.I said we should not discriminate against children, but there is no doubt that greater care is required for those children who come from separated families. I think this was no more starkly revealed than in this week's Sydney Morning Herald which looked at geographic areas where literacy rates for primary school children were dramatically below those of the wealthier areas. One of the demographics we can pick up out of this as a whole set of conclusions is the degree of separated families. I am not arguing that they somehow are deserving of a lesser education. I fundamentally believe that every child has the right in society to have their potential fully realised. If anything, I am saying that we should be investing more in those families rather than less.I do not think we will get the equation right if we suddenly say, `Well, it is actually up to the partner that is employed, the non-residential partner, to pick up all the financial burden.' All the evidence points to the fact that they cannot pick up that burden. But I come from a party that believes—and certainly this is my own belief—that it is quite legitimate for governments to take a long-term view of children and invest in them. I will conclude my remarks with that.13:06:0011071Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—I rise to speak on the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (1999 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 1999 with some reservations, although there are measures within the legislation that Labor is supporting. I think the legislation reflects a trend by this government to policies which are inconsistent and hypocritical. The minister was preparing a big announcement this week—we all heard about it through the leaks in the weekend paper and in the weeks before—relating to welfare payments. It is interesting to see that one of the leaks that was in the Sunday paper, the Sunday Herald , was in fact about a plan to cut welfare payments for sole parents. The article said:Sole parents would have to start looking for work when their children reached 12 or lose their welfare payments under a radical shake-up being considered by the Federal Government.Single-income couples with children aged between 12 and 16 would also stand to lose their parenting allowance of a minimum $60 a fortnight.The big cuts in benefits to parents are contained in a discussion paper to be released on Wednesday by Family and Community Services Minister Jocelyn Newman.We have not seen that paper I am sorry to say. It would be interesting to see what the minister is planning over the next few years. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has squashed that because he has realised it is unreasonable and unpopular to say on the one hand that this government supports families and on the other to do everything possible to undermine and attack families. The newspaper article went on to say:The discussion paper outlines the most comprehensive agenda to overhaul welfare contemplated by a Federal government in decades.The mind boggles. We wonder what sorts of changes this government could be planning; what sorts of changes could be so bad that the Prime Minister caused the paper to be shredded or pulped, or whatever its fate has been. One wonders what the proposals were that were so bad that this government was not prepared to release them to the public, particularly after the minister has been winding up the press gallery for a few weeks, asking them to come along on Wednesday to hear her big announcement. It was not much of a big announcement, was it?One of the things that I fear with this leak is the suggestion that sole parents would have to start looking for work when their children reach the age of 12. That is a system like that which exists in some states of the United States of America where sole parents are expected to look for work immediately their children are born. A very disturbing case was reported by journalist Christopher Hitchens in his book No-one left to lie to, in which he describes a woman in Arkansas who, 12 days after the birth of her baby, was contacted by her social security contact officer and told that she would have to start work again, that she would receive no parenting payment and no support to stay home with her newborn 12-day-old baby because she had used up her entitlement to welfare support. When she explained that it was going to be very difficult for her to arrange child care for a 12-day-old baby and the only work available to her was in a chicken factory five miles away that had no public transport servicing it, she was told it did not matter how she got there, it did not matter what arrangements she made for her child, if she had to walk there and walk home that was her problem. The only thing the social security people were interested in was getting her back to work.I think it is very important for all parents—sole parents in particular—to have access to the work force when their children reach an age where they are able to be in proper child care. However, in a case like this in the United States, we see a woman who would prefer to be at home caring for her child being forced to work because income support was not available to her. The minister may argue that children who have reached the age of 12 do not need a parent at home caring for them. There would be many in the community who would agree with that. But surely that is the choice for parents to make. In an environment where we say that we not only support families but also support parents who choose to stay at home and care for their children, to then foreshadow moves which actually attack that ability to stay home and care for children seems to me to be inconsistent, to say the least, and hypocritical.However, I think that that is in line with a number of areas of government policy where the rhetoric does not meet the reality. The rhetoric is pro-family. The actions and policies of the government are anti-family.I want to briefly go through some of the rhetoric and some of the facts that contrast that rhetoric. The Prime Minister said in July 1997, and I quote:. . . the most important thing I promised to the Australian people, and it was captured in a slogan of ours. . . I promised them that a Coalition Government would be a government that governed for the mainstream of the Australian community.The contrast, of course, is an increasing gap between the wealthy and poor in our community with a sharp rise in income inequality, with the top 20 per cent of households now earning 12.8 times more than the bottom 20 per cent of households. This income gap will be exacerbated by the introduction of a goods and services tax. We know, of course, that families are the ones who have the greatest demands on their day-to-day incomes. They spend most of their disposable income on housing, food, school shoes, school uniforms—all those day-to-day necessities. The burden of this tax on those families will affect them much more greatly than those people in higher income brackets who are currently already saving a much larger part of their incomes.Another example of the rhetoric not matching up with the reality, of course, is Tony Abbott's comments. He said:The Australian people are the country's greatest asset and the government is determined to ensure they do not get trapped in the welfare system.That was in September 1999. Yet there has been a surge in the proportion of all households dependent on welfare for their principal source of income to almost one in three families. One of the reasons this has happened is that the sorts of programs that Labor introduced that allowed parents to ease themselves back into the work force, to combine their parenting responsibilities with getting back into the work force—programs like jobs, education and training, which was known as the JET scheme—have been slashed in half from $16 million per year to just $7 million per year. Indeed, the $851 million cut to child care will have a dramatic impact on those families where parents want to go back into the work force.I know in my electorate several child-care centres have closed. They are not the childcare centres in the wealthier parts of the electorate where people can afford the increase in fees. They are in areas like Waterloo, where people depend on that child care to allow them not just to go to work, but also to look for work. They need people to care for their children while they are searching for work. It is not just the parents who suffer from the closure of these child-care centres; it is also children, particularly in inner city areas, because there is no backyard for them to play in, no front yard for them to play in. The local playground is not a safe place to leave young children on their own in the inner city, so a lot of children relied on child-care centres for a safe place to play and to meet children of their own age. Those childcare centres in the poorer parts of the electorate are actually closing.Let me quote another inconsistency from the Prime Minister. He said:Families are the essential building block of a strong, dynamic and decent Australian society. . . the foundation of stable family life in this country is stable economic and social conditions. . . That is why the government is dedicated to doing what it can to strengthen its support for family life.Seven hundred and seventy thousand children now grow up in families where neither parent has a job. That is an increase of almost 100,000 since the election of this government. That is a shocking figure. The future work prospects for those children who have grown up in an environment where they have seen neither parent working are quite dramatic.I turn now briefly to the specific measures of the legislation. Firstly, there are measures within the bill which Labor supports, because they simplify and extend some social security payments and options. What we do oppose are the measures which treat harshly families who share the care of children by transferring some parents to Newstart or youth allowance. I will speak about that in more detail in a moment. These measures compound the disadvantage suffered by sole parents and will result in increased poverty and welfare dependence. There is no long-term plan contained within this legislation to get sole parents who share care of children off benefits and into work.One of the measures that we support, of course, is the changes to the family means test which allow young people to support the family business or farm by working without sacrificing their youth allowance income. The amendments also recognise the nature of the labour market in rural and regional areas by allowing income gained through work on a family farm to be exempted from the family means test.Another measure we have agreed to support is the one relating to parenting payments for absent children. This formalises an arrangement which recognises that in many circumstances the child may be absent from the care of the recipient of the parenting payment for a period of up to eight weeks. That person can still be considered to have care of that child. That just makes sense. If children are visiting a non-custodial parent for the school holidays, for example, it certainly should not be a cause for the main carer to be cut off benefits.Another measure we have agreed to support is extending access to student financial supplement scheme loans. This one is a bit of an ambivalent measure, I suppose. We agree that it is important to extend access to these loans. However, if we had a decently functioning tertiary education system, we should not need these loans. The reason for these loans is that average young people cannot afford to attend university anymore. Dependent tertiary students will be able to access the student financial supplement scheme loan under certain circumstances, even though youth allowance is not payable due to the operation of the parental assets test. This amendment recognises that it is not necessarily the case that where a parent has accumulated certain assets, that parent will either be willing or have the capacity to fully support their tertiary aged children.We should take this opportunity to remind ourselves of the record of this government in relation to tertiary education. It is important to remember that $840 million was cut from university operating grants as one of the first measures of this government. The Common wealth contribution to operating grants per equivalent full-time student unit has dropped 35 per cent between 1983 and the projection for 2001. In the year 2001, the real Commonwealth contribution to operating grants will be at the same level as it was in 1983. That is despite a 57 per cent increase in student loads. That means that universities are expected to service many more students for the same amount of money that they were getting in 1983. It is a completely unreasonable expectation and it is certainly leading to an awful strain on university staff as well as an inadequate education being provided to many students.I turn to some of the measures we oppose. The most important, of course, are the changes to income support arrangements for parents sharing the care of children. If there is anything guaranteed to discourage agreements and discourage shared care, it is the possibility of parents losing up to $66 per fortnight. People living on these sorts of benefits cannot afford to lose $66 per fortnight. They cannot afford to lose $2 per fortnight. In the past, a person who had 60 per cent or more of the caring responsibilities was eligible for the single rate of parenting payment. These amendments seek to alter this arrangement so that where two parents share the care of a child between 40 per cent and 60 per cent each, neither parent will qualify for the single rate of parenting payment—not both, but neither. We oppose this measure, because it fails to recognise the additional cost of raising a child. Youth allowance and Newstart allowance do not have the capacity to support a child as well as an adult recipient. It also means that parents who are affected by this change will receive a less generous allowance income test and an increase in the effective marginal tax rate for sole parents when they accept part-time work, at the very same time the government is saying it wants sole parents back in the work force. We have another example of the rhetoric not matching up with the reality, saying that they want sole parents back in the work force, yet discouraging parents from taking up part-time work, which of course is the key pathway back into full-time employment and an end to welfare dependency. The other inevitable consequence of this is that more parents will be forced to go into the court system and contest custody arrangements because they will feel that they will not be able to afford the loss of parenting payment that would occur if they were subject to this new regime. So the measures treat harshly those families who have come to a simple arrangement to share care of the children by transferring them to Newstart or youth allowance at a lower rate with additional obligations, whereas partnered parents receiving parenting payments are not subject to this activity test.The government clearly has no commitment to supporting families and assisting shared care parents back into the work force. Since 1986 this government has cut child care, cut funding to tertiary education, and cut funding to programs that assist parents to get back into the work force. Indeed, that figure of slashing the funding for the JET Program in half is a particularly damaging cut—a cut that had a particularly deleterious effect on parents seeking to re-enter the work force. These new cuts have been designed to cover up the failure of getting people back into the work force. The only solution to the spiralling welfare budget is to cut the value of benefits rather than actually provide decent support to allow people to take up jobs when they feel they are able to combine parenting and work. The only result of these changes in relation to shared care will be to force more parents into conflict and into welfare dependency.Just to reiterate: while there are measures that we are prepared to support within this legislation, it would be with a much happier heart that I would be able to do this if there were not so many contradictions, if there were not such a gap between the rhetoric of support for families and the reality of some of the more damaging measures contained within this legislation, which does nothing to support families, which will lead to an increase in conflict in families and which will certainly not help people to make the transition from welfare to work when they are able. And in that respect, once again, it fits in with a pattern of inconsistency and hypocrisy in this area. 13:25:0011075Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—in reply—I would like to thank honourable members for their contribution to this debate. In particular I thank the member for Forde for her expression of support in relation to the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (1999 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 1999 . The opposition has made a number of ill-informed comments about the bill. True to form, the member for Lilley has again chosen to use his speech to try and make baseless and cheap political points.This bill gives effect to measures announced in the government's 1999-2000 budget and several other measures. It also contains two non-budget items that will assist in the effective transition to and the operation of the new Family Assistance Office as well as introduce provisions to allow for savings bonuses to older Australians.Schedule 1 of the bill amends certain provisions of the Social Security Act 1991 to extend the definition of independent employment used under the family actual means test to include young people employed by their families. This bill ensures that in determining the actual means of the family for youth allowance purposes, the concession relating to income from employment is available regardless of the type of employment. Along with income from current allowable types of employment, these amendments provide for income earned from employment in a family business or on a farm to be excluded up to the existing $6,000 allowable level. This is a very good measure which has certainly been welcomed by rural Australia. The extension of this concession to families or farming businesses recognises the limited availability of independent employment for families living in rural or remote areas throughout Australia. This measure is good news for farming families and families operating small businesses. I am pleased to see that members of the opposition appear to also recognise the benefits of this measure.Schedule 1 of the bill also provides for new income support arrangements for adults sharing the care of a child. Under the current arrangements only one parent of a separated family can qualify for parenting payment in respect of a child. When parents share care equally, the decision as to which parent will receive the parenting payment is often made on the basis of which parent applies for the payment first. If the other parent is unemployed, they may have to claim Newstart allowance and be subject to normal activity test obligations. They may have to take up employment that conflicts with their childcare responsibilities and often do not have access to the Jobs, Education and Training program. The current arrangements are inconsistent with the recent family law reforms, which aim to encourage the continued involvement and responsibility of both parents following separation.This measure recognises the constraints on the labour force participation imposed by caring responsibilities and requires parents to participate only to the level of their capacity. Under these changes, adults with over 60 per cent care of a child or children will be able to qualify for parenting payment. Where a claimant for youth allowance or Newstart allowance has child-care responsibilities in the 40 per cent to 60 per cent range, the person's obligations under the activity test will be modified in recognition that the person's work force capacity is affected by their caring responsibilities. The measure will support parents in balancing work and family responsibilities and will allow separated parents who nearly equally share the care of their children, within a 40 per cent to 60 per cent band, to have access to the Jobs, Education and Training Program.The member for Lilley clearly shows his ignorance on this aspect of the bill when arguing that people will be forced off parenting payment. Nothing could be further from the truth. The proposed share care arrangements in this bill are clearly beneficial to both parents sharing the care of their children. The bill also simplifies the concessions that exist in relation to student boarders under the family actual means test. This measure will replace the complex formula that must currently be applied in calculating the concession available for families where a family member is an isolated boarder or a secondary student boarder. The existing complex formula will be replaced with a fixed amount of allowable spending. Therefore, under this measure if a customer's siblings are an isolated or secondary boarder, they will automatically be given the maximum concession under the family actual means test.As part of the government's ongoing commitment to supporting families in rural and remote areas, this measure will provide valuable assistance. This measure increases transparency for the customer as they will know precisely what their entitlement is, and this will simplify administration. The bill also extends the eligibility for student financial supplement loans. Dependent students can apply for a student financial supplement loan if they are undertaking an approved tertiary course but are ineligible for the youth allowance because of the parental income and asset test. Under this measure, students whose families' assets are over the assets limit for youth allowance may become eligible for the student financial supplement loan. This change will provide for an increase in the assets test discount for farm and business assets. Effectively, this enables students from families with business assets, including a farm, up to $1.64 million to access a student financial supplement loan. This change will directly increase the government's support of families with farms and business assets above the present thresholds. An estimated 1,000 families will benefit from access to loans up to a maximum of $2,000. Again, this is really great news for families on the land.The bill also assists the successful and smooth transition of the new family assistance arrangements and the provisions of saving bonuses to older Australians. The three joint venture agencies, Centrelink, the Australian Taxation Office and the Health Insurance Commission, forming the new Family Assistance Office, will begin to inform their current customers of the changes to the family assistance schemes early next year. As there is potential for current customers to be in receipt of benefits from all three joint agencies, it is proposed to share tax file numbers information, the TFN, across the agencies to identify the shared customers. The legislative basis for the sharing of this information is available from 1 July 2000. This measure will bring forward that capacity and will ensure the smooth and successful operations of these arrangements.I want to take this opportunity to address some of the points the member for Lilley raised earlier. Clearly the member for Lilley is not across his brief, nor does he understand the benefits of this bill. He is more interested in raising ridiculous conspiracy theories in trying to raise his meagre profile. Yet again I see in today's editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald Mr Persona Non Grata is referred to as `Wayne Smith'. I hope they can get it right tomorrow. I note that the member for Lilley has his facts wrong in that he has no qualms in misrepresenting facts and figures. Unfortunately he seems hell-bent on scaring social security recipients into believing that their payments are at risk. The Howard-Anderson government is about providing greater assistance to lower and middle income earners and reducing the problems of welfare dependency we inherited when we came to office.Sustained economic growth is reducing the level of unemployment in this country from 8.5 per cent in March 1996 to 7.2 per cent in August this year. The member for Lilley claims that the unemployed are now spending on average seven weeks longer on benefits, but he omitted to say that under this government the level of unemployment has fallen to 7.2 per cent, when it was at a high of 11 per cent under the previous Labor Party government. The member for Lilley also omits to say that in July Australia's long-term unemployed have fallen below 200,000 for the first time in eight years. Reforms to family assistance as part of the new taxation system will substantially reduce the high effective marginal tax rates facing low income workers with children. They will also make work more economically rewarding for those who move off income support.6J4SCIACCAMr Sciacca—No thanks to you.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—I thank the member for Bowman for his keen interest in the speech today. The member for Lilley says that the four per cent rise in social security benefits under a GST will not cover inflation. The member for Lilley is confused, although we know this is not new. The four per cent increase in all payments—seven per cent for rent assistance—includes a two per cent real increase over and above the price effect. This means that regardless of any rise in inflation that pensioners and other income support recipients will be better off. The four per cent rise includes a two per cent advance of future CPI increases. If the CPI effect of the tax reform is greater than the Treasury forecast, all pensions will increase in line with the normal CPI arrangements. Labor left us with a tax and social security system in need of repair. The government is working to fix it.The measures contained in this bill provide for sensible reform. I am particularly pleased to bring forward these measures, especially those measures that apply extra benefits for rural families. I thank all members for their contribution to the debate and commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.11077Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Anthony) read a third time.Committees11077110771107713:36:0011077Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Redevelopment of the Darwin naval base project Northern Territory.The Department of Defence proposes to redevelop Darwin naval base to overcome the inadequacy of present facilities affecting current operations and to cater for a planned increase in the number of minor war vessels to be home ported in Darwin.The base is an element of the Larrakeyah barracks and its initial development was completed in 1982. It was designed to support six Fremantle class patrol boats to be home ported in Darwin and to support other naval operational and exercise activities in northern waters. Since 1982 the tempo of operational activities in the north has increased as has the intensity of unilateral and bilateral exercises. Four army landing craft and naval heavy landing craft and additional harbour support craft have been relocated to Darwin, placing an unacceptable strain on the existing support facilities.In order to support the increases in activity and the additional craft, works were undertaken in 1992 to expand the dry berth tiedown area. Furthermore, in 1993 works were undertaken to supplement administrative and workshop facilities. The Royal Australian Navy intends to increase further the number of minor war vessels to be home-ported in Darwin. An additional four patrol boats and another heavy landing craft will relocate to Darwin on completion of the proposed works. The predominant elements of work will be, one, the extension of the existing wharf to cater for landing craft; two, the construction of a new wharf to support patrol boats and visiting minor war vessels; three, extension of the dry land storage area to facilitate repair activities and to increase the capacity of the base to protect craft in the event of a cyclone; four, increased fuel treatment and storage facilities to cater for both home-ported and visiting vessels; and, five, inadequacies in officers' areas and stores areas will also be addressed.The estimated out-turn cost of the project is $12.4 million. Subject to parliamentary approval, the project would be committed in October 1999 with the objective of completing the work by June in the year 2001. In its report, the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works has recommended that this project proceed. The Department of Defence accepts the recommendations of the committee, and I commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.110781107813:41:0011078Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work, which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to parliament: RAAF Base Townsville Redevelopment Stage 1.The Royal Australian Air Force base at Townsville forms part of a chain of military airfields stretching across northern Australia to Learmonth in the west. Together with the RAAF Scherger, Townsville provides for the air defence of northern Queensland and its approaches, as well as providing an air head for military air transport operations and a base for fighter strike, maritime and army aviation operations.In many cases, the facilities need to be upgraded or replaced if the full operational and support capabilities assigned to the base are to be efficiently achieved and maintained and occupational health and safety standards met. Accordingly, a staged redevelopment of RAAF Townsville is proposed. The main components of stage 1 comprise: 10 fighter strike ordnance loading aprons, four maritime patrol ordnance loading aprons, an operational and technical support facility, the consolidation of vehicle and equipment maintenance functions, facilities for the Caribou replacement aircraft, and upgrade of base engineering services.The estimated out-turn cost of the proposal is $70.1 million with a further $16.9 million identified for the capital equipment funded element. Subject to parliamentary approval, the project would be committed in December this year, with the aim of having it completed by December 2001.In its report, the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works recommended that this project proceed. The Department of Defence accepts the recommendations of the committee and I commend the motion to the House.13:43:0011079Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—RAAF Townsville is currently playing and has played a very significant role in the deployment of our troops to Timor. The facilities currently there do not meet the modern standards that are needed and as the local member I certainly very much welcome this particular expediency motion this afternoon.One of the interesting things contained in the report is the development of the light tactical aircraft facilities at RAAF Townsville. Part of that is a flight simulator which the RAAF intends hiring out to other countries who may be looking at using the aircraft chosen to be the replacement for the Caribou. Other areas of RAAF Townsville are more than 50 years old. They are wartime vintage. They desperately need replacement too. I look forward to the time when the stage 2 redevelopment comes forward to the Parliament.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—You have been a keen advocate for it.HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—Thank you, Parliamentary Secretary. Certainly I would like to see that happen. So I support this expediency motion very strongly here this afternoon.Question resolved in the affirmative.110791107913:44:0011079Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the eighth and ninth reports of the committee for 1999 relating to the Joint Research Complex for the CSIRO Molecular Science and Food Science Australia and the CSIRO Division of Building Construction and Engineering Development Works at Riverside Corporate Park, North Ryde, New South Wales.Ordered that the report be printed.4V5Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN—by leave—The reports which I have just tabled concern proposals to construct new facilities for the CSIRO's Division of Molecular Science and Food Science Australia and CSIRO's Division of Building Construction and Engineering Development. Both are to be constructed at Riverside Corporate Park at North Ryde in Sydney.The Riverside Corporate Park contains the largest aggregation of CSIRO research activities in New South Wales. Long-term planning envisages development of the corporate park within CSIRO precincts to provide modern research facilities. Land surplus to CSIRO requirements has been developed and infrastructure and site services have been upgraded or replaced for sale to private sector companies. Further rationalisation and consolidation of CSIRO facilities is planned.The estimated out-turn cost of both proposals is $59 million. The committee has recommended that the work should proceed as proposed. The first report, the eighth of 1999, concerns the construction of a new joint complex for the Division of Molecular Science and Food Science Australia. This will replace predominantly old and substandard existing facilities at North Ryde that are now inadequate for conducting modern scientific research.The new facilities will provide accommodation for 220 Food Science Australia and Division of Molecular Science staff plus long-term visitors and students. Facilities will also include amenities, support services and infrastructure which will be shared among all CSIRO divisions within the central precinct of the park. The estimated cost of this proposal is $49 million.By way of background, Food Science Australia and the Division of Molecular Science undertake wide-ranging strategic and applied research for industries which play a vital role in the continued economic growth of Australia. Both divisions are housed in facilities which are inadequate and cannot be adapted to contemporary and future research requirements. North Ryde is regarded as an ideal location for both organisations, which are required to interact with companies and universities located in the Sydney area.The committee has concluded that a need exists for the provision of modern research facilities for the two divisions, which would benefit from being collocated. In terms of the scope of the proposal the committee has concluded that it will provide both divisions with much needed modern research laboratories and ancillary facilities. The extent of the complex can be justified, being necessary to meet current and future requirements.CSIRO staff were involved in some detailed planning of the proposed joint complex. A noteworthy feature is the location and height of the joint research centre. These will combine to create a strong architectural statement whose immediate impacts will be tempered by the setback from Dalley Road and tree plantings. The question of the profile and height of the exhaust stacks arose during the inquiry and the committee has recommended that these features should be re-examined to reduce their visual impact.As is normally the case, CSIRO consulted widely with state and local government planning authorities in order to meet planning requirements. In relation to the wider corporate park, the committee has concluded that CSIRO has implemented extensive initiatives to minimise the environmental impact of the development of the corporate park site. These measures include extensive stormwater management and the provision of a substantial portion of land as a flora and fauna reserve.The second report, the committee's ninth of 1999, concerns the replacement of predominantly old and substandard facilities with new state of the art accommodation for the Construction Materials Laboratory and Fire Technology Complex of the CSIRO's Division of Building Construction and Engineering. The facilities proposed in this stage of the replacement program will accommodate 70 research and support staff and comprise modern research facilities and management and administration offices, together with industrial scale technical areas and testing bays.More specifically the development will include fire testing facilities, technical and testing bays and support areas. It will also include a structural fire and testing facility, a reaction to fire materials facility, fire safety performance evaluation facility, construction materials facilities, process bays and laboratories, and central facilities, reception, meeting room, office and support areas.The committee is satisfied that the proposed development is necessary in order for CSIRO Building Construction and Engineering to continue to meet its objectives of supporting, advancing and improving the operation of industries relating to the built environment.The construction materials research team which provides strategic support to Australian concrete research is currently housed in temporary laboratories at Riverside Corporate Park. It is essential that new and improved laboratories be built in order to support the growth in the important area of CSIRO research in advanced cementitious technology.The fire science and technology laboratory enhances the competitiveness of Australian industry and public safety through performance prediction methods, measurement technologies and technical advances which result in improvements in the built environment. Existing fire research and testing facilities are constraining the CSIRO's current capabilities and will not enable fulfilment of future local and international market needs. The proposed new facility will focus on new science capabilities in fire suppression technology, including methods of extinguishing large industrial fires such as the Longford gas fire and the fire at Coode Island in Victoria.While the committee supports this proposed development, it notes that some concerns have been raised by community groups about the likely adverse impacts of the development on the local environment. The committee took evidence from these groups, as well as from various local and state authorities, and is satisfied that the CSIRO has planned and will implement numerous conservation measures which will ensure the preservation of a healthy local environment.The committee has recommended that the CSIRO continue to supervise development work to ensure that the local environment is fully protected and furthermore that the CSIRO give community groups an opportunity to contribute their views to the environmental management plan currently being developed for this project. I commend these reports to the House.Bills11081r90811081Debate resumed from 2 September, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.13:52:0011081Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I move as an amendment to the motion for the second reading:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading this House:(1) condemns the Government for not providing adequate resources to the Australian Taxation Office to allow it to properly discharge its administrative functions;(2) condemns the Government for its indifference to the severe impact of the GST transitional provisions on the community and on industries such as the car industry;(3) condemns the Government for its continuing unwillingness to legislate against tax minimisation through the use of family trusts and notes the conflict of interest involved in approximately 17 Government frontbenchers holding family trusts;(4) calls on the Government to introduce into the House without delay the anti-avoidance entity taxation arrangements announced in the ANTS package;(5) notes with alarm the consequent failure of the Government's response to the business tax revenue-neutral criterion and the effect of the resulting fiscal loosening on the current account deficit and on equity; and(6) notes that Jeff Kennett has received a strong rebuke from the voters of Victoria due to his championing of the GST, excessive secrecy and nobbling of the Auditor General.Speaking to the first item of my proposed amendment to the second reading, I want to express particular concern about the capacity of the Taxation Office to do its job—and, of course, its job will be a much bigger job in the light of the GST; in particular, the difficulties being placed in the way of the tax office doing its job in Western Australia.We have seen new call centres being established in Tasmania, New South Wales and Victoria, but there is no call centre to service the Western Australian or, indeed, the South Australian region. This will be detrimental to jobs in Western Australia. It will certainly impact on the career paths and prospects for tax office staff in Western Australia. Even more seriously, it represents a centralisation of functions within the tax office towards the eastern states.This appears to be part of a trend. If we look at the service functions of the tax office, we see not only call centres but other functions of the tax office being shifted away. For example, all tax return processing has been removed from the west and sent to the east, resulting in job losses. The cashiers in Western Australia are being closed. That means that we cannot pay an ATO bill over the counter anymore. It must be sent into the tax office, in which case it goes to New South Wales for central processing. This has resulted in job losses and the loss of functions.We have seen the processing of HECS payments moved from Western Australia to Queensland—more job losses. We have seen the IT help function being outsourced. Once again this means that you have to call the eastern states in order to get computer help. No GST processing will be based in Western Australia. Indeed, the training of tax office staff in Western Australia in relation to the GST was conducted by people flown in from the east, despite staff in Western Australia having the ability to do it. You can draw your own conclusions about the effect of all this on the tax office's ability to perform its functions properly. The tax office charter states:Taxpayers should be entitled to access to comparable services no matter where they live.It would appear that what this really means is that taxpayers should be entitled to access to comparable services no matter where they live, unless they happen to live in Western Australia. The Constitution was framed with a view to ensuring that the federal government did not favour one state over another. It seems to me that the spirit of the Constitution is being flouted as tax office functions and staff are progressively being moved away from Western Australia.We can see this in relation to staffing ratios as well. At the same time as it would appear that new functions are not being established in Western Australia, jobs are being cut faster there than in other states. So, for instance, in 1991-92, there were 1,605 staff employed in Western Australia. In 1997-98 there were 1,306 staff employed in Western Australia. So Western Australia suffered an 18.6 per cent decrease.If we look at the broader scheme of staff movements across the nation, there were 19,501 staff employed in the tax office in 1991-92, but 16,985 employed in the tax office by 1997-98; that is a 13.3 per cent decrease across Australia. At the same time we saw the national office staff increase by some 750 people. So staff are being sucked from Western Australia into the head office. That centralisation of functions and staff from Western Australia to the east continues.There have also been management job losses from Western Australia to the east. The senior executive staff from Western Australia, in the same time frame that I have described, have decreased from eight to two, while nationally the numbers of SES, the Senior Executive Staff, have increased from 110 to 135.Since the tax office was reorganised in 1996, there has been a general loss of leadership functions from Western Australia, namely, there are no managers of the various business lines in Western Australia; nor are there any second commissioners in Western Australia and certainly no commissioner. This results in a loss of leadership functions, a lack of localised decision making and a loss of career paths for staff in Western Australia. So not only are the staff and functions of the tax office moving eastwards, so is the decision making process.The federal government needs to treat the tax office in Western Australia more equitably. A good start in doing this would be to place more of the management functions in Western Australia to help with decision making, placing a call centre in Western Australia to help combat those job losses in Western Australia and making sure that arising from the changes to GST that Western Australia does not miss out, that it is not left behind in all this and that people in Western Australia have the same access through call centres to tax advice and information as those throughout the rest of the nation. I think it is something that the government needs to look at very seriously.Item 6 of my amendment refers to the rebuke that Premier Kennett has received from the voters of Victoria due to his championing of the GST. I think it might be timely to remind those voters going to the polls in Frankston East that it was Premier Kennett who wrote to the Prime Minister, who wrote to the Victorian senators, proposing that there ought to be a five per cent GST on food. He said that a GST of five per cent on all food would yield some $29 billion, which would enable FID to be abolished and debits tax to be abolished by 2005. So you know if you vote for Jeff Kennett you are voting for a GST on food.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Questions Without Notice110821108211082Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. It concerns his statement on CNN yesterday that:. . . the multilateral force has no authority to go into West Timor, none whatsoever.Prime Minister, how do you reconcile this emphatic prohibition with Minister for Defence Moore's statements in Darwin yesterday, and on AM this morning, that INTERFET's mandate allows hot pursuit into West Timor in the event of militia raids across the border? Prime Minister, who has got this right—you or the Minister for Defence?11082Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I do not have the transcript with me, but my recollection of the question being asked of me on CNN was that it was not in the context of hot pursuit.1108311083Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister seen recent criticisms made in New York about the conduct of Australian troops in the multinational force in East Timor and what is his response to such criticism?11083Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for Grey for that question. No doubt he is alluding to the remarks that were made in New York by the Prime Minister of Malaysia. I say on behalf of the Australian government that the government categorically rejects the criticisms made by Dr Mahathir. The Australian forces have behaved impeccably and they have brought very great pride to the Australian nation. The Australian people are rightly proud of the role that is being played by the Australian forces under United Nations mandate and in cooperation with other participants in the multinational force. There is therefore no justification whatsoever for an allegation of belligerence or any other kind of behaviour outside the mandate given by the United Nations, and I emphatically and categorically reject the claims made by the Prime Minister of Malaysia. I say on behalf of the government and I think I speak on behalf of the House when I say that we have heard nothing but sensible, responsible and humane comments from General Cosgrove and his troops in East Timor. We are particularly proud of the balance and dedication shown by our troops in the field.We would welcome increased participation in the multinational force by ASEAN countries. We would particularly welcome a larger contribution from Malaysia. They have already made a small and very welcome contribution. The Australian CDF has informed me that at a professional level Australian forces and Malaysian forces know each other well and work in a very harmonious fashion. Our men and women on the ground would be more than happy to work closely with their counterparts from Malaysia. Malaysia was offered the deputy commandership of the multinational force. It is worth reminding the House, and it is worth reminding critics of Australia's role, of this fact. But it declined the position and that position was then filled by an officer of the army of Thailand. Thailand has responded readily, along with the commitment of a battalion.Mr Speaker, may I take this opportunity while I am on my feet to say that the cooperation amongst the forces on the ground has been very effective—indeed, quite outstanding. I particularly take this opportunity to express my gratitude and thanks to the Prime Minister of New Zealand and to the government and the people of New Zealand for the commitment of an infantry battalion of some 800 New Zealanders. We will welcome, as we always do, working alongside our ANZAC comrades. The contribution of the New Zealand government, given the size of that nation, is something for which we are particularly proud. New Zealand is a reliable and close friend of Australia. I especially convey my thanks to Mrs Shipley, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, for the contribution being made.1108311083Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister and follows the question I asked him a moment ago. Prime Minister, do you recollect saying this:Well we don't have any, well the multinational force has no authority to go into West Timor, none whatsoever. Its mandate from the United Nations is restricted to East Timor. West Timor remains unambiguously part of Indonesian sovereignty and any attempt to go across the border to conduct operations there would certainly provoke a very hostile reaction from Indonesia.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Whose side are you on?PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Don't be stupid. You are completely stupid. Prime Minister, what specific assurances has the government sought and received from Jakarta that the TNI will not oppose the hot pursuit of militias across the border into West Timor? Further, what arrangements have been put in place so that troops from both sides are aware of what is required of them on the ground?11083Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I will make some inquiries about the assurances in relation to hot pursuit. I repeat that my recollection when I was asked the first question was that that was not necessarily in the context of hot pursuit. The situation remains that the mandate relates to East Timor. The doctrine of hot pursuit is a very limited doctrine, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, and although the mandate would by implication allow for hot pursuit, the circumstances under which that would occur would be extremely limited indeed, as the Leader of the Opposition will know. Any suggestion that there is any conflict between me and the Minister for Defence is plainly ludicrous.1108411084Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Given the importance of the East Timor operation, both to Australia's national interest and as a humanitarian operation, could the minister please inform the House of the progress of the East Timor operation.11084Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—I am pleased to inform the House that INTERFET forces deployed in East Timor now number about 4,100. These consist of 3,377 Australians and 718 from other nations. Eleven countries have forces deployed in Australia or in East Timor: Australia, New Zealand, United States, United Kingdom, the Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, France, Italy, Malaysia and Brazil. Although not yet deployed in Australia, contingents from Korea, Norway and Ireland will be arriving in the very near future. TNI's withdrawal from East Timor is now largely complete, leaving approximately 1,300 troops in East Timor, the majority of whom are in Dili.Until the MPR endorses the result of the consultation on autonomy, INTERFET and Indonesia will share responsibility for security in East Timor. INTERFET's prime task in the early stages of deployment is to restore peace and security to East Timor. I am pleased to say that operations outside Dili are continuing successfully. The Philippine infantry company performed security tasks on the second airfield and the Gurkha elements have been pushing out into the east end of East Timor. Some 15,000 displaced people have so far returned to Dili and further returns are expected in the next few days.Meanwhile, the build-up of INTERFET forces continues. Some 24 C-130 sorties were conducted yesterday, and 17 are set down for today. Food drop sorties have been suspended following an injury to an East Timorese child, but the ability to deploy troops has enabled humanitarian forces to be able to deliver certain foods around East Timor. INTERFET continues to support humanitarian efforts on a wide scale.Yesterday I had the opportunity to meet with both the Secretary for Defense of the United States and the New Zealand Minister for Defence. The discussions were important and certainly underscored the enormous strength of the relationship there is between Australia and the United States. Following the meeting, Senator Cohen announced an increase in the United States' participation in East Timor. This includes four heavy-lift CH-53 helicopters that have the capability of carrying any large vehicle. These will be arriving in the vicinity of East Timor in the next few days. A special army communications team of about 130 people will be set up, with a high capacity network for voice and data communications, which are absolutely vital for ongoing deployment within East Timor. On top of that, additional aircraft will be provided to the United Nations force. I am very grateful for this increased commitment. I point out that such contribution acts as a significant force multiplier. It gives capacity which was not there before.I am also pleased to note that the United States House of Representatives recently passed a resolution by 398 to 38 which commended Australia for its leadership of the INTERFET force, supported the United States' logistical and technical assistance for INTERFET and urged consideration of the suspension of financial assistance if Indonesia hindered UNAMET or INTERFET and the safe return of East Timor to a nation. The government welcomes the resolutions of the American Congress.Also yesterday, just to back up what the Prime Minister has said, I met with the defence minister from New Zealand, Mr Max Bradford. We discussed a number of issues, including the situation in East Timor. Follow ing that meeting, Minister Bradford announced that New Zealand will increase its commitment from a company to a battalion of some 800 to 1,000 troops. I thank New Zealand for their contribution—and all other nations that have made either military or financial commitments to the multinational force. I also applaud the recent decision of South Korea to commit some 419 troops, 200 of which would be combat.The INTERFET deployment to East Timor is progressing well. I am sure that all members in the House will welcome this and welcome the announcements that have been able to be made today. It certainly secures the ongoing development of the INTERFET force within East Timor. In my view, the operation to date is going exceptionally well and I commend General Cosgrove for his efforts.1108511085Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Are you aware that, under your $10 million Hunter structural adjustment package, you promised $3 million for a new steelworks on Kooragang Island, which will not be paid; $2 million for Forgacs shipbuilding infrastructure, which has not been paid; $600,000 to assist the setting up of a stock exchange, which has not been paid; and $1.5 million to a new transport and distribution centre in Maitland, which has been paid to the man who hosted your barbecue in the Hunter during the last election campaign?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson is entering into the area of argument. He will come to his question.UU5Mr HORNE—Prime Minister, how much of the $10 million has been spent, how many jobs have been created and how many jobs have been picked up by the BHP workers with whom I walked out of the gate for the last time today and who will not have a job tomorrow?11085Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the member for Paterson for that question. I can understand that all members of parliament in this House and the other place who have connections with or represent areas of the Hunter Valley will feel for the people of Newcastle today. I think it is a pity that what might have been the opportunity for a little expression of bipartisan concern was ruined by that ugly political intervention.The truth is that, since the winding down of steel making activities in Newcastle was announced by BHP, the New South Wales government, a Labor government, and the coalition government have worked together very closely to try and provide assistance to the people of Newcastle and the people of the Hunter Valley. The behaviour of this government and the behaviour of the New South Wales government on this issue has been decidedly bipartisan, and I thank the New South Wales government for taking a constructive approach to what has occurred.It is a cause of regret, but even the most partisan individual in this place would recognise that there have been forces at work in the Australian manufacturing industry, including the steel industry, which commenced long before this government was elected to office and which have brought about the circumstances which led to a market commercial decision by BHP to wind down steel manufacture. What we have endeavoured to do is to work with the community. I have visited Newcastle on three or four occasions since being Prime Minister. Through our own actions we have attracted and helped to attract additional investment into the Hunter Valley. The burgeoning aerospace industry is providing new jobs and new opportunities for people in the Hunter Valley.Every time that I have been to Newcastle I have been reminded by the Chamber of Commerce and I have been reminded by many other people of the growth of the service industries in Newcastle. The truth is that there is a future for Newcastle way beyond the end of steel manufacture, and it would be unfair to the people of Newcastle and it would be sending the wrong signal to the people of Newcastle and the Hunter to see what has occurred over the past couple of years in totally negative terms. You will not achieve anything by trying to engage in the sort of partisan point scoring that the member for Paterson was trying to engage in.I want to take this opportunity of thanking Senator John Tierney, a senator for New South Wales, who has worked constantly with people from both sides of parliament—UU5HORNEMr Horne—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. I am specifically interested in the number of jobs that have been created for the displaced workers from BHP.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—By any measure, the Prime Minister has been relevant to the question that was asked and I invite him to continue.ZD4Mr HOWARD—On the question of job creation, whilst it is impossible to give a precise figure, as he knows, the advice I have is that, when you take into account all of the initiatives in which the government has directly or indirectly been involved, there have been some hundreds of jobs created and there are more in prospect as a result of new industry and new activity that is coming to the area. Nobody disguises the fact that there has been a loss of jobs because of the closure, any more than anybody can disguise the fact that, as steel making wound down through the eighties, there were jobs lost in other parts of Australia under the Hawke and Keating governments.If we treat the industry restructuring of this country in the way in which the member for Paterson wants us to treat it, we will never have an intelligent debate on the industrial future of Australia. I would remind the member for Paterson that Australia is not the first country to experience the difficulty of industry restructuring. I might ask him, rhetorically, whether he heard the item on AM this morning about the efforts that have been made in Wales as a result of the restructuring of the steel industry to gain new industry. I might point him to the example of many parts of the United States which were rust bucket areas of the American economy.What you have to do, in a compassionate and sympathetic way, is to acknowledge the difficulty and the hurt experienced by the individuals and the families. I take this opportunity of congratulating the BHP company on the transitional arrangements that they have put in place and their assistance on the Pathways program, which they have helped to finance and of which I have been made very well aware. The Minister for Employment Services mentioned it yesterday.You also work with the community. I established a prime ministerial task force jointly chaired by a former BHP executive and by Kevin Maher, the secretary of the Newcastle branch of the Australian Workers Union. I have gone on a regular basis to Newcastle. That is the way you deal with these problems; you do not try to score a cheap political point at question time.1108611086Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Is the minister aware of concerns within Queensland's small business sector about moves by the Queensland Labor government to reregulate industrial laws in a way that brazenly increases union power at the expense of small business, employee rights and job creation? Minister, what is the government's response to these concerns?11086Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Herbert for his question. We on this side have a real concern about small business and the environment in which small business operates, not just because we are interested in small business per se but also because we are very keen to encourage small business. In the last decade, many of the jobs that have been created in the Australian economy have been created by small business. If we are to continue to do better in respect of employment and further reducing unemployment, then many of the businesses that are going to provide those jobs will be small businesses.Right along the Queensland coast, and certainly in the electorate of Herbert, the small business community is absolutely vital to the strength of those communities and their chances to give people a job. I know the member for Herbert is a strong campaigner for small business. He often speaks on the interests of small business, and I am not surprised to hear from him, as I have heard, that he has already had examples of the negative impact on small business of the changes to workplace relations laws in Queensland. In the end, that betrays the very objective that the Queensland government set for themselves in respect of unemployment. They said that they wanted a five per cent unemployment target but, sadly, the workplace relations changes they have introduced are not reducing unemployment. They are more likely to disadvantage small business and lose job opportunities than create them.When you look at the details of the laws which have been introduced in Queensland, you can see the negative impact on small business. For example, I know that one concern in Herbert is that union officials have been given the new right to enter every Queensland business premises, whether or not the employees want the union there. In fact, they have provided complete rights of entry to union officials, even though people in a business do not want the union in and even though a business may have no union members in it whatsoever. They even abolished the basic requirement that the union give 24-hours notice. This is just a heavy-handed opportunity for unions to go around and mug small business, and there will be lost jobs as a result.Union officials are given new rights to veto agreements. So you can be running a business with your employees, working well as employer and employee with no union members in the business, and yet under the industrial laws in Queensland a union can come in and veto an agreement where they have no members. That undermines a sense of cooperation and improved productivity, which is one of the reasons that people under us are enjoying higher pay.I will give you another example. In the state law there was an exemption for small business from unfair dismissal laws for a 12-month period. That is a sensible law which used to be in Queensland because it encouraged small business to give people a job. You would have to say that a probation period of 12 months—even if you do not agree with our full proposition—was a pretty fair proposal for small business. That has all gone out the window at the behest of the trade unions in Queensland. That will do nothing for small business. It will cost jobs in Queensland.Lastly, in respect of small business the new law is giving union officials the right to have small business independent contractors declared as employees and subject to union rules and membership. You can be running your own business as a small business and have the Queensland law, put in place by the Labor Party and the unions in Queensland, declare you an employee so they can harass you through the trade union structures.Not only is this terribly important in Queensland—and no doubt it will cost jobs in Queensland—but also it is an example of what you will get if you ever have a federal Labor government back in power. Whether it is in New South Wales where the whole transport system is shut down—being Labor's policy in action—or whether it is New South Wales forcing non-unionists to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to slush funds, it is Labor in action, state or federal. It is a very good warning to small business across the country of what Labor really stands for.1108711087Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, can you give an assurance that, in the context of your social security review announced yesterday, you will alter the current requirements whereby retrenched workers—such as the BHP workers who have been taxpayers all their working lives—are obliged to use their long service and holiday entitlements and retrenchment and superannuation payments before they can access social security benefits?11087Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The reference group that was announced yesterday, which will prepare the green paper, has quite broad terms of reference. I am not going to say in advance what submissions it should receive. I imagine it will get submissions from a wide area of Australia. I am not going to pre-empt what it might recommend. I am aware of the provision in the social security legislation to which the honourable gentleman refers, and it is worth pointing out to him that waiting periods were originally established by the Labor government under the social security legislation. The rationale for waiting periods is that people with adequate financial resources should be expected to support themselves before turning to the social security system. There were changes made by the present government—I acknowledge that—but it is my view that the principle was established by your government. So, if you are seeking to say that in some way this is an invention of the coalition government, that is wrong.1108811088Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Would the minister advise the House of the contribution our stronger export performance is making to national economic growth?11088Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the member for Dawson for her question. Obviously the sugar industry in her electorate makes a significant contribution to our economy and to the growth in our economy. Yesterday's trade figures showed a stronger export performance which produced a trade deficit lower than market expectations. Exports of goods and services in August rose by 1.2 per cent, which is a significant turnaround. Indeed, an article in the Sydney Morning Herald had the headline `Trade hopes best since Asian crisis'. It said that the export growth was generated primarily in rural exports, which were up seven per cent, or $134 million in seasonally adjusted terms, and that higher tuna exports were largely responsible for a $76 million improvement in other rural goods.Interestingly, given that we are just coming out of the Asian economic downturn, exports to East Asia were up by 5.8 per cent, which is quite a significant turnaround. Some of the particularly interesting statistics are in North-East Asia. Merchandise exports to Japan were up by 14 per cent, to China by 21 per cent and to Korea by one per cent, which are significant turnarounds. In South-East Asia, we saw exports to Thailand increase by 53 per cent with a significant turnaround in that economy. Interestingly, exports to Indonesia increased by four per cent.The trade figures show that export growth hopes are at their best since the start of the Asian economic downturn. Australian export ers are well positioned to take advantage of market opportunities as the world's economy gathers pace, particularly in countries such as Japan, our largest trading partner. Importantly for all Australians, and particularly those 1.7 million Australians whose jobs rely on exports, we are looking to see our export opportunities increase and grow, based on the turnaround in our export performance that we saw in those figures from last month. The government is absolutely focused on not only improving our export performance and looking for new markets overseas but also continuing to modernise the Australian economy and improve the taxation arrangements in this country to see our export industries put into a much more competitive position to deal with the challenges that they face across the international trading scene.1108811088Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you recall telling the House yesterday that President Clinton made it clear to you as early as 6 September that the US would not be committing combat troops to INTERFET? If the United States President had already ruled out combat troops, why did you tell the Australian people on 10 September that US assistance would be forthcoming and `whether it involves the provision of boots on the ground . . . we'll wait and see'? Isn't it a fact that you knew on 10 September that there would be no combat troops on the ground? And why did you mislead the Australian people on the composition of the US involvement?11088Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I do not believe for a moment that I have misled the Australian people. I just happen to have with me a copy of the question that I was asked yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition and the answer I gave. I think I heard the member for Cunningham ask, `Why did I say that as early as 6 September President Clinton made it clear that ground troops would not be available?' Was that your question?DT4CREANMr Crean—It is what you said.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I am just reading the answer I gave, which is on what the question is based. This is what I had to say:I should make it clear that when I first discussed this matter with President Clinton . . . 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 did not at that stage give a definitive response on behalf of the United States, and that is the reason why I did not presume to say what the final American response would be. I took the attitude that the final shape of the American response was something for the Americans to announce and not something for me to announce.I take this opportunity of expressing again the situation, and that is that in a series of discussions between me and the President and the Minister for Defence and the United States Secretary for Defense the contribution of American forces, including troops, was discussed. The President made it very clear to me—I had three discussions with him on it—that, although they were very anxious to help and they appreciated very much the importance of the operation, there was a domestic political difficulty in providing American ground troops. He mentioned—I think on 6 September but it may have been on the 10th, but it matters not for the purposes of this—that they had 14,000 in Kosovo. He pointed out to me that he had made strenuous efforts to lobby support in the American Congress, and he even went to the extent of naming two members of the Republican contingent in Congress who were very strongly supportive of an American involvement but were nonetheless opposed to the committal of US combat troops.I took the view all along that in the end what Australia wanted was a strong American contribution. We would have preferred that contribution to have included troops. That was my view, but I was also assured by our Defence people that the assets they ultimately put in the formal request were adequate, and that remains the situation.I do not want this toing and froing between the government and the opposition to in any way convey the impression to the United States that their contribution is not very welcome, very adequate, very helpful and very supportive. I think it is very important that I make that clear, and I hope that I have the authority of the opposition to make that clear on their behalf. Let us not play with words. The issue of an American ground force contribution was canvassed on a number of occasions, and the tenor of the President's response was, `Look, we have been very stretched in other parts of the world. You've got to understand my domestic political considerations. We will give you all sorts of other support.' As a result of that, the formal request that was ultimately made naturally included the assets that we knew we would get, because that would be the sensible thing to do.Can I say to the member for Cunningham and those sitting opposite that that is the situation. Of course I did not presume to give a running commentary on what the Americans would ultimately decide to do, because it was their business, their authority and it was for them and not for me to announce what they were going to do. But I make it clear that all along they knew we wanted the Americans in, and I can still recall the last words of the conversation that I had with the President when I first spoke to him. I said, `Bill, we want the Yanks in.' We made it very clear that that was our position.1108911089Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Administration. Would the minister inform the House of any recent developments in relation to the Telstra 2 share offer? What is the deadline for prospective investors to submit their applications?11089Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I thank the honourable member for her question. I am sure all honourable members of the House would be aware that the Telstra 2 share offer has now been open since early last week and in that time many Australians have taken the opportunity to become shareholders in one of Australia's largest and most dynamic companies. Since the offer was launched early this month, the government has announced busi ness tax reforms which may have an impact on the Telstra 2 share offer. I am pleased to say that the Ralph reforms are in fact good news for those who are considering an investment in Telstra 2.In particular, prospective individual investors should benefit from changes to Australia's capital gains tax regime. Under these changes, individuals will be taxed only on half of the capital gains they make on assets sold after more than one year. This means that individuals who hold their Telstra 2 shares for more than 12 months will in fact pay tax on only 50 per cent of any capital gain they make on those shares.This tax benefit comes on top of specific measures that have been taken in the Telstra 2 share offer which make them accessible and attractive to potential retail investors. Those specific measures include the decision to discount the share price by at least 40c per share for those who hold on to their shares for more than a year and also the decision to allow them to pay for the shares by two instalments. The proposed changes will also benefit complying superannuation funds, and of course many millions of Australians invest in those funds. Under proposed changes to capital gains tax, these funds will pay no more than 10 per cent on nominal capital gains on assets held for more than one year. In other words, the Ralph reforms could make an investment in Telstra 2 even more attractive.To fulfil its legal obligations, the Commonwealth has lodged today a supplementary prospectus with the Australian Securities and Investment Commission. The supplementary prospectus, which will take the form of a one-page advertisement in tomorrow's newspapers, confirms that the Ralph reforms would not have an adverse material effect on Telstra. That supplementary prospectus will also provide details about how changes would affect Telstra and individual investors in instalment receipts and shares of Telstra.I would stress again that, if anybody after looking at that supplementary prospectus wants any further information, they should consult their broker or consult an adviser on that particular subject.There is a little more than one week to go for those who wish to invest in Telstra—there is still time, in other words. Those applications, together with payment for the first instalment, should be received by 4 p.m.—in the individual time zones of those who wish to invest—next Thursday, 7 October. Those investors who miss that deadline will in fact have missed out on getting an opportunity to acquire shares in Telstra 2. In less than three weeks, subject to market conditions, these shares will be trading on the Australian Stock Exchange. I encourage all Australians to invest in this company: take a stake in this dynamic Australian company and help make Australia one of the largest share owning nations in the world.1109011090Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister and concerns his late decision to cancel his attendance at the South Pacific Forum. Prime Minister, have you advised our regional neighbours of the reason for the cancellation being put about by one of your advisers, that you will be on an island which is two hours by boat from the capital? Doesn't the government possess satellite phones? Did you consult the Minister for Foreign Affairs on likely adverse reactions to your cancellation from our South Pacific neighbours? Are you aware that the foreign minister only discovered that you had cancelled the trip when he heard it from the shadow foreign minister, who is with him in New York? Prime Minister, why don't you see this as a golden opportunity to enhance regional support for our efforts with others on the UN's behalf in East Timor?11090Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—As to the courtesies involved, I rang the President of the host country yesterday, before I made my decision known, to explain that I was not able to come, that I took the view that—given the situation in East Timor and the major deployment of Australian forces—the more appropriate thing was for me to remain in Australia and not be absent for a period of five days, particularly as the Minister for Foreign Affairs is in New York. Australia will be represented admirably at the South Pacific Forum by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. I regret this situation, but I think, on balance, it was the right decision to take, and I am rather surprised that the Leader of the Opposition should take such a point scoring issue.1109111091Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, following the recent death of a 15-year-old boy in Victoria who died following the drinking of alcohol based food essences, would you advise the House what action the federal government has taken to prevent tragedies such as this from happening in the future?11091Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I have been alerted to this. Food essence is used in the making of cakes and puddings. That is a normal food essence, and most honourable members would probably have that lurking somewhere at home. I have some at home and the use-by date is well past.Unfortunately, in recent times a new product has appeared on the market that I find terribly disturbing. It was involved in the death of a 15-year-old boy in Victoria. That case is before the coroner. I do not wish to discuss it specifically. I picked up this bottle of it at a supermarket in Canberra at lunchtime. This has more alcohol in it than a bottle of whisky, and this was on the supermarket shelves, next to the ice-cream, for less than $6.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—What is it labelled?8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—This is food essence labelled `Black Sambuca'. It is this sort of essence that was involved in the case of the boy who died following drinking it.While this is regulated by states and territories, there are a few things the Commonwealth government can do. The alcohol used in food essence attracts a concessional rate of taxation. The Australian Taxation Office has written to the companies involved in producing these bottles—which, if they were used for proper use, on my rate of usage at home would take about 80 years to use—and has stated that they will no longer be able to get the concessional tax treatment that they do for the production of food essences.Secondly, I have contacted ANZFA, the Australia New Zealand Food Authority, and said that clearly the food standard code is deficient because bottles with such a high alcohol content do not have the alcohol content listed and do not have appropriate warnings. Thirdly, I have written to my state and territory colleagues. In some states these bottles are only available in licensed premises, but I purchased a bottle in a Canberra supermarket today for less than $6. It is my very strong view, in light of the tragedy in Victoria, that these products should not be generally available in supermarkets.I hope that these two changes, with the cooperation of my state and territory colleagues on the third, will mean that these products will very quickly disappear from supermarket shelves—as far as I am concerned, the sooner the better. Hopefully we will not have another tragedy like that which happened in Victoria.1109111091Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Isn't it a fact that Australia's ambassadors in Asia have been formally tasked by Canberra to clear up the confusion created by enunciation of the Howard doctrine, as revealed by Ambassador Bill Fisher in Bangkok earlier this week? Isn't it a fact that you have had to do the same on regional media such as CNN Asia? Isn't it a fact that, because of your bungle, Australia is still being heavily criticised in regional newspapers such as the Bangkok Post , the South China Morning Post , Sankei Shimbun and the Straights Times ? Is it a fact that your own party room is confused and concerned, as evidenced by the criticisms raised by the members for Wentworth, Sturt, Aston and others? What tangible steps are you going to take to retreat and to fix up the mess?11091Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—As is characteristic of this place, question time is an opportunity for those who ask questions to put their construction on events, and it is also an opportunity for those who answer questions to put their construction on events. Let me take the opportunity to say that, for the first time in the history of this country, Australia has the leadership of a major international peacekeeping force. I would have thought that that would be a source of pride not just to the government of the day or to the Prime Minister of the day but, more importantly, to the people of Australia.What this government has been able to achieve in relation to East Timor far exceeds the effort of any government over the last 25 years. Far from deserving the description of a `bungle', I believe that it is a very significant foreign policy achievement of the coalition government. Through our strenuous efforts—and I pay tribute to the work of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence—in cooperation with our friends in the region, and with the cooperation and help of the United Nations, we have been able to put together an international peacekeeping force which does this country great credit. It has brought new hope to the people of East Timor, and it has been widely recognised by people such as Xanana Gusmao. He has been quoted in the press this morning as denouncing the idea which is at the basis of the opposition's criticism of the government: that in some way we should have persuaded the United Nations not to hold the ballot after Dr Habibie had announced that the ballot was going to be held.The reality is that, at every point of this issue, the government has behaved correctly. It has confronted a very difficult situation, and the position taken by the government has won it wide support in the Australian community. Interestingly, that wide support has included support from some in the left wing of the Australian Labor Party, which has been highly critical of the stance taken by former governments.I believe that what we have done over recent weeks has been enormously to the credit of this country. Australians saw a difficult situation where its government had to walk a very narrow path. There was an evident need to try to preserve good relations with Indonesia. It always has been and it always will be an important goal of the foreign policy of this country to recognise that you never get yourself into a situation where you endeavour to preserve a relationship at any cost. That has been the difference between this government and all preceding governments on this issue. That goes to the heart of the debate. The reality is that the Leader of the Opposition was a member of a government that for 13 years made no serious attempt to bring about a proper settlement in relation to East Timor.The Leader of the Opposition invites me to remark about the foreign policy of the government. The foreign policy of this government is not like the foreign policy of the former government, conducted in circumstances of withholding information from the Australian community and failing to communicate with the Australian community. I personally wish the soon to be departing former foreign minister and his family well, but one of my most vivid recollections of him is of being rung on the car phone one morning in Melbourne in December 1995 and the then minister for foreign affairs telling me that Australia had negotiated a security treaty with Indonesia. The proudest thing about the negotiation of that security treaty was that it had been negotiated in secret.I think the foreign policy of the former government would have won it more support and more respect if it had been closer to the aspirations and the wishes of the Australian community. It is very important in the conduct of the foreign policy of the country that the government always makes certain that there is not a serious disconnect between the goals of that policy and the aspirations of the Australian people. The reason for that is that the Australian people normally get it right. The instincts of the Australian people are transparent, decent and open, and if governments conduct foreign policy understanding the attitudes of the Australian people they will not go far wrong no matter what their political complexion may be.Mr Beazley interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition know they are extended more leniency than most.1109311093Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. Would the minister inform the House how many extra families will now be able to receive assistance through the recent changes to the family package? Would the minister also advise the House of the extra benefits families will receive?11093Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—I would like to thank the member for Forde for her very keen interest in family policy. I would also like to acknowledge a gentleman who lives near her electorate, Mr Jack Griffin, who is 75 years of age and who, along with Brian Burnes, rode down here from my electorate—1,200 kilometres—and were met by Minister Bishop to celebrate the International Year of Older Persons.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The House will come to order. Minister, I recognise that that was a charitable comment, but it was unrelated to the question. The minister will come straight to the question.XJ6Mr ANTHONY—The real inspiration for families will actually happen tomorrow when there will be changes to family allowance. An extra 78,000 Australian families with older dependent children will receive a payment for the first time. This is the first instalment of an excellent range of measures that the coalition government is introducing within the tax reform package. It means that eligible families who do not receive youth allowance or Abstudy will now be able to receive $23.70 per fortnight for dependent children between the ages of 16 and 18 and $50 per fortnight for dependent children between the ages of 18 to 24.This is the first instalment of the $2.5 billion in additional assistance to families, as the member for Lilley should note. This is all part of the historic package that was put together by the coalition government. What we want to do of course is build stronger families, stronger communities and a stronger country. 1109311093Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. I refer to the report in the Courier Mail on 20 September that you have promised:. . . that the role of the National Competition Council will be reformed to ensure there is more `sensitive handling' of its impact on people in the bush.Minister, what precise aspect of competition policy do you intend to reform?Mr Crean interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The minister has the call.11093Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for her question—some time after the article appeared. Prior to the last election, the government commissioned the Productivity Commission to inquire into the impact of the national competition policy in rural and regional areas. Three commissioners were employed to take that on, including Ray Braithwaite, who would be well remembered in this place. They issued a draft report. A final report, arising after comments are made, will come to the government in due course. As is always the case with reports of that sort, the government, having commissioned the report, will look at it.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson is warned.1109311093Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Employment Services. Could the minister give the House the latest information regarding the Job Network performance and also advise the House on what progress has been made with the second Job Network tender?Mr Hockey interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Financial Services and Regulation is warned. The minister has the call.11093Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I thank the member for Fadden for his concerns for job seekers in his electorate. It is appropriate on this day to acknowledge the difficulties that so many job seekers still face, but it is also appropriate to acknowledge the great successes of the Job Network. In the 16 months that it has been operating, the Job Network has placed 370,000 eligible job seekers into work. It is currently placing job seekers into work at the rate of 7,000 a week. That compares to about 4,000 a week on a like to like basis under the old CES.Under the Job Network, 72,000 job seekers have commenced job search training. I am advised that three months after participation, 39 per cent of those job seekers have found paid employment, which compares very favourably with the old job club program; 430,000 job seekers have received intensive assistance, and early indications are that this program is performing up to 60 per cent better than case management under Working Nation.As the House might be aware, tenders closed on 30 July for the next Job Network round. This is Australia's largest ever human services tender, and it is worth $3 billion over three years. It is being managed by my department at arms length from ministers. However, I am advised that the vast majority of existing Job Network members have submitted tenders, as well as significant numbers of potential new entrants. Obviously, this is very good news for job seekers. It is not necessarily great news for every tenderer because, in a competitive market, some good institutions can lose out to better ones.Mr Snowdon interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for the Northern Territory is warned!EZ5Mr ABBOTT—I am advised that the tenderers have put an enormous amount of effort and sophistication into preparing their documents and have focused on their performance of actually getting people into jobs. The evidence so far suggests that the Job Network will go from strength to strength in the new year. Obviously, that will be to the great benefit of Australians who need help.1109411094Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Does the minister recall his statement yesterday that, if radiologists involved in the negotiations did order MRIs, that would have been `highly improper'? Why would it have been improper, unless you had given them information from which they could financially gain? Is it not the case that the Health Insurance Commission is only investigating the allegations of backdating and false statutory declarations? Will you now establish a proper inquiry into how the budget information was leaked and who benefited from it?11094Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—She can keep saying it many times, and I will keep giving the same answer: that I do not concede there was a budget leak.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—How did they know?8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—As I said yesterday—if you would care to look at my answer—there was speculation by an MRI sales company as early as February that there would be a supply side measure, and that could not have been on the basis of any information at all, because it was the first week of May before it was first raised with me. Negotiations with the College of Radiologists were about a whole package of radiology where there were savings to the budget, which could not have been conducted in any other way were we to have savings. So far, they have been successful.1109411094Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Sport and Tourism and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games. Minister, could you inform the House of recent government initiatives to encourage Australians to participate in sport and recreation? What are the aims of such programs, and what support is being provided by the government?11094Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPSport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—I would like to thank the member for Macquarie for his question, because I know that he has an active interest in Active Australia, as I do. Today I launched our media campaign for Active Australia, which is occurring on Sunday, 10 October. All Australians will be seeing commercials encouraging them to get active on 10 October and to get out into local communities and find groups of active Australians that they can become part of.It is a feature of our government that we are looking at encouraging Australians to be active throughout life. There are some significant moments in life—such as when you leave school, when you retire or after childbirth—when people tend to give away physical activity. We are saying, `Stay with it!' There is one day of the year when you can get in touch with local community groups, councils, clubs and associations and local gyms, which will be displaying their wares. You can get out and find out about joining up with a club or activity. At this stage we have 62 local councils participating in this event, as well as a number of indigenous communities and thousands of sporting clubs. It is going to start on 10 October this year. Do not always say, `I'll do something with the kids one day'; say that you will do it on Sunday, 10 October. That is our promotion: Let's get active, Australia.1109511095Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I find that inspirational. My question is to the Prime Minister. Are you aware that it took 10 years to build up the stock of MRI machines in Australia to 62, yet 31 new machines were purchased in just three months prior to the May 1998 budget, when the government announced that a Medicare rebate would be extended to those machines? Are you aware that of these 31 new machines 14 were purchased by companies associated with members of the executive of the Royal Australian College of Radiologists and its MRI task force—the very people who were negotiating with Minister Wooldridge about the rebate extension? What steps have you taken to personally satisfy yourself that there was no inside knowledge of the government's budget decision prior to its announcement? Will you instruct the minister to reveal the dates on which these MRI contracts were entered into, to ensure that there is no cover-up of any budget leak?11095Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In a word, the answer to the first part of your question is no; I was not. That is barely surprising; I do not carry that technical knowledge around me with me. But I will check as to whether what the honourable member has said is correct. As to the rest of the question, judging from what I have heard in the parliament, I have no reason to doubt anything the minister has said. My experience of the minister is that he is a highly intelligent, honest, meticulous person who gets his facts right. If anything is drawn to my attention that would require any intervention on my part, I would do so. But so far it has not.1109511095Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Can the Minister inform the House of the success of Australian universities in attracting students from overseas? What contribution are overseas students making to Australia's export income?11095Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Curtin for her question. Overseas students at Australian universities are one of the great export success stories of this country. Indeed, members may be interested to know that overseas students are our largest services export earner after tourism. Ten years ago there were some 21,000 overseas students attending universities here in Australia. Now the number exceeds 83,000—nearly four times as many.The performance of the universities is all the more remarkable in the light of the recent economic downturn in Asia, because students from Asian countries make up some 83 per cent of our overseas students in universities. Figures recently released by me indicate that in 1999 there was an increase of 15.1 per cent over 1998 in the number of overseas students in Australian universities. Australia has expanded its market share.Australian universities are proving to be exceptionally entrepreneurial. Australia is building up an excellent reputation internationally in terms of the quality of its marketing of Australian education overseas. My department's Australian Education International has been highly successful in supporting this international marketing effort. The success is ultimately due to the fact that what we are offering in Australia is university education of a very high quality that is being recognised internationally.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous110961109615:09:0011096Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I wish to add to an answer that I gave to the member for Paterson. The member for Paterson asked a question about Newcastle. In relation to the $10 million, I am advised that the current situation is as follows: $1.5 million has been provided for the Newcastle airport at Williamtown, $1.5 million for the Maitland transport and distribution hub and $520,000 for the Lower Hunter pipeline. In relation to the Newcastle stock exchange, the offer of $600,000 was confirmed one week ago and is now simply awaiting finalisation of payment arrangements. There has been an in-principle commitment of $2 million to Forgacs, but we are still awaiting satisfaction in relation to the jobs outcome because these commitments were made on the basis that they would produce beneficial job outcomes.Likewise, $500,000 is to be provided for the Lake Macquarie cycleway. Once again, we are seeking confirmation of jobs outcomes. There was $2.5 million for the Impulse Airlines Reservation Centre. There is only one in-principle requirement attaching to that commitment outstanding. In relation to another $1.5 million going to the Newcastle Cruising Yacht Club Marina, we are requiring details of the leasing arrangements.I should point out that in relation to all of these commitments the intention was to get—before commitments were made—clear understandings in relation to job outcomes. There was an offer of $3 million made for ANI Comsteel. As I think the member will be aware, that was withdrawn because the company indicated that it may not proceed with the expansion in the near future, if at all. The federal government indicated that we needed to fund jobs as soon as possible and could not tie up funding on a long-term possibility. I would be very happy to provide any further information to the member for Paterson or indeed to any other honourable members who are interested in constructive job outcomes in the Hunter.Documents1109611096Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings .Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following paper:Medibank Private—Statement of Corporate IntentDebate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance110961109610000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER— I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The daily damage being done to Australia's international reputation and national interests by the misconduct of foreign policy by the government.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—15:13:0011096Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Could I start by saying in response to one or two of the questions that were answered by the defence minister and the Prime Minister which revealed additional forces committed to the peacekeeping operation under UN auspices under Australian command in East Timor that they are very welcome. I single out three, but they are all very welcome. The commitment of the New Zealanders in lifting their commitment of a company to a battalion is extremely welcome. That is a very substantial commitment. I thank the New Zealand government on behalf of the opposition. Secondly, the commitment of the South Koreans is very substantial and, in terms of being able to demonstrate breadth in the peacekeeping force, the decision they took to commit not only logistics troops but also combat troops is a very important addition to that force.Thirdly, there is the commitment of the United States. I thank them and encourage them to persist with, in detail and at length, their diplomatic efforts to ensure a successful outcome to all of this. They, more than any other country, will be able to exert the sort of authority internationally which should ultimately produce the sort of outcome that ensures successful completion of the task and mission of the peacekeeping force.The opposition, as everybody in this place knows, has long been of the view that there ought to be a peacekeeping force in place. We believe it should have been in place earlier. Indeed, we committed ourselves to that in principle in March this year and the foreign affairs spokesman has been a persistent advocate of that for some considerable period of time.I also say that I do share wryly in the Prime Minister's concerns about the statement by the Malaysian Prime Minister over the course of the last couple of days. I say it wryly because, of course, we all remember the hectoring and lecturing we got when the previous Prime Minister had his quarrels with the Malaysian Prime Minister. And we all recollect, too, the Prime Minister's declaration in September 1998 that he had managed to secure a special relationship with Malaysia. And we also remember the Prime Minister's efforts to cock a snook at us when he went to Brisbane to meet the Malaysian Prime Minister at the airport to demonstrate how good he was, he felt, on the issue of foreign affairs. We are glad the Prime Minister has come to learn lately how that matter ought to be handled.Aside from all those things, however, other things need to be said about the situation that this nation now confronts. It ought to be noted that we have had two matters of public importance discussions here on matters surrounding the deployment of Australian troops overseas effectively. Neither the Prime Minister nor the defence minister have participated in the debate. I actually have a long memory of these matters, having been a defence minister of this country and being able to recollect the fact that when matters of public importance were raised on defence matters I would participate in those debates—or, if I could not, making sure that a junior minister in the Defence portfolio did. And, as somebody who spent a considerable amount of time writing on, historically, the debates on Vietnam and other matters during the 1960s and 1970s, I have never seen such a light-handed treatment of parliamentary accountability. It is certainly nothing the Prime Minister's predecessors would have put up with. And it is certainly nothing, however much we might have disagreed with them, that they would have dodged themselves. All that says to us is that we have a case.The Prime Minister erects two straw men every time he participates in these debates in this place as he seeks to evade accountability. I must say that the competence with which our troops have been deployed and the competence with which the commander has conducted his duties is not matched by the competence in the diplomatic and policy backup of this government—and that is a shame. And while ever it is not matched by the performance of this government, we will point it out in this place, irrespective of the Prime Minister's blandishments.His two straw men are these. The first is—and this is the only criticism that he feels is levelled at him—that we criticise him for not somehow organising to call off the ballot. No. Our criticism has been of his inadequate efforts to ensure its safety. That is our criticism—a poor performance on his part in Bali and a non-existent performance on his part in July when he visited the United States. We now see how effective the United States are and we lament their absence from the diplomacy on this until a few weeks ago when that absence could have easily been eliminated and their presence secured by a decent performance by the Prime Minister in July. But there was none. His shillyshallying then has been replicated by his efforts to find some sort of way in on this particular issue.That leads to the second straw man that he erects—that somehow or other, like Mr Bean, he has been beamed down from space into the foreign policy debates of this country and, when he arrives, behold, all things are new and he has no record as far as relations with Indonesia are concerned. He gets up with his poll-driven statement that, `Oh, we must keep foreign policy close to the values of our people,' as though it is a new revelation. Of course, foreign policy ought to always be kept close to the values of our people. But he says, `We had a surprise sprung on us in relation to security treaties with Indonesia. The previous governments did nothing as far as Timor was concerned, but we made strenuous efforts.' We will see how strenuous those efforts were and how strenuous they are now in ensuring the proper diplomatic surrounds of the peacekeeping force that is there. I go to an interesting quote from Greg Sheridan when he was presented with this 25-year bit:Well, I think that it is completely ridiculous, and certainly John Howard never argued that in his 13 years in opposition, or indeed in his first few years in government. Before the fall of Suharto, you did not hear a squeak out of John Howard along those lines. But also as someone who covered foreign policy very closely under Hawke and Keating and Evans, they made repeated, very high level representations on human rights. I do not think they ever abandoned the human rights agenda with Indonesia. What they managed to do was pursue a constructive relationship with our biggest neighbour.As somebody who was defence minister for five years, I can recollect frequently raising the matter of Timor with my interlocutors as we dealt with them. On the matter of that treaty, it is true that it was negotiated in 1995, but it was ratified in mid-1996 by whom? By this government. This government ratified that particular treaty. And then Mr Howard in 1985 said:But, generally speaking, I think that the pre-occupation of the Left of Australian politics or the events in East Timor has needlessly soured our relations with Indonesia. It is just very much to our benefit and long-term interests that we have a better relationship.Again, in September 1996, on Indonesian television, Mr Howard said:We, of course, extended de facto and de jure recognition—that is, `We, the Liberals'—with the incorporation of East Timor into Indonesia back in the late 1970s. But inevitably there will continue to be debate and comment about human rights issues in Australia by Australians. It is part of the tradition of our country. But it should be seen in that context and it should not be allowed to affect—and I said this to the President yesterday—it should not be allowed to damage or affect or to obsess the relationship between our two countries.So much for the poll-driven statements he is making today. Then we find the extraordinary performance of this Prime Minister, thrashing about as he lurches from one side of the road to the other on foreign policy, but he is absenting himself from the South Pacific Forum. What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with the creation of a new microstate in the form of East Timor. We are seeking a continuation of international support for the creation of that state. We are about to have in our region a conference of microstates from the same vicinity—many of them microstates, some of them quite large like New Guinea, New Zealand and ourselves. What a forum for a ringing endorsement of our activities under UN auspices in East Timor. What a forum for precisely that, but where is the Prime Minister? Not there. The Prime Minister says, `I couldn't possibly be out of the country when Australian troops are deployed on a peacekeeping mission. I could not be away for five days.'Bob Menzies and John Curtin were out of Australia for months and months when there was a direct military threat to Australia by a massively powerful power in Japan and an indirect threat by a massively powerful power in Germany. What were they doing? They were seeking international support for their commitment. That is why they were not in the country. That is why they were out there advocating. In those days there were no such things as satellite telephones, there was no such thing as jet transport to get you back home at a million miles an hour if you needed to get home. The methods of communication between travelling prime ministers and back home in those circumstances were very shaky indeed. The contact with men at the battle front was enormously shaky. But that did not stop our prime ministers going overseas because they saw an opportunity to mobilise support and they took it.The Prime Minister is so extraordinary: he does not like foreign policy, he does not like being involved and he has no deft touch as far as that is concerned. We saw examples of that all this week. Make no mistake about it: there has been an all-court press by the diplomats of this nation to overcome the damage that this Prime Minister has done to international support in our region for the deployment that we have under way in East Timor at the moment. He has managed to attract to himself the opprobrium, such as it is, for this particular operation, and has managed to obscure, in the minds of many in the region around us, its true international character, its true humanitarian character and its true one-off character.While there are Australian interests involved in this, they are far outweighed by the fundamental universal human rights issue and the fundamental national self-determination issue involved in all of this. To identify for Australia, in the region, an image of this particular commitment as somehow securing a general Australian national interest as opposed to an international foreign policy goal and to convey ourselves as the diplomatic target is an act of crass stupidity driven primarily by a desire to secure some domestic political advantage from this particular exercise.It is unfortunate for us in this country, and it is unfortunate for this parliament, that we have lost the habit and character of international policy debate. We have lost the capacity for sound foreign affairs and defence debate. We have lost sophistication. If we had that sophistication, there would have been nothing like this performance from the Prime Minister. He would have recognised immediately that what he was dealing with was not an opportunity in Australian domestic policy but a substantial international human rights issue. His constant effort would have been to convey to all those he dealt with in the region his direct personal interest in everything that was going on and not to suggest to them that this was a subset of a broader Australian view that was seeking a guernsey for frequent intervention in the region around us. That is precisely the view he conveyed in that unrepudiated Brenchley article until the total disaster that he had performed started to descend upon his head.What was his response to it to his own party as they joined in the calumny and querulousness that had greeted his performance? He said,`I can't really make a foreign policy statement, at least not for a couple of weeks, because the circumstances might change.' This is an extraordinary statement. It goes to the dumbing down of Australian foreign policy which has occurred in the last little while since this government has come to power. Of course there are foreign policy statements that can be made. They are just different from the statements that the Prime Minister managed to make to Brenchley.There is a statement that can be made about our overall commitment to this region. There is a statement that can be made about our relationships with substantial powers in this region. There is a statement that can be made about our ongoing relationship with the United States about how successive governments have sought to tend to the military aspects of that alliance while always asserting an independent Australian diplomatic position in association with it. These are not difficult statements to make. They merely require knowledge and a bit of cleanliness of motive. All of the errors of the Prime Minister in the last two weeks have been directly related to his effort to get a polling advantage out of all of this. In the meantime, he has done two things: substantially damaged our national interest and substantially damaged widespread public support in the region for the commitment. That is an appalling record and he should be in here to answer for it. (Time expired)15:28:0011099Sullivan, Kathryn, MPMrs SULLIVAN3E4MoncrieffLP10—I note that the Leader of the Opposition just directed the comment to me that he would `stick around' if I were a minister. One of the things I must do today is say that this debate would indeed have been taken by the acting foreign minister, the Minister for Trade, if he were not now heading for the airport in order to attend a CER-AFTA meeting in Singapore tonight.83NHALLMs Hall—Hiding again.3E4Sullivan, Kathryn, MPMrs SULLIVAN—Not `hiding again', but carrying out an international responsibility of great significance to Australia. It seems to me that what we are getting from the opposition in this foreign policy debate, which they say they so badly crave, is a grab bag of cliches and a beat-up on a couple of things that have no substance at all. I contrast that with the way the Howard government has gone about its foreign policy which has been to adopt a strategic approach.We hear continually that there is no strategy, that there is no overall scheme and, if there is one, then it is what they claim is this deputy sheriff role—which is about all they have to say. Quite uniquely, in 1997 we issued a white paper on foreign policy called In the National Interest. Labor had had 13 years in government to put out a white paper. As with many of its other weaknesses in foreign policy, it did not. We have undertaken that we will do this on a regular basis. The strategy of our foreign policy is laid out in that document in very straightforward and understandable terms. It is a document that says all that such a document ought to say, but it is also a document that can be read and understood by any Australian. This is not a dumbing down of the debate. We are getting a dumbing down from Labor—a clutching at a couple of items and blowing them up as though they made a case, which indeed they do not.As well as the white paper in 1997, the Minister for Foreign Affairs made a statement in this House which led to the publication of a document called Better Aid for a Better Future. This document shows how our aid program is to buttress our foreign policy and our regional and strategic interests. The two together come into a very coherent whole which has become a sound basis for relationships between Australia and the countries in our region.WF6DANBYMr Danby—What did you do?3E4Sullivan, Kathryn, MPMrs SULLIVAN—That comment can only come from somebody who is in absolute ignorance of what is going on day by day. In the area of foreign policy it is fairly easy to throw red herrings in front of people. In Australia, the foreign policy debate does not attract a great deal of attention on a day-to-day basis. But the whole history of our foreign policy and our aid policy since we have been in government has been consistent and coherent, and we are doing all the things that the Labor Party in its wildest rhetoric says foreign policy should do. We are very proud of it.We should be very proud of the leadership role that the Prime Minister has played for the past several months. The Leader of the Opposition today characterised the Prime Minister's engagement in the process by the words, `a poor performance in Bali'. Well, the Prime Minister has said that he went to Bali hoping to persuade the Indonesians to follow a particular process—a process first of all of autonomy and, having established some reasonable basis on which the East Timorese would have a choice of nationhood or not, then a vote for independence—if that was what they chose. In the event, the process that was followed was entirely within the hands of the Indonesian government, which was the government of East Timor. It was not the course that we would have chosen. What would the Labor Party have had us do when it was decided that there would first of all be a vote on autonomy?WF6DANBYMr Danby—Pressure the Americans.3E4Sullivan, Kathryn, MPMrs SULLIVAN—To do what? To call off the vote? The United Nations having decided to do that, were we supposed to say, `No, this is not what we asked for so we will have nothing at all?'10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I encourage the parliamentary secretary not to respond to interjections on my left.3E4Sullivan, Kathryn, MPMrs SULLIVAN—I understand your point of view. But the point is being raised consistently by the Labor Party and it has been consistently answered by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and others in the government. We worked towards letting the East Timorese decide for themselves and we have always undertaken that we would stand by the United Nations process.The Leader of the Opposition referred to `non-existent efforts', saying that the Prime Minister had not done the right thing in relation to the United States' early involvement, and in the eyes of the international community. I want to quote briefly the views of a couple of overseas experts. A Financial Times editorial says:Australia . . . has played a commendably sensible diplomatic role throughout the latest troubles.An article in today's Financial Review written by Stephen Morris, a fellow at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies—a very eminent school and an eminent commentator on foreign affairs—says:By taking the lead on East Timor, Mr Howard has raised Australia's reputation in the US in a more positive way than any Australian government since World War II.They are not my words—they are the words of somebody of whom rather more notice can be taken than the Leader of the Opposition.The Leader of the Opposition talks about `poll driven policies'. All we are seeing at the moment is the Labor Party snatching at a couple of areas where it can hope to get some bad press for the government, and perhaps have some effect on its own abysmal standing in the opinion polls.I want to make some reference to some of the things that we have been able to achieve compared with the Labor Party's style in government—the reality of a Labor government and its foreign affairs. There has been some reference to the fact that the former Prime Minister referred to the Prime Minister of Malaysia as `recalcitrant'. What has not been referred to is that he could not even take advice when that word caused a storm. His public comment then was: `Well, at least he has looked up the meaning of the word in the dictionary.' That was the way foreign policy was conducted under a Labor government.Following our winning government in 1996, there were real results produced by our Prime Minister's efforts in relation to the Prime Minister of Malaysia. He repaired relationships between our two countries, which have always historically been close, at the highest political levels. We have established biannual ministerial talks, finalised a tax agreement, increased information technology cooperation, negotiated a trade and economic cooperation agreement publicly—a trade agreement which came into effect in January 1998. The relationship is well founded. We do not think that, because we have received some criticism, that is the end of a relationship. Unlike Mr Keating's response when Mr Mahathir's feelings were clearly stung by his gratuitous comments about him, we do not rub salt into the wound.We accept that there are difficulties in certain situations, and East Timor is an extreme situation. We do not throw the baby out with the bathwater, even in relation to Indonesia. Daily the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs are emphasising that we have no quarrel with the Indonesian people. We want to see this situation through in a way that does not do lasting damage to our very important relationship with Indonesia, and we believe that in the future that relationship will continue to be both important and close.I mention the aid program because it has buttressed many of the things that we have been doing in our own region in a way that has impressed the Pacific nations, our East Asian and South-East Asian neighbours and other countries throughout the world. The Labor Party was in favour at one stage of our pulling all aid out of Bougainville, for example. In the nine years of the Bougainville conflict, more people died—three times as many people—as have died in Northern Ireland since the beginning of the troubles. It has not had the same world profile, but it has been profound and devastating. Labor wanted to pull Australia's aid out. Since we came to government we have been very active in helping to facilitate a re-engagement, a truce, and then a peace.We are the leading country in the Bougainville Peace Monitoring Group. From the time that the combatants indicated that they were prepared to take a new turn, we committed $100 million to the reconstruction of Bougainville. And it has been that `peace dividend', as it is termed, that has been critical in enabling the peace to go ahead. Some 4,500 Bougainvillean men have worked in our aid program for that peace dividend. It is critical, when you have a lot of men who have known in their lifetimes only war and conflict, guns and shooting one another, to give them the dividend—something useful to do.In the Philippines, we have a $100 million aid program in Mindanao, delivering to the people of Mindanao the peace dividend of the cease-fire and the peace there.As I said earlier, we gave this country's first ever foreign policy white paper. We also established an independent review of the aid program so our aid program is now focused. It is in the interests of, first of all, Australia—our national interest—but in the sense that, by helping to develop stability and security and helping the people of our region, we will live in a secure area.That contrasts with the Labor Party's aid program, which had moved well away from an altruistic core objective to one which was, in large part, a matter of promoting friends in Australia and their trading interests in other countries. The countries concerned knew it. They have much more respect for us now in the way we approach them, because aid is a very sensitive area of any country's foreign policy.When the Asian crisis hit, we supported all three IMF packages. We and Japan alone—of all the countries of the world—were the two countries that supported all three IMF packages. The region knows that and recognises it. We did not do it in a sense of charity, or of being able to use it in the future: we did it because we recognised that our interests are very much in the Asian region, and we can help. Through measures such as the Prime Minister's Economic Governance Initiative and the Asia Crisis Fund, the government has also provided substantial assistance to both address the social impact of the crisis and promote economic reform in the region. In addressing the social impacts, we have not just managed to ameliorate the disastrous humanitarian situation that was on our door step, but also managed to help those countries to maintain internal stability.We announced, immediately after coming into government, that we support the global ban on antipersonnel landmines—something Labor was never able to bring itself to do. We have ratified the Ottawa Treaty and, very importantly, we have committed $100 million up to the year 2005 to put our money where our mouth is on that. Very importantly, unlike the former Minister for Foreign Affairs—83REDWARDSMr Edwards—It was our policy, and you know it.3E4Sullivan, Kathryn, MPMrs SULLIVAN—It was your policy too late. It was your policy after we said we would do it. No amount of pressure from civil society or from the coalition in opposition would take the Labor Party to that point. When it was clearly going to happen under a coalition government, the Labor Party supported it. But it had 13 years in government. It had years in the lead-up to the Ottawa Treaty to say that it would sign—and it would not.This was the same Minister for Foreign Affairs who said he did not favour `subjecting treaties to the vagaries of parliament'. That shows what the Labor Party really think about the Australian public. They do not think anybody is dumbing down the Australian population; they think the Australian population is dumb, full stop, on the subject of foreign policy issues and treaties.We have established the Centre for Democratic Institutions in our region to help those who would advance national stability in that way. (Time expired)15:43:0011102Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—The purpose of this matter of public importance this afternoon is not to enable the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs to try to mount a credible defence of her role in dishing out aid to Australia's near neighbours—a role which, I might say, we fully support, and we commend her in her efforts to play. If she were fair, in her heart of hearts she would know that we support every one of those matters that she outlined when she talked about aid programs to Bougainville, the Philippines and any Asian neighbour, or when she talked about aid programs to any of the Pacific island neighbours. We fully support her. We fully support the government in those aid programs. That is not what we are concerned about at the present moment.What we are concerned about is the apparent inability of this Prime Minister to enter into the debate on foreign affairs in our region, particularly as events have unfolded in the last couple of weeks, and to put forward a coherent policy that not only Australians can understand but our neighbours can understand. Even the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mrs Sullivan, whom I have known for a while, would have to concede that she probably had a few little squirms when she saw the Bulletin of a couple of weeks ago come out calling it the `Howard doctrine'. She would have rushed out there, as we all did, just to see what the Howard doctrine was all about when it came to defence and foreign affairs policy.Most commentators that have looked at this, notwithstanding the person from the Hopkins University in the United States, have been absolutely scathing in their criticism of the Howard doctrine. So scathing have they been and so scathing was the Prime Minister's own party about it at a special party meeting that the Prime Minister has been running away at a million miles an hour. Why wouldn't he? The basic tenet of the Howard doctrine is that, in some way, Australia is superior in this region.The second tenet is that, in some way, Australia will be willing to play a deputy sheriff's role with the United States—the new kid on the block—as the sheriff. In some way the new doctrine, as elaborated by the Prime Minister who did not back away from it being called the Howard doctrine, was going to set the tone for Australia's foreign policy of the future. What did we see from that? We saw some real concerns. Those concerns were prompted not so much because of what may have been said but by the code that was conducted within it.What we also saw were some concerns being expressed by foreign ministers and by military commanders in charge of foreign countries' engagement and deployment in East Timor about what that meant. We had statements where people were saying, `We are in East Timor under the United Nations. We are not going to be bossed around by Australia.' Why would it have gotten to that level?I have said in this place, and the Leader of the Opposition has said in this place, that the Australian Labor Party supports 100 per cent the deployment of troops to East Timor. The Australian Labor Party has said that we commit 100 per cent to an aid program to establish a new nation state in East Timor. But what sort of signal does the Prime Minister's dalliance in foreign affairs send to people who are in INTERFET with us, particularly those who are our Asian neighbours, when this sort of nonsense is published?You could go to headline after headline in respect of what was said: `East Timor and Aceh tear rips into ASEAN fabric' and `Asian wariness compromises our regional role'. On and on these sorts of things go. As a consequence of the Prime Minister's doctrine, there have been headlines like `Canberra races to reassure nervous Asians on our role'.The Prime Minister scurries off to the CNN Asia studios here to beam out into Asia and say, `I didn't really want to say the sorts of things I did and I didn't really mean that I wanted to be the deputy dawg to the United States. I really wasn't hollering for a marshall. Really what I was about was trying to say that we have a foreign affairs doctrine but we are just trying to work out what it is, and we will tell you about it in a couple of weeks because circumstances are changing very quickly.' That is not good enough in the changed security environment that is Australia and our immediate environment.To compound the circumstances, we had the Prime Minister saying yesterday, `I am not going to go to the South Pacific Forum.' As the Leader of the Opposition said, what message does that send to people in those micronations of the South Pacific that depend largely on Australia for support in aid, as the parliamentary secretary pointed out? What message does it send to people from the Prime Minister of this country, the man who under the Bulletin report of the Howard doctrine wants to be the big boy on the block? It is disgraceful that our Prime Minister is not going, and the excuse that he could not keep in communication is even worse.Let me say also in respect of our engagement in East Timor that, as far as our deployment is concerned, we have tried to raise some questions in this place. We have raised questions about the long-term nature of the commitment. We have raised questions about the costs of that—and we have every right to. It does not detract from our support for it—far from it. We are absolutely committed to it and to those young men and women serving in East Timor. We have nothing but support for them. But what about some of the other people who play a role in this as well? For example, is it true that there is support being given to Australian peacekeepers in East Timor by something like 20 Australian seafarers on two P&O merchant ships from the Australian fleet: the Lady Valisia and the Lady Elaine? I just wonder whether the minister and the government recognise the important defence support and surveillance role that Australian seafarers and the Australian fleet play as part of this commitment to East Timor. We recognise it and we salute them for what they do.If the government is prepared to recognise that, will the government also take on board a view that perhaps we should rule out abolishing cabotage in Australian waters? We ask that because we have a concern that perhaps foreign crews working on some ships there may not be as committed to our men and women in the Australian Defence Force in East Timor as we are. Those are some of the other issues that are there.This question of our involvement and Foreign Affairs involvement goes deeper. It must when you start to get reputable organisations like Stratfor putting out over the Internet a special report under the headline `Asian Contributions to INTERFET Raise Concerns of Unity' which quotes people such as the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia. Of course we heard something about Dr Mahathir today. As the Leader of the Opposition said, it was a different story when Dr Mahathir was supposedly a friend of the present government. But at the present time he does not seem to have that same friendly disposition.When we start to read about international and reputable defence agencies and people that are involved in analysing the strategic circumstances of our region criticising the Howard doctrine and what it has meant to the standing of Australia in Asia, we start to worry. The parliamentary secretary in her contribution talked about the PM saying that he had no quarrel with Indonesia. I put it to her: why then hasn't the Prime Minister spoken to General Wiranto for so long? Why is it that the Minister for Defence did not go with the sheriff to Jakarta today? Why is it that he did not go up there to talk to General Wiranto and to talk about that relationship building that the Prime Minister says we are going to have? I have to say that Mr Downer thinks, apparently, that it is going to be very easy to repair the ties. He is quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald today as saying that the way is now clear for better ties with Indonesia.If that is the case, as it should be, why is it that the Minister for Defence did not go with Secretary for Defense Cohen to talk to the Indonesians about West Timor and about protecting Australian troops in East Timor? Why didn't that happen? Because the Prime Minister, under the doctrine, sees himself as being the deputy to these people. Why wasn't he on the white charger? Why wasn't Tonto with the Lone Ranger up there talking to the Indonesians about improving our relationships? That is what foreign affairs is about. This Prime Minister does not understand that. The foreign minister might be over there at the United Nations, but he is horrified to know that the Prime Minister is not going over there to Pilau. He heard it from Laurie Brereton. He did not even hear it from the Prime Minister. The foreign minister of Australia heard from Laurie Brereton that the Prime Minister would not go to the South Pacific Forum. What a disgrace! (Time expired)15:53:0011104Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—There is only one disgrace and that is the fact that the opposition has the nerve to put this up as a matter of public importance. It is an opportunity for us to address real issues of concern to the nation, and we have to put up with this kind of cheap political rhetoric—all for the sake of a headline. I am extremely disappointed. I would like to put that on the record.We are in a situation we have not been in for a long time. Our troops are overseas engaged in an international peacekeeping force. They are confronted with enormous risks. They have parents, spouses and children back here in Australia greatly concerned about their security and their welfare. Yet the opposition chooses to make a cheap headline to put all of that personal security at risk. The situation is already delicate enough, and to take cheap opportunities like this can put those things at risk. It is not only cheap but extremely hypocritical.The Australian Labor Party's record on foreign policy—even in the short time that I have been here in this parliament, but also prior to that—has been a closed door, treaty making approach which treated the parliament with contempt, to the extent that the member for Holt, Gareth Evans, who seems to celebrate himself as the great champion of foreign affairs, stated that he did not favour subjecting treaties to the vagaries of the parliament. This government has an open, transparent approach that exposes treaty arrangements for public comment via a formal committee of the parliament—a very open and transparent approach which was never adopted by the Australian Labor Party.Look at the unbelievably reckless diplomacy of the Australian Labor Party in the past. The member for Kingsford-Smith, Laurie Brereton, almost brought relationships with New Zealand to an all-time low by tearing up the single aviation agreement. The member for Moncrieff has already drawn attention to comments made by the former Prime Minister. The Labor Party often engaged in posturing rather than in conducting a realistic assessment of Australia's interests to achieve positive results in a neighbourhood that is extremely sensitive and important to us and where we have the potential to enjoy mutual relationships. All this ready rhetoric about human rights is not matched by achievements on the ground. My constituents have a vital interest in what is happening with market opportunities in these countries, and it is not helped by undiplomatic approaches to resolving our foreign affairs arrangements.Now we have Labor in opposition supporting policies that would isolate Australia at our own expense. Firstly, we had to put up with the member for Kingsford-Smith on our evening news encouraging almost the invasion of Indonesia prior to proper arrangements being put in place. That would have been the operation of Mr Plod, Mr Policeman—an inappropriate, undiplomatic approach to resolving an unfortunate difficulty. The coalition is committed to ensuring Australia's positive contribution to our region and to enhancing Australia's own security and regional and multilateral trade liberalisation with a humane and principled approach to foreign policy.What we ought to have here is a motion that commends the current government for, within a short time, encouraging the United Nations and the sovereign nation itself, Indonesia, to have a peacekeeping force to resolve the real difficulties that the East Indonesians have been putting up with for the last 10 years.The world makes its own judgment on Australia's behaviour in this matter. The member for Moncrieff has drawn attention to the comments by Stephen Morris. This is not just an uninformed comment; in fact, it is high praise. Prior to making the statement the member for Moncrieff drew attention to, about the significance of Australia's contribution in East Timor, Mr Morris said:. . . Canberra's willingness to take the risky decision to deploy substantial armed forces in a dangerous peacekeeping mission . . . . . . . . . . . .By doing this, the Howard Government gained the respect of many Asian and European nations, as well as the Americans—none of whom was willing to make the kind of commitment that Australia has made.If that is not testimony to a proper approach to foreign policy, then I am not quite sure which planet the Australian Labor Party lives on. They don't live on the same planet that I live on.Regarding Australia's approach to East Timor, on reflecting on the long period of 13 years when we had to put up with a government sitting here and presiding over the principles of authority in foreign affairs that left a nation—84GWILKIEMr Wilkie—We had the best foreign affairs minister this country has ever seen.NV5Forrest, John, MPMr FORREST—That is only what he says. In 1996, when this government assumed responsibility, we produced for the first time ever a white paper on what ought to be a proper and fundamental approach to foreign policy. That is something that the Australian Labor Party could never achieve. They have been unable to make a constructive contribution on the extreme difficulties confronting East Timor. They were unable to make a constructive contribution on the difficulties confronted in Bougainville. These are two near neighbours within a few hours plane ride of our northern border. It is gross hypocrisy for them to come in here and beat up a headline. I believe that what we ought to have here is a motion that commends our Prime Minister for proper diplomacy—84GWILKIEMr Wilkie—Condemns.NV5Forrest, John, MPMr FORREST—Commends. Our Minister for Foreign Affairs has made major progress on the issue of landmines. There is a long list of achievements by this government that are very conveniently overlooked and ignored by the Australian Labor Party, as demonstrated by this ridiculous matter of public importance brought before the parliament today. I believe our time would be better spent addressing real issues of concern which the Australian populace are currently confronted with—for example, establishing very quickly secure arrangements for the troops who are over there, many of whom are only youngsters. The Australian Labor Party approach puts their security at risk.There has been a dramatically different approach to Australian foreign policy in the last three years. The Australian Labor Party failed us on landmines. It failed us absolutely on the environment. At Kyoto we were able to establish a proper approach to environmental responsibility which put Australian jobs as a priority in front of cheap political headlines. I am tired of the Australian Labor Party's constant opposition. When the prospect first developed that we would be sending a force into Timor, I did watch the evening news one night and saw the Leader of the Opposition supporting the Prime Minister. I thought, `This is the kind of approach that Australians are looking for, an approach which puts politics aside and says that Australians want to be involved because our near neighbours are suffering adversity.' That is the kind of politics that the Australian populace are looking for, not cheap beating-up of statements that have no content and no basis of fact. I think the Australian populace are generally tired of this and they will be making this clear to the Leader of the Opposition in ensuing events. I think he would be far better to focus on his own position and leave the decisions with respect to events in East Timor to those best able to handle it. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion has concluded.Committees11106111061110611106Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—I present the eighth report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being circulated to honourable members in the chamber.Report—by leave—adopted.Bills11106r87211106Bill returned from Main Committee with amendments; certified copy of bill and schedule of amendments presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Main Committee's amendments—(1) Clause 11, page 11 (line 29) to page 12 (line 2), omit subclause (5), substitute: Exemption—migration and citizenship documents(5) Schedule 1 has effect.(2) Page 20 (after line 8), at the end of the Bill, add:Schedule 1—Exemption of migration and citizenship documents from section 11Note: See subsection 11(5).1 Exempt migration documents(1) Section 11 does not apply to a document required or permitted to be produced in connection with: (a) the operation of a provision of a migration law that relates to: (i) an application for, or the grant of, a visa; or (ii) the cancellation of a visa; or (iii) the deportation of a person; or (b) the application of a migration law to a non-citizen who: (i) does not hold, or is reasonably suspected of not holding, a visa; or (ii) seeks to enter Australia unlawfully, or is reasonably suspected of seeking to enter Australia unlawfully; or (iii) seeks to enter the migration zone unlawfully, or is reasonably suspected of seeking to enter the migration zone unlawfully; or (c) the operation of Division 2, 5, 8 or 11 of Part 2 of the Migration Act 1958 ; or (d) the operation of Division 1.4, 1.4A or 1.4B of Part 1 of the Migration Regulations 1994.(2) An expression used in paragraph (1)(a) or (b) and in the Migration Act 1958 has the same meaning in that paragraph as it has in that Act.(3) In this clause: migration law means: (a) the Migration Act 1958 ; or (b) regulations under that Act.2 Exempt citizenship documents(1) Section 11 does not apply to a document required or permitted to be produced in connection with: (a) ascertaining whether a person is, or remains, an Australian citizen; or (b) the operation of a provision of a citizenship law that relates to: (i) registration; or (ii) an application for, or the grant of, a certificate of Australian citizenship; or (iii) the inclusion of the name of a child in a certificate of Australian citizenship; or (iv) the amendment, replacement, cancellation or surrender of a certificate of Australian citizenship; or (v) an application for, or the issue of, an evidentiary certificate; or (vi) the cancellation or surrender of an evidentiary certificate; or (vii) the renunciation of Australian citizenship; or (viii) the deprivation of Australian citizenship; or (c) the revocation of a certificate of Australian citizenship; or (d) the operation of a provision of a citizenship law that relates to: (i) an application for, or the issue of, a declaratory certificate of citizenship; or (ii) the return of a declaratory certificate of citizenship; or (iii) the keeping of a register; or (iv) the correction of an entry in a register; or (v) the cancellation of an entry in a register; or (vi) the giving of an extract of an entry in a register; or (vii) the return of an extract of an entry in a register; or (e) the operation of regulation 4 of the Australian Citizenship Regulations.(2) An expression used in paragraph (1)(b) or (c) and in the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 has the same meaning in that paragraph as it has in that Act.(3) An expression used in paragraph (1)(d) and in the Australian Citizenship Regulations has the same meaning in that paragraph as it has in those regulations.(4) In this clause: citizenship law means: (a) the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 ; or (b) regulations under that Act.3 Schedule does not limit section 13This Schedule does not, by implication, limit section 13 (which deals with exemptions from Division 2 of Part 2).Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.11108Bill (on motion by Mr Reith)—by leave—read a third time.Special Adjournment1110816:06:0011108Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Monday, 11 October 1999, at 12.30 p.m., unless the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker, fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting.This is a procedural motion with which members will be familiar, but it does provide the opportunity today to make some remarks about the impending resignation of the member for Holt. I should say for the information of members that it is intended to allow members the opportunity to make some remarks through till approximately 5.30. Provided the member for Holt has not been too aggrieved, so personally affronted, by the many remarks that will be made in the next hour and a bit, hopefully he might then take the opportunity to address this chamber and the Australian parliament for the last occasion.In speaking on this motion, I am sure I speak on behalf of all members of the government in wishing the member for Holt well. The Prime Minister has added his personal good wishes to the member on today's occasion. When it was suggested to me that I might make a few remarks, my mind immediately went back to many separate incidents, many separate occasions, in which in one way or another we have all been involved with the member for Holt. He of course has been a significant contributor to Australian politics for a very long period of time. The first thing that I think of is the pressures and the tribulations of members of family. It is good that his wife, Merran, and his daughter and son—Caitlin and Eamon—are able to be with us because, for all the difficulties of those who practise politics, there are of course particular pressures on members of the family. No more can that be the case than with someone who has served a long time as a Minister for Foreign Affairs, which the member for Holt was for many years. So I start by paying tribute to Mrs Evans and the family for the support that they have given Gareth in his time but really for the contribution, through Gareth, that they have made to the important work of the foreign minister.Also my thoughts go back to more entertaining moments in the time of the member for Holt. I think of him promising to garrotte Bronwyn Bishop. The minister, fortunately, is here.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—You want him to finish the job, do you?PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—As I recollect, you seconded the motion!WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I knew that would bring forth a smile from the other side. It was testament of course to her unrelenting pressure applied to the government, as it then was, in the Senate that brought forth such an injudicious remark. He was very much involved, as I understand it, in the decision of the member for Dickson to move across from the Democrats to the Australian Labor Party.XW4KERNOTMs Kernot—He hasn't had any afternoon teas with you, Peter?SE4BISHOPMrs Bronwyn Bishop—Only afternoon teas?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I will restrain myself in that regard. If the Treasurer were here, he would start with a reference to the member for Holt QC, SA, MP. If we go back further there would be comments about the famous incident of the F111s flying over Tasmania when he got the title of `Biggles' in the aftermath of the big debate about dams. In the foreign affairs department I suppose people will think of flying ashtrays and the Cooper defence—all incidents along the way in a long political career.However, when thinking of the member for Holt, I would also say that he has always been a person interested in ideas. That is a very important aspect of politics. One could say many things about Australian politics, but I actually think that Australian politics is often run at a very high standard and that people are genuinely interested in ideas. They are interested in the history of political development in Australia and they are interested in substantive debate.I know one of the great interests of the member for Holt has been constitutional reform. The history of constitutional reform is littered with unsuccessful referendum proposals, and I think he was associated with some of those in his time. But, whether successful or unsuccessful, a debate about the Australian Constitution is one of the most important debates that you can have. I suppose it is fair to say, `Well, it's important but it's not as important as jobs or other issues of the day,' but the reality is that the Constitution represents the rules for politics. Australia has a very successful democracy and it is successful because, in part, people of calibre are prepared to make a contribution to the political process, and there is no doubt that the member for Holt falls into that category.His interest in constitutional issues reflects his involvement at an academic level. There he has been involved in many aspects of the constitutional debate. A little publication I came across a few years ago demonstrates this. This was a reprint basically of articles which appeared in a labour movement magazine called Tocsin. He might remember it. This was published in the 1890s but the reprint was in 1977 and the member for Holt provided a foreword for that particular document. He said in that 1997 reprint of extracts:But Tocsin 's criticisms of the inherently anti-democratic character of the Senate chamber, one where one man's vote is equal to eight or nine other men's votes, remains as valid today as when it was first penned and a standing rebuke to the pretensions of that chamber to make and break governments formed in the popular house.An understanding of the history of the constitutional development of Australia is relevant to the debates that we have today. It is relevant to an understanding of the ideas which form such an essential element of the democratic freedoms that we enjoy. So I pay tribute to the member's interest and active involvement in the constitutional debate in Australia.Of course, in foreign affairs there are many ongoing issues of great controversy, even today, but I think it would be fair to say that there would be a shared view about his contribution to some issues. While perhaps not often talked about in this place, I think the subject of United Nations reform is a very important one for the international community, and there the member for Holt was very active in his time as Minister for Foreign Affairs. I know that because, when I was for a short time the shadow minister for foreign affairs, I was lucky enough to be in New York to observe the goings-on of the UN and, in his own inimitable style, the member for Holt had organised a seminar or some such discussion group of other countries interested in this.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—You used to go to the ILO too, didn't you?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I have been there a couple of times, but let me refer to this. He gathered together a number of countries of like mind to talk about reform of the United Nations, which is the premier institutional body that provides an opportunity for the countries of the world to get together to talk about important issues. Whilst the reform of the UN is not front-page news in the Australian or the Age or the Sydney Morning Herald , it is a terribly important issue, and countries like Australia should be at the forefront of reform of the United Nations. In his strong intellectual style, the former Minister for Foreign Affairs made an important contribution to that debate.Cambodia is one of the other foreign affairs issues with which he was closely associated. He played a leading role in putting together Australia's participation in Cambodia. That was a very constructive role for our country to play in the affairs of a country within our region. The pursuit of democracy is long and hard but, in the end, our objectives can be achieved only if we play a constructive role with other countries in the region. I add that to the list of successes in which the member for Holt has played an important part.More recently he has moved from the Senate to the lower house. That is always a difficult move in Australian politics. Relevance deprivation syndrome affects anybody who has been a very active member of the government and finds themselves not only in a different chamber but also in opposition. But you can be constructive in opposition. That is an objective that some on the other side should pursue more often.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Like you used to.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Like we used to do.Mr Melham interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Well, in the 1988 referendum it was not a good proposal. We said so, and I do not walk away from what we said.Mr Melham interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Defending the Australian Constitution against proposals put up by the Labor Party is honourable work. I would go so far as to say that the people who voted no in the constitutional referenda in Australia basically have been right, because we have maintained a very good constitutional system. That is not to say that further reform is not justified—in fact, I think it is—but it has to be the right reform and it has to match the constitutional temperament of the Australian people.The member for Holt and I were personally associated when we were both charged by our leaders a year or two ago to negotiate a resolution on the question of racial tolerance. It can sometimes be difficult to find a form of words which will attract bipartisan support. That was one issue where we worked together and came to a sensible outcome. The debate that flowed from that was constructive and inched us in the right direction.Mr Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to make these few remarks. I pay tribute to the member for Holt for the work that he has done as a member of the Australian parliament. Our parliament is only as good as the quality of members' contributions and the support from their families. I wish the member for Holt well. I am sure it will not be the last we will hear of him—if not here, in the Australian community at large.16:19:0011110Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Mr Speaker, this is a sad occasion. We are farewelling a member of parliament who, as we look back over this century, is arguably in the top dozen parliamentarians who have been elected to either this chamber or the other place. He is without question the greatest foreign minister that this country has ever had. He is one of the longest serving members of federal Labor cabinet, and one of three people who are the longest serving members of federal Labor ministries. He has had a career in politics that anybody in this country would be proud to have had, and he has contributed more than just about anyone else who has served for the length of time that he has.This is the fourth occasion this week that I have had the opportunity to say something kindly about Gareth. The other three have involved aspects of a roast. My party colleagues have heard on those particular occasions, replete with the appropriate linguistic structure, great stories of Gareth's times and tribulations, but I will not regale the House with any of them here. Given his record, and given the presence in the gallery of his family, it is appropriate that, as the leader of his party, I set down his record in some more formal way as we farewell him. It will necessarily be brief but, nevertheless, it will be a very full account.He served as a Victorian senator from 1978 to 1996. He has been the member for Holt since 1996. He was deputy leader in the Senate from 1987 to 1993, and leader of the Labor Party in the Senate from 1993 to 1996. Given our status at that time, it meant that he was deputy leader of the government and then Leader of the Government in the Senate for the best part of a decade. He was Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the previous term of parliament.During his time in parliament, whilst I intend to say most about his period of time as the foreign minister of this country, he was also Attorney-General from 1983 to 1984. He was Minister for Resources and Energy from 1984 to 1987, and he was Minister for Transport and Communications from 1987 to 1988, before becoming the Minister for Foreign Affairs.Apart from his achievements in parliament and the recognition that he has accrued here, he was made Australian Humanist of the Year in 1990, he was given the freedom of the city of Sydney in 1993, he won the Anzac Peace Prize in 1994 for his work in Cambodia and he was awarded $150,000 in 1995—which went into trust in the Department of Foreign Affairs—for the Grawemeyer Prize for Ideas Improving World Order. He served on the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict, the Board of Trustees of the International Crisis Group, the International Council of the Asia Society, the International Advisory Board of UN Studies at Yale, the Council of the Asia-Australia Institute and the Advisory Board of the Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies at the Australian National University.Something that was said by a friend of his, Judge Michael Kirby, is probably apposite at this point before we analyse anything further, and that was that Gareth has never really willingly allowed his head to disappear from any position he has ever held and if it were possible for Gareth—not in terms of his own capacity for work, because he could basically continue to hold any position he has ever held simultaneous with any of the other positions, but peoples' tolerance would not permit it—he would still like to be minister for resources, Attorney-General, foreign affairs minister, Deputy Leader of the Opposition, perhaps even Leader of the Opposition, Prime Minister, Leader of the Government in the House, Leader of the Government in the Senate and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate. He could in fact have held all those positions simultaneously but, as I said, for questions of tolerance. He also would have made a very good Treasurer of this nation.Gareth is one of those extraordinary figures who is totally fascinated not only by the world of politics but also by the world in which he finds himself. As I remember Gareth when I first came into caucus—apart from his self-deprecating remarks about having been given by his colleagues at the University of Melbourne two suitcases to transport his ego to the place—he was basically then a man concerned about Australia's general civic culture. He raised civil liberty issues; constitutional issues—the quality of our Constitution; the reform of Labor Party rules, Labor Party ideology and the socialist objective, as it then was; the reform generally of attitudes in relation to race relations in this country—and you could go on. It is an extraordinary list.Gareth constantly sought a field of combat in the world of ideas. I remember when I had to carry some of his duties in the House of Representatives while he was in the Senate. I was Special Minister of State while he was Attorney-General. I said to Gareth, `When I am in a bit of trouble, Gareth, I have always in my very short ministerial career found it useful to get into the trenches, haul the cover down over myself and just emit the merest possible signal. You seem to seek the battleground and expose yourself on it. It is all right for you, but the problem is that you create questions for me.' But that was Gareth. There was never an issue that he could not argue.I remember being told by the Hansard people that Gareth, even though he fitted twice the verbiage that anyone else was capable of into the timeslots available to us—and we saw a final demonstration of that the other day—spoke in sentences and paragraphs and was the easiest person to record. The extraordinary mental discipline was there. That is the mental discipline that basically established his reputation. But that is not the only thing on which his reputation survives and prospers. The main thing was his role as foreign minister of this nation. It was not sufficient for him simply to respond to crises as they occurred; it was sufficient for him only to develop a conceptual framework for a structure underpinning Australian foreign policy—an objective to work to, a standard against which foreign policy could be judged.He was brought up in the same era as I was, I suppose, when foreign policy was simply a tool of domestic politics and very much against the national interest of Australians. He recognised that that endangered the life of the nation, that it endangered its possibilities for survival and that if foreign policy was not capable of being more than that, then the nation itself could not survive and prosper. So he devised a strategy for middle powers. Only one other foreign minister attempted to do that—I do not think he did it anywhere near as well as Gareth—and that was Evatt.Gareth put in place a structure for the survival of middle powers in international politics for the contribution they could make to the development of an international civic culture which would ensure everybody's security, be it on arms control matters—the elimination of particular classes and categories of weapons; be it on crisis management—the development of international strategies on crisis management to ensure that outcomes were secured diplomatically rather than by fighting wars; or decent international citizenship, when it related to terrorism and the transportation of illicit substances. He managed to encompass a whole range of things within the structure of a definition of a good international citizen for a middle power.It really saddens me to see people denigrating that particular capacity, because in the end, while they might secure narrow political advantage by denigrating it, what they do is pass on to a subsequent generation a stone. They do not contribute to the long-term survival of the Australian nation; they in fact detract from it. Nothing that Gareth ever did in international politics—whether he has been in error or whether he has been right—detracted from the security of Australian citizens. That is something to be said for a foreign minister in a dangerous world at the time of the collapse of all the certainties in international politics that went with the collapse of the postwar order.He will have something unique apart from his status, and that is that he was the foreign minister who presided over the transition of Australia's participation as an international citizen from a global system structured around the total ideological clash and the adversarial relationship between two superpowers into one where the political system was much more diffusive in many ways in the region around us and much more dangerous. It is an enormous tribute to him that, as foreign minister, he was able to negotiate those shoals and at the same time create a role for Australia in negotiating other nations through the same shoals.Apart from that global dimension, he understood firmly that the starting point of our international diplomacy was to address our security within this region. As Minister for Defence, I had occasion to know that Defence tended to run the foreign policy in the immediate region around us. Gareth came in and said, `No, this is a foreign affairs issue.' We were glad to concede it, as we saw the focus come on to the area as he tried to create in the region around us conditions of security.It was an extraordinary effort and an effort also against a background in which you would not automatically agree with those who had been or continued to be your friends or necessarily disagree with those who had been your enemies. But you could sometimes contribute to making previous enemies of your friends into their friends—for example, Gareth's diplomacy in Cambodia that made the United States a friend of the emerging forces in Cambodia. Being able to mobilise the United States and the international diplomatic community behind those efforts in Cambodia stands out as an individual triumph. It is possible for these things to be undermined in time, but it was for that that he was recommended for a Nobel Peace Prize and for that that he received that Anzac award from the RSL. It was a truly extraordinary achievement.Finally, there was his role as a parliamentarian. He was a great parliamentarian in one of the great democratic chambers globally; not so much this one—though I have served all of my years in this one—as the party balance and the exigencies of an executive in the House of Representatives renders this difficult, and we make those already difficult circumstances even more difficult by our general behaviour in this place.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Speak for yourself.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I am. But the Australian Senate is a different body. It is a very great debating chamber. As I sat and watched Gareth handle with two days' notice the entire native title legislation—the most complex piece of legislation, and I include within that the recent tax packages that have been put through—I saw an extraordinary parliamentary performance. I know how it began in the Clerk's office, and I know how it concluded in the Prime Minister's office. I would be happy to tell other persons in this place about the conclusion and the beginning, but not in this place. Parliamentary language has not advanced sufficiently far for us to be able to incorporate the truth of the remarks of the then Leader of the Government in the Senate.Gareth is going to be deeply missed by all of us. I have to express to his family our thanks for letting us have him, because over the bulk or your lives—particularly Eamon and Caitlin—you have not. You have had to share him with us and, from time to time—in fact, most of the time—we have had the lion's share. I am grateful for your tolerance and for the support you have given him over the years, and I am grateful for what he has done for us.16:33:0011113McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—As a fellow Victorian and on behalf of the National Party, I am very glad of the opportunity to be able to rise to recognise and acknowledge the very significant achievements and record of service of the member for Holt. My task is both extremely difficult and somewhat easy. It is very difficult because the honourable member has spent most of his career far removed from most of us on this side of the House, either in the Senate or as a member of the cabinet in a leadership position. So, with rare exceptions, we have never been able to properly know him as an individual and, therefore, have to rely very much on the public presentation, which we all know is not always—indeed, is rarely—the true measure of a person's worth.But it is easy because the honourable member is not a hypocrite. He would hardly expect me or anyone on this side to exaggerate or overstate our affection for him. But he can be assured of our deep respect. I should not speak on behalf of everyone in the government, because there are some who will have known him personally and as an individual and, therefore, would be able to say that he is the most wonderful, nicest person ever to inhabit these chambers.But we can rely very heavily on his remarkable achievements. By any measure he has been a significant figure in the Australian political and public policy landscape for almost 20 years. It was as a law student at Melbourne University in the second half of the 1970s that I first heard about the mythical Gareth Evans. It seems to me that there has been one mystifying characteristic of Gareth Evans over all of these years, which is that people know of him and talk of him, yet you can never quite find somebody who will substantiate the wilder stories about the honourable member for Holt.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—They're all true.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—I will have to take the member for Fraser at his word. There are all of these supposed high-tension outbreaks of anger, at times, and demanding requirements of those who work around him but, when you do meet people from the various government departments and from his personal staff, it seems to me that they have nothing but praise for him as both an individual and an employer. Nonetheless, there are always going to be stories surrounding the honourable member for Holt so that at times he becomes larger than life; he certainly was when I was a student at the University of Melbourne Law School. People would talk of his intellectual prowess, his energy and his commitment to ideology. It seems—again, from the outside—that he has not changed enormously over all of these years.His departure is a significant event for the parliament and for the ALP. He has been a remarkable figure in Australian politics, serving—as we know only too well—at the highest levels of government over a prolonged period and with many achievements that he, the rest of the parliament and, indeed, the Australian community can take pride in.One area in which I always thought he excelled above all else was the portfolio of resources and energy, for which I do not think he has been given enough credit. I know he always thinks of this as a humdrum period of some dowdiness, lacking the glamour of Attorney-General or foreign affairs. Nonetheless, there are many people in the resources sector who believe to this day that he was one of the best—and, for some, the best—resources and energy minister for a very long time. Who would ever forget his assessment of Coronation Hill as being `clapped out buffalo country'? He was brave, adventurous, daring and controversial in that portfolio, which has not been repeated.On behalf of the government we wish the honourable member well. We know that whatever he does it will be the furthest thing from retirement anyone could possibly imagine. He has served his party, the Senate and the House of Representatives extremely well. He should take pride in that. Life in parliament can be full of as many disappointments as successes. I believe the honourable member, through dint of his own efforts, has achieved a great many more successes than disappointments, either personal or professional. I wish his wife Dr Merran Evans all the very best now that she has Gareth more to herself. All of our spouses would wish that to be so.Finally, the honourable member for Holt is not always known for his patience, tolerance or graciousness because of his thriving intellect and strength of character, but I have seen him display extraordinary tolerance. Both of us were at a function, which he may not recall, in 1996. We were guests of a leading Australian company at the performance of an international—supposedly—star who was to perform some piano pieces for us. The international star, I am afraid, was under the weather to an extraordinary extent, to the point where he could hardly make it to the piano stool. Nonetheless, it was a long performance; it went on for hours. We sat there and afterwards joined the company and, whilst most of us were grumbling and complaining about a wasted evening, Gareth Evans—and I was with him for most of the time afterwards—never said a word of complaint and behaved as if he had just heard one of the great performers of our time.RH4KERRMr Kerr—He is tone deaf.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—He is tone deaf, I am told. He probably thought it was a great performance. That is my only insight into Gareth Evans the man and it has just been somewhat swept aside. I do not want to be disillusioned at this last moment. We wish you well. You have, even to the end, gone out kicking, with some well aimed barbs at the government. Therefore, you have not petered out; you are going out on the same high with which you have served the nation.16:40:0011114Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I wish to join with the Leader of the Opposition, the minister and others who will speak in this debate in wishing Gareth well in his retirement. We will miss him here because he has been an institution in the place for 21 years. I have only had to experience half of that here, but the other part of his parliamentary career I was very closely associated with in another role associated with the labour movement. It was a privilege to be with him last night. It was a lovely night, a bit ribald, I suppose. I think some of us were suffering a bit this morning from the after-effects, but it was fantastic to have Merran and Eamon and Caitlin there with us and to hear the history told in entertaining terms.I have known Gareth for more than his 21 years in this place. Over the last three years we have been neighbours in the seats that we represent, Holt and Hotham. A lot of issues have crossed both boundaries. I have had a long association with him. We barrack for different footballs teams, he for Hawthorn and I for North Melbourne. In the 1970s they were the teams to beat. They were great rivals. There were great contests. We emulated that some three years ago, to his advantage. I wished him well after that and we had a continuing great working relationship. I am pleased to say that out of the exercise, though, at least his son has seen the direction for football support. Eamon is a North Melbourne supporter. I am pleased we have had some influence in that direction within the family.Of the 21 years that he served in the parliament, 13 of them were as a minister and 18 were in the Senate. It is great to see John Faulkner, the now Senate opposition leader, with us in the gallery today. He succeeded Gareth in the role as opposition leader in the Senate, a role that Gareth carried out not only with great distinction but with great dedication.He was a self-starter. In politics there are people who are the self-starters, the people who can take the initiative, and those who just do what they are expected to do. Gareth was by any standards the best of the self- starters. There was nothing that you had to really ask Gareth to do. He knew instinctively what to do and he knew how to carry it out. All of us who witnessed the Mabo debate saw it demonstrated by him par excellence in that exercise. There were many other debates he had to involve himself in, but I think in terms of parliamentary performance that will go down as testimony to the encapsulation of a brilliant parliamentary career.The other thing that was terrific about Gareth was that not only was he the greatest foreign minister this country has had; he was a great cabinet contributor. Again, there are people who participate in ministries and cabinets who can master their briefs, but the true mark of a great cabinet minister is one who not only masters the brief and leads, but one who can contribute in the other debates that are essential for government to determine its positions on issues from time to time. Of course, Gareth brought to the cabinet in those years that I was with him great corporate knowledge because he had been Attorney-General, he had been resources minister, he had been communications minister. He then became foreign minister.I remember opening his electorate office when he moved from Attorney-General to resources, something he has described as being the down point in his life. I recall saying at the opening that he was too good a person to let that setback get him down, that what he would do would be to master that task and move on. And of course that he did.Gareth is a person of fierce intellect but he is also a person of fierce emotions. It is those contrasts that I think endear him to us and from which all the various stories come. We know about his self-deprecation. I sometimes think self-deprecation can go a bit far, especially if you are in public life, but I did not realise how so until last night. The story has often been told about the F111 flight—it has been mentioned here already—over the Gordon-below-Franklin Dam to assess what was being done, and of course Gareth got the nickname of Biggles. I had always thought that this was a pretty unfair description and that these journalists were being particularly harsh until I found out last night that when Gareth fronted to the doorstop to explain himself, he says that he said to the journalists, `I hope you're not going to call me Biggles for this.' This is just one example of when self-deprecation, said in the wrong forum, can be used to your disadvantage.As I said, I join with the Leader of the Opposition in acknowledging his role as foreign minister. I, too, believe that he can genuinely wear the mantle of the greatest foreign minister that this country has had. His role in Cambodia, again, is another one of those high points and one that was internationally recognised—again, a point that was referred to by the Leader of the Opposition. One has cause to reflect, I think, in the current circumstances, on the way in which Gareth set about the follow-up and the detail associated with Australia's involvement and engagement in Cambodia, and we can contrast it with what we have been debating in this place about the current government's performance in relation to Timor. Many significant contrasts can be made, but I think the Cambodian exercise and his involvement show the right way to go about it, and I think we have seen a number of flaws in the current government's approach to a more significant circumstance right on our doorstep.Gareth is a person of great passion. He is also a person with a great capacity for work. I have said that every one of the tasks that he undertook he mastered. I have never seen a person get across the subject and the detail so effectively, so well, as Gareth. People talk about workaholics in life; he doubles them up. I have never seen Gareth as someone who has an idle moment. I agree with the Leader of the House that there are difficulties in the transition from one house to the other: it is a consequence of their being, essentially, different chambers. The leader has remarked upon the nature of the Senate and, of course, we who have been in this House know it and have grown up in a different sort of culture in the way in which, because of the numbers here and the way they are arranged over the other side, you simply approach things differently.I think the important thing about Gareth was that he understood the importance of utilising in opposition the corporate knowledge to give the Labor Party the opportunity to renew itself and to develop the policy initiatives that it needed to take to the next election if it was to be in the game. I want to pay tribute to the work that was done by Gareth in coordinating the policy work, the policy rewrite of the party that took us to the last election. I might say that there are people now who say that we are a party without policies. No-one said that in the last election. In fact, when we put that policy manifesto down, when the Leader of the Opposition launched it in Brisbane, everyone recognised the depth, the content and the new initiatives that were contained in it. So let us understand who was responsible for the coordination of it, and let us also remind ourselves, when people want to engage in the phoney debate about where the policies are, to look to that document and to look to the ongoing work that we have been involved in. The standard that Gareth set for us in our first term of opposition has been a benchmark from which we need to project ourselves.Finally, I will just say that I wish him well, as all of us do, in the ballot for UNESCO. It is not just a prestigious international position; it is an essential international body. When one looks at the disadvantage around the world, when one looks at the fact that what is needed is education and opportunity for it and access to it, it is the international forum that needs to drive that agenda forward. Currently structured, it has not been doing that. Under his leadership it will. That is why, in terms of talent, he should walk this ballot in. But all of us who have had involvement in the way in which these ballots are conducted know how difficult that task is. The best person does not always win. He has been out there campaigning—as we know he can, as I certainly know he can—and we know that he will give it his best shot. We wish him well in that regard.We know that that will mean a change of direction and habitation for Merran. She has been a terrific support for him through all this time. Carole and I have been great friends with both of them. We see each other a lot. We have not seen Gareth as much recently because of the campaigning activity. His success has been due to her support. I think, like every successful person in public life, the fact that they have the support of family is an essential ingredient.We are here today to salute you, Gareth, but to also salute Merran as well. We thank you for the contribution. We wish you well in the immediate task at hand, but we know that whatever you tackle in the future you will continue to make a great contribution to this nation and to represent it internationally with great distinction.16:52:0011116McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—These debates are both very easy and very hard to speak in. They are very easy because you are saying words about a friend and colleague that come easily. They are very difficult because, having followed the leader and the deputy leader, it can easily become repetitious. I want simply, at the start, to endorse the remarks that Kim and Simon have made and add to them those things which I hope might have an extra perspective in terms of the relationship we have had, particularly as fellow refugees from the Senate and as people who have worked together closely as ministers.There are two things that have been mentioned with respect to Gareth that must be said and I think will be said by everybody. They are that it is very easy to speak favourably about someone who was both a nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize and who engineered the successful passage of the Mabo legislation, who was, for the period that I worked closely with him, which really started in 1981 when I became the national secretary, the policy engine and policy advocate for this party and in every way a larger than life character.I had the opportunity to share service in the cabinet with Gareth, to share a portfolio, to share common interests and a friendship. Others have said, and I merely endorse, that he was a remarkable contributor in the cabinet where it is always valued when people contribute outside their portfolios, although it is not always valued when you are the person in whose portfolio he is making the contribution. You usually think, if you have a pretty good argument and you go to the cabinet, that it will probably go through because everyone is obsessed with their own area, and it is going all right until you hear a cough and Gareth starts to speak. Suddenly you are battling a bit harder than you thought you would. It did not happen to me when I was in the trade portfolio because we used to take the submissions jointly. But earlier, from time to time, I had that problem and I saw others have it in spades.In 1994, what I found when I came to share for two years the Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio was how remarkably easy it was. People talk about the controversial aspects of the now member for Holt's, the then Senator Evans's character, but I have to say I did not find it personally. In the intense pressure of working closely together on controversial issues for two years, when there was that capacity for boundaries to cause conflict—where you disagreed about whose responsibility A was or B was and, instead of concentrating on the main game and you got into those debilitating arguments about who should be saying what and to whom—we were always able to focus on the big picture and he was in fact a remarkably easy colleague to deal with, but incredibly effective.We travelled together, although not often—I suppose the rest of the world would say that they were not ready for both of us at the same time. We did not often get the chance to travel out of the country together but to APEC we always did. What struck me was the respect in which he was held by every other minister at APEC. Like other international fora, it is essentially a series of set piece speeches being made for the record and people are walking in and out. I know only two ministers who had an international reputation so that, when they went to speak in an international forum, everybody came in. One was Paul Keating at the IMF and the other was Gareth Evans at APEC. I am sure it was the case at other forums but that is the one that I shared with him. People would come and listen because they knew they were not going to hear just another bland recitation of the standard message. There were always ideas and challenges. I think half of them came because they were not sure they were going to agree with the message, but they certainly wanted to hear it and knew something interesting and effective would be said.He also set a very cracking pace in the portfolio. I used to derive some amusement for quite some time when we shared the briefs that came across from the departments. I would get the ones that had Gareth's comments on them and he would apparently get the ones with my comments. I used to laugh because Gareth would write his notes on the bottom and, because his handwriting is so execrable, somebody in his staff used to write for the department what he had actually written. I thought this was really funny until there was a mix-up and I found someone was doing it to me as well. I then realised that nobody in parliament seems to be able to write. I have discovered, since moving to the House of Representatives, that it is certainly true about the current leader and deputy leader. Nobody can read any of our writing. So communication is exciting, interesting and open to all sorts of interpretations.The other experience we had last time we travelled together was to the Papua New Guinea joint ministerial meeting in December 1995. In many ways, it was not a memorable meeting. There were some issues in terms of the bilateral relationship that might be discussed in some other forum—they are not appropriate for today. We did conclude with a game of golf. Gareth was playing with a senior representative of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and I was playing with a very good golfer who was a burglar about his handicap and was a minister in the Papua New Guinea government. He was so good that it was a close game, even though I was terrible. We got to the last hole—this is a true story—and we were level. It was a team thing where you take it in turns having shots. Gareth got the ball close to the hole. If the foreign affairs official sank the putt they won and if he missed it they lost. I have never seen a more nervous deputy secretary in my life, but there were two remarkable things. Firstly, he missed and was relatively calm and, secondly, he is still in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. So Gareth is a person of some tolerance, as others have said.I will be very brief about these matters because I know others want to speak. We shared a passion for the arts which led to enjoyment and some common policy initiatives in our various portfolios. I am very proud of some things we were able to do together, driven by his perception, breadth and understanding in the international arena both for the elite performing and visual arts tourism program and for the initiative which he was able to push through with regard to a promotion in India that created the capacity to transform our relationship with that very important neighbour of ours. India is too often unregarded as a neighbour because Australia is just coming to grips with the fact that we are in the Pacific. We have not yet worked out that we are in the Indian Ocean as well and that India is a very important neighbour. Gareth did realise that and pushed that through. It was an important initiative. It is a pity more was not made of it. I hope in future we will have the opportunity to build on it.Lastly, I want to thank Gareth as a friend, both personally and on behalf of my wife, Robyn, and daughter, Kate. We had the chance to briefly enjoy a remarkable holiday with him in the United States where we were both due to attend meetings in Atlanta—from opposition. As you could imagine, we travelled together at breakneck speed both in the car and when we were walking. He had inexhaustible curiosity and energy. Even then he was always in the search for new information and ideas. It was great fun and great excitement, and my family have never forgotten it. I am grateful for the experience to work together, the shared interests and the shared friendship.Like the deputy leader and the leader have said, I very much hope that Gareth is successful in the ballot for UNESCO. Of course we all hope that our friends win ballots in which they find themselves; we all hope that when there is an Australian candidate that the Australian candidate wins. But I really think it is very important for UNESCO. It can be a very important organisation for the world. When you talk about advancing the world by the pursuit of knowledge and the enhancement of culture, you cannot think of a better person to run the organisation than Gareth Evans. I hope for him, for us, but more importantly for them, that he wins. Best wishes.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!17:01:0011118Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—I will make just a few remarks with respect to Gareth's contribution in an area that, it has been repeatedly suggested, he himself sees as not perhaps the area of his greatest triumph. But I actually regard him as having made a singular contribution to the revitalisation of Labor at two periods. We have had a focus on the period of Labor as we left government after 13 years and the period of opposition, where his contribution in terms of platform development and policy development has been acknowledged. But there was a previous contribution which I also recall. Gareth's motivation, drive and energy, in refreshing our capacity to come into government in the period when Hayden was leader and then in the period when the transition was made to Hawke, made a very singular contribution. It was in terms of both policy development and the regeneration of ideas that flowed from the Whitlam era, where he had picked up some of the initiatives that had not been completed.He wrote a book on the constitutional developments which were at issue in the Whitlam government. He formed a basis for us, having a very strong intellectual grasp of the issues that he would start addressing as Attorney-General and which were carried through, perhaps with less pace but with still the same thematics, by successive Labor attorneys-general—not the least by Michael Lavarch in the last government. I was briefly Attorney-General—and I might say, Gareth, your one year was a triumph of longevity compared to the period for which I held office. The only thing I take comfort from is that there was an Attorney in the panoply of Labor attorneys-general who held office for a shorter period than I did—and that of course is Gough Whitlam. I take some small comfort from that.You were able to make that intellectual contribution in that process of renewal. Your achievements in the term when you were Attorney-General were significant, but the lasting strength is the legacy of ideas that went with a reforming Labor government. Your capacity for retaining a grasp of the technical skills of a first-rate constitutional lawyer was shown through the Mabo process. I believe there is yet one final office that you might fit for Australia's constitutional betterment. That would be an appointment to the High Court, should you ever have that opportunity advanced to you by the government of Australia. Perhaps it would be a courageous decision by a government of whatever colour to make such an appointment. Nonetheless, I believe that should you ever have that opportunity you would grace the court and make a very significant contribution to the jurisprudence of Australia.That is not to say that you have always been the easiest of colleagues to work with. Sometimes I have had red ears as a result of being chipped at by you, and I am sure there are few of our colleagues who have not. The one thing I am now absolutely delighted about, though, is that, as a result of the comments of the Leader of the House about your poor handwriting, we now know that when you were falsely quoted as referring to Kakadu as `clapped-out buffalo country' it was an error of transcription and what you had actually written was `high class buffer country'.17:04:0011119Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—I am aware that the honourable member for Holt's colleagues will want to speak, and I will make this very short. It is fair to say that, while the nature of Australian politics means that we do not necessarily support the endeavours of our political opponents, we can respect the input that leads into the outcomes that flow from there. I have no doubt that Gareth Evans's ability to put his heart and soul and 24 hours into anything that he has done is a mark of the man who will leave us today. I have two very vivid memories of Gareth Evans, one not so pleasant and one of great respect. I will deal with the second first.I remember when I was first elected in March 1990, and indeed right through until the Labor Party lost the last election, it did not matter where you were in any capacity, Gareth Evans was working. Whether it was in an airport lounge or on a plane, Gareth Evans was always there with a huge bundle of work and he obviously gave 110 per cent to anything that he ever did. I think that is a mark of the man.The second not so pleasant experience was in 1972 when the Hon. Gareth Evans was my lecturer in constitutional history or constitutional law—I cannot remember which one it was. He was a very spirited lecturer. There were not a large number of hours you were required to attend law school in those days. I think if you had 12 hours a week you had done something terribly wrong or had chosen the wrong subjects. But certainly constitutional law was one that I was involved with. And while I had achieved first-class honours in every other subject at the end of first year, I had an oral supplementary exam in constitutional history. I very foolishly and naively—and I now accept the fact and I'll fess up to it—walked into that supplementary exam shortly after the December election with a Liberal Party badge on my lapel. Gareth Evans looked me in the eye and said, `I hope you haven't taken too much time out of your day to come here today.' I took the hint and hopped back in the car and went back to the hay-carting truck that I had left at about 6 o'clock that morning to come down for the oral examination.Gareth, as a fellow Victorian, I think you will leave this place with a great deal of respect on both sides of the political fence. I wish you and your family my very best for what lies ahead. Obviously, with the events that are coming up shortly, everyone on this side of the House wishes you well from an Australian parliament point of view. From a personal point of view, I am sure that you will very much enjoy some time with your family. Families are the great sufferers in Australian politics, and I am sure we are all slightly jealous that you personally will now have more time to spend with your family.17:08:0011119Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—Several years ago, in an interview, Michelle Grattan asked me to nominate some international political figures that I admired. I recall mentioning Franklin Roosevelt and Gro Harlem Bruntland, amongst others. Then she said, `What about in Australia?' I have to say I mentioned Janine Haines, but I also mentioned Gareth Evans. She seemed a little surprised, but several years down the track I still stand by that judgment.Much of that judgment came through the negotiations on the Mabo legislation, which began in November-December 1993. I had previously thought of Gareth only as a particularly verbose foreign minister, using every second of time in question time with judiciously planted dorothy dixers on a daily basis. I was really, I suppose, admiring when, as well as being foreign minister, he became Leader of the Government in the Senate: having got off a plane at 6 a.m., that very day he would be across all the most complicated briefs in question time on the diverse range of subjects which leaders of the government would get at the time.I think the speed and depth of his intellect, his stamina and his discipline were absolutely central to the success of the Mabo debate—absolutely central. I would like to tell you why. We others in the debate had taken about six months to get across the detail of both the bill and the hundreds of amendments that were drafted. A couple of days before the debate was due to begin, I recall Gareth saying, `I'd better have a look at this stuff. It is going to happen soon.' About a day later, in a meeting which I convened and persuaded Gareth to attend to sort out the common ground in the hundreds of amendments floating around—and which produced the legendary running sheet which John Faulkner referred to last night—I recall seeing some really important leadership, which we do not always see in this place.There we were, in a room, the so-called A team and the B team, with some other QCs, some public servants and the politicians. This man, who had only just read the legislation, decided to take us through the difficult areas. The public servants gave a point of view. I remember Ron Castan QC, at the other end of the table, putting a different case. I remember seeing Gareth's brain just whirr over immediately. He said, `Excuse me a moment,' and took the public servants outside. I went to witness. He said to them, `I'm sorry, we are not going to do what you say we are going to do. It is intellectually indefensible. I have listened to Mr Castan's arguments and I am not prepared to go in there and argue something which is morally and intellectually indefensible with respect to indigenous Australians.' And he said, `I will tell Paul Keating.' And he did. What Ron Castan and Gareth Evans negotiated with respect for indigenous Australians was legislated on their behalf. And why was it done? It was because it was a good public policy outcome.When the debate had been under way for a couple of days, there was the obvious tactic of the opposition of the time to form a tag team. I remember Bronwyn Bishop was in that too, regularly asking about planes flying over sacred sites and other things, thousands of feet up in the air, and how that affected native title. When it became clear that the major tactic was to seek to exhaust him, I went to Paul Keating, whom I did not know particularly well, on advice from others, and passed on the observation of those who knew better than me that the debate was becoming incredibly bogged down in jurisprudence. I sat in the seat next to Gareth to say to him very quietly, `Excuse me, Gareth, I have been asked to tell you that, despite your brilliant knowledge of this, the opposition seems to be bogging the debate down in really technical detail and we need to think of a way to break the momentum.'Paul Keating accepted a suggestion that he convene a press conference to say that this piece of legislation was so important to him and to the Labor Party that we might sit all over Christmas. That was not met with much joy by the opposition; nevertheless they persisted with their questioning—question after question, clause after clause. And Gareth Evans, from 10 a.m. till midnight, day after day, answered nearly every one of those questions, with a few comfort breaks when he was supported by Bob Collins, as I recall.The one point that I wanted to record for posterity, which I do not think is recorded in very many other places, was the compliment Paul Keating paid to Gareth in a typical Paul Keating way. When he decided to suggest that we might sit over Christmas, I tactfully suggested that in his press conference he not make his usual comments about the Senate. He looked at me, very straight in the eye, and he said, `Cheryl, I can be just as disciplined as Gareth Evans when I need to be.' I will always recall that memory.Finally, on the discipline and the stamina, after being on his feet all day we would all be expected to convene in his office after midnight—Rick Farley, Lowitja O'Donoghue, other lawyers and the poor public servants who were doing all the work—and we would look over how far we had progressed that day. Sometimes it would have been only three or four clauses. We would say how far we wanted to get the next day and the draftspeople would go off to work until dawn. I do not think a lot of people know that this was the background to the native title debate No. 1. That is why, along with many others, I do greatly admire the application of the awesome intellect, the energy and the wit to so many better public policy outcomes for our nation.As a child I lived not very far from where Doc Evatt also lived and I went to the same primary school. I feel really proud that the Labor Party has produced another outstanding foreign minister of international stature. Although we do not know the future of the vote for the position of Director-General of UNESCO, were Gareth to win it I hope that he would find it personally and professionally fulfilling. I certainly welcome the opportunity for him to continue to make a brilliant and enthusiastic contribution not just to this nation but to the world. That is a wonderful thing that we as a nation can say that we have to offer to the rest of the world.Lastly, there is one thing we absolutely know in advance of his leaving, and I do not think we can say this about each one of us. We do absolutely know that we will miss him very much—his party, his friends and this parliament. We will miss him very much and we will know it very soon.17:16:0011121Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—In December 1991 I remember getting a telephone call from the Hon. Paul Keating, Prime Minister of Australia—despite those on the other side thinking that I used to get those regularly when I was the Speaker. I took the telephone call and the Prime Minister said, `Mate'—as the fraternal greeting of the New South Wales Right goes—`I want to make you a parliamentary secretary. You've got two choices: you've got Immigration or you've got Foreign Affairs and Trade.' I thought about it. Stewart West, who was still in the parliament as the member for Cunningham at the time and I recall had been the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, said to me once, `If I have to go to another one of those ethnic singsongs I'm going to go mad.' I thought, coming from Wollongong, that was definitely going to be on the cards as a parliamentary secretary for immigration. I then thought: who actually is the minister? It was Gareth. Gareth was legendary, as we certainly heard last night and as many people have recalled on other occasions. The Minister for Trade was John Kerin.Weighing it up, they were both from the Right, so I fitted in reasonably well there. One was from New South Wales but one was from Victoria, which is always a bit of a worry on our side—particularly after last weekend—but I weighed it up and I thought, `Gareth is the bloke for me.' He had a sensational reputation as a foreign minister around the world. He was somebody who, for the Labor Party and for Australia, had such a commitment and devotion to his work that he seemed to be the sort of person that I could learn a lot from. So I said to Paul, `Okay, I'd like to do Foreign Affairs and Trade.'My first meeting with Gareth was one of trying to work out exactly what I was going to do—because I am not sure that Paul actually told Gareth that I was coming. John Kerin, Gareth and I sat down and we worked out a bit of a program of things I could do. Gareth said, `Occasionally I want you to represent me.' I said that would be fine, knowing where he had gone: because of the United Nations it was to New York or Geneva or, if it were for UNESCO, to Paris and so on. As somebody who was just starting a bit of a career in the executive, that did not sound too bad.The first place he sent me to was Colombia. He said, `On the way I want you to go to Venezuela for me because Venezuela is this sensational example of democracy in South America. It is what we're trying to interest other nations in that continent in emulating and we want you to go there, talk to them and then go away as a little bit of an ambassador for them as you go to Colombia as well.' I headed off and got into Los Angeles where I was met by our consul there who said, `Parliamentary Secretary, I have got some terrible news for you.' I said, `What's that? I'm here on this great peace mission for Gareth Evans and on my way I'm going to Venezuela.' He said, `That's the problem—the tanks are just moving up the palace at the present time.' I thought: `Good call, Gareth, another champion effort to send a new bloke on the block over there.' Nevertheless, we went on to Colombia and it was good.I thought, `That was a little bit of a mistake and the next one will be terrific.' The next one happened to be Nauru for the 25th independence celebrations. That was also an experience, as they cleared the cows off the runway for the plane to land. I was nevertheless there representing his interests.During the next 18 months, while I was his parliamentary secretary, he gave me every opportunity to start to develop some policy on our side in government, particularly the role that the services sector could play in trade and foreign policy. He was encouraging every step of the way, whether it was in environmental services or in banking and looking at ways in which we might emulate some of the European models to have us as a centre of excellence here—a stepping-off point in the Asia-Pacific region for the European and American companies and so on. He was always encouraging and always interested. For that I have always been grateful.Working as closely as I was with him, I learned a lot—there was no question about that. Despite all of those legendary stories, not once did Gareth Evans and I ever have a cross word. It was always a dialogue that was based on talking about the issues that were necessary. I might be a little bit unique in that. I am not sure what it is—maybe it is just because I am from Wollongong, Gareth—but it was part of that relationship and it was a side of him that people had views about. But there was no doubting his passion, his commitment, his intellect, his diligence and the way that he as the Minister for Foreign Affairs for Australia was out there for this country.Gareth, you have done the party proud and you have done Australia proud, as all your colleagues and those on the other side have said during the debate this afternoon and as was said last night. It is going to be difficult for you to go. You will be missed by everybody in this place. The role you played as the deputy leader in the last parliament, the role you played as our shadow Treasurer and the role you played in formulating the policy prescriptions for the Labor Party—bringing together all the disparate elements of Labor's policy, putting them into a coherent form and looking at the way they could all work—are again testimonies to that great capacity you have. Others have spoken about Mabo. As someone who was here at the time and watched it on television during the night as it went on and on, I could only marvel again at that capacity you displayed. We will all miss you. We wish you every success in the future. We hope desperately that you succeed in your present quest. If not, we know that you will always succeed in whatever you choose to turn your hand to. You have been a great mate. Good luck.17:23:0011122Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—Other speakers have spoken about Gareth's contribution in the Mabo debate. That is well known, and I do not want to canvass it again, but it does complement his contribution in other great debates in this nation. One case occurred before he was a member of parliament. It was when he was an adviser to the Whitlam government and the Racial Discrimination Act was being pioneered through this parliament. Gareth was an adviser to that government and his fingerprints are all over that act.He was also a champion of a bill of rights. It never quite got up, but the Racial Discrimination Act is the closest thing we have to a bill of rights in this country. It is an act of parliament that says that we who are the later arrivals and the children of later arrivals are equal—we are all Australian. There is no difference whether you were here 40,000 or 50,000 years ago or whether you arrived a couple of days ago. That act stands as a testament to Gareth as an adviser and to the Whitlam government. It is an act that laid the basis for indigenous Australians finally being recognised in the highest courts in this country. There would be no native title without the Racial Discrimination Act. The High Court in Mabo basically said, `But for the Racial Discrimination Act, state and territory governments could have extinguished native title without compensation.' It acted as a protection. It is how repressive acts of parliament in Queensland against indigenous Australians were overturned by the High Court—it covers a range of things.There was the recent Wik judgment in which we had a modern hysteria that equated to the McCarthyism of the 1950s where communism and reds under the beds were used by the conservatives. In the 1990s, the conservatives used native title and blacks in your backyard as a modern Mccarthyism. Arising out of the Wik judgment, the Labor Party had to make a fundamental decision as to whether we would defend the position we took in 1993 in response to the High Court decision on Mabo. That is where I came to know Gareth. The shadow cabinet had a subcommittee. Whilst I had official carriage of native title on behalf of the party, Gareth, Nick Bolkus, Stephen Smith, Mike Megaw from Kim Beazley's office and others worked as a team to produce a response. The real test in public office is what you do not when the polls tell you it is popular but when it is right and the polls tell you it is unpopular. That was the real test for me of Gareth Evans. There were those who believed Gareth was sent in to basically walk away from what we did in 1993. They thought he would preside over the Labor Party in a wink and nod situation. Well, he did not.At the end of the day the real Gareth Evans came to the fore, and that is a humanitarian and someone who has devoted his public life to serving this nation and the vulnerable and the weak. There is no doubt that at times there have had to be some compromises in that regard, because you cannot legislate for the pure position. I know that at times we on the Left—and you can read an anecdote in the biography by Keith Scott—had a different standard for Gareth, because we had him up on a pedestal, and we let others off more lightly.But I think Gareth has delivered. He is one of the few people who can leave this place with people on both sides genuinely saying that he contributed to the better of this society. Australia is a better place for Gareth Evans having served in the parliament. I know his friend John Faulkner is in the gallery—he cannot speak because he is from the other house—and I know other people like Michael Duffy and Gerry Hand, who I have spoken to in recent times, would want to be remembered.Gareth, I will miss you. You have made an enormous contribution. What the Labor Party did in the last couple of years through your involvement showed that we are here on the political landscape and we are here to stay. You were part of a leadership team that saw at the last election, despite a vicious, nasty, venal campaign that was personally directed at you, the majority of the Australian electorate vote in favour of the Labor Party. It is just an accident in relation to where those votes fell that you were not back on the government benches. And that is a testament to you and to Kim and the rest of the Labor Party.I want to finish by quoting one thing from the book which I think summarises you. It is at page 343:He is volatile, but does not hold grudges. As those who have worked closely with him attest, when he does relax he is generous, warm, and for all his intellectual sophistication possesses an endearing, almost boyish, charm.The best photo in the book is opposite page 215. It is the family photo with Merran, Caitlin and Eamon. That shows Gareth Evans to me. He is boyish. I will miss him. That is not to say that we did not have our differences of opinion, but the key to Gareth is to engage him. That is what brings out the best in him. I think he still has a contribution to make. He can count—he showed that in the deputy leadership ballot after the 1996 election. He kept ringing me up time after time and I said, `I am not voting for you, Gareth. The only commitment I'll give you is that I will not work against you,' but he kept persevering, so I do not write you off, but I do not know whether that is necessarily the best job for you.Debate interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.17:30:0011124Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—The member for Banks referred to bipartisan support. Just in two minutes I would like to record a couple of things. One is that on a flight to Lebanon I sat next to a senior figure in the Cambodian government, and on learning that I was a member of parliament for Australia he launched with enormous enthusiasm into an account of Gareth Evans's contribution to the achievement of peace and the achievement of agreement between the royalists and the communists in Cambodia. He spoke with enormous fervour, and I confess to feeling on that occasion a sense of pride at being an Australian.I have frequently also had the experience of visitors coming from overseas and being asked, `Who do you want to meet while you are here?' They mention the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the opposition spokesman, and almost invariably they also want to meet Gareth Evans. I recently read Chris Patten's book East Meets West and found in it one of the most glowing endorsements of any political figure I have ever read in any book, and a substantial photo of Gareth with the caption `Gareth Evans: friend of democracy in Asia'.Finally can I just say that on the few occasions when I have had occasion to speak with Gareth on some matter or another, as one of the more inconsequential figures in the place, I have always found him to be extraordinarily courteous and respectful in spite of one's own lack of consequence. The parliament must be able to attract figures of his intellectual capacity. Others such as Barry Cohen have graced the place. I believe Labor has another in its ranks, but I will not damage his prospects by naming him on this occasion. I record my respect and appreciation for the contribution of Gareth Evans.11124Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Before I call the member for Holt, may I, on behalf of the parliament, extend the parliament's best wishes to him. I should indicate to the chamber that the member for Holt has not yet in fact resigned from the parliament. We had a conference in my office and on that occasion I was able to wish him well. I join with all the others paying tribute to his intellect and to his energy. I wish him all the best for UNESCO and recognise the role that his family has played in his very successful career.17:33:0011124Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am indebted to you. It is often said that the big problem about funerals is that the corpse never gets to enjoy the eulogies or the obituaries. Thankfully, that is not the case for political corpses, though I am not exactly sure that `enjoy' is entirely the right word for some of what has been said today and a lot of what has been said throughout the week. But I do thank very sincerely indeed everyone who has spoken today for their thoughtfulness and their generosity. I have been touched and amazed in about equal proportions.As I look back now and relive my 21 years in this parliament, I feel as if I need a bit of a seat belt. Most politicians have their ups and downs, but in my case it seems to have been the equivalent not of some run of the mill Luna Park scenic railway but rather the Coney Island Thunderbolt. There have been some exhilarating highs but there have also been some rather sickening lows. I have been reminded with some vigour by colleagues and commentators, throughout the week and again today, that I do not even have the luxury of blaming anyone else much for those low periods. C'est moi qui etait le probleme.Opposition members interjecting—VD4Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANS—I have got to keep practising, so just bear with me. It does seem for a start that my tongue might just possibly have run away with itself more often than was strictly wise.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—No!VD4Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANS—For example, it may have been better in my maiden speech, right back at the beginning in 1978, if I had not said as a senator, `I feel that henceforth I should be given a little handbell to go around ringing in front of me and saying, like a medieval leper, "Unclean, unclean"'.It may indeed have been better if on the occasion of the 1983 Tasmanian affair I had not made the reference to the streaker's defence, which in fact I invented. In particular, as Simon said, it may have been better if I had not engineered the Brer Rabbit in the briar patch response, actually suggesting to the journalist, `Whatever you do, don't call me Biggles'—something that has haunted me for the last 15 years. I should just say, though, for the record, since it is really now a matter of dim and ancient history—I think Christian Zahra was 10 years old at the time when all this happened—it might have been better if Defence had actually done what it was supposed to do on that occasion. Then I might have kept out of trouble. It was in fact to help address a possible serious breach of Commonwealth law. The idea was for it to use a routine training flight going at 30,000 feet above the ground in clear weather, taking grid pattern photographs at intervals of a week or so so that the extent of the depredation or encroachment upon the wilderness could in fact be precisely mapped in a Federal Court case that was then looming. What happened, of course, was that Defence, with its usual efficiency, did not task the pilot with any of those constraints. The cloud was low on the first day in question. As a result, the F111 came in at 800 feet and gave a nervous breakdown to every living creature in its path. It did not go unnoticed, and the rest is history.Of course, as Peter Reith adverted to today, it may well have been better if I had not threatened to garrotte Bronwyn Bishop or, indeed, to offer an explanation of why people seemed to take an instant dislike to her. It might have been a lot better if I had just said something gentle and whimsical like, `I don't know what Bronwyn uses to sustain her coiffure, but I sure as hell wouldn't be wasting it on my hair.'Again, it may have been better if I had not actually got the `f' word into Hansard for the first time, apparently, in an English speaking parliament since the Earl of Sandwich quoted John Wilkes in 1783. I then of course made matters worse by explaining to the President that it had been an involuntary ejaculation. It would have been much better to have done what the Tory whip did in the House of Commons in 1988 when he was similarly caught out, overheard having a sharp exchange with one of his backbenchers. He got up to explain that he had simply been having a conversation about sex and travel. Again, it might even have been better if I had followed Pierre Trudeau's example in the Canadian parliament in the early seventies and got up and insisted that what I really said was, `Fuddle-duddle'.Again, it may have been better—of course it would have been better; I am sure it would have been better—if I had not described myself, when back in opposition after 1996, as suffering from `relevance deprivation syndrome'. I should obviously have said I was having a whale of a time. How the hell I could have done that, when as shadow Treasurer I was facing the Reserve Bank delivering five successive interest rate reductions in a row, nobody has ever quite told me. Shadow Treasurers—as Alexander Downer, if he were here, would well recall—only really enjoy life when they can wallow in schadenfreude, that malicious enjoyment of others' misfortunes. On the subject of Alexander Downer, I suppose I should say finally just for the record that I acknowledge it may have been a lot better if I had not described him, on his elevation to the role of foreign minister, as a `dim, flatulent, Bertie Wooster kind of a character'. Because really I have to say—and I do say it in all honesty for the record—Alexander Downer has been remarkably generous and gracious to me in recent times in the context of the UNESCO candidacy, as indeed has been the Prime Minister, to whom I have also said some rather ungracious things in recent days.Quite apart from all the things which, in the interests of my own reputation, I should not have said, there are also quite a few things I should not have done: for example, to have ever let a camera anywhere near me on a golf course and, again, to have ever let a camera anywhere near me on a dance floor, particularly when there was an election in the offing. And I guess on that one occasion back in 1983—in my early days as Attorney-General—when I got a bit tetchy with someone, I should not have allowed myself on that one occasion to bang down a stapler on my desk, only to see it skidding across the desk onto a couch about three or four feet away. I should not have done it because it has been the source of endless legends about hardware shops and fruit shops full of missiles being hurled at hapless interlocutors. From such small acorns have very large oak tree legends grown.But I generally have taken the view that it has been better all these years to allow my natural exuberance a certain free rein, because I have taken the view that if you do not do that sort of thing you come out in boils. I am obliged to concede that, on a scale ranging from Buddhist tranquillity at one end to advanced mania at the other, I am slightly tilted towards the driven end of the spectrum. Perhaps, as I said in the Press Club the other day, that is written in the stars because, as I quoted the astrologer, Mystic Medusa, `No-one on earth has self-expectations so ghastly and grandiose as a Virgo, not even Aries on a bender.'The truth of the matter is that I am the kind of politician who does not really—although I have contributed to it on occasions, I suppose—get a huge buzz out of the theatre of politics: being there, being close to the action, hurling the verbal missiles across the chamber. My real pleasure in politics has always been in trying to actually achieve something, to make a real difference to the quality of people's lives, to make a real difference to countries' capacity to live with themselves and with each other without deadly conflict.It is fair to say, when I really think back over my public life, that my parliamentary life had two great obsessions. Some lesser obsessions, I have to acknowledge, were constitutional reform including the republic and, dare I say it, the flag as well, but we are not allowed to talk about that; bills of rights; civil liberties generally; abortion law reform; public administration and governance; and a whole lot of other crusades associated with various portfolios that I have held in government. But I have had two really big obsessions. One has been an intense emotional hostility to racism in all its forms and the second has been a really quite passionate commitment to internationalism as an approach, as a habit of mind and as a driving strategy for government.As far as racism is concerned, the very first published article I ever wrote—back around 1970, I think, while the White Australia Policy was still in force—was called `The Browning of Australia' and I was arguing for a totally multicultural society to evolve. It was a theme that I echoed in that appallingly accented Oxford interview which keeps being played over and over again. I talked about Australia becoming a khaki coloured country. I got a bit colour blind on that occasion: it probably was the closest I have ever come to being a green. I was really talking about a yellowy-brown kind of a country, not a greeny-brown one, but the theme was there and it goes right back to the beginning.It was very evident, as Daryl Melham acknowledged, in the work that I did for the Whitlam government as a consultant to Lionel Murphy in the drafting of the Racial Discrimination Act, in the work that I did for Gordon Bryant as Aboriginal Affairs minister in the Kulaluk/Larrakia land rights issue in Darwin—which was really the first one to take wing in the Australian context—and in my involvement in the establishment of Aboriginal legal services right around the country.It was evident, I guess, in a lot of the personal friendships I have had over the years with Aboriginal people, never more so than with a young man called Brian Kamara Willis, a young mixed blood Aboriginal, whom I and my family helped sponsor through school and in starting law school in Melbourne, who really did struggle to find a place between the two worlds, who did not make it, and who in fact blew his brains out in front of his wife and two young children. That was the only time in my parliamentary career I completely broke down.It was evident, I guess, also in my campaign for Malcolm Fraser for Secretary-General of the Commonwealth. Despite all the horror and hostility that was there arising out of 1975, Malcolm Fraser was someone who was absolutely genuine—rock solid—on the question of race, not in a large majority in that respect in his own party, but someone for whom I had the utmost personal respect as a result of that. Although in other respects it was a bit of an assignment from hell trying to get Malcolm elected, it was a task that I accepted with great enthusiasm because of my respect for him on that issue.Finally of course there was ultimately and most recently my role in the passage of the Mabo Native Title Act, which was in many ways a culmination of all that had gone before. I think the moment when it was passed, close to midnight in December 1993, remains—out of all the 21 years I have been in parliament—the single most exhilarating moment in my parliamentary career, just having that go through.My commitment to internationalism as a theme in public life—not at the expense of national pride of course, but as a larger theme—has been on public display for quite a long time, including again in that awful Oxford Four Corners interview when I was heard to say in a terrible accent that I was committed to bringing Australia kicking and screaming into the seventies, as it then was, and in particular urging that there be a much greater engagement with Asia. It is a theme about which I have been genuinely passionate for a very long time. Eventually I had the opportunity to give that passion relatively free rein in the nearly eight years I spent as foreign minister. If I had exhilarating moments in other portfolios on other occasions, that whole eight years was really pretty exhilarating as foreign minister. It was a magic time to be alive when you think about it.It was at the end of the Cold War, an awful lot of rethinking and repositioning was going on, not only between the major powers and their acolytes and allies but in everybody's relationship with everybody else. It was the occasion and it was the environment in which it was appropriate and helpful to be able to think anew about middle-power diplomacy and all the things that we talked about.In embracing the kinds of principles that I spelt out in an MPI debate earlier this week—and I will not repeat them now—we did make some quite significant gains for Australia, for the region, and perhaps even in a limited way for the world. In Cambodia—it cannot be said too often—the peace plan could not have been put together without very close cooperation with Indonesia. The same can be said about the development of APEC, and there was the development of the ASEAN regional security dialogue forum. On a more global level, during that period we played a rather important role in the final demise of apartheid through our campaign on the financial sanctions issue. We succeeded—and this is far more to Bob Hawke's credit than mine—in getting Antarctica established as a wilderness heritage area. We played a hugely important role in advancing the world trade negotiations through the Cairns Group in the Uruguay Round. We brought to a successful conclusion the Chemical Weapons Convention. We initiated a whole new international debate on the elimination of nuclear weapons which, unhappily, has not been followed through subsequently. We were a useful force around the place.There were, I have to say, some terrible disappointments during that period. It was not all unmitigated achievement, buzz, excitement and satisfaction. Nowhere was there a greater disappointment than in our inability to move forward the situation in East Timor. This is not the occasion today to track back over all of that. I want to say for the record that we really did do the best we possibly could with the cards that we had at the time. We never as a government acknowledged—and we do not to this day—the legitimacy of the original military invasion of East Timor. We always accepted the continuation of the right to self-determination of the East Timorese people as a non-self-governing colony, whether the sovereign power was Portugal or, as we later acknowledged, Indonesia.We did nothing to prejudice the rights of the East Timorese in relation to royalty flows and so on from the Timor Gap area. Those rights were alive as a matter of international law and will be fully enjoyed by a new, independent East Timor. We did work incessantly for political autonomy, for a massive draw-down of the oppressive military presence and for a general improvement in the human rights environment. That was acknowledged from time to time by East Timorese spokesmen, but sometimes it gets forgotten. It was not until 1997—with the economic meltdown and all the political turmoil that followed from that, culminating in the demise of President Suharto—that circumstances changed and it was possible to move the game forward in East Timor, for better or worse. But that is all history.Apart from policy matters, achievements which we were not able to realise and a few score other things that went wrong—a lot of stuff-ups over 21 years; a lot of stuff-ups over 13 years in cabinet which have been lovingly talked about by a lot of people during the last few days—I do not leave parliament with any overall sense of regret at all. There are a few specific regrets that I can and should mention. I do not think I made the shift to the House of Representatives early enough—not for any reasons of personal ambition but for my own sensitisation as a politician. Despite what senators always say to the contrary, it is a very humanising experience to have a constituency for which you are responsible and where policy issues are addressed not just at the level of high abstraction, which does tend to be the case in the Senate.But when you are down at the grassroots level, as I have been—with a huge amount of enjoyment—in Holt over the last three and a half years, you get a whole new sense of what the political process is about. I rather wish that I had had that sense, that experience, quite a lot earlier. It might also have made me a more comfortable performer in this place to have been here longer. This never became `home' in the way the Senate had been. Maybe you need a period at the dispatch box on the other side to acquire that degree of comfort. But there it is; that is one regret.Another regret is that I am not now in a position, even in the next few weeks, to make the contribution I would have liked on the republic referendum. I do regard the passage of this proposal as being of quite fundamental importance for our sense of independent national identity. I do have a sense of regret that I will not be around to help, in my own quiet way, Australian foreign policy get back on to the kind of internationalist track from which it seems to have been rather recently derailed. I spelt out a little earlier this week in this parliament the kinds of things that need to be done. I do not need to repeat that now, but I am concerned about where we are at, and I do think some hard thinking needs to be done by the government about precisely where it is going.Let me say that I do not regret at all the decision now to move on. There is absolutely no sense of disappointment at all in me that I did not make it that one rung higher. Many are called but few are chosen in politics, and I think the ALP is in fabulously competent hands now with Kim Beazley, as will be the country under his leadership of it next time round.I have had a terrific innings in terms of longevity, now being the longest serving ALP member. I have had a terrific innings in terms of leadership—all that period as Leader of the Government in the Senate and the period here as Deputy Leader of the Opposition. And I have had a terrific innings of course in terms of cabinet service—at 13 years, one of the two longest serving cabinet ministers in Labor Party history. But there comes a time—and for me, I guess it is a matter of notorious public fact, it was at the last election—when you know that your contribution is really more behind you than ahead of you in a particular forum. You can choose to stick around this place either as a bellowing old bull or as a kind of grey ghost—and we all know examples of both—but neither option, frankly, appealed terribly much to me.So I am moving on, and in moving on I have many thankyous to give to people who have been very important to me. First of all, of course, I offer my thanks to my family and to my mother Phyl Evans—who I hope is listening to all this on the radio—who made it all possible and who, as readers of Keith Scott's book will know, is a rather formidable figure in her own right. And I offer thanks to Merran, Caitlin and Eamon, who have been—as so many people have very nicely acknowledged in their contributions—the front-line troops in dealing with all the stresses and strains and wear and tear and damage that is associated, unhappily, with public life in this country.To my staff I owe a huge debt of gratitude. I have been blessed over the years with fabulous electorate and ministerial staff over the whole time I have been in parliament. As Casey Stengle, the manager of the New York Yankees used to say quite graphically, `I couldn't have managed it without my players.' There are far too many people to thank individually. There have been scores of them over the years, although the turnover has not been nearly as fast as is often alleged. It would be invidious to single out too many people by name, but let me just mention four out of the scores and scores of people, with no disrespect at all to anyone else. The first I want to mention is Kelvin Thomson, the member for Wills, who was my very first parliamentary secretary and who, may I very simply say, set the standard for all else that was to follow—a terrific supporter.I would like to mention the two guys who were my drivers during the whole 13 years that I was a cabinet minister: Barry Stewart here in Canberra and Dominic Sciberras in Melbourne—fabulous blokes, friends and loyal supporters through some often very difficult times. Of all my other staff there is one in particular I would like to mention and that is Christine Neville, who is just one of those absolutely indispensable people that most of us treasure when we find them and hate to see go. Not least was her indispensability in playing that role of the Roman functionary who used to walk along one step behind saying, `Remember, Caesar, that thou art mortal.'I want to say to all my friends and colleagues in the parliamentary Labor Party and the Labor movement—there are various degrees of intimacy in those friendships, I suppose, political life being what it is—that, generally speaking, it has been a fabulous working environment to be in all these years and you have all been a terrific bunch of people to be associated with.I want to say thank you to all the departmental heads and officials whom I have I worked with—legendary people like Alan Woods in Resources and Energy, the late great Peter Wilenski, and Mike Costello, now delightfully with us back here in parliament. But not just the heads of the departments; there are absolutely legions of others for whom I had the greatest respect and, at a personal level, the greatest affection. The Australian Public Service is a very fine and very undervalued group of professionals. To all the parliamentary staff—and again it is just impossible to even begin to mention anyone—who have put up with all sorts of idiosyncrasies of mine over the years, and worse, I do want to say how grateful I have been for the fabulous support that they have all rendered in their various roles.I want to finish by thanking the people in my own Holt electorate with whom, in a relatively short time, I think I have formed a very strong bond of affection and respect. It has been a delightful and exhilarating experience to get to know them and to experience, in particular, the business of working in a community that is genuinely multicultural and genuinely represents the kind of Australia I was writing about all those years ago: I first started writing about it 28 years ago. In fact, it is a story that I have been telling in 50 countries around the world in the last three months as I have been campaigning for UNESCO because I wanted to make the point as graphically as I possibly could that Australia is not the monolithic white Anglo-Saxon Western outpost that the international stereotype still has us as being, but that we are a genuinely multicultural environment.The way I have been most easily able to make that point is to say, `Look at my own electorate. It is a working class suburb in Melbourne, not at the extreme end of the spectrum—80,000 voters, 130,000 people in total. At the last census, more than half of them came up as having been born overseas—52 per cent were born overseas. Another 20 per cent were born of parents born overseas. Nearly three-quarters actually born of first generation people—and they were not born in just a handful of European countries and one or two others but in a total of 140 different countries around the world.'When I talk about that and when I talk about some of the anecdotal experiences of being in the Dandenong market and particularly the kids in the schools, it is a tremendously graphic way of explaining what it is that this country is all about and indeed what my candidacy is all about. So at that level as well as all the other levels of emotion that I feel about the electorate, it has been a marvellous experience working and operating there. I do not know how much they are going to miss me, but I am certainly going to miss them.Let that be my last word in this place more generally. I do not know whether you will all miss me as much as Cheryl very kindly said that you would, but I am sure as hell going to miss all of you.Question resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous1113011130Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Following consultation with the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Prime Minister and the member for Calare, I wish to inform the House that, subject to the receipt of a letter from the Hon. Gareth John Evans QC resigning his seat as the member for the electoral division of Holt, I intend to issue a writ on Friday 1 October 1999 for the election of a member to serve for the electoral division of Holt in the state of Victoria to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Mr Evans. The dates in connection with the by-election will be as follows: the close of the roll, Friday 8 October 1999; nominations, Wednesday 13 October 1999; polling, Saturday 6 November 1999; return of writ, on or before Sunday 9 January 2000.House adjourned at 6.00 p.m. until Monday, 11 October 1999 at 12.30 p.m., in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day.Notices11130The following notices were given:Mr Slipper to move—That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: HMAS Albatross Stage 2 Redevelopment, Nowra, NSW.Mr Slipper to move—That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Navy Ammunitioning Facility, Twofold Bay, NSW.Mr Beazley to present a bill for an act to amend the Defence (Re-establishment) Act 1965 in relation to protection of the civil employment of members of the Reserve Forces.Mr Wilton to move—That the House:(1) recognises the economic importance of Moorabbin Airport to the economic development of south-eastern Melbourne;(2) expresses its concern that the Minister for Transport recently approved a master plan for its future development, which proposes an unacceptable ceiling of over 452 000 movements annually over the current level of 340 000 annually despite the close proximity of residential areas;(3) calls on the Government to legislate for the introduction of a curfew between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m.; and(4) calls on the Government to extend control tower operating hours to coincide with the proposed curfew.Mrs Elson to move—That the House:(1) notes the recent report of he Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, "Pregnant and Productive: It's a Right not a Privilege to Work while Pregnant";(2) recognises that a significant level of discrimination against pregnant women still exists in many workplaces;(3) acknowledges the vital importance of families in Australian society; and(4) calls on all employers in Australia to be aware of, and sensitive to, their responsibility to their female employees to ensure they do not suffer discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy. 1999-09-30Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members111311113111131Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—The Australian National University here in Canberra was designed to be, as its mission statement sets out, one of the world's greatest research institutes, guiding students to the frontier of knowledge. Yet the slash and burn mentality of this government is once again putting the quality of the ANU at risk.Two weeks ago, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Professor John Richards, released the draft report into the review of the faculties. The report proposed the abolition of the six faculties, to be replaced with three institutes—the Institute of Art and Humanities, the Institute of Science and Engineering and the Institute of Business and Law.The deans of the new institutes would be appointed by the deputy vice-chancellor instead of by election by the academic staff of the faculty, as is currently the case. This raises significant concerns. Under the current model, we have a virtual guarantee that the dean will be focused on the academic needs of the faculty, staff and students. The report contains no details or guidelines of how the deans would be appointed. Professor Richards has given no guarantee that deans will continue to be academic staff. He could appoint managers from business—those concerned only with the bottom line, not with education.There have also been significant concerns about the merger of law and economics and commerce. It gives a totally erroneous impression that the law is only about business when, by the legal profession's very nature, it is about standing up to the government and fighting on behalf of the small person.There has also been concern about the downgrading of the Faculty of Asian Studies. Asian studies has always been one of the strongest areas of the ANU. It is one of only a few universities in Australia where a Bachelor of Asian Studies can be obtained. This is at a time in the country's history when we should be encouraging closer links with Asia, not reducing them. This point is particularly pertinent in light of my grievance debate in the House last Monday when I said that it was better for young people from our region to study with each other than to fight with each other. The downgrading of the Faculty of Asian Studies will do little to foster a climate of understanding between students of Australia and those of our regional neighbours.The report was released on Saturday, 11 September, and allowed for only a 12-day consultation period. This is short by any measure. It does not allow for careful examination and consideration in response to these quite radical proposals. Professor Richards also released the report in the final week of the university term, preventing student organisations from being involved.In conclusion, the vicious budget cuts this government has imposed on the higher education sector, totally disregarding the importance of education to this country's future, have meant that many universities are having trouble simply staying afloat. I call on the government to restore funding to the higher education sector in order that Australia's future will not be put in jeopardy.1113211132Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—Often in this place we get to speak about great members of our community. Sadly, we also get to speak of them when they have passed on to another life. Today I rise in respect of a Redcliffe seafood industry stalwart, Rod Seibenhausen, who was farewelled recently at his funeral in Caboolture. The eulogy at the funeral was delivered by a past mayor of Redcliffe, Barry Bolton, and football icon Des Schultz.Rodney Charles Seibenhausen was born in Pittsworth. He was the first son of Bernie and Pearl. His family was involved in the poultry business, and he grew up in the country. However, the sun was much more alluring to Rodney and his brothers, and they moved to Scarborough on the Redcliffe Peninsula where Bernie, Rod and brother Greg started prawn trawling. In 1958 Rod married his wife Narelle, and shortly afterwards they purchased their first prawn trawler. This was the start of a lot of hard work and dedication on the peninsula, and they developed the business into the great business that it is today.Rod also had a great passion for Rugby League. He was a member of the 1946 undefeated Pittsworth State School football team. His career in football led him to represent the state in several clubs, and he was also chosen for representative teams. But, because of the need to work away from home in the prawn industry—quite often prawn trawlers are away from their home base for very long periods—Rod had to make a choice between continuing with his football career or forgoing that career and concentrating on the prawn industry, which he did.In 1976, his dreams to build a seafood distribution company came to fruition with the establishment of Moreton Bay Seafoods Pty Ltd in Clontarf in my electorate. The company has expanded and grown into one of Australia's largest exporters and local suppliers of quality seafood. Rod was chairman and managing director of this company, and he forged a very strong company culture, which is still there today and was very evident when I visited on many occasions. He was also very actively involved in his industry in the Queensland Commercial Fisherman Association. He was respected by many as a mentor for the seafood industry and, through local recognition, received the Redcliffe Peninsula Chamber of Commerce Business Person of the Year Award in 1995. He leaves behind his wife Narelle, his children Sharon, Leanne and Rodney, and five grandchildren. Rod will always be remembered for his contribution to the prosperity of the peninsula and his great personal attributes, one of which was his kindness. He will live for many, many years in the memories of the people who knew him.1113211132Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—I want to bring to the attention of the House the formation of the National Multicultural Support Group. This is a new community based organisation that is concerned primarily with the promotion of multicultural and immigration issues. There are now branches in Melbourne and Sydney, and, in a period of only six or eight weeks, the group has more than 300 signed up members.The organisation has been formed because of the concern of a very large number of people about the directions that immigration policy and multicultural policy have taken in the last few years, especially with the massive reductions in immigration and the change in the character of the immigration program away from family reunion. Great suffering is occurring because people are unable to now sponsor their relatives, even their parents, to come to Australia and have success. There is also great concern about what has been happening in the area of multicultural affairs, the reduction of resources to the ethnic communities and the general attacks against multiculturalism that have taken place in the media and elsewhere.The national patron of the group is the Hon. Al Grassby, the former Minister for Immigration, and indeed the father of multicultural policy in Australia. A number of very prominent people in multicultural affairs and immigration issues have taken leadership positions in the organisation. For example, the convenors of the Melbourne branch include: Mr Bill Cope, former Director of the Office of Multicultural Affairs in Canberra; Councillor John So of the City of Melbourne, who is well known in the Chinese community; and Professor Tassos Tamis, who is very prominent in the Greek-Australian community in Melbourne.In Sydney, the convenors include Mr David Bitel, Chairman of the Refugee Council of Australia; Mr Michael Christodoulos from the Cyprus community; the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho MLC of the NSW state parliament; and many other prominent people. Their aim is to try to develop a lobby group that will take up what is happening to the immigration program and multicultural issues. (Time expired)1113311133Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—I would like to talk about the Queensland state government's recipe for what it calls an RFA. Unfortunately, the state government's recipe for an RFA is not an RFA at all but a plan for pain in timber towns from Gladstone to the New South Wales border. I see that the Queensland Premier Peter Beattie is coming to Canberra to sell his little scheme, and I predict that he is going to get short shrift from the PM. He should turn around straightaway, get back there and go back to the drawing board to look at what really is needed in Queensland.Let us look at one aspect of the scheme under which timber mills in Queensland will be bought up, one by one, by the Queensland government and closed. Clause 2.15 of that forest agreement proclaims for the state government a first right of refusal in terms of any mill seeking to sell their wood supply allocation or their business. This policy is a repeat of the measures used by the former Labor government to shut down timber milling on Fraser Island. There is no way that, having purchased a string of businesses and allocations under this clause, the state government will operate them. Jobs and the viability of small communities from Gladstone to the New South Wales border are, as I said, at risk. Any mill or allocation bought by the Beattie government is destined for closure and the end of its productive life.The state government's proposal is an insult to the principles of sustainability which underpin the federal government's quest to establish regional forest agreements. Regional forest agreements are to ensure that native hardwood forests on crown land are harvested in a sustainable manner to maximise environmental, economic and social benefits. The Beattie government has failed the test on all three counts. Its agreement guarantees that Queenslanders will be more dependent on timber and woodchips ripped out of forests overseas. It guarantees that the economic benefits of a viable Australian hardwood timber industry will be lost and that the social consequences, particularly in small timber towns, will be catastrophic. Regional forest agreements are meant to provide for sustainable harvesting of timber. The proposal is to maximise the long-term economic, environmental and social benefits to our community and reduce our reliance on imported timber products.In the time I have available to me, I would like to look at some of the countries that will benefit if we shut down logging in Queensland. I talk about countries like Korea, Indonesia and Finland from which imports, in particular of paper and newsprint, are increasing at present. Recently, imports from Korea were 21,700 tonnes, in the latest figures, which is 43 per cent higher than in the corresponding period in 1997-98. Asian countries have supplied 21 per cent of the volume of paper and paper board imported to Australia so far in 1998-99, compared with 14 per cent in 1997-98. Those are the countries that Mr Beattie is planning to benefit by this crazy scheme.1113411134Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I want to pass a few remarks about the recent local government elections and, in particular, about the loss of a place in East Ward by Councillor Kevin Dwyer. Kevin has served for 22 years on Penrith City Council, variously as a councillor, mayor and deputy mayor. His father and grandfather also served on the council and the family has racked up 46 years of service to Penrith City Council. Kevin, as the member for Mitchell would know, is an independent who is highly regarded by both parties. It is a particularly sad loss, one that I must say I did not predict and one that shocked me.I was also sorry that a longstanding member of the Liberal Party, Robin Wiles, lost her preselection and did not contest the election in East Ward. Part of the reason why Kevin Dwyer lost his seat in the election was the fact that dummy parties were run by the Liberal Party, such as the Marijuana Smokers Rights Party, the Wilderness Party and the No Badgerys Creek Airport Party, which funnelled votes back to the Liberal candidate, Steve Simat, who is an employee of the Minister for Sport and Tourism, Jackie Kelly. I am often criticised about whether or not Badgerys is an issue. The No Badgerys Creek Airport Party was exposed as a bogus party in the local papers and in pamphlets. Kay Vella condemned the party but, notwithstanding that, it scored 2,368 votes.I would also like to record my pleasure at Charlie Lowles successfully leading the team in Blacktown City Council to another victory, but I am sorry to see that Charlie was not endorsed as mayor again. He was responsible for a number of things—a debt free council and the Olympic sites—but, most particularly I am grateful for the work he did in changing the council's attitude to Badgerys Creek and establishing the alliance of mayors in Western Sydney. In particular, Blacktown City Council has been the largest financial contributor to that alliance. I sincerely hope that Charlie's commitment to not seeing an airport in Badgerys Creek will continue with the new mayor, Alan Pendleton.1113411134Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I rise to associate myself with the National Working Party on Captioning in their desire to see 100 per cent captioning of Australian television by the year 2005—although I must admit I would like to see the particular measure reached well before then. I am also concerned that the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts is, in fact, attempting to water down this particular aspiration and has, perhaps, listened too closely to the hard lobbying from the commercial television channels particularly, but also from the ABC.I cannot understand for a moment the legitimacy of any argument, as reported yesterday by the Daily Telegraph, that Channel 10 themselves said that they saw little chance of including enhanced services in the form of captioning when digital services begin in 2001. This is the latest effort of various commercial television channels to try to walk away from what I think is a fair and reasonable measure to provide, through existing technology, access to television programs for the hearing impaired in our society.A constituent of mine, Mr Laurence De Mouton-Hough, a very good advocate for the hearing impaired in my electorate and throughout Australia, is concerned that with regard to the Prime Minister's recent important speech on the East Timor crisis only Channel 9, in fact, provided captioning on that occasion. To think that something like one in five people in our country has some sort of hearing impairment and was not adequately able to keep fully abreast of urgent news on commercial television as a result of the failure of those organisations to bring in proper captioning, is a matter of great concern to all of us in this place.Channel 7 have been doing it for some time and have just about got 100 per cent. Channel 7 should be congratulated and supported—and I have said that before. But I repeat my call that we need to get this captioning matter settled once and for all. Those who manufacture television sets have got to come clean. They are using the teletext decoder option as some sort of value adding and marketing device. They charge people $100 or more to have that particular facility in the set, whereas the technical cost is about 50c to $1. It is disgraceful that television set manufacturers are failing to comply with the aspirations of the hearing impaired.But it is not only the hearing impaired who will gain great value from captioning. It is also older Australians who find it difficult to keep up with fast spoken speech who would appreciate seeing text being made available to them on the screen. I submit that a lot of families who turn the volume of television sets down at mealtime might be able to keep up with news events. We need closed captioning and we need it now.UNKNOWNMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Bills11135r87211135Debate resumed from 29 September, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.10:00:0011135Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—The Electronic Transactions Bill 1999 is a landmark bill and a very important one for the advance of trade, commerce and information flow in Australia. I think that everybody in the community would be aware of the use of the Internet and the prospect of communicating text one to another through computers using telephone lines.Email has become a common factor and means of communication in government and business circles, and more and more it is being taken up by the community on a casual and social basis. Members of families keep contact with each other around the world by using the facility of email. Grandparents keep track of their grandchildren by email. The fastest growing organisation in my electorate is the group of seniors now finding that using electronic commerce and email is not complex, and with a bit of time it becomes a great joy. They get a sense of fulfilment from being able to browse the Internet or communicate easily with friends and contacts they have made around the world, or just in retaining contacts with family, passing messages one to another. An organisation in the hills district, run by George Kenton, started just a year ago with a handful of members and it now has over 400 members. It is massively expanding.Today we are looking at the serious side and not the recreational side of the Internet and electronic communications. I am indebted to the Parliamentary Library for a paper it prepared some time ago on electronic commerce security issues. The definition of electronic commerce used by the Parliamentary Library is probably the best I have seen. It says:The newer concept of electronic commerce (e-commerce) is the use of on-line networks to promote or sell products or services. It is also the process of using electronic methods and procedures with information technology as a tool, to conduct all forms of business activity.That includes the payment of accounts, the establishment of companies and organisations and a whole range of other activities. People are now using e-commerce to operate their bank accounts.One of the factors that come into consideration in relation to the use of electronic commerce is: how do you decide that the person conducting the transaction is the person they claim to be? If we have a piece of paper with a signature, that signature in an original form can be easily identified as a forgery or not. When paper or contracts are being transferred, we have an easy way of identifying whether the person is authentic who signed it or entered into the arrangement.With electronic commerce, somebody can get onto a computer, claim to be somebody else and transact business falsely. Security of transactions worries a great number of people, whether they be individuals operating their private bank accounts or paying bills on a regular basis, or whether they are large corporations transferring information, using databases or seeking to plan programs and make business decisions. Security is a critical factor. The bill that we are looking at today is a bold first step by the federal government in securing the area, putting out some boundary posts, so that the Australian community can take advantage of federally applied rigour in the processes of e-commerce.Let me give the House some understanding of what may be involved in security against the cracking of a bank account, for instance. Again the Parliamentary Library supplies information about how complex this can be:Symmetric key lengths—that is, the PIN that people use to get into their accounts—determine the security level of the algorithm. If the key is 8 bits of information long, there are 2 to the power 8, or 256 possible combinations—just for a normal PIN. The paper continues:So, at most, only 256 attempts are needed to find the key. With a 56 bit key and a computer trying one million keys a second, it may take 2 285 years to find the correct key. For a 64 bit key, the computer needs to be up to 585 000 years, assuming no easier way to break the cipher than this brute force attack. However, specialised computers can substantially reduce the breaking time and cost involved. It appears that 56 bit keys are no longer safe . . . That is, a PIN which is 56 bits long is no longer safe. In high security areas, such as military budgets, they will take a 64-bit key. People are even talking about the prospect of an 80-bit key, an 80-bit PIN, being needed for medium security. Such security is a worry that this bill tries to address.When the Attorney recently spoke to a group of lawyers in my electorate on this matter, he supplied some information on the extent to which electronic commerce is being used. The Attorney said that the number of households with Internet access jumped more than 50 per cent in the 12 months ending February 1999. So the number of people gaining access to the Net in just one year has gone up half as many again. Nearly five million adults, which is over one-third of the adult population of Australia, have accessed the Internet in the 12-month period. About half a million of those adults are buying products online, making an estimated 1.9 million purchases. So the extent to which people are finding this a convenience is a factor which drives us to make sure there is a secure process in place.The government recognises it has a national leadership role in this instance. In A strategic framework for the information economy—identifying priorities for action, which was released in January this year, it has outlined its approach to the whole process. Ten strategic priorities have been identified dealing with its use, such as the legal and regulatory framework; necessary technical infrastructure; online delivery of government services, on which I will say more shortly; the use of electronic commerce by business; and the development of international rules for electronic commerce—all of which are occupying the government's attention and time.The Electronic Transactions Bill 1999 has been designed to ensure that our legal system provides the certainty needed for electronic commerce to flourish. As recommended by the expert group put in place by the Attorney-General in March 1998, it is based on the model law on electronic commerce prepared by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. Our role in advancing to this point—to this legislation—has been recognised. Last year, when Ira Magaziner, President Clinton's former special adviser on electronic commerce, was here, he praised Australia for its leading role in this area and for punching above its weight internationally.The Electronic Transactions Bill is setting a framework in a timely fashion, which I believe will allow Australia to move ahead quite quickly. With the downturn of trade and economic activity in Asia, things have slowed and people are not advancing into electronic commerce there. I saw a report yesterday that said the Japanese government is concerned about the slow take-up of e-commerce in Japan and is saying now that it is starting to hold Japan back. If Australia can steam ahead during this period of downturn in Asia, we will in fact gain great advantage both in trade and economic capacity as we relate to those countries. We have lagged—through circumstances and through government policies in part—behind Asia in advancement. Their standard of living has risen more rapidly than ours, and their economies and their capacity has been greater than ours. But now we are starting to catch up, and this bill is a significant feature of moving ahead of our economic competitors.The basic principles behind this bill are technological neutrality which ensures the law does not discriminate between different forms of technology. This is important because the same principles ought to apply to both a paper transaction and an electronic transaction, and that is the way this law is laid out. It is a comprehensible process, one that sticks with the tried principles of security and safety in transactions. For example, the law should not specify technical requirements based upon the operation of a particular form of technology, so the bill does not go into whether it is this form or that form, and try to predict what may be the use. The law also contains median neutrality, which means that paper based commerce and electronic commerce should be treated equally by the law and not given an advantage or disadvantage over each other. It is very important that it be neutral in that sense so that commerce and individuals can choose for themselves the most appropriate method of transaction.During the consideration and preparation of this bill, the government received 73 submissions from business, government and professional organisations—very useful feedback—and was able to develop the legislation based on that input from a wide range of people.In surveys conducted in recent years, both in Australia and overseas, there is an indication of the protection of personal privacy as the key factor for people transacting online. The TRUSTe Internet Privacy Survey conducted last year by the Boston Consulting Group, for example, found that, for approximately 42 per cent of consumers, privacy concerns played a large part in their decisions not to give registration information on web sites. For 27 per cent of consumers surveyed, privacy concerns led them to provide false information.So there is a great deal of resistance as people look at the prospect of their transactions and their accounts being interfered with by people who have no authority. The options of the bill give business and community the prospect of using electronic communications when dealing with government agencies, and the fact that people use paper or e-commerce is something that they will sort out for themselves as they go.I draw the House's attention to the National Business Bulletin and an article published just recently which outlined e-business, `The voyage: Developing e-business strategies'. So the business community is well aware. There was a comment by a friend Bob Savage, former managing director and CEO of IBM, that Australian business leaders across the spectrum understood the significance of e-business and were moving quickly into it: end to end, e-commerce if done correctly could reduce business risk; done wrongly, it could significantly increase it. That is a summary of the document.The Australian Stock Exchange said that, when it came to capital, a bank might be only part of the puzzle. The enterprise market brought together business, investors and their professional advisers. All of this is done on the Internet without any face-to-face to meeting. EM, enterprise marketing, is the Australian Stock Exchange process. It is a fascinating process, providing funds for investors and allowing people who want to go into innovative developments to meet possible financiers. It is a great process.The Australian Business Chamber and my friend Phil Holt, a great leader of Australian business, talked about the e-commerce prospects that their organisation provides for members: access to Australian Business's own operating business-to-business e-commerce operational system, Tradehub, which has been developed over the past three years to cater for the need of small and medium sized businesses. This is a wonderful recommendation for the Australian Business organisation. The Minter Ellison lawyers say:Rather than introduce a set of new laws or new regulatory framework, the draft bill removes existing legal impediments to developing electronic commerce in Australia. The existing legal requirements imposed in relation to paper-based commerce can be satisfied now by electronic means.So that is a wonderful process that is in place.The Australian Bankers Association commends the government and welcomes the draft Electronic Transactions Bill, complimenting the Attorney-General, who has joined us in the chamber, on the far-sightedness and the style of presentation that the government has provided. Freehill, Hollingdale and Page widely reported the Electronic Transactions Bill in their newsletters noting the significant advance that has been made by this government for Australia.One has only to look around to see how important this process is. I picked up quite recently a copy of the main page of the electronic transactions bill from the government of Singapore. Singapore was dealing with these issues in 1997. It is no wonder they claim to have become the hub of Asia and are making such claims of significance in our area. It is a small island state, and it has moved in a way that will affect us, but we have learnt from this process. Their bill has a very prescriptive approach, which includes digital signatures and other factors that will be appendages to this legislation.Australia's e-commerce report card, published recently by the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, contained some interesting reading for people who are concerned about the development of these issues. It is interesting to see that, of all nations on earth, Australians are the third most likely to be linked to the Internet. We are led by the United States, and leading the world is Finland. I would suggest that perhaps the climate there means that there is not much else to do for a great part of the year and that it is no wonder that they are on the Internet.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—They could always go to bed.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—I have looked at some of the population figures, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I have come to the conclusion that they may be doing both. The population figures and the purchasing of the Internet in Finland suggest what offers substantial evening entertainment there, I would think. But it is a very serious matter in the United States, where business and individuals are using the Internet both for recreation and for electronic commerce. Australian consumers spend about $100 million a year on the Internet. That is less than point one of one per cent of total retail sales. But, if the use of the Internet in the United States is any indication, that figure will rise rapidly.This government has moved ahead in these areas. I would like to commend to the House the Business Entry Point, the BEP, where people can make contact with the Australian government, set up a business, find out how to prepare themselves and contact the tax office. The prospects for the future are terrific, and this legislation really epitomises the government's enthusiasm to make sure that we are the best in the world when it comes to the use of new technology. I commend the bill to the House and commend the Attorney for the style of the bill.10:18:0011139Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—in reply—I would like to thank the members who have made a contribution to the debate. Many, like the member for Mitchell, have a keen interest in the subject of electronic commerce. I am personally aware that not only does the member for Mitchell have a keen interest in the subject but many of his constituents do as well. In addition to thanking those members who contributed to the debate, I would like to thank the members of the Electronic Commerce Expert Group for their recommendations and to thank all of those who provided comments on the exposure draft of the bill.Some members of the opposition have raised a range of electronic commerce issues in the course of debating the bill and I propose to respond to the particular points they have raised. But, in doing so, I want to make it clear that the government is well aware of the wide range of important issues raised by the development of electronic commerce in Australia and is, in fact, addressing them.I refer members to the government's strategic framework for the information economy, which was issued in December 1998 after an extensive period of public consultation. The strategic framework identifies 10 strategic priorities that the government is addressing to ensure the smooth and rapid development of the information economy in Australia. More importantly, the strategic framework addresses these priorities in the context of the government's clearly stated vision for the development of the information economy in Australia. The government's mission is:to ensure that the lives, work and well being of Australians are enriched, jobs are created, and the national wealth is enhanced, through the participation of all Australians in the growing information economy.One of the strategic priorities is the development of a legal and regulatory framework to facilitate electronic commerce. The key action areas we have identified for this priority address the matters that the members of the opposition have raised—for example, they deal with privacy protection, security, authentication and consumer protection.Let me make quite clear that it is neither possible nor desirable to deal with all the legal issues raised by electronic commerce in this particular bill. Electronic commerce does not affect a discrete area of law; it touches everything we do. In that context, the aim of the bill is simple. It is to ensure that the community in general and business in particular will be free to use electronic communications to satisfy existing legal requirements in a way that is consistent with international developments.Some honourable members of the opposition have suggested that the government has been tardy in bringing this legislation before the House. This bill implements the policy statement that the Prime Minister made in his `Investing for Growth' statement in December 1997 that business should lead the development of the information economy in Australia. Extensive public consultation has been undertaken, and I make no apologies for having done that. There is no point developing a law to facilitate the use of electronic communications if it fails to achieve that purpose in the eyes of the community.We sought the views of the public on the report of the Electronic Commerce Expert Group before finalising the government's response to the expert group's recommendations. The responses we received indicated clear support for the work of the expert group. The government then developed draft legislation to put the recommendations of the expert group into effect. This was not simply a matter of copying the model law of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, UNCITRAL, into the statute book; it is recognised by UNCITRAL itself that the model law is simply a guide for legislatures and that there may be a range of issues that may need to be addressed in its implementation.We have adopted the approach, the structure and all the key concepts of the model law but adapted it to suit Australian legal traditions and the policy aims of the government. For example, this government has applied the provisions of the bill to Commonwealth government departments and agencies to ensure that they will be required to accept electronic communications from the public, subject to those communications satisfying certain requirements set out in the bill. Australia is one of the few countries applying the same principles for the use of electronic communications to both government entities and the community.The exposure draft of the bill was released for public comment in January 1999. Seventy-three submissions were received on the bill, 35 of which were from the private sector. All submissions supported the intention, structure and content of the bill. A range of policy and drafting issues were also raised, which have been considered in finalising the bill. In addition, the states and territories have been consulted throughout the development of the bill. Australia was one of the first countries to publicly state its intention to implement the UNCITRAL model law. I might add that there is very little legislation internationally that is as comprehensive as this bill.While the model law is widely recognised internationally as an important document, it is only now being considered for adoption in many countries. Even in the United States, the various states have enacted a range of laws in this area of varying degrees of effectiveness and usefulness. Indeed, a proposed uniform law on electronic commerce in the United States prepared by the National Conference of Commissioners for Uniform State Law, called the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, was only finalised at the end of July this year. It is still likely to be some considerable time before the uniform law is enacted by all of the American states. This government was early in recognising the need for legislation like this bill and has moved swiftly to implement it.Let me turn now to some of the particular issues raised by members of the opposition. Some misguided comments have been made about the Commonwealth's constitutional power to apply the Electronic Transactions Bill to the states and territories. There is doubt that the Commonwealth has power to apply a law like the Electronic Transactions Bill to the laws of the states and territories. There would be real concerns about the validity of a Commonwealth law that sought to directly govern the interpretation and effect of state legislation. It is the government's view that a constitutional challenge to a comprehensive Commonwealth scheme for electronic commerce would create enormous uncertainty.The government prefers to take a cooperative approach with the states and territories to develop the appropriate legal framework for electronic commerce. Using brute constitutional force to achieve national policy goals is not the preference of this government. Indeed, this is one area of national law reform where I have seen a remarkable degree of cooperation from the states and territories. Everyone recognises the need for swift and uniform action. In such a situation it is not necessary for us to use the Constitution as a coercive instrument.Members of the opposition have referred to the constitutional powers recited in section 12 of the Year 2000 Information Disclosure Act 1999. That legislation is a special case. As you would appreciate, the inexorable approach of the year 2000 meant there was considerable urgency in the need for its enactment and for it to have national application. However, that act has a limited application. The Electronic Transactions Bill will continue to shape the interpretation of all Commonwealth legislation for the foreseeable future. In such a situation a cooperative approach with the states and territories is clearly more desirable.I took a proposal for a national uniform legislative scheme to the meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in October 1998. All attorneys-general agreed in principle to my proposal at that meeting and also agreed that the uniform legislation would be modelled on the Commonwealth's bill. That agreement was reaffirmed by the attorneys-general at our meeting in April this year. The Commonwealth has worked closely with the states and territories in the development of the Electronic Transactions Bill. This cooperative approach has meant that we have developed a bill that we believe will be acceptable to all jurisdictions.I understand that the uniform state and territory version of the Electronic Transactions Bill is nearly finished. There will be minor differences between the Electronic Transactions Bill and the uniform bill which are a necessary result of the different constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and the states and territories. The main difference will be the exemptions from the uniform bill which will be appropriate to the powers of the states and territories. It is likely that the uniform bill will exempt transactions involving wills and codicils, trusts and powers of attorney. I do not expect there to be any substantial delay by the states and territories in the enactment of the uniform bill. I understand that many jurisdictions are keen to finalise the development of the uniform bill so that it can be enacted in their jurisdictions soon. I thank the states and territories for their cooperative approach on this matter, which is due to the general recognition of the benefits of a national uniform legal framework for electronic commerce.As the government stated in our Strategic Framework for the Information Economy, we are committed to enhancing online consumer protection. My colleague the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation announced the establishment of an Expert Group on Electronic Commerce on 17 September 1999. The expert group will provide advice on a range of consumer issues related to electronic commerce and will promote innovative policy initiatives. The expert group is chaired by Mr Mark Bouris, Executive Chairman, Wizard Financial Services. The establishment of the expert group was one of the initiatives contained in the detailed exposure draft policy framework for consumer protection in electronic commerce which Minister Hockey released on 26 May 1999.The framework outlines the government's objective of creating a world-class consumer protection environment for electronic commerce in Australia. The initiatives proposed under the policy framework include a model code of conduct for traders on the Internet. Work on the development of the model code of conduct has now begun and a draft will be released for public comment later in the year. Public comments on the policy framework have been sought and a final version will be released during October 1999. This is in addition to the protection offered to consumers by the existing legal framework, including the Trade Practices Act 1974 and state and territory fair trading legislation.Australia is playing a significant role in international work to ensure adequate protection for consumers on line. Australia is working with other OECD countries in drafting consumer protection guidelines for electronic commerce. The guidelines will be finalised during 1999 and will provide a framework for future multilateral cooperation between governments.Australia's principal consumer protection enforcement agencies-the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC, and the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, ASIC- have been active in enforcement in online commerce. The government has recognised that the confidence of Australian businesses and other users in the security and authenticity of their online transactions and activity can be increased by governments facilitating the use of, and access to, authentication and encryption technology and systems.Members of the opposition seem to be trying to have their cake and eat it too. On the one hand, the government is criticised for not providing greater certainty on the use of encryption in electronic commerce. On the other hand, the members of the opposition recognise that the government's approach of allowing business to decide what technology is appropriate for its needs is the right way to go.The bill adopts a generic, principled approach to electronic signatures. Clause 10 sets minimum technology- neutral standards for an electronic signature to be legally equivalent to a handwritten signature. These standards are based on the UNCITRAL model law. The Electronic Commerce Expert Group recognised that it is not appropriate for legislation to `lock in' particular forms of electronic signature technology, particularly when there are no internationally agreed rules for laws on electronic signatures.While a number of jurisdictions internationally have developed legislation, it is still too early to tell whether it impedes or assists business. Legislation that was too prescriptive in this area will run the risk of stifling business innovation and investment in electronic commerce. Digital signatures are a highly secure but expensive form of technology that may not be appropriate in all business circumstances. This means that business must have the flexibility to choose the appropriate signature technology for its needs. Business can determine what technology is, to quote from clause 10(1)(b) of the bill, as reliable as was appropriate for the purposes for which the information is communicated. It may be necessary for a business to defend its technology choice in a court. However, business will be able to rely upon expert evidence in doing so.We have balanced the need for certainty against the need for flexibility in achieving this result, and this balance has been generally supported by public comments we have received. However, if the market indicates that there is a clear need for more prescriptive legislation in this area, then we will certainly consider it.Concerns about the need for a legal regime for digital signatures are often based on uncertainty about the trustworthiness and security of electronic transactions. It is these kinds of concerns that the National Electronic Authentication Council has been established to deal with. The council is a new peak body that will oversee the development of a national framework for electronic authentication of online activity and enhance business and consumer confidence in systems for authenticating electronic commerce transactions. The council will provide a national focal point on authentication matters.Honourable members of the opposition have suggested that the use of encryption in certain circumstances should attract criminal penalties. The Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914 currently contains computer offences. Honourable members would be aware that a national criminal code is currently being developed. I understand that officers are currently reviewing the existing computer offences and that a public issues paper has been released. The need for new criminal offences dealing with encryption offences will be considered in the review.The exemption for courts and tribunals in subclause 13(4) has been included because of the consequences that the rules and the bill may have for the jurisdiction of courts and for parties in court proceedings. The rules of courts deal with a range of technical matters and it is more appropriate for the courts and tribunals themselves to determine how electronic communications will be used. I expect the courts and tribunals to take advantage of the benefits of electronic communications and I am aware that some of them are already doing that.I believe that this is an important bill. It represents an important part of the government's strategic framework for the development of the information economy in Australia. The bill will also meet the Prime Minister's `Investing for Growth' commitment to develop a light-handed regulatory framework for the online environment to support and encourage business and consumer confidence. Further, the legislation will assist agencies to meet the Prime Minister's commitment to provide all appropriate government services online by 2001.As recommended by the Electronic Commerce Expert Group, the Electronic Transactions Bill is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on electronic commerce. Given the cross-border nature of electronic commerce, it is essential that we achieve international consistency in this area. The UNCITRAL Model Law is recognised as an international standard for electronic commerce legislation.In addition to international consistency, it is critical that we have a coordinated approach for electronic commerce legislation across all Australian jurisdictions. The states and territories, in consultation with the Commonwealth, are continuing the development of their uniform legislation. State and territory complementary legislation will allow electronic communications to satisfy legal requirements that exist under state and territory law for paper documents. However, while it is a part of a national uniform scheme, the Commonwealth's bill will operate independently of any legislation in other jurisdictions. The Commonwealth bill will take effect immediately from its commencement and will apply to those Commonwealth laws specified in the regulations until July 2001 when it will apply to all Commonwealth laws.The Electronic Transactions Bill creates a light-handed regulatory regime for the use of electronic communications in transactions. The bill facilitates the development of electronic commerce in Australia by broadly removing existing legal impediments that may prevent a person using electronic communications to satisfy obligations under Commonwealth law. The bill generally gives business and the community the option of using electronic communications when dealing with government agencies. The bill reflects the government's commitment to ensuring that Australians enjoy the social and economic benefits offered by the growth of the information economy. I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.11144Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.10:38:0011144Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—by leave—I move:(1) Clause 11, page 11 (line 29) to page 12 (line 2), omit subclause (5), substitute:Exemption—migration and citizenship documents(5) Schedule 1 has effect.(2) Page 20 (after line 8), at the end of the Bill, add:Schedule 1—Exemption of migration and citizenship documents from section 11Note: See subsection 11(5).1 Exempt migration documents(1) Section 11 does not apply to a document required or permitted to be produced in connection with: (a) the operation of a provision of a migration law that relates to: (i) an application for, or the grant of, a visa; or (ii) the cancellation of a visa; or (iii) the deportation of a person; or (b) the application of a migration law to a non-citizen who: (i) does not hold, or is reasonably suspected of not holding, a visa; or (ii) seeks to enter Australia unlawfully, or is reasonably suspected of seeking to enter Australia unlawfully; or (iii) seeks to enter the migration zone unlawfully, or is reasonably suspected of seeking to enter the migration zone unlawfully; or (c) the operation of Division 2, 5, 8 or 11 of Part 2 of the Migration Act 1958 ; or (d) the operation of Division 1.4, 1.4A or 1.4B of Part 1 of the Migration Regulations 1994.(2) An expression used in paragraph (1)(a) or (b) and in the Migration Act 1958 has the same meaning in that paragraph as it has in that Act.(3) In this clause: migration law means: (a) the Migration Act 1958 ; or (b) regulations under that Act.2 Exempt citizenship documents(1) Section 11 does not apply to a document required or permitted to be produced in connection with: (a) ascertaining whether a person is, or remains, an Australian citizen; or (b) the operation of a provision of a citizenship law that relates to: (i) registration; or (ii) an application for, or the grant of, a certificate of Australian citizenship; or (iii) the inclusion of the name of a child in a certificate of Australian citizenship; or (iv) the amendment, replacement, cancellation or surrender of a certificate of Australian citizenship; or (v) an application for, or the issue of, an evidentiary certificate; or (vi) the cancellation or surrender of an evidentiary certificate; or (vii) the renunciation of Australian citizenship; or (viii) the deprivation of Australian citizenship; or (c) the revocation of a certificate of Australian citizenship; or (d) the operation of a provision of a citizenship law that relates to: (i) an application for, or the issue of, a declaratory certificate of citizenship; or (ii) the return of a declaratory certificate of citizenship; or (iii) the keeping of a register; or (iv) the correction of an entry in a register; or (v) the cancellation of an entry in a register; or (vi) the giving of an extract of an entry in a register; or (vii) the return of an extract of an entry in a register; or (e) the operation of regulation 4 of the Australian Citizenship Regulations.(2) An expression used in paragraph (1)(b) or (c) and in the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 has the same meaning in that paragraph as it has in that Act.(3) An expression used in paragraph (1)(d) and in the Australian Citizenship Regulations has the same meaning in that paragraph as it has in those regulations.(4) In this clause: citizenship law means: (a) the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 ; or (b) regulations under that Act.3 Schedule does not limit section 13This Schedule does not, by implication, limit section 13 (which deals with exemptions from Division 2 of Part 2).The Electronic Transitions Bill forms part of the government's development of the necessary legal and regulatory framework for the information economy. The bill was introduced into the House on 30 June this year. Clause 11 of the bill permits people who have a duty or need to provide a document to the Commonwealth to provide it in either electronic or paper form.At the time of drafting the bill a need for exemptions had been identified with respect to migration and citizenship applications. Migration and citizenship applications rely heavily on documents issued in other countries where there are far fewer safeguards against forgeries and fraud. There is a demonstrated and continuing need for many documents to be examined by forensic document examiners. For that reason, an exemption was included at subclause 11(5) of the bill prior to its introduction. This exemption operated to ensure that a document must be produced in paper form where it is required in connection with an application for a permission or certificate that cannot be granted to an Australian citizen.After the bill was introduced, concern was expressed that the exemption may not extend to certain activities under the migration and citizenship acts that were intended to be exempted under subclause 11(5). The government's amendments to clause 11 of the bill have been drafted to address those concerns and put beyond doubt that all activities involving applications under the Migration Act and the Citizenship Act are exempted from the bill. The activities included in the amendments include the cancellation of visas, the deportation process, the identification of unlawful non-citizens, matters dealt with in immigration clearance at airports and ports, matters involving registration of Australian citizenship, and the use of citizenship certificates.The amendments will preserve the existing position and existing procedures with respect to most migration and citizenship decisions by ensuring that there is no doubt that the Commonwealth can continue to require the production of documents in paper format. The amendments do not prevent the Commonwealth from accepting electronic copies of documents where it is appropriate to do so. I thank the opposition for its support for the amendments, as well as for its support of the bill. I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House with amendments.Committees111461114611146Consideration resumed from 31 August, on motion by Mr Reith:That the House take note of the paper.10:42:0011146Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—It is a great pity that there has not been an earlier response to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and Microeconomic Reform. We have waited long for the government's response to the recommendations made by the committee. The response is a mixed bag and I think it is true to say that there has been some disappointment among the committee. The response seems to me to be a very bureaucratic one. I do not think the minister himself wrote it. Undoubtedly he signed off on it, but I think the bureaucrats have ferreted away and come up with this.Not only is the government's response very bureaucratically written, but it has been regarded as a bureaucratic rather than a personal response. That is particularly disappointing. The report was about a very personal matter: the welfare of seafarers and conditions on ships. It is very hard to put that into a bureaucratic context.While I am pleased that the government has picked up many of the recommendations, it has picked up only the easy ones. It has not gone for the tough recommendations but has said of them, `Oh, it is a little bit too difficult.'I turn particularly to the recommendation made by this committee over many years in regard to ILO convention 147. To be fair to the current government: when the first recommendation came down under the original Ships of shame report that Australia should ratify ILO 147, the then Labor government—on the advice, obviously, of bureaucrats—did not accede to that. But this government has not acceded to it yet. ILO 147 is a broad convention covering wages, working conditions, certification, training and health, which are vital to the welfare and rights of international seafarers.It is true to say that Australia has taken a leading role in conditions on ships. Wherever you go throughout the world and talk about Australia's role, if you mention Ship safe and Ships of shame, and also throw in the little sideline that you were part of the committee which brought down the latter report, you find that the reports are known about. There are very few reports in the world like that, and especially ones from this parliament. Most of the reports that come here have five minutes of glory in the chamber downstairs, where one person from the government and one person from the opposition, after two years of work, stand up and make a five-minute speech each. The reports then come up here about three months later and half-a-dozen members get up and make 15-minute speeches, then the reports are pigeonholed and never heard of again. That is different from Ships of shame and, I must say, the subsequent reports. Wherever you go in the world, people know about that report. More importantly, they know about it because many of the recommendations have been picked up and worked on.I am proud that Australians on both sides of the House have taken a leading role. We take a leading role in the IMO. We have done research, for instance, dealing with fatigue and the Great Barrier Reef, which people all over the world also know about. There are many reports that people know about. But if we are going to continue in this leading role, it is not good enough for us to pontificate on what should be on ships, we have to ratify ILO 147. I do appeal to the government to do that.I have heard all sorts of crazy arguments put up about 147. The one I like unfortunately came from my side of politics when we were in government. When we were asking about ILO 147 being ratified, the bureaucratic answer came back, `We would really like to ratify ILO 147, but the real difficulty is that it deals with conditions on ships and, until the ships are in port, we cannot say.' What we say in 147 is that, unless the ships comply with that regulation, they cannot enter Australian ports and waters. The bureaucrats say, as only a bureaucrat would, `We would love to do it, but until it comes in, we do not know whether it is seaworthy enough to come into our ports. Unfortunately, we cannot ratify ILO 147.'I do not know why we do not pick it up because we have gutted the Australian shipping lines. There is very little Australian cargo carried on those lines. It is not as if management or anyone else will say, `It is terrible that we are going to have all these regulations.' We are dealing with a matter of international seafarers and I believe very firmly that ILO 147 should be ratified.I find one other issue particularly disappointing. I felt at the time that the committee had gone out on a limb but, nevertheless, I was very pleased with recommendation 14 where the committee recommended that the government provide interim financial assistance on an annual basis for approved seafarer welfare organisations, investigate the establishment of an annual funding of a national seafarer welfare network and report the findings to the parliament by June 1999. This was a unanimous decision. It was discussed. One member of the committee who had a few reservations about it felt that it was not a government role to come into what he termed `welfare organised funding'. He was corrected in his line; but he had an argument there.Being on the board of the Missions to Seamen, I know just how difficult it is to raise funds. You can only have so many lamington drives and things like that. Our Missions to Seamen does raise funds, but it is a very difficult thing to do. Members of the committee on both sides of the political divide unanimously agreed with that recommendation. I do not think I would be letting the cat out of the bag, so to speak, if I said I felt that the strongest advocate of this was the chair of the committee, who put up a very good, persuasive and cogent argument.That only came about for all of us because we spoke to people not only from the Missions to Seamen but also from Stella Maris. In a one-day seminar in Sydney, many of us spoke to representatives from both of these organisations who were there.The conditions on ships are not getting any better. A month ago I was in London and I went to the headquarters of the Missions to Seamen. I spoke to the general secretary and to the person who represents the Missions to Seamen on the international body the IMO. I asked whether conditions on ships were getting better. He replied, `No, conditions on ships today in the main are worse than they were 10 years ago. The conditions of the crew are often worse.' As crew sizes have been downsized, as the whole shipping industry has become more and more competitive, more and more stress has been put on the seafarers.There are a number of ships throughout the world today that have been stranded and crews have often been left stranded for 12 or 18 months, getting no wages, relying on hand-outs just to feed themselves. This is a fact. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and other parts of the world, these ships have been stranded throughout the world. Seafarers then have to be repatriated to their homelands. For example, in Port Kembla recently, there was a seafarer from Pakistan who had been kept on the ship. The master would not let him off. Finally, the union found out about it and we demanded that he be taken off the ship. He had a bad leg injury. His foot eventually had to be amputated and he was in Wollongong Hospital. The ship's masters refused to pay anything. Eventually a group from the Illawarra raised some funds for him and had him repatriated to Pakistan.Things like that are happening all the time. We all know about the tight economic times, although I notice that the government is not adverse to crowing about the economy, how good it is and how much money there is. We are not talking about big amounts of money. We are just talking about a modest contribution. But that modest contribution would have such a dramatic impact on the work of those welfare organisations. It would enable those welfare organisations to deal with cases, to repatriate people where necessary. A whole range of things could be done.The need for this is going to become more and more apparent because, as this government has abolished cabotage, as we are opening up our coastlines to the rust buckets of the world, we are going to find more and more of these ships. Not only the ships but also the crews are in shocking condition.Members in this place sometimes feel that I exaggerate when I talk about matters to do with mariners. If members have a port in their electorates, or even if they do not, I ask them to go down and have a look at the port and talk to the people who work there. If need be, they should talk to the harbour master. More importantly, they should talk to the pilots or the people on the tugboats. If members have a Missions to Seamen or a Stella Maris in their area, they should go and talk to those people. Like the members on the committee that has brought down the report, they cannot remain unmoved by what they hear and they cannot be uncommitted to the welfare of seafarers.I have been on the committee for some time now during the course of different parliaments. I have seen members come on to the committee, often without any knowledge or interest. Sometimes they have been a bit cynical, especially if they represent a rural area—they feel the produce must get through, or something like that. But when they actually talk to these people or inspect a ship, whether it be a good or a bad ship, they have to ask, `Would I like to work in those conditions?'It is the same with respect to coalminers. Once you go down a coalmine and talk to the miners and see the conditions, you do not get up in the parliament and make horrendous speeches about the wages coalminers get, because you just say to yourself all the time, `Would I do that job, no matter how much they paid me?' It is the same if you are a seafarer on one of these ships. Often you come from a Third World country where there are no chances for you to get a job. You sometimes get a job on one of these ships through an agent. Of the miserly wage you are paid, half of it often goes to the agent. You leave your family for many months at a time. You are often given rotten food.I remember once in Port Kembla that there were people who had been given watermelon for three days. Wonderful as watermelon is—I love it very much myself—I would not like to live on it for three days. And there were no shower facilities and no decent toilet facilities. Sometimes if you are one of these people you are flogged, you are abused physically and sometimes sexually. If you complain, you often disappear, if you are not bashed with an iron bar, as one guy was in Dampier who then jumped overboard and drowned. I still hope the master of that vessel will be brought up on a murder charge. One of the other recommendations we made in this report that the government would not accept was that Australian jurisdiction should apply here.Another thing I have said many times is that if you are in Port Kembla and you raise a few issues, or you see the International Transport Federation and have them come on board, and if you are sailing to Brisbane in a couple of days time, often you never arrive in Brisbane. People disappear off these ships and no-one cares, often because they are from the Third World. So there is a form of racism there as well.Although I welcome the recommendations that the government have accepted, I am disappointed that they have not gone the full mile and accepted the many other recommendations, especially the ratification of ILO147 and that very important recommendation that they make a contribution to the welfare organisations.10:57:0011149Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I am happy to participate in this important debate on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and Microeconomic Reform report Ship safe , on the Australian Maritime Safety Authority annual report for 1996-97, and to follow my colleague the member for Throsby. `Ships of shame' is a title that is recognised internationally. The 1992 Ships of shame report and its successors have been seminal works in focusing on the need for ship safety around the world.The Ships of shame report showed the parliamentary committee process at its best. Much of the credit must go to the previous chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure, the Hon. Peter Morris. He took a leadership role and has much to be proud of in his contribution to Australia and, for that matter, to the world in achieving safer ships at sea. I salute his contribution to this very important endeavour. I had the pleasure of having him as my deputy chair in the last parliament when the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and Microeconomic Reform revisited the question of ship safety around Australia.At the beginning of the nineties we saw and were shocked by the presence of the so-called rust buckets which visited Australian ports. In some instances, we witnessed the dramatic break-up of vessels and the incredible damage that unsafe vessels could cause to people and the environment. What a vivid image was that ship busting in two off the Western Australian coast, spewing out fuel and in flames. That should have put a chill down our spines. When the Australian Maritime Safety Authority said in its 1996-97 annual report `there is objective and anecdotal evidence that the quality of ships operating in Australia improved in recent years' the committee decided to test this claim and investigate if there were still significant impediments to ship safety confronting Australia as a nation.The committee received 33 submissions and supplementary submissions. We also held a public forum in Sydney where there was a vigorous and very constructive exchange of views. Some 23 individuals and organisations were together there for a whole day. These ranged from AMSA, shipping companies, pilotage organisations and salvage organisations to the unions, the international unions and the maritime welfare agencies. In addition, members of the public were invited to contribute their views. I believe I speak for all members present that day when I say that we were deeply moved by the testimony of Sister Mary Leahey, who provides comfort and support for abused and neglected seafarers.I can report that during the 1990s ship safety improved in areas such as the quality of ships, operational issues, port state control, and crew training and competency. We reflected this improvement in last year's report Ship safe, which is, as I said earlier, the subject of our debate today. However, we were alarmed to find that crew welfare has declined. As my colleague who spoke previously said, there was no doubt about that. Ships visiting Australian shores are safer, but not all crews enjoy improved safety on board their ships. Unfortunately, the abuses are not new and were raised in earlier reports.In the 1998 report I was keen to make recommendations that were hard hitting and actionable. The report has 14 recommendations. The government, in response, accepted seven recommendations outright and three in part but rejected outright four recommendations in the Ship safe report. I am delighted that the government did accept some of the recommendations. In particular, I am pleased that recommendations 11 and 12 in relation to the MV Glory Cape have been accepted by the government.For those not familiar with the case—it was just referred to by the member for Throsby—it was a dreadful incident in Australian waters. An Indonesian radio officer died in the water after he and others were reported to have been beaten with iron bars on the MV Glory Cape. No charges were laid and no investigations were undertaken by the ship's flag state. When the seafarers mounted a civil case they were told that the owner of the vessel no longer existed and that the vessel continued to operate under another name.The abuse and neglect of seafarers is only possible because of the ability of the perpetrators to evade accountability. No country can escape responsibility. The Dodgy Brothers and the cowboys of the maritime industry know the networks of government that are neutral and compliant, and so the abuses continue to occur and, indeed, multiply. To my way of thinking, if we are not guilty by complicity then we are guilty by default if we do nothing.Over recent months we have seen in central Europe and in areas of Asia immediate to our north some disturbing and brutal abuses of civil rights. In many instances we are powerless to intervene. But our ports have considerable power to intervene when these actions occur on ships—to hold vessels and to demand clean, sanitary and safe conditions. We can also enhance the role of organisations like the Missions to Seamen and Stella Maris. We can signal to the cowboys that their vessels will behave or they can expect to be disciplined in our waters. If they choose not to come here then so be it. Rust buckets beware.I and other members of my committee were disturbed by the extent and severity of breaches of crew welfare, particularly to foreign seafarers. The committee heard of continuing problems such as the underpayment of wages; physical, mental and sexual abuse; and religious and racist discrimination. Poor access to medical care and other services was also cited as a problem. Some were given no access to phones or, through the lack of intermediate pay on the trip, had no ability to use public phones.I have to say that, as a member of the government, I am disappointed that we have rejected recommendation 14, and I appeal to the minister to reconsider it. There are just a few organisations such as Stella Maris and the Missions to Seamen which attend to the welfare of sailors. When we talk about these seafarers we are talking about people who are far from home for very long periods who are working in appalling conditions little better than those imposed by the press-gangs of the past.I do not use that terminology loosely. These people, in some instances, are little better than hijacked in their home ports. When they get on board these vessels they find that the contract they have signed on land is suddenly changed and that they are forced to sign a new contract, sometimes under threat of physical intimidation. They are told that if they do not comply, no money will go back to their families. It is little better than the press-gangs.I believe that much could be achieved with only modest assistance from the government. It is my intention to continue to press this matter to see whether the government will reconsider the position in providing interim contributions to approved seafarers welfare organisations.We hand out money to all sorts of organisations in this country. We have welfare groups, lobby groups and groups purporting to represent family groups and disability groups, and we fund these and fund them generously. In many instances, a lot of the money we fund ends up in the hands of lawyers and consultants—a gift, sometimes, for them. But here we are talking about small amounts of welfare money that would go right to the core of the problem. We are not going to have a lot of funding abuse in organisations such as Stella Maris and the Missions to Seamen. They have a long history of caring and have a remarkable association for the physical and spiritual welfare of sailors. I think that some modest contributions to them would not go astray.Unlike many other reports, the committee did not demand that the government spend unrealistic amounts of money. Rather, as I said, we sought modest and reasonable contributions on an interim basis to assist people who are much abused. What was one of the first facilities we provided for the refugees from Kosovo? Can you all remember? We provided telephones and the Internet. We accepted the fundamental humanitarianism of creating contact—something as simple as that. Why would we not do the same, through the Missions of Seamen and Stella Maris, for sailors from societies less caring than ours when those people are visiting our waters? Why, on the one hand, would we want to help the Kosovo refugees and the East Timorese refugees while, on the other hand, we turn our backs on people suffering the same abuse on a daily basis on vessels coming to this country? We have turned our backs on them. It is time for a rethink of this issue.As a civilised nation, Australia has an obligation to assist, albeit in a modest way, organisations that provide material, legal, emotional and spiritual support for seafarers. There should be no tolerance of a culture of fear and intimidation. The abuse and neglect of seafarers constitutes a violation of human rights and is a serious risk to ship safety. While violations of crew welfare are partly commercially driven, they ultimately derive from a fundamental lack of respect for human life. Surely, these are the very reasons why we are in East Timor as peacekeepers.For as long as crew welfare is compromised, the prospect of a global culture of ship safety is remote. Let me add one word of caution about fatigued sailors. The inquiry into the devastation of the Exxon Valdez found that fatigue was a contributing factor. If this can occur on a seemingly well-equipped and well-managed vessel, what might we expect from a tired and abused crew on a poorly maintained vessel? How would we like to see an Exxon Valdez incident resulting from a fatigued and abused crew or a fatigued and abused sailor at the wheel or on watch somewhere near our Barrier Reef? How would we react?I was struck by the challenge of developing and maintaining the culture of safety at sea, rather than prescribing more rules that might be evaded by a few unscrupulous players. The challenges are great. However, I was encouraged to hear that real progress has been made since the previous parliamentary inquiry in 1995. The true test of community resolve will be its response to the appalling conditions experienced by seafarers. As I said before, there is an element of self-preservation in seeing that these sailors are well treated. I would like to take this opportunity to commend AMSA for its demonstrated commitment to safer shipping. Australia can be justly proud of AMSA's conscientious port state control programs, as well as its active involvement at the level of the International Maritime Organisation.The Ship safe report deals with a number of other important matters on ship safety which time does not permit me to deal with in detail today. I commend the report to everyone to read as ship safety affects all of us. I make a plea to the minister and to all people of goodwill to see that sailors who come to this country are not allowed to be abused. We should mandate that there is a standard of conduct that occurs in this country that applies everywhere in this country, be it on land or in our territorial waters.11:10:0011152O'Byrne, MichelleMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—The document before us is the result of an undertaking to inquire into and report on the Australian Maritime Safety Authority 1996-97 annual report. The focus of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and Microeconomic Reform was to report upon the quality of ships, operational issues, port state control, crew training and competency and crew welfare. I support many of the recommendations that have been made by the inquiry group but personally I think they could have adopted some more. I certainly support the comments of the previous speaker, the member for Hinkler, regarding the necessity of providing assistance for seamen's missions. Having come across them during my life through my partner's employment, I know just how vital they are for the security and safety of seafarers.I think that we need to look at this report in a very holistic shipping context. The previous speaker spoke very positively about AMSA and we need to remember that the Australian Maritime Safety Authority certainly had suggestions made about it in terms of privatisation. The authority has been in operation since 1991 and aims to enhance the safety of seafarers and shipping and protect the marine environment from pollution. In fact, its role in shipping is actually to prevent unsafe, unregulated, untaxed rust buckets from operating in our waters. AMSA's services are mainly paid for on a cost recovery basis from the industry and in part by Commonwealth funding which we supply very much as a community service obligation. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority annual report of 1996-97 said:There is objective and anecdotal evidence that the quality of ships operating to Australia improved in recent years. This is generally accepted as being largely due to AMSA initiatives. Australia is recognised internationally as being at the forefront of world best practice in port State control and related activities.AMSA in the area of ship safety have been described as `efficient, cost effective and well managed' and `professional, even-handed and discreet'. They play a vital and important role in developing a culture of ship safety.Australia has had a very proud record within the shipping industry, but that record and its accompanying respect can be obliterated by a lack of commitment to the future of a safe and effective Australian industry. Already we are witnessing substantial changes. The report before us claims that, largely due to the role of AMSA shipping, standards have improved—particularly in relation to declining international standards. But Australia is also victim of the international shipping climate. We are seeing an increase in the average age of Australian vessels on the coast from nine years in the 1980s and 1990s to 13 years, although the average age of the international fleet is still 18 years. We are seeing negative investment and the failure of this government to provide a fiscal framework which would allow the industry to prosper. We are putting at risk the incredibly high standard of crew competence that is so highly regarded internationally.This report highlights the high standard of maritime training in Australia. I am particularly pleased to refer to this because in my electorate we have the very successful Australian Maritime College which was established primarily due to the work of the Hon. Lance Barnard.At a recent symposium held in the Seafarers International Research Centre in Cardiff, a report was released as a result of a study into crew competence. Pilots conducted an evaluation of about 3,700 vessels worldwide and the pilots were asked to score the crews out of 100. Australasian crews averaged 88; Liberia scored 78; Cyprus 74; China 68 and Black Sea countries 68. The mean score was 77. Australia's high rating is the product of our previous commitment to our industry and to the recognition and the value of a high standard of crew training. However, all of these achievements can be jeopardised through indifference.This report before us is the product of an environment in which we have viewed the Ships of Shame: inquiry into ship safety; the Review Inquiry into standards and safety: Progress Report; and Ships of Shame—A Sequel: Inquiry into ship safety. These reports illustrated the appalling safety standards and working conditions that exist on some foreign vessels. We have seen plenty of examples—and the previous speaker has mentioned some of them—of what can happen to the environment when you have a marine accident. I remind members of the Kirke whose bow fell off near Western Australia a few years ago because it had rusted through and the pollution that caused in the surrounding water.The inquiry highlights grave concerns about the ability to effectively monitor the foreign ships on our coast. The document states that the committee recommends that the Commonwealth support action at the International Maritime Organisation requiring ships to be fitted with automatic identification systems. This sort of initiative may assist us to monitor ships operating on our coastline.The inquiry highlights further concerns with chasing accountability when shipowners and managers might be quite distant and frequently change. I refer again to the case of the MV Glory Cape. The report states:The Committee received evidence relating to a death which occurred in Australian waters in 1995. An Indonesian radio officer and his crew jumped overboard after being beaten with iron bars.The officer died and the crew were rescued after five hours in the water. There was no Australian led criminal investigation, no investigation from the ship's flag state of Panama. The civil case which was pursued by the sailors met difficulty because the owner of the vessel no longer existed.This concern has also been illustrated in a recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald. Earlier this year a ship called the Direct Falcon, owned by Fourth Nordcap Shipping under a Liberian flag, was in Australia. The concern arose when it was suggested that this was the same Direct Falcon which four weeks earlier had been detained by AMSA due to communication problems and defective dampers in the engine room. On its earlier visit the ship was owned by Maritime Falcon Inc., managed by Australia New Zealand Direct Line and sailing under a Bahamas flag. The point that I want to illustrate is that, in order to adequately control our coast, we need a shipping policy which includes a commitment to resourcing AMSA enough to be able to track these ships.The Sydney Morning Herald claimed that almost 300 ships have been detained in Australian ports over the last 18 months. In that article, Mr Paddy Crumlin, of the Maritime Union of Australia, was reported as saying that because the authority had limited resources:. . . they can get aboard only a small number of ships—the bits that they are managing to detain are only a fraction of those coming in and out of the country.I now wish to address an issue very dear to my heart and referred to at length in this report: seafarers' safety. Members may be aware that my partner is a marine engineer. As you would probably appreciate, I have a very personal reason for wanting him and my many dear friends employed in this industry to be safe.The inquiry notes that, whereas improvements have been noted in other focus areas, the committee had concerns that crew welfare is not being adequately addressed and may even be declining. The Ship safe report identifies that the welfare of the crew has a direct impact on safety—in fact, that it `constitutes a significant risk factor for ship safety'. Since 1994, over 1,200 seafarers have been lost at sea. In the first six months of 1996, twice as many human lives were lost at sea as in the whole of 1995. The shipping industry and, by extension, governments must protect the safety of seafarers and the environment.The prevalence of foreign ships on our coast already exposes us as a nation to serious risk. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority reports indicate that there are a large number of ships working the Australian coast under flag of convenience which have potentially serious safety shortfalls. The report found that much evidence of crew mistreatment could be linked to commercial decisions, because costs associated with crew welfare are to some extent discretionary. The Ships of shame report found that some crews were denied adequate food, were beaten and were not given access to appropriate medical care. A rise of flag of convenience vessels will lead to a concurrent rise in maritime fraud and piracy.A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 11.19 a.m. to 11.33 a.m.84SO'Byrne, MichelleMs O'BYRNE—A rise of flag of convenience vessels will lead to a concurrent rise in maritime fraud and piracy. According to an article in a recent issue of the Journal of the Navy League of Australia , modern day piracy is increasing and the violence of the attacks is also increasing. In 1998, 67 seafarers were reported killed in some 150 reported incidents. Cases have been reported of whole ships being stolen and their crews murdered.If our coastal waters are opened up to unfettered access by foreign flag vessels, there will be serious ramifications. We run the very real risk of diminishing training and safety levels on our coasts. We as a nation need to determine whether we want a shipping industry and, if we determine that we do, what form it will take and what standards we will expect. My view is that the excellent reputation we have gained must be built upon.There is much to be gained by government and industry working together to expand our shipping effort and improve our safety conditions. The government determines the policy and fiscal framework in which industries like the Australian shipping industry operate. The Howard government has before it two authoritative reports that highlight the shipping industry's importance to the Australian economy.In August of 1996, the then minister for shipping commissioned an inquiry into the industry. The resulting report, known as the Manser report, made a number of key recommendations designed to increase the international competitiveness of Australian shipping. That report was handed down in May of 1997. The government then chose to commission a second inquiry into the industry and the now transport minister received a report in April of this year. It is nearly October and we have still yet to see the detail of that report. Now is the time for the government to provide Australian shipping with the policy platform it needs to grow.The inquiry highlights that economic imperatives impact upon safety and welfare. We need to ensure that the fiscal framework in which our ships on our coast operate does not lead to decreased standards. If we fail to provide the framework there will be not only economic losses but also a significant and continuing negative impact on ship safety and the marine environment.Our ability in the future to provide the skilled and experienced people needed to run our harbours, our marine insurance industry, our navigation and regulatory services, our shipbroking and chartering industries will also be diminished. We will lose the skills required by a host of other industries necessary to the safe and efficient prosecution of the seaborn trade upon which the health of our economy rests.The last point I want to make is one of congratulations. I am really pleased that there are so many people who want to speak on this issue, who accept that the safety and welfare of seafarers and the impact that can be had on our environment by substandard shipping is of such importance that they are prepared to speak on these matters. I commend the recommendations. I am sorry that they do not go far enough, but I think this is an excellent point to start building.11:35:0011155McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—I am delighted to participate in this debate on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and Microeconomic Reform report, Ship safe . This is a sequel to the famous Ships of shame report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and Infrastructure, chaired by the Hon. Peter Morris. I again put on the public record my admiration for Peter Morris in that landmark inquiry which was recognised worldwide for its impact on ship safety both internationally and throughout Australia.In the Ship safe report the committee looked at a number of issues in relation to ship safety and I would like to allude to them before talking about the recommendations in terms of quality of ships, operational issues, port state control, crew training and competency and crew welfare. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority, which other members have alluded to, has been instrumental in implementing a number of the recommendations of the various reports. AMSA, as it is known, has functions in enhancing maritime safety, providing a national system of navigational services, coordinating maritime search and rescue services—as they did in the Hobart yacht race—administering programs to combat marine pollution and providing services to the maritime industry.The committee commented in relation to AMSA's annual report of 1996-97 that:There is objective and anecdotal evidence that the quality of ships operating to Australia improved in recent years. This is generally accepted as being largely due to AMSA initiatives. Australia is recognised internationally as being at the forefront of world best practice in port State control and related activities.That statement really is a recognition of the impact of these parliamentary reports, that there has been a change both in Australia and internationally. The committee also noted that AMSA has played an important role in developing international ship safety culture, again a change from what historically was the position.If we look at the significance of ship safety, what we found in the reports was that many ships fail to meet safety standards so that there are serious implications for seafarers in international trade and the marine environment, that now Australia is a global citizen in the seafaring area its total freight bill is approximately $10 billion, and that shipping is our lifeline to international trade. Likewise, the marine environment and the Great Barrier Reef have been alluded to and that, if ship safety is not carefully monitored, that environment is certainly under threat.If we look at the trends in international shipping, we see that freight rates and charter rates are falling. `Charter rates are at an all time low' was a quote by one of our witnesses. The volume of cargo shipping has grown at an average of 9.4 per cent each year while freight revenue has only grown by about half that, by 4.1 per cent. This means that there are tremendous commercial constraints, with low charter rates pressuring shipping operators to cut costs, and that is reflected on the operation of their crew. `Shipping is becoming increasingly globalised' was a point made to the committee time and time again. With flags of convenience, finance control, crew registry, classification of ships are used on an international basis. So it is very hard to internationally regulate the shipping arrangements.The other thing that makes it difficult for crews is the relationship between the shipowner, the crew and the vessel. It is very hard on many occasions to identify the crew, who they work for, who owns the vessel and where the vessel is registered, so that the safety conditions and the treatment of the crew are often regarded as secondary. The bulk carriers now make up a third of the world fleet. In a couple of the reports we saw some horrific reports of those bulk carriers just disappearing in five minutes in the Indian Ocean. The changing technology in shipping is bringing about ships with smaller crews, again producing considerable pressure on the crews themselves and on safety standards.In the Ships of shame report in 1992, we saw a number of factors contributing to poor shipping safety such as poor structural maintenance and failure to carry out repairs on ships; the committee has seen a number of instances of this. Loading and unloading practices have caused difficulty with the damage to ships' holds.Other factors include ageing of the world fleet, increased commercial pressures, inadequate crew training and inadequate qualifications of crew responsibilities, and poor maintenance of safety equipment. We have seen instances where lifeboats had never been used and would never be used in times of crisis, as well as inadequate firefighting and lifesaving equipment.During our discussions, we have seen the commercial pressures to cut costs that have led to unsafe practices. Intense competition in the insurance industry has led to unsafe ships being insured. We have seen a lot of evidence that the insurance industry has been encouraged, because of the pressure of insurance rates, to cut corners and insure ships that should not actually be afloat.The low financial returns in recent years have led to an ageing of the fleet. The committee has seen data to indicate that ships over the age of 17 years have a greater propensity to sink and disappear than those ships that are of a younger age. If you actually look at the ageing of the fleet—up to 20 and 25 years—you get a tremendous proportion of those ships that have a capacity to simply disappear.The problems we have seen in the areas of ship's crews and the quality of the ships, operational issues, port state control, and crew training and competency are related to ship safety. The aim of these reports is to bring about a better situation. In terms of crew training and crew certification, it is a problem that the committee identified. There are a number of crews who man these ships and have certification that is very questionable indeed. Certainly we, as members of the committee, drew that to the attention of this parliament and the world at large.We see a situation where the ships themselves bring about a number of risk factors to the industry. Classification societies, insurers and the flag states continue to be subjected to very considerable market forces so that the standards of ship safety are being compromised to produce more profits to the shipowners.We see, as I have alluded to before, that ships might be built, owned, registered, financed, managed and crewed from different countries. So how can we possibly follow one particular ship and identify all the responsible people involved, particularly when it comes down to those individuals who work the ships? We get to the situation quoted by AMSA:The value of life on some of these ships in Third World countries does not seem to register in terms of the value systems of some of the Western countries.My good friend the member for Throsby, who has been a very active member on this committee, has a particular understanding of that issue. I think all members of the committee do accept the view that, for a number of the crew members that we have talked to and been aware of, the sanctity of life is very much less than we would regard as being sensible and acceptable in the Australian context.In terms of the recommendations, can I share some disappointment with my fellow members of the committee in the length of time the government has taken to respond. The committee would be disappointed that some of the recommendations have not been taken up. I will run through the recommendations and make some comments. The first recommendation—that the International Maritime Organisation publish a list of compliant states—is something that we have been advocating for some time and that has been accepted by the government.Recommendation 2 is about ships having protection and indemnity insurance. That is a matter that has been debated long and hard by the committee over many years. We take the view that ships and shipping companies should have P and I insurance, that it should be of adequate value, and that there should be considerable pressure put on insurance agencies to not insure old ships. Recommendation 3 concerns Commonwealth jurisdiction. Again, that has been a matter of ongoing debate going back to the Gorton government. I accept the member for Throsby's observation that the response by the government is rather bureaucratic and not in line with the more practical recommendations of the committee.Recommendation 4 is that marine pilots report serious safety deficiencies to AMSA. I agree with that recommendation. Pilots have a nose for these safety deficiencies. As they come on to these foreign vessels they can immediately identify, without too much inspection, that some ships are suspect. Recommendation 6 is that all ships be fitted with automatic identification systems. That is a sensible suggestion which the government has accepted.Concerning recommendation 7, the Asia Pacific Memorandum of Understanding, again that is a movement in the right direction. Our near Asian neighbours, who sometimes have ships that are questionable in terms of quality, are moving to a higher standard of port state control inspections in the region. Recommendation 8 is that harbour masters in ports that do not have AMSA officers identify those ships that have defects and are suspect and report them to AMSA. Generally, harbour masters are to make international shipping companies aware that in Australia they have to bring into port ships that are safe and up to standard.I commend recommendation 9, that AMSA continues to maintain its high standard of port state control. I know that AMSA, on our evidence, is doing a good job on port state control. Recently we made an inspection with AMSA officers and I was particularly impressed with the thoroughness and the way in which the officers inspected the vessels and their awareness of safety matters in relation to those vessels.In relation to seafarers' excessive hours, recommendation 10, I know that has been accepted. I note that the standing committee is looking at the whole principle of fatigue in road, rail and seafaring operations. Hopefully, that report will make a contribution to the whole debate on fatigue in transport.I agree with the chairman, the member for Hinkler, and with the member for Throsby, in terms of seafarers' welfare. Those of us who have been exposed to this particular problem would make the observation that Australian seamen's welfare organisations have done a magnificent job in the past. They have looked after these disadvantaged overseas personnel, on a shoestring budget, and yet the government has seen fit not to assist. In a small way you could relate this to the East Timor situation that the chairman alluded to. You could relate it to the overseas aid that we so readily give to other poorer nations. These personnel arrive in a foreign country, Australia, seeking moral and physical and mental assistance. The committee has recommended that we help these seamen in some small way. We know they suffer quite horrendous circumstances in some of these Third World type shipping conditions.I again commend these reports. Whilst the government has not taken up all our recommendations, I put on the public record the influence and impact of these reports, the conscientious nature of the committee members who have attended these committees over the last 10 years, and I commend again the role of Peter Morris. The recommendations of these committees have had an impact worldwide, and they have had an impact here in Australia. These committee reports, which have been tabled in parliament and are making recommenda tions to governments of both colours, have had a major impact on the way in which Australian and international shipping authorities and companies regard Australia. They see Australia as a place for ships of higher quality because they know Australia has set a higher standard, and they know Australia cares about seafarers in that very difficult world of international seafaring.I commend the report. I thank the government for taking up most of our recommendations. I hope that the committee will continue the good fight to look after seafarers and improve standards of shipping here in Australia and throughout the world. The very good work of this committee is to be commended. (Time expired)11:50:0011159Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—I am pleased to follow the remarks of the member for Corangamite. While he did not say so exactly, at long last we have a response to this important report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and Microeconomic Reform. It has been very interesting to hear the comments of coalition speakers this morning.The committee has waited a long time—since August of last year, to be exact—for this response. While I am at it, I will say again that the committee is still waiting for a response to its Tracking Australia report on our national rail system, which was also completed in August last year. I say that because the member for Hinkler has an interest in both.I do not understand why the Minister for Transport and Regional Services would take a year to respond. Not only is it an insult to the members of the committee but it adds to uncertainty within the industries as they wait to see which way the government will jump. More significantly, in this portfolio the delay represents a great unwillingness on the part of the government to invest in transport infrastructure and the domestic transport industry. And, in the case that we are talking about this morning, it is very evident in the domestic shipping industry.It is worth noting that, while the minister has responded to this report, he has not yet responded to the report of the Shipping Reform Working Group. The minister and the government have been sitting on recommendations from both that working group and the earlier shipping task force set up by former minister John Sharp in 1996 and headed by Mr Julian Manser. While the government did take up some of Mr Manser's recommendations, it baulked at two of the toughest areas: the setting up of the second register and giving fiscal support to the shipping industry. Basically, it did not like these recommendations so it set up another inquiry.The minister has had the second report since April. His failure to respond or even release the report suggests that the government does not like the new set of recommendations any better than it liked the first. I think the reasons are pretty clear: the government has an obsession with ending cabotage. I think the reform working group is saying that this is likely to be counterproductive and is also calling for a return to some level of fiscal assistance to ensure the future of the Australian shipping industry.The shipping industry in this country is in decline. The evidence is all around us and is really compelling. Despite growth in the Australian seaborne trade, the share of cargo carried by Australian flag vessels into our ports, as a percentage of deadweight tonnes, has fallen from 9.98 per cent to 3.29 per cent. And that is just since 1995. Net investment in the Australian fleet has dramatically declined, from $480 million in 1994-96 to $28.7 million in 1997-98. That, in turn, has led to an increase in the average age of the fleet, from around eight years per vessel in the early 1990s to 13 years per vessel this year.As further evidence, there has been a massive increase in the granting of single and multiple voyage permits to foreign vessels operating on the Australian coast—in 1995-96, 421 permits were granted, as compared with 745 permits in 1998-99—and the numbers in our national flag fleet continue to decline. We had 61 vessels in 1998, three fewer than in the previous year and 17 fewer than in 1994.You might say so what, but this does have national implications. According to an analysis prepared for the Australian Shipowners Association, Australia's net transport services deficit now stands at $3.2 billion and, while the contribution from Australian shipping to net services actually increased, the contribution of foreign shipping to the transport deficit grew by $444 million. That is the kind of national economic implication we are talking about.At the same time as all of this has been going on the shipping industry recorded significant increases in productivity—with the productivity of the coastal fleet now more than seven per cent greater than that in 1993-94—and reductions in crew sizes. We always hear from coalition governments things such as, `You deliver on these improvements. Productivity is always in decline. That is why we cannot invest.' But, despite delivering those improvements—BV5ADAMSMr Adams—Where's the capital?XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOT—the coalition has abolished the fiscal support. It is interesting to look at what is happening with the stevedoring levy too, but that is for another time. So the government has abolished the fiscal support that the previous Labor government gave and, at the same time, it has allowed a great increase in the involvement of foreign vessels in coastal shipping. And what that means, as the report of the Shipping Reform Working Group sets out, is that—and other speakers have alluded to this—we are headed down a path where much of the local shipping industry is likely to be replaced with foreign ships with foreign crews, with all the national economic and coastal safety implications that come with that development. It is an interesting point to reflect on that two ships from Australia's coastal fleet are playing a defence support role at the moment with respect to the East Timor conflict—two of them!That is the context in which this government's response to the report should be seen. I think this response makes a bit of a mockery of it. Not only does it come a year after the event but it comes in the context of this government allowing the development of a less safe shipping environment all around. And it comes at a time when Prime Minister Blair in Britain has reinvested in the revival of a domestic shipping industry there because the Blair government is convinced of the importance of that industry and it is also committed to job generation.In particular, I want to discuss two of the recommendations that have been rejected by the government. Firstly, I congratulate the member for Hinkler on his speech. It demonstrated a thorough understanding and depth of knowledge similar to his chairing of the committee which produced the Tracking Australia report. I thought it was really interesting to hear the member for Corangamite. He is a wool farmer and I might have expected some tired old arguments via the NFF about the shipping industry, but we did not hear that. We heard a compassionate view. We heard an understanding of the industry and its role in the Australian economy. I think it just goes to show that sometimes exposure to the issues via good committee work can actually challenge some of the stereotypical views that we hold on both sides of politics—UNKNOWNHonourable MembersHonourable Members—Hear, hear!XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOT—about a whole lot of issues. And so we welcome those comments today and we hope that, as you are in government, you are in a position to continue to influence the thinking of the minister and the government on this issue.That leads me to recommendation 2. The committee recommended that the government require ships visiting Australian ports to have protection and indemnity insurance and to require ships crews to be insured for occupational illness, injury, disability and death. In response, the government noted that `most ships' carry this sort of insurance but that it does not propose to make such insurance compulsory. No reason is given and, more importantly, no acknowledgment is made of the number of owners who abandon their crews each year. So we have a rapidly growing number of foreign vessels operating along our coasts, with no compulsory requirement that they cover their crews for injury, disability or death. Even if you think—and I do not—that the value of a non-Australian life is less than someone who crews in our fleets, it cannot be argued to be sensible from an economic perspective to pursue that attitude.I turn to recommendation 13. This is one that others have focused on because the evidence, to them, has been compelling. We are not asking for a lot of financial support but a little will go a long way in its symbolic importance and in the assistance it gives. This is the recommendation that the Commonwealth provide financial assistance for approved welfare organisations for seafarers and investigate the setting up of a national seafarers welfare network.The committee rightly pointed out that the abuse and neglect of crew members is both a violation of human rights and a significant risk factor in ship safety. It reported widespread abuse that was physical, mental, sexual and financial. The committee argued:Australia has an obligation as a civilised community to assist organisations that provide material, legal, emotional and spiritual support to seafarers who are far from home and, at times, subject to degrading and exploitative treatment.Occasionally, we see some of this flash across our news screens. I think we are able to distance ourselves and think that is not us. But it is degrading often, it is exploitative very often, and they are other human beings. We do regard ourselves as a civilised community.I do not like the way the government dismisses this evidence in two sentences. It does not consider that seafarers organisations should operate in any way differently from any other welfare organisations. It does not believe it would be appropriate to investigate the establishment of a national seafarers welfare network. That is not a level of compassion that is mirrored from the members of the committee and that is very disappointing. I think it is a petty response to a serious human rights and maritime safety issue. I think it does the government and the minister no credit at all.In conclusion, what we have here, despite an excellent report, is a government that does not seem to care much at all about the future of the Australian shipping industry and which seems to care even less about the welfare of those workers employed in the shipping industry. That is a short-sighted attitude. I think it is an attitude that will not only be to the detriment of the Australian shipping industry and maritime workers but, for some of the economic reasons that I alluded to earlier, is to the detriment of the wider Australian economy and to our coastal environment. Goodness knows, they are the subject of a lot of discussion at the moment.12:03:0011161Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—It has certainly taken a fair bit of time but, at last, we have a response and the government has had a look at the Ship safe report. It has been a long time coming to this very important report. In the government before last, I had the task also of looking into the Ships of shame report, so I was really interested in seeing the continuing developments to enforce the seaworthiness of ships on the world seaways.In the Ships of shame report, the committee was at pains to have a look at the problems facing many crews in these flags of convenience ships. We came up with some very incredible findings. Many of the issues raised in that report must be evaluated to find some improvement in this one. The continued abuse and maltreatment of crews on these ships have been terrible. In a widely reported incident a ship ran aground and the crew had to abandon ship. The ship had Greek officers and people of two or three different nationalities as crew. In that emergency, none of them really could communicate with the others because of their different languages. Such language barriers in these circumstances led to confusion and panic and could have meant unnecessary loss of life, environmental damage from oil spills and other problems.We were told in our hearings that some of the officers of ships that had come into Australian ports had been incapable of submitting loading plans to harbour masters. It is incredible that people have qualifications to take ships around the world, but when they come into an Australian port they cannot submit a loading plan to the harbour master. That goes right to the heart of some of the issues on safe shipping. Loading a ship wrongly can put enormous stress on the structure of that ship which means that it could fail when put under pressure in heavy seas.Evidence given has shown that it is very hard to do anything about foreign ships registered in certain countries. That was constantly coming up. We talk of ships being registered in some countries because of the commercial advantages of what are called flags of convenience. Those countries should have their flags known internationally as `flags of shame'. If those countries want to put flags on substandard ships and put people's lives at risk, then their flags should become known as flags of shame. We should constantly remind those countries that their flags are being used as flags of shame.Because the International Maritime Organisation did not have any teeth, in the sense of being able to stop a ship from sailing, there was a problem in getting ships and shipping companies to comply with international conventions and their requirements. We need some means of giving the International Maritime Organisation the power to act to suspend or expel flag states from conventions with which they do not comply. One way to assist with this would be to ensure transparency of action. We need to ensure that those that transgress are reported publicly. All the major players, which include shipowners and managers, classification societies, flag states, charterers and cargo owners, should in some way be responsible for the state of a ship and the safety of its crew. Improved performance on all sides will improve the safety of ships worldwide.We can see from this report that some important developments have taken place and the international initiatives intended to enhance ship safety include the following: industry codes of practice and guidelines; the International Safety Management Code, ISM; regional port state control arrangements; revision of the Convention on Training Certification and Watchkeeping; the development of ILO conventions; and the updating of international conventions which aim to protect the environment. Despite all of these, I understand the inquiry heard evidence that the shipping industry has an uneven and often inadequate culture of safety. Many flag states, port states, classification societies, operators, charterers and other parties insisted on high standards and acted in a responsible manner. Others appeared to adopt an approach which sought to maximise short-term returns, even at the expense of lives, cargoes, the maritime environment and their own reputations.I saw from a statement put out by Mr Neville, the chairman of the committee, that the committee was also shocked by some of the evidence they received on the hours of duty required of some seafarers and the impact of fatigue, and that they took that as a very serious safety risk. The committee received evidence that people were kept awake for between 18 and 24 hours and that a person who did that would have a similar level of performance to a person with a blood alcohol level of 0.05. The committee was also told that seafarers use drugs in order to stay awake. It recommended that the fatigue levels be monitored and addressed by both the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and the International Maritime Organisation and that the Commonwealth consider ratifying the International Labor Organisation Convention 180.There has not been a lot changed since the reports that I was a part of came down. The same issues are still being picked up by committees of this parliament. The report stated that evidence of abuse and neglect of crew members constituted both a violation of human rights and a significant risk factor for ship safety. While violations of crew welfare were partly commercially driven, they ultimately derive from a fundamental lack of respect for human life. Such violations are facilitated by a legal framework that can allow perpetrators to hide behind corporate veils or slip through jurisdictional cracks.However, the government dismisses aspects of the report: it does not consider the value in seafarers organisations. It does not want to have anything to do with the establishment of a national seafarers welfare network. There are some basics at stake here—and I mentioned them before in the last report. The general argument about using trained workers, whether it is in manufacturing or in any other employment, applies in Australia. Trained people who are competent in carrying out their tasks will increase productivity and there is no reason why the same principle should not apply in world shipping.Ships come to Australia from all parts of the world and more countries are becoming involved in shipping. Some of those countries have been neither open to scrutiny nor accepting of international standards. Their standards will certainly have to be improved to meet world shipping standards. If their standards do not improve, authorities should not hesitate in naming the countries responsible. To not insist on some sort of insurance for both the ships and the crews means that the government does not care about the human factor involved in shipping and just assumes that these are covered when we know very well that it is not the case.The recommendations that have been accepted are okay, but they are not the most important ones to stamp out the bad practices existing under some shipping flags. This report really has little relevance to the Australian shipping industry, which is now in steep decline due to this government's problems with cabotage and a lack of support. Yet we set ourselves into a situation where we will be at the mercy of foreign ships and foreign crews, which will mean problems with the national economy and coastal safety unless we have some very strong controls in place.The government seems hell-bent on ensuring that there is open slather in this area, despite all the work that has been done over many years to try and haul international shipping, kicking and screaming, to some good international standards. According to the Prime Minister, we are supposed to be showing some leadership in the region. Here is a way of showing leadership without being patronising by actually improving the lot of all seafarers around the world. His government has squibbed on it again. It is Pontius Pilate stuff: wash the old hands and there will be nothing coming back to Australia.Australia is a great trading nation and, of course, we should have a great shipping industry. But our national flag fleet is well into decline. I remember coming across figures of what is shipped out of Australia. Our coal, gas and iron are all going out in foreign ships. We lose all that commerce in the insuring of these ships and the cargoes. The maintenance and servicing of these ships is non-Australian. These are our resources, most of which are going out in foreign ships. We lose all that commerce.The previous speaker mentioned some figures which are worth repeating from the Australian Shipowners Association. Australia's net transport service deficit now stands at $3.2 billion. If that has not got an effect on the national figures, what has? While the contribution of Australian shipping in net services actually increased, probably from productivity, the contribution of foreign shipping to the transport deficit grew by $444 million in the last few years. Productivity increased on our coastal fleet by seven per cent. So, the work has been done by the restructuring of an industry, changing work practices, changes in crew numbers, et cetera. But, of course, nothing has been done by government to encourage capital into the area and improve the Australian shipping fleet.I am sure my old friend Peter Morris will be very upset at this latest government backdown, by it not picking up on this report. Peter was chairman of the committee responsible for the original report, Ships of shame, which highlighted the worsening position of world shipping—the ageing of vessels, the rust level that was continuing to build up, and the untrained crews. That was looked at on a world situation.The US Congress and the British parliament picked it up, and Peter went all over the world speaking on that report. And, as previous speakers have said, that report became of world significance, and it is still being dealt with, as this debate shows. I believe it was a turning point that got people to look at the ageing world fleet and look at some of these issues.I congratulate Peter on his work and his leadership in this area. He was probably one of the best ministers for transport that Australia will ever have. His knowledge in this area is unsurpassed and I am sure we will still receive more of it. We should be continuing to utilise that intellect and that depth of knowledge, but I do not see very much of that happening.In Australia we should set a high standard in our shipping. We should not accept the sorts of ships that were highlighted in Ships of shame as being the norm for international shipping. Many problems arise when these flags of convenience countries—`flags of shame' countries I call them—set some of the standards which are driving international shipping. We should not accept that. We have no hesitation in saying that Australia should be setting world shipping standards. That is what we should be saying.We should make sure that ships that come into our ports do not leave if the fire equipment is too rusted to work, or if the ship's lifeboats are rusted on and will not come off. They should not sail until those things are fixed up. We should not put up with shortcomings, particularly in safety, or with shipping companies' modes of practice. We should support good safety standards and be a leader in the world, as we have been. (Time expired)12:18:0011164McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—Today I take the opportunity to examine some of the recommendations of Ship safe. An inquiry into the Australian Maritime Safety Authority Annual Report 1996-97 . The report focused on the following areas of ship safety: quality of ships, operational issues, port state control, crew training and competency, and crew welfare. I will examine three of these focus areas—quality of ships, operational issues, and crew welfare.The first area I will deal with is that of quality of ships. The first recommendation of the report is as follows: The committee recommends that the Commonwealth seeks to have the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) give priority to the development of:. effective means of ensuring that flag states meet their responsibilities under safety and pollution prevention conventions. mechanisms for- flag states to demonstrate compliance- IMO to audit and publish regular lists of compliant states.Recently, in Fremantle, I was privileged to attend the International Transport Federation's MV Global Mariner exhibition. I must applaud the International Transport Federation for its efforts to educate people around the world about the dangers of flags of convenience. The cargo holds of the Global Mariner had been converted into a series of high-tech audiovisual displays which provided graphic images of accidents and cruel atrocities that could have been prevented by proper regulation. The organisers have told me that the exhibition attracted over 20,000 people in its brief stay in Fremantle.Some of the images of pollution caused by rust buckets were extremely shocking. It was obvious from this vision that the ships involved had no right to be sailing on our oceans. They were not only a hazard to the environment but in some cases death traps for their crew.School groups were also touring the exhibition at the same time as my visit. It was interesting to watch the emotions of these young people to the exhibition. Their initial reaction to the footage shown was disbelief. This then changed to shock and then to anger. Comments such as, `Why is this allowed to happen; what can we do to stop this; and why do we allow these ships to sail along our coast?' were raised by the young people I talked to. I must admit I had no ready answer to their questions. The answer seemed simple: introduce international controls to enforce safety standards on these ships. But how would we achieve this?I commend the recommendation that the Commonwealth should seek to have the IMO develop an effective means of ensuring that flag states meet their responsibilities under safety and pollution conventions. This is a step in the right direction. The Australian government can take this further. Ships under flags of convenience that do not measure up to the required safety standards should be banned forever from Australian waters. Recommendation 8 of the report states:The committee recommends that the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) monitor more closely ships visiting our port.Further, the committee recommends that AMSA develop and implement a strategy to maximise the likelihood that harbour masters at our ports will report defective ships.Although this recommendation comes under the focus area of port state control, it is also directly related to the quality of ships.In researching for this speech I examined the AMSA web site. The site has a page which deals with ship detentions. AMSA contributes to a safe international marine transport industry through its port state control program. The inspections are undertaken in line with IMO conventions of ship safety and pollution prevention.I will now provide some of the details of ships that were detained in Western Australian ports in July and August 1999. In Kwinana, an industrial suburb south of Perth, a vessel named the Ocean Koyo was detained on 23 August. The ship is owned by a South African company, managed by a Japanese company and sails under a flag of convenience. The ship is registered in Panama and sails under that country's flag. This ship was detained because its engine room ventilation fire dampers were defective. Also the chief engineer was unable to demonstrate an emergency lighting test and the ship's hatch covers were defective.In July other ships were detained. The Marineos, a livestock carrier sailing under a flag of convenience from the United Arab Emirates, was inspected in Fremantle on 17 July. The serious deficiencies with this ship were all safety related. The ship's emergency fire pump was defective, the emergency generator was inoperative and the watertight door was defective.This ship is indicative of the type of ship identified in the report as a safety and environmental risk. It is a bulk handling ship, it was built in 1964 and sails under a flag of convenience. From the details of the detention report, it is obvious that the owners and operators are not particularly concerned with safety. I dread to think about the ramifications of a fire on this vessel. If there had been a fire on this vessel, the crew would have been powerless to fight it. It is impossible to fight fire where there is faulty firefighting equipment and no power.Another example of a ship without firefighting capabilities could be seen on 20 July 1999 in Port Hedland. The vessel's name was Ioannis M, a dry bulk carrier. This vessel, an iron ore bulk carrier, was inspected by AMSA, and they found that the ship's emergency fire pump was inoperative.The next day in Dampier, just down the coast, there was another vessel detained. The Sun P, another iron ore bulk carrier, had a different type of problem. The fuel oil tank quick closing valves were defective and the engine room ventilation fire damper was defective. The thought of this vessel catching on fire and spewing oil into the ocean near Dampier fills me with absolute horror, as the water is pristine and a playground for whales and other aquatic life. It is not surprising to note that this ship sailed under a flag of convenience, this time from Greece.Two days later another vessel was detained in Fremantle. This vessel was not only an environmental hazard but I would say, from reading the list of its serious deficiencies, also a death trap for its crew. The vessel is called the Ocean Mercury.I will now read out the list of serious deficiencies found by AMSA on the Ocean Mercury. The radio and emergency batteries were not working, the distress flares were deficient, there was no stability data on board, the funnel fires dampers were inoperative and the fuel oil tank quick closing valve was inoperative. What I found ironic about this particular vessel was the fact that the Ocean Mercury is not a 30-year-old bulk carrier. It was built in 1993 and is a tug. My knowledge of the maritime industry is limited but my understanding is that tugs are the vessels that go to the assistance of ships in distress. It is commonsense that this type of vessel should have world's best practice in its safety and maintenance systems. But no, a vessel that earns its living towing or assisting ships in trouble is the worst of all the examples I have highlighted today.Why are there so many examples of unsafe ships? The answer is simple. Due to the increasing competitiveness of the maritime industry, cost cutting is occurring. The use of flags of convenience in an attempt to bypass safety standards is common practice. Unskilled seafarers from less developed countries are also being exploited and forced to work in unsafe conditions with little or no training and often without being paid for long periods of time. The exploitation of the crew is a serious issue. I commend the committee for recommendation 13 of the report. The recommendation reaffirms the findings of previous reports which all stated that Australia should ratify International Labor Organisation Convention 147.The ITF's Western Australian branch inspector Ross Storer has provided me with examples of crew exploitation that have occurred in WA. The first example is the Lok Pratima, sailing under an Indian flag. Indian seafarer Suhrid Bhowmik had his left-hand fingers severely crushed and burnt using ironing equipment on 29 October 1997 at sea. The vessel arrived off Geraldton on 2 November and offers to berth the vessel or airlift the injured seafarer were rejected by the captain and/or owners. The vessel berthed in the afternoon of 3 November and, as a result of the delay in receiving treatment, the seafarer had four fingers amputated.The second example I would like to highlight is that of the Marineos. This vessel seemed to have a history as a ship of shame. Earlier in this speech I gave an example of it being detained just recently. This example deals with the intimidation of crew. The Marineos struck a concrete signal beacon when it was leaving Dubai to return to Fremantle. It was taken to anchorage for repairs and continued its voyage to Fremantle, arriving in June 1996. During the voyage, pumps were continually used to pump leaking water from the vessel. Concerned about the safety of the vessel, the deck fitter contacted the ITF. The vessel was inspected by AMSA and detained until a Lloyd's surveyor passed the repairs. The deck fitter was accused of delaying the vessel and was concerned for his safety as his life had been threatened. He was taken from the vessel by the ITF before sailing and repatriated to his homeland.The final example provided to me by the ITF is that of the vessel Uniceb. This example deals with two issues. The first is quality of ships and the second is allegations of crew bashings and nonpayment of wages. Uniceb caught fire and sank near the Seychelles in 1996 with the loss of one seafarer and 70,000 sheep. There were regular complaints from the crew on the vessel and, just before its last voyage, the ITF was investigating allegations of crew bashings, poor living conditions and nonpayment of wages. The ITF was also investigating concerns regarding the safety of the vessel.All these examples highlight the malaise of the international maritime industry with regard to its treatment of seafarers. The committee's report recommends that the Commonwealth provide interim funding on an annual basis for approved seafarers' welfare organisations and investigate the establishment and annual funding of a national seafarers' welfare network. I commend these recommendations. This government needs to ensure that permanent funding is made available as soon as possible. The recommendations of this report need to be acted on immediately.The final area I wish to comment on is that of operational issues. I commend the first point of recommendation 3. This recommendations states:All trading vessels operating in Australian waters, regardless of the nature of the voyage, come under Commonwealth jurisdiction.It is essential that the Commonwealth prosecute shipowners or operators that pollute our environment and exploit workers, regardless of their nationality.In conclusion, I commend the findings of the report. I find it insulting that the government has taken 12 months to respond to the report's findings. This is just not good enough.Adjournment1116710000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! It being almost 12.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.1116812:29:0011168Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—Today I want to pay tribute to a wonderful member of my electorate who passed away recently. I would like to place on record the eulogy which I delivered at his funeral:A Celebration of the Life of Robin PaiceWe are gathered here today, from all walks of life, to celebrate a great Australian, a great bloke.Robin Paice wouldn't want us to grieve, though grieve we will. He would rather that we came together today to share the many wonderful experiences we had, as his life crossed ours.Robin Paice never moved far from his place of birth, he never achieved high office, he won't rate an official obituary in our newspapers and yet he had a remarkable effect on the lives of so many people."Paicey" as he was known to all of us, was an amazing bloke. With his passing, our community will miss someone who gave us all so much joy, so much fun and laughter, so many wonderful stories to recount.I first met Paicey when I was appointed to Bridgewater Primary School in 1981. Over the next 7 years I came to know him, as many of you did, as a man of so many talents. Groundsman, electrician, landscape architect, cook, mechanic, bushwalker, fisherman, darts player, actor, script-writer, producer and director, mentor and friend.It's a tribute to the person he was and the impact he had on us, that so many people are here today to celebrate his life and pay their respects."Paicey" was Bridgewater Primary School; he knew every child, their strengths and weaknesses and he sought in his own inimitable way to ensure that everyone got an opportunity to show what they were capable of.Teachers, senior staff, teacher's aides he knew our strengths and weaknesses just as acutely as he did our students. He was an expert in teasing out the best in all of us, despite our occasional protestations.Who will ever forget the unique strategies he used to challenge the difficult kids and how they came to respect and admire him. He taught us teachers more than he probably realised.He was involved in every aspect of the school life and the many yarns and stories that will live with us forever, are the result of that commitment.All of us have our favourite yarns concerning "Paicey". The famous saveloy story, drilling a hole in the Ford's petrol tank . . . "Paicey" loved his footy and loved Collingwood with a burning passion. How fitting that the last game he watched before he left us, his beloved "Pies" defeated Richmond.He loved having the boat out on the Derwent and getting some fishing in; he loved the views from his house and in his water colour paintings he attempted to show just how much it all meant to him. He loved dropping in to the tavern for a beer or two, a game of pool and a chance to catch up with his mates.But most of all "Paicey" loved his family and delighted in telling us of the successes in their various jobs. He was so proud of you all!To Kaye, Sharyn, and Rodney, Peter and Selena, our thoughts are with you at this time. We mourn with you and share your deep loss at Robin's passing.1116812:32:0011168Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—I rise to speak on a cartoon which appeared in today's Australian . It is a despicable piece of work, quite contrary to the interests of Australians and the interests of good taste. It depicts the Prime Minister as reading an article in a newspaper and saying, `It says "Those responsible for the carnage in East Timor will soon be charged."' The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, is shown as replying, `Do you think we'll get time off for good behaviour?'It is this sort of despicable reporting in the form of cartoons which undermines the good work that Australian troops and, in fact, the Australian government have done to address the devastation that has been wrought by the Indonesians and the militia in East Timor. Night after night we see film of aircraft flying over East Timor, over the absolute destruction. And there on the ground are Australian troops and South-East Asian troops, from Thailand and the Philippines, participating in efforts to restore peace and harmony to the area and bring humanitarian aid to these people.It has been the work of the Prime Minister and the foreign minister that has largely ensured that this has occurred. For the editors of the Australian to allow such a diatribe to be presented as some form of political satire is a disgrace. It is something that everyone in this place should condemn.We have seen some appalling things in the past used as political satire, but this is the lowest point that I have ever seen. There is huge fear; there is great condemnation of the people who have brought these atrocities to the people of East Timor. I feel very affronted that the owners and editors of the Australian would allow such a piece to appear. I believe that every Australian should write to this newspaper and point out that they will not tolerate such activities in the future.As a former soldier, I have a lot of good mates that are in East Timor today. Because of the good work of this government and the support that it has received from the opposition, those soldiers are there protecting the East Timorese people and trying to restore that place. This sort of reporting has no place in Australian society and I condemn it for what it is—a piece of trash—and it deserves to be put into the rubbish bin and kept there.1116912:35:0011169Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—I raise a very important matter relating to regional development. In particular, I want to draw the chamber's attention to the disgusting double standards and sickening hypocrisy that this government have shown in the way in which they have provided assistance to some regions but not to others. They have picked the favourites—the ones they want to support—and the others get absolutely nothing: not one cent, not one cracker.In response to a question from the member for Robertson yesterday in question time in relation to the amount of assistance which has been provided by the Howard government to the Newcastle region, Mr Abbott, the Minister for Employment Services said:The Prime Minister has made four trips to Newcastle to meet with the social task force.He continued: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 dollars 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.And he continued:In April the Prime Minister opened a British Aerospace fighter support facility in 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.2K6BROUGHMr Brough—It's an impressive list, isn't it?84HZahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA—You are dead right. My question is: why has nothing been done for the Latrobe Valley in my electorate? We have lost 10,000 jobs in the Latrobe Valley in my electorate over a period of six or eight years, and nothing has been done. Have a look at how much has been done for Newcastle. I do not wish the people of Newcastle any ill will; I congratulate them on taking some responsibility and being able to get a commitment from government to do something for their region. Have a look at the Latrobe Valley: after bearing all of this pain and all of this heartbreak for so many years, there has been no recognition at all from the Howard government for all of our suffering.I ask the Prime Minister: when will you honour your commitment to come to the Gippsland region? The Prime Minister made a commitment in question time last year that he would visit Gippsland. The Minister for Employment Services has said that the Prime Minister has visited Newcastle four times. He has done all these good things for the people of Newcastle who have lost 1,500 jobs. They have lost 1,500 jobs in a community of some 300,000. We have lost 10,000 jobs in the Latrobe Valley and we have only 70,000 people, yet he has not lifted a finger to do anything for us!A Productivity Commission report has been commissioned into the effect of NCP on rural and regional Australia. There were something like 57 or 58 regions which were modelled to assess the impact the NCP had on all of those regions. Only one region was found to have had a negative impact, and that was the Latrobe Valley. But despite this overwhelming evidence, nothing has been done to address that by way of an adjustment package.I commend the government for doing something for the people of Newcastle, but it is not good enough for them to play favourites, and that is exactly what has happened. Regional development in this country has become debauched and so backward that we have them playing favourites. They are not doing this based on need any more. They are just picking winners. They are saying, `Right oh, Newcastle, you can have this. You have lost 1,500 jobs.' They said the other month in Eden, `You have lost 140 jobs. We are going to give you $3.6 million.' But what about us in the Latrobe Valley? We have received nothing at all despite our overwhelming need.There is a crisis in employment in the Latrobe Valley. We are suffering enormous social problems as a result of the jobs that we have lost in the power industry and in the TCF sector. This government sits with its hands in its pockets doing nothing for the people of my electorate. This is a very serious matter. The government needs to take it seriously. It needs to stop playing favourites with regional development. It needs to look at the hard facts and the evidence and get behind the people of Latrobe Valley: we need and deserve that support.1117012:40:0011170Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—There is 20 minutes remaining for this debate. I thought it was the call for the government side. I will be only two minutes because I did not use my five minutes last time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—In that case, I will be generous and give you the call.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. A quick point to our honourable member: eight years ago the Labor Party was in government, six years ago the Labor Party was in government, five years ago the Labor Party was in government and four years ago they were in government. Quite obviously, these jobs have been going for a long time and they need better representation.I want to bring to the House the news that a world record was broken not so long ago which went basically unmentioned throughout the world, including in Australia. A local man by the name of Gary Parsons completed the 10,000-kilometre continuous long run around Australia. He broke the record on the South Australian border by 27 days. He averaged 74 kilometres a day continuously for 156 days and he was continuing to run for another 10,000 kilometres. I drove from Adelaide to the South Australian border to run with him for about five kilometres and bring to him a thousand good wishes from the school children of the Caboolture region.The great thing about this man and his wife is that he is running for Legacy. He left on Anzac Day from Brisbane and we hope that he will return there with the world long run record of about 20,000 kilometres in another three months time. He is now through Adelaide. He will be going through Tasmania and then back up along the east coast. I think he is going around Tasmania three times. At the time our troops were not deployed.The great thing about running for Legacy is that Legacy continues to grow as a need in this nation and will continue to grow to 2007. The work that Gary has done, the knowledge that he has brought to the Australian public right around this great nation of ours about the fine work of Legacy, and the money raised by the generosity of people as they have passed him by on his long haul, dropping money into the can, are all most welcome. I congratulate him on his world record and wish him the best as he heads towards 20,000 kilometres and another fine world record for Australia.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Before calling the next speaker, I do want to make it quite clear to the Committee that, by the convention which is observed, the call goes from one side to the other. In the event that two people jump up and one has already spoken, regardless of which side that member is on, the call must go to the member who has not spoken.1117112:43:0011171Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—I want to take this opportunity to highlight to the parliament a growing trend over recent decades for people to work harder, longer and generally come under more pressure from work commitments. There is countless anecdotal evidence of this situation. People are always saying that they work more hours now than years ago. They are also working on weekends and working more unsociable hours. What was once work outside normal hours, or overtime, has now become the norm. There is great pressure to conform to longer working hours or weekend work purely because everyone else does it. It is a vicious circle. The longer we work, the more is expected, and the hours that used to be considered extra are now considered standard.There is also some very accurate data to back this up. From 1979 to 1998, those working standard hours fell from 65 per cent to 48 per cent, while those working long hours rose slightly from 18 per cent to 22 per cent, and those working very long hours rose from 18 per cent to over 32 per cent. I believe this trend is having a profound impact on society, family and health.The nature of work has changed. The concepts of full-time, part-time, casual and shift work and the definition of the working week have all changed. It is now quite common for the working week to start at any day during the week and quite common for people to work 12 hours through shift work. The impact on workers is less leisure time, family time, and time for mixing with friends and pursuing personal interests.Decades ago technology was said to revolutionise work and make life easier. We would have machines that would do the repetitive tasks, offices that would become paperless with better communications and we could keep in touch more often. But the reality is that for many technology has become the master rather than the slave. Technological change has been a major contributor to the change in work and to longer hours. With this change has also come a need for higher education levels and more training requirements. What was once the norm of getting a job, learning the ropes and then mastering a trade, has become much more complex. Young people today must achieve year 12 then move on to higher education and continue to train and then retrain, and this is just to keep up with industry and technology or just to give themselves a decent opportunity to actually become employable.There is also a new peer pressure in workplaces, particularly in the professional fields, to be at work longer regardless of the actual work requirement. It is almost unheard of that a manager would start at nine and finish by, say, five. Somebody working those sorts of hours would be considered lazy or just not dedicated to the job. For other workers, unpaid overtime and flexible work arrangements have been growing problems. Statistics show that increasing amounts of overtime are now unpaid and the expectation is that workers must give more of their time but they must also do it free. This trend, I believe, is so entrenched in some industries that it is now considered normal. Workers have also lost out in new flexible work arrangements, where flexibility really means longer hours, weekend work, more shifts and so on. But among the issues that concern me the most are the personal cost to workers, the cost to the community, and the cost to our health system. I have dug up an article, a special report on work and family, from the Australian Financial Review of September 17 this year. It says:Worker's compensation payments for mental problems, largely stress-related, run at more than $200 million per annum across Australia.This is from the CEO of VicHealth.Total monetary costs to the nation are estimated at three to six times this figure, in addition to the human dimensions of suffering and loss. And it's going up sharply. In Western Australia, the rate almost doubled between 1988 and 1994. In Victoria, stress payments rose from $14 million to $54 million between 1986 and 1993.Stress is the end result of a number of factors including increased workload, increased hours, decreased resources, decreased autonomy and uncertainty.Nonetheless, according to a recent Japanese study, hours spent at work have a direct bearing on health. It found that men who worked 11 hours a day had around 2.5 times greater risk of heart attack than men working an eight hour day.And again, as the article said:Workers compensation payments . . . at more than $200 million per annum across Australia . . . It is timely that I am actually speaking on this issue, given that yesterday in the House we debated the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 . This bill is an absolute joke. The title is a joke but the irony, I am sure, is not lost on anyone. The title of the bill should really read, `Some jobs perhaps, more hours, but definitely less pay.' This is where this bill will take workers in the future. Instead of addressing the issues of increasing work to benefit workers and industry, it is aimed directly at reducing the rights of workers. More consideration should be given to the issue of work practice and the implications that it has for our society. (Time expired)1117312:48:0011173Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—Recently, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs informed the 90 staff in Raymond Street, Bankstown, at the Bankstown Department of Immigration, that they would no longer be required in Bankstown as of February next year when the lease runs out. Those 90 staff cover about 25 people in the counter staff area—citizenship, and other associated areas—where there is heavy client contact. There are also people from the compliance group who have a New South Wales-wide activity, though most of their compliance work takes place in Sydney. They have been told that they will keep their jobs but they will move to either the central business district or Parramatta.We have already seen lots of job losses in the City of Bankstown since I was elected on 15 June 1996. This government has taken more than 440 jobs from the Bankstown tax office and moved those to Hurstville and Parramatta. There are still 220 people in the Meredith Street building of the Australian Taxation Office, and it seems they will be there until 2002 when the lease runs out on that.When I spoke to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs he informed me about this and that the staff were going to be told that they would be moved. I made the point to him, in conjunction with Daryl Melham, the member for Banks, and also Laurie Ferguson, the member for Reid, that this employment in Bankstown is important to the local economy and the life of the people in Bankstown. The employment of people and having the office open is important to all the clients, in one of the most diverse areas in Australia, who have access to and use the Bankstown office of Immigration. Taking that away, moving people back to effectively a centralised approach to immigration service delivery, directly has a cost to all of those people, who either have to travel to Parramatta or travel into the city.The further point I made was that this is going back to the bad old days that we had with the tax office when it was in Hunter Street and with the Immigration office only at Chifley Square. We had a regionalisation program. All that is left of it after this decision, if they go ahead with it, is an office in Rockdale adjacent to the airport, an office in Parramatta and an office in the central business district, dealing primarily with business migration issues. But the people who have to access those services, and there are so many in the electorates of Blaxland, Reid and Banks, will be grossly disadvantaged, as will the local economy of the area.We have made an offer for the department to look at the Bankstown council building, which has been vacated by two state departments, and to look for a long-term lease within that building. I have also pointed out to the minister, so that he could point out to the Treasurer, the Minister for Finance and the Prime Minister, that the Bankstown taxation office has $22 million worth of dead Commonwealth money being spent on it up to 2002. There are three to four floors of that building entirely naked of any occupants. For the last two years they have tried to sublet it and they cannot. The 220 people there in the superannuation section cannot move to Hurstville or Parramatta because they do not have any more room in the tax offices there. So the impact on Bankstown is a loss of almost 100 other people. That takes the all-up figure to well over 530 people who used to work for the Commonwealth in the area and who will not be there.The key ability that was there in the regionalisation program of allowing people to work near where they live, to be part of the community that they are providing services for, to know that community better, to understand them and therefore to be able to better provide those services, has all been lost. That is to the detriment of the Commonwealth employees, of the people who are there as their clients and customers and of the total city of Bankstown.On top of this, as Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl well knows, for the seventh time, the regionalisation of aircraft into a dedicated airport at Bankstown would inexorably lead to the loss of up to 3,500 existing general aviation jobs at Bankstown airport and having those displaced out of Bankstown. I think that, inexorably, a hubbing of regional aircraft would mean that there would be nothing left in their place. (Time expired)1117412:53:0011174Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—I rise to relate a very pleasant encounter last Saturday when I was a guest of the Carnarvon Pistol Club in Western Australia. I would particularly like to record my thanks and congratulations to the president of that club, Lou Puccinelli.Pistol shooting is not something that I would normally engage in, but through contacts with this club some months ago I invited myself along to this statewide event that attracted 52 shooters from as far afield as Perth and Karratha. It was most impressive. The thing that I believe needs to be recorded is the exceptionally high degree of concern for safety in this particular sport. In fact, the statistics quite clearly indicate that you are at more risk on roads in Australia than you are in the vicinity of a particular pistol club range.The pursuit for this two-day event was practical pistol, which involves some 2,500 members Australia-wide today. It replicates a situation that is to be unfortunately found in real life today and that is the rescue of hostages from a real-life drama. It is a growing sport and, even though many would look upon it with disdain as perhaps dramatising some of the unfortunate aspects of life, it is a sport that requires constant dedication and a high degree of athleticism, accuracy and speed. But underlying all of the disciplines of this particular sport is the demand for safety. Every shooting situation requires a fully qualified and experienced range officer in attendance and at all stages of the competition range officers control every action.Except under the control of a range officer, participants of the club taking part in the shoot are not at any stage allowed to take a pistol out of a holster, at no stage is even an unloaded pistol allowed to be cocked, and ammunition is at all times kept separate from pistols. A pistol is only loaded, cocked and fired under the direct control of a range officer. There are stringent controls about the firearm, at all times, being pointed down range or at no more than 90 degrees left or right from down range. I was, as you may get the impression, exceptionally impressed by the high degree of safety and the very stringent controls placed upon that.Shooters that might travel, in this case, some thousand kilometres to participate are sent home at the say-so of the range officer for any breach of rules. His participation in that particular competition and his presence at great expense are cancelled immediately with any contravention of the safety rules. The day that I was able to witness was a huge success, demanding a high degree of competition. It was rounded off by a very successful dinner provided by the very capable wives of the participants, and they put on a marvellous spread. It was a community effort and a thoroughly enjoyable day was spent there. I once again congratulate Lou and the club for informing me just so much more as to how safe guns can be when handled correctly.Main Committee adjourned at 12.58 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing11176The following answers to questions were circulated:11176(Question No. 833)83311176Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 10 August 1999:(1) What were the (a) names, (b) positions and (c) qualifications of the persons who represented Australia at the second meeting of governmental experts preparing the draft Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage (Paris, 19—24 April 1999).(2) What international bodies and other countries were represented at the meeting.(3) What is the timetable for adoption and ratification of the Convention.11176Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) At the second meeting of governmental experts to consider the Draft Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage (Paris, 19-24 April 1999), Australia was represented by:Mr Matthew Peek, Permanent Delegate to UNESCOMr Arthur Spyrou, Deputy Permanent Delegate to UNESCODr Claus Dirnberger, First Secretary, Australian Embassy, BonnMs Kirsti Samuels, Adviser, Permanent Delegation to UNESCOMr Graeme Henderson, Director, Western Australian Maritime Museum(2) The following Member States of UNESCO were in attendance:Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Brazil, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Columbia, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Republic of Korea, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Namibia, The Netherlands, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philip pines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent & The Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Syria, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela.The following Associate Members of UNESCO were in attendance:The Holy See, Palestine, United States of America.The following intergovernmental organisations were in attendance:United Nations, International Seabed Authority.(3) There is, as yet, no timetable for adoption and ratification of the Convention given that states are still some way from achieving a final text. The April 1999 meeting agreed that negotiations would continue in 2000, but did not set a date when they would take place.11176(Question No. 888)88811176McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 26 August 1999:Further to the answer to question No 448 (Hansard , 11 May 1999, page 5103), what percentage of over the water flights could be achieved by utilising a combination of mode 4 and mode 2 of the long term operating plan.11176Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Airservices Australia has advised that using a combination of Mode 2 and Mode 4 is unlikely to increase the percentage of over the water flights. This is because both modes have the same projected availability due to wind. Additionally Mode 2 involves landings over Kurnell Village and departures overflying residential areas of Sutherland. Avoidance of departures overflying Sutherland would require reduced lateral separation and the likely increased weather minima that would then apply would reduce the availability of the mode. 11177(Question No. 889)88911177McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 26 August 1999:What portion of the funding to the National Health and Medical Research Council is allocated to (a) hepatitis C and (b) HIV research.11177Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) Funding allocation to hepatitis C research in 1999 totals $290 000, representing 0.2 per cent of the total National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) funding in 1999. Some hepatitis C research is included in the HIV/AIDS figure but it is not possible to identify specific amounts; and (b) a total of $5.194 million has been allocated to HIV/AIDS research in 1999, $4.64 million being provided by Australian National Council on AIDS and Related Diseases (ANCARD). This represents 3.13 per cent of the total research funds administered by the NHMRC.