1999-10-133914REPS1141101999-10-13Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills11411r91111411Debate resumed from 12 October, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr Crean 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 condemns the Government for:(1) continuing the uncertainty in the transport industry by not releasing the details of the boundaries of urban conurbations for the purposes of the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme (the Scheme);(2) not disclosing, prior to the last election, the new powers being proposed for the Commissioner of Taxation to stop, detain and search vehicles;(3) imposing a complex new layer of administration on transport operators in connection with the Scheme, in addition to the new compliance burden associated with the Goods and Services Tax; and(4) its failure to disclose the basis of its claims that the programs agreed with the Democrats will counter the greenhouse gas increasing effects of the Scheme."09:31:0011411Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I would like to thank the members of the House who have spoken in this debate on the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme (Administration and Compliance) Bill 1999 including the members for Hotham, Mitchell, Batman, New England, Paterson, Cook, Calare, Dawson and Rankin. With respect to the issues raised I make the following comment that, predictably, the opposition members have a number of misconceptions concerning the scheme. The member for Paterson queried the need for the commission er to take samples. He said that diesel fuel in Sydney is the same as diesel fuel in the bush. He failed to appreciate that this bill deals with not only diesel fuel but also alternative types of fuel which attract a different level of grant. Therefore, there may be a need to take samples, particularly when fuel blends are used.The opposition has ignored the fact that key determinations made by the Commissioner of Taxation, such as the definition of a journey, will be a disallowable instrument and therefore subject to the scrutiny of parliament. Similarly, the definition of metropolitan areas will be defined by regulation—again subject to the scrutiny of parliament. With respect to the uncertainty and record keeping requirements, the government is not going to impose logbooks or particular record keeping systems where existing records can substantiate a claim. The record keeping requirements for most claimants will be no more than fuel receipts and eligible kilometres travelled. We acknowledge that small truck operators working across metropolitan country areas will have to maintain more detailed records to access the grant. The grant will more than compensate these operators for the effort required. The honourable member for Calare said that the AT0 will specify where a metropolitan area will start and finish. I reiterate that this will be defined by regulation.To sum up, the bill contains the necessary administrative arrangements including the compliance mechanisms to operate the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme. The bill ensures that the Commissioner of Taxation has adequate powers to administer the grants scheme and introduces rigorous enforcement measures to protect public funds and prevent abuse of the scheme. Claimants will be able to register for the grants scheme from 1 March 2000 and develop record keeping arrangements for the introduction of the grants scheme from 1 July 2000. Overall, the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme will reduce the cost of our major transport fuel and, in turn, reduce consumer prices, especially in regional, rural and remote areas.Finally, I make this point: the Labor Party dealt itself out of this debate because it dealt itself out of the debate on the new tax package. It dealt itself out of the debate on the GST. This grants scheme is directly linked to the introduction of a GST that starts on 1 July next year and brings substantial personal income tax cuts, abolishes FID, abolishes debits, abolishes stamp duty on the transfer of shares and, most importantly, abolishes wholesale sales taxes. That is good for Australia; that is great for Australian consumers and Australian businesses.When the Labor Party come in here in their own unctuous way and want to play kitty-cat games on a bill such as this, I can only suggest to them that, if they want to be the real opposition party, the real coercive force in this parliament, they need to deal themselves into the business tax debate. I say to them: don't muck around with not having a position, which is the traditional, weak Labor approach to date. Don't deal yourselves out of the debate by simply opposing everything that we do—you opposed the GST, personal income tax cuts, the abolition of wholesale sales tax, industrial relations reform, the sale of Telstra, corporate law reform, every single initiative that tries to repair the black hole that the Leader of the Opposition left us when we came to government in 1996—and remind yourselves that Australia has the most successful developed economy in the world at the moment, with seven out of our top 10 trading partners in recession or depression. Our success has had nothing to do with the Labor Party because the Labor Party have this phobia about supporting anything that is good for Australia. I commend the bill to the House.Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Crean's amendment) stand part of the question.09:41:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew)71Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr K. J. AndrewsMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BartlettMr BillsonMs J. I. BishopMr BroughMr CadmanMr CameronMr CausleyMr CharlesMr CostelloMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Ms GambaroMrs GashMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HardgraveMr HawkerMr HockeyMrs HullMr JullMrs D. M. KellyJackie KellyDr KempMr LawlerMr LiebermanMr LindsayMr LloydMr McArthur*Mr I. E. MacfarlaneMr McGauranMrs MayMr MooreMrs MoylanMr NairnMr NehlDr NelsonMr NevilleMr NugentMr PyneMr ReithMr RonaldsonMr RuddockMr St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperDr SouthcottDr StoneMrs SullivanMr C. P. ThompsonMr A. P. ThomsonMr TrussMr TuckeyMr M. A. J. VaileMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs Worth60Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr BevisMr BreretonMr CoxMr CreanMr DanbyMr EdwardsMs EllisDr EmersonMr M. J. EvansMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMs KernotMr KerrMr LathamDr LawrenceMr LeeMs LivermoreMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McLeayMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MossfieldMr MurphyMs O'ByrneMr O'ConnorMr O'KeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*Mr SciaccaMr Sercombe*Mr SidebottomMr SmithMr SnowdonMr SwanMr K. J. ThomsonMr WilkieMr WiltonMr HowardMr BeazleyMr BarresiMrs CrosioMrs GallusMr ZahraMr ProsserMs BurkeMr SomlyayDr Theophanous* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.11413Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.09:46:0011413Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I wish to ask the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation a couple of questions about the operation of the fuels grants scheme legislation. In particular, I wish to draw the attention of the minister and the House to the new section 10A—which can be found on page 8 of the bill—which concerns operations of a vehicle that might constitute a journey.Before I do that, I would add as background to this legislation that we have the situation where the Leader of the National Party at the time, Mr Fischer, said that he would support a GST only if the fuel excise was abolished. Subsequently, however, he reneged on that pledge and we had the Diesel Fuel Credit Scheme announced by the government that actually retains the fuel excise. This has meant no reduction in petrol tax for ordinary motorists and an increase in the city-country petrol differential. That is a very bad deal for country Australia.When we look at what is going on with oil prices, we see that the price of crude oil has gone down from its September high of $25.12, with the major crude oil contract recently closing at $20.90. But, if you look at the retail petrol price, you see that in the ACT the day before yesterday it was 83.9c a litre. This is a government which says it has done something about petrol prices by abolishing those maximum wholesale prices and taking the ACCC away from monitoring, but what we in fact see are the oil companies now taking advantage of that to increase their profit levels at the expense of ordinary motorists.I draw the minister's attention expressly to section 10A, which talks about what operation of a vehicle constitutes a journey. We have been told all along in this exercise that the government was going to produce some definition of which vehicles were eligible for the fuel credit and which ones were not, which journeys were covered and which ones were not. I take the House and the minister back to the Prime Minister's now infamous agreement with the Democrats on 31 May this year. The Prime Minister described which journeys were going to be covered and not covered and he referred to urban conurbations. For example, trips through Melbourne to Geelong would not be covered; they would not be eligible for the diesel fuel credit.We have all been waiting for the government to provide a precise definition of what areas are in and what areas are not in—whether you are in if you are in Werribee, whether you are in if you are in Whittlesea and whether you are in if you are in Craigieburn. All of those who are involved in this important area of transport are entitled to know what the government is intending.But, once again, we have legislation before the House which does not provide that. We have been told on a number of occasions that we could expect to see some kind of definition of what constitutes a journey, but it is still not here. All section 10A does is give the commissioner a discretion to decide what operations—what vehicle journeys—qualify for the diesel fuel excise. I call on the minister to provide us with some better detail and information for all those involved in the trucking industry who are going to depend on these decisions in terms of their livelihood. They are entitled to better.The other thing I want to note in relation to this matter is that the Prime Minister's state ment of 31 May said that, as a result of denying those urban conurbation journeys the diesel fuel excise credit, the government would save $199 million in the year 2000-01, $209 million in the year 2001-02 and $223 million in the year 2002-03. I cannot for the life of me understand how they can come up with precise figures of that kind, down to the last million dollars, without having some kind of knowledge or understanding of what journeys are in and what journeys are out. If they know what journeys are in and what journeys are out, they ought to fill us all in and let us all know what is happening. People involved in the transport industry are entitled to that. The government ought to let us know. (Extension of time granted)If on the other hand, the government do not know and they have not yet decided what journeys are going to be in and what journeys are not going to be in, how on earth could the Prime Minister have put out such a detailed press release on 31 May that talked about, as I said before, $199 million, $209 million and $223 million in terms of forward estimates? That is the first issue I wish to raise with the minister. I have two other matters which I wish to raise, but the minister may wish to respond to that particular concern now.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister has not risen in response and clearly intends to respond in a joint fashion. If no-one else wishes to rise, I call the member for Wills once again.09:52:0011414Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The second issue I want to raise concerns the matter of record keeping requirements, which is referred to at part 4 of the bill, sections 17, 18 and 19. Clearly, as section 17 says, there will be no entitlement to fuel grants unless record keeping requirements are met. That is logical, and we have no objection to that. But the question here is: how is a truck driver or operator to maintain these records? What are the proper records? What records are required to be kept? This information is certainly not set out in sections 17, 18 and 19. So anyone who is wanting to comply with the government's legislation and therefore be eligible for the fuel grants would not know what is required of them. My first question to the minister was: what journeys qualify? My second question to the minister is: what records are required to meet the sections set out in part 4 of the legislation?As the minister wants to take all the questions as a block, the third matter I want to raise concerns part 11, access to premises. I think other speakers in the debate have raised this issue of the extraordinary powers being given to the diesel police, or the dipstick police, to access people's premises in order to inspect documents or records. For example, section 47(2) states:The authorised officer:(a) may at all reasonable times enter and remain on those premises; and(b) is entitled to full and free access . . . to any such documents, goods or other property on these premises; and(c) may inspect, examine, count, measure, weigh, gauge, test or analyse any such goods or other property on those premises and, to that end, take samples.It is an extraordinary set of powers which has been given to these officers to police the fuels grants scheme. We do express some concern about that. We invite the minister and the government to provide us with some information about limitations or proper restrictions on those powers. It is a matter of common knowledge that, for a lot of people in the trucking industry, their home would be their office as well and the premises on which they keep records. The idea of home invasions by these authorised officers is a pretty unattractive idea. So we want to be sure that this power is not excessive and not capable of abuse. We are interested in hearing from the government what kinds of assurances it can give us on this front.09:56:0011414Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—We essentially covered these issues during the second reading debate. The first point raised by the shadow Assistant Treasurer is that the definition of a journey will be a disallowable instrument and therefore will be subject to the scrutiny of parliament. Similarly, the definition of metropolitan areas will be defined by regulation and again be subject to the scrutiny of parliament. So we need these bills to go through before we can pass the regulations to provide the definitions. That is the way it works.In respect of the issue relating to the uncertainty on record keeping requirements, the government is not going to impose the use of log books or particular record keeping systems where existing records can substantiate a claim. The record keeping requirements for most claimants will be no more than fuel receipts and eligible kilometres travelled, period. So I am a bit bemused by the honourable member's questions, because essentially we dealt with them during the second reading debate. In relation to the third and last point that he made, I will have to take that on notice and come back to him with a more complete answer.09:58:0011415Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I thank the minister for his response but, as we are being asked to support this legislation, for the minister to say, `We pass the bill first and you get the regulations second'—that is, `You find out what the real implications of the bill are after you have passed it'—is somewhat less than satisfactory, and I continue to register our concern on that front. Given that the minister has suggested that once this legislation is through the government will then move to introduce regulations, I ask: what information can he provide us with concerning the dates at which such regulations will be introduced? I do think it is important for people in the transport industry to get clarification as soon as possible concerning which journeys will be eligible for the fuel credit and which will not. I would ask the minister for any advice he can provide to us concerning this question of the timing of the regulations.09:59:0011415Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—As we know, this grants scheme does not come into effect until 1 July next year. The Minister for Transport and Regional Services gave an undertaking that we would get the administrative arrangements in place before the end of this year, and this is what this bill does. I can undertake to have the regulations before parliament as early as possible to provide as much certainty for the beneficiaries of this bill as possible. But I am not in any position to give specific details of that.There are two areas that I want to cover which I have not given the honourable member a full answer on. The third point which he raised was fuel sampling. As I reiterated in my summation speech on the second reading, the reason why there are such strict levels of policing of an inspection of fuel tanks is that there are different levels of grants for different fuels. So, if you have a varied fuel mix, there might be a different type of grant available.There is a fundamental difference, I suppose, between the opposition and ourselves that when we hand out taxpayers' money to people we want to be sure they are acting in a proper fashion, in an honest fashion, and they are accountable for the taxpayers' money that they receive. If someone was going to give me money to subsidise my business or assist with a cost, I would expect that I would be accountable to them for my expenditure of that money. This scheme is no different. We are simply saying that we want the legislative powers to make sure that people are accountable for the money that they have received from the taxpayer. I think that is perfectly reasonable. That is called accountability, that is called transparency, and that is what this government is about.The final point which the shadow Assistant Treasurer raised was the lag in fuel prices currently. He cited the cost of fuel in Canberra as an example. It is a fundamental point. There is a time differential between the volatility of Singapore crude pricing and its impact at the petrol bowser in Canberra, Sydney, Coober Pedy or anywhere else in Australia. There is a differential. And why is there a differential? Because obviously there is a refining process, there is a purchasing process.I have asked the ACCC to continue with its informal price monitoring of petrol and fuels at the bowser, but it is quite clear that the recent hiccup in petrol prices was related to the more than doubling in the end of the price of Singapore crude per barrel over the last 12 months. That lag came through to the petrol bowsers and affected consumers—and we are all concerned about that—but we also have the commonsense to realise that there is a timelag between movement in crude oil prices and its effect at the bowsers. It was similarly the case when Singapore crude came down, from memory, from $25 to $20. There will be a timelag before that has an impact at the petrol bowser. That is going to continue to be the case until such time as people are able to take the crude oil out of the ground and put it straight into their cars. That is a long way away.10:03:0011416Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—In this place we are obliged to accept the explanation of the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation that the regulations will be forthcoming as soon as the government can produce them. I suggest that perhaps the Senate may not be as ready to accept a government that wants it to buy a pig in a poke and cannot produce some kind of information about what areas are going to be covered by this excise grants scheme and what areas are not going to be covered by this excise grants scheme.The minister in his response also defended the petrol companies' position concerning crude oil prices being reflected at the petrol pump. As my colleague the shadow minister for industry pointed out, prices are always very well lubricated following any increases in the price of crude internationally and rise very quickly, but they seem to be very sticky when there is any drop in the price. They seem to take an awful long time to fall when we learn that the international price of crude oil has fallen. In defending the oil companies in this matter, the minister is at least consistent. He is always there defending the banks and always there defending the large petrol companies. Indeed, I have heard him referred to around town as `Big End Joe'. I assume that is to do with his defence of the top end of town in terms of the large banks and large petrol companies. I certainly hope that is the reason he is referred to in that way.We will be supporting this legislation, but we do expect the government to come up with detail about the criteria by which the fuel grants will be allocated and the nature of the records which are expected to be kept by those who will be applying for the grants.Bill agreed to.11416Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills11416The following bill was returned from the Senate without amendment or request: ACIS (Unearned Credit Liability) Bill 1999 Bills11416r81511416Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendment—(1) Page 103 (after line 25), after clause 116, insert:Part 14—Independent inquiry 117 Independent inquiry concerning automotive industry (1) Before 1 July 2003 the Minister must cause to be established an independent inquiry into the future of Australia's automotive industry. The inquiry must address, in particular, the most appropriate rates of customs duty to apply from 1 January 2005 on passenger motor vehicles and the categories of related componentry and products specified in this Act. (2) After the Minister receives the report of the inquiry established under subsection (1), the Minister may issue a written certificate stating that the Minister has received the report and is satisfied rates of customs should be amended from the inquiry certificate day as provided in this Act. (3) The Minister must arrange for a copy of a certificate issued under subsection (2) to be published in the Gazette. (4) Subject to subsection (5), the day on which a certificate issued under subsection (2) is published in the Gazette is the inquiry certificate day . (5) If the copy of the certificate issued under subsection (2) is published in the Gazette before 1 January 2005, the inquiry certificate day is taken to be 1 January 2005. (6) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the inquiry established under subsection (1) to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after receiving the report.10:07:0011417Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—I move:That the amendment be disagreed to.The ACIS Administration Bill 1999 is part of a package of legislation which introduces the ACIS scheme. This $2 billion scheme is designed to assist the industry adjust to a more liberal world trading environment from the year 2005. In the meantime, the tariff applying to passenger motor vehicles will be frozen at 15 per cent and then reduced to 10 per cent on 1 January 2005. The government has made it very clear to the opposition that this scheme and tariff reduction are part of an integrated package. Any amendments such as the opposition's proposal to make the reduction to 10 per cent conditional on a further inquiry are completely unacceptable to the government.Since ACIS was designed to help the industry make their transition to a more liberalised trade environment, if there are no tariff reductions in 2005 the policy rationale for ACIS simply ceases to exist. We have already had an inquiry into this scheme. The extensive Industry Commission inquiry conducted in 1996-97 covered the issues of tariff settings and other industry support measures through to the end of 2005. Investment decisions in the automotive industry have long lead times and the industry requires clarity and certainty about the medium-term policy environment.The industry strongly supports passage of the legislation in its entirety as a matter of urgency. The Federation of Automotive Product Manufacturers wrote to Mr McMullan yesterday stating:In our view, the legislation presently before the Senate will be important in driving investment and creating a more competitive automotive industry. We are concerned that any delay in the Senate's consideration of the matter will disrupt this industry's plans to invest.We therefore seek your support in ensuring a timely passage of this legislation through the Parliament.The government absolutely agrees with this view. On that basis, the government has rejected the Senate's amendment and will return the bill to the Senate today. We would be very disappointed if the opposition does not come to its senses and stop blocking a plan that will attract $4 billion of investment in Australian industry and, of course, in Australian jobs.10:10:0011417McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—I do not hold the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources responsible for that load of hogwash because I know someone else wrote it for him. But it is really appalling that we have here a problem of the government's own making and then it turns up and says, `This is urgent and the opposition's got to solve it because the government can't.' The second part of that is true. The government cannot solve this question, but the opposition can and will. But he pretends that it is urgent—let us deal with that first—when the government sat on this bill for five months. It was introduced into the House on 13 May. It was not delayed in the Senate by us. It passed the day after it was introduced after a brief debate. There was no extended committee hearing. There was not even reference to a legislation committee. We did not delay this bill one day. The government sat on it for five months and then comes into this place in October and says that it is urgent. So let us firstly get rid of that.As I say, I do not hold the parliamentary secretary responsible. He could not possibly know that, but the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources knows that. The minister sat on it for five months and discovered two days ago that perhaps he had a problem. How many times did he have discussions with the opposition or the Democrats about these motions until two days ago, after five months? None—not one phone call, one approach, one representation, one expression of view.Did he know we were going to move an amendment? Yes, we moved it in the House in exactly the same terms. So let us not pretend that somehow or other there has been a late expression of view by the opposition which has held this up. The government sat on it for five months. The minister spent five months campaigning to save the Queen and two days ago found out that there might be something he needed to do to save the car industry. That is not us; that is him. It is absolutely typical of the way this minister approaches industry policy. It is an unpleasant distraction to his campaign for the monarchy. It is not an issue which he takes seriously. So let us get rid of that.We will facilitate the government introducing this scheme because we know that it has no other way of getting the $2 billion assistance to the industry. It is the government's responsibility. It is the executive government. It is its responsibility to solve this problem, but it cannot; so we will. If it had been a bill about the republic, it would not have waited five months. It would have been in here the first day. It would have been on the top of the Senate Notice Paper, but because it is a bill about the car industry we had five months. It is that sort of stand around and then rush mentality that causes problems which leads to maladministration and those sorts of issues of bad policy—that is, stand around for five months and then try to solve everything in 48 hours.The government have themselves hooked on a silly point of conflict that they cannot get off. They need us to get them off. We will, but they should. If the minister knows anything about the issues before this industry and what the industry would really like, he would know the industry would like what we are proposing. They would like the review we are proposing, but they know that the minister is not going to give enough of his attention to working a way through to find it.What is our amendment? Our amendment has a complex number of parts to it, but the effect of each of those parts is the same. That is, before this scheme or this set of arrangements concludes in 2005, there should be a review to determine whether they should continue. What is the government's alternative proposal? That, after the scheme concludes, we should have an inquiry—`first the punishment, then the trial'. Do you know why the minister is attracted to that? It was a monarch who said that; it was the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland. Any monarch will do in a storm. He thinks he might be losing one and he desperately wants to pick up another. This is just appalling policy.We do not think this is a perfect scheme. It leaves out some people who had benefits under the Export Facilitation Scheme; they will not be able to get anything under ACIS. We have been seeking some explanation from the minister and the department about the rationale for this. (Extension of time granted) We want to know why the people who miss out do so. These are people who produce substantially for what is called in the trade the `after market'—what we would call in the vernacular spare parts. But we are not talking about small producers; we are talking about people who produce at the scale that would get them over the threshold for this scheme—that is, more than 30,000 units—but who produce not a sufficient proportion of their product for original equipment manufacture such that they get over the 30,000 threshold for OEM itself.There are a number of these people, and this scheme does not catch them. We are not going to hold the scheme up for that; we simply point out that inadequacy. Our concern is that this fundamental set of changes for the industry, which takes it in a direction which we support, will be implemented in six years time. Yet between now and then the government does not believe we need to monitor whether it is a good idea or not. This is the key question.We are dealing here with an industry that has a sense of impending crisis—crisis because of the GST transition, and the stand-downs that are occurring as a consequence of it. Two of my colleagues here, the members for Kingston and Stirling, have employees and businesses in their constituencies that are affected. They want to raise certain issues about those stand-downs in this industry. My colleague the member for Corio, who has a very big Ford plant in his electorate, is also particularly concerned and has made representations to me about this. There is also the question of increasing imports of second-hand vehicles and the impact of those on the industry, about which representations have been made in the Senate on behalf of the members for Capricornia and Lalor. In all those circumstances, we have a complacent minister who stands idly by saying, `Well, we might look at it.' The government might have a review even of the GST, but we cannot get a review of this scheme.With this the government is on the horns of a dilemma, but it has put itself there. It only worked out it had this dilemma two days ago, when everybody else has known for five months. All that the government can do now is bluster and get the industry associations to send their form letters—and I do not blame them; they want this scheme because it is the only scheme they can get out of the government. They wrote us a letter; it does not make any difference. I do not object to it, but nobody will be moved by it. We knew that those letters would be coming. I could have written them myself.But this is our objective: we want a review in 2003 before the tariff changes come in and, more particularly, before the scheme terminates. We want the facts determined before the action, not after. What if we find in 2005 that the timing of these changes was appalling, that there could not have been a worse time to do it? We will have an inquiry in 2005 and we will find that and we will say, `Whoops, that's a bit of a problem. It's a pity we didn't look at it before we did it.' Nobody can suggest that this is other than a government that is pig-headedly not having a review because we thought of it. The only thing I feel bad about is that, perhaps if we had not suggested it quite so stridently, the government might have adopted it, but it feels that it cannot do it because it was our idea. That is our objective. It is an objective by which we stand.But we will not hold up the $2 billion of assistance to the industry. We tried to get to the circumstance where the parliament would be able to ensure that the government holds an inquiry. There is now only one way for the workers in the car industry to get the inquiry they want, and that is to change the government at the next election. I give this unequivocal commitment: if a Labor government is elected in 2001, there will be an inquiry in 2003 before these changes come in. So we do have a stark differentiation. If at the next election the government is re-elected, there will not be a review before these changes come in; if we are elected, there will be.We will get the government off of the hook on which it has impaled itself and from which it cannot escape. We will allow this bill to pass because we want to see the $2 billion flow to the industry. But we will make sure that, if a Labor government is elected, there will be an inquiry, as everybody knows there should be.10:20:0011419McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—I rise to speak today on an amendment, sent to this House by the Senate, to the ACIS—Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme—Administration Bill 1999. I have come to understand very personally the importance of an inquiry into the automotive industry, so the amendment to insert part 14, independent inquiry, into the bill has my wholehearted support. I am surprised by the government's rejection of this proposal to have a review before 1 July 2003 in preference to the government's model of seeking a review after 2005, especially given that the bill has enjoyed until now cross-party support.We all understand that the automotive industry is an important part of this country's manufacturing base, but the government must think beyond this and reflect on the thousands of down-the-line businesses and jobs that depend on a vibrant and profitable car industry for their survival. It is very hard to hear on the news and read in the papers about massive stand-downs at the Ford plant in September—3,500 workers at that time—and have confidence that everything is all right with the industry. As my colleague the member for Kingston highlighted in a speech to this House on Monday night, since the beginning of this financial year, passenger vehicle sales have fallen a seasonally adjusted 13 per cent compared with the same period last year.Does the government not hear the warning bells? In the context of a downturn in sales, stand-downs at car plants and the arrival of a new tax system, it is clear that a thorough independent review of the industry which debates amongst other things the appropriate customs duty is needed in the very near future. I cannot see why the government wants to wait until some time after 2005 to conduct a review. What good would that do anyone?I remind the government that the bill was established to `promote competitiveness and encourage investment in the automotive industry'. I could be forgiven for thinking that this meant the government was committed to ensuring the car industry and all those associated businesses I have spoken of remain competitive, profitable and contributing to a growing economy in Australia. But its actions speak the loudest of all and, by rejecting this proposed early review, it is saying that it is not genuinely interested in coming to grips with the realities facing people and businesses in this industry.Let me put on record some of those cold, hard realities and let us hope that someone in the government is prepared to listen. In my electorate of Stirling I have several new and used car yards and, as you would expect, the businesses associated with those yards. Last week a couple who run a car repair type of small business in my electorate came to see me and they were quietly distraught. After years of slog, their small business was turning a healthy profit and the family was comfortable. Then the goods and services tax happened and it has brought disaster to their door. Whether this government wants to acknowledge it or not, there is a very strong perception in the marketplace that new passenger vehicles will become significantly cheaper with the introduction of a goods and services tax next July. We know this is not true; it is yet another government sleight of hand, but it is what people believe and, as indicated earlier, it has led to a massive downturn in new passenger vehicle sales.There has been a flow-on effect to the used car market. When people stop buying cars—both new and old—car yards do not need repair work done to present their cars. The struggle to sell results in tighter margins and profits are cut to the bone. Then there is a flow-on impact on the viability of subsidiary industries such as car repairs. As a result, in my electorate two honest, hard-working, committed people with family responsibilities go to work every day in their business and wonder how long before the end comes. Tragically they are realists. They have met with their accountant and they are facing a reality that would shake anyone. If things do not change, they will be bankrupt by Christmas.I have to say that, since spending some time with this couple last week, I have carried with me a deep sense of the injustice of it all. I have become a little bit angry, particularly with this government that has the absolute hide to stand in this House day after day promulgating the view that it is the business person's government. It is not. It has betrayed the small business people associated with the vehicle industry by its callous refusal to acknowledge and act on the very real phenomenon of a buyers' strike in a key section of the automotive industry after the passage of the GST legislation.The government was able to implement transitional arrangements for the white goods industry but not for the automotive industry. The industry and the Labor Party want the government to implement the same types of transitional arrangements now to stop the slide in the automotive industry. Unless it acts now, it will have betrayed my constituents who face ruin through no fault of their own. If it does not take seriously the concerns of the Labor Party and minor parties about the need for an urgent independent review of the automotive industry, particularly in relation to customs duty, it will continue that betrayal and more businesses and workers will lose out.I will take no comfort in the government's eventual downfall as the business people of Australia realise that the government does not want to hear their problems or work with them to address issues of concern as they arise. People are depending on you; don't continue to let them down. (Time expired)10:25:0011421Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—Firstly, the car industry in my electorate regards the proposal by the Labor Party to have a review of the ACIS arrangements and tariffs before the tariff freeze finishes, and certainly before the ACIS assistance arrangements cease in 2005, as entirely beneficial to the industry. In the last two days the government has sought to crank up a campaign saying that the opposition, by proposing that review and supporting it, is holding up the provision of assistance arrangements under ACIS to the car industry. That is clearly not the case.The ACIS Administration Bill 1999 was first debated in this place on 23 June and it went through the consideration in detail stage where our amendment was originally put and lost the following day on 24 June. Now it is 13 October before the government has brought it back here and is asking us to abandon the amendment which, when it was moved again in the Senate, was in fact passed. Because we are not in the business of holding up this important assistance to the car industry, we are not going to press this amendment, even though we believe that it is a very good amendment and a very wise piece of policy.One has to ask why the government has sought to crank up this campaign in the last two days, because it was pretty obvious that we were going to allow this bill to go through in an unamended form. The reason for that is that the government now realises that it has a very serious problem with the transitional arrangements for the GST on cars and that there has been a buyers' strike. There have already been stand-downs at Ford of 3,500 workers. The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Minchin, has been asked questions in the Senate for several days this week and he is giving clear indications, as we saw in the Financial Review this morning, that the government is looking at those transitional arrangements and would like to act. It is probably fairly desperate to try and put some of the blame for the problems of the car industry onto the opposition when in fact they are problems entirely of the government's own making. The cost of the buyers' strike to government revenue has been estimated by Martec at $450 million this year. You would think that there would be some trade-off between that loss of revenue and the cost of an alternative transitional arrangement for the GST which would end the buyers' strike and end the crisis in the car manufacturing industry.Unfortunately, the cost of reducing the wholesale sales tax to the same retail value level tax as the GST would be about $1.3 billion for the last nine months of this year. That is obviously a fairly big bite out of the government's surplus so they are reluctant to do that. The government are putting off taking any effective action on the transitional arrangements for the GST on cars because they know that taking effective action would cost them more than $100 million a month. For every month that they leave the car industry in crisis, the government revenue that will be saved will be more than $100 million. The Treasurer has got himself into the unenviable situation, because of his miscalculation of the effectiveness of the transitional arrangement that he did put in place, where he has a choice, and his choice is to either wreck the car industry or wreck his budget. (Extension of time granted)The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, who is at the table, might like to confirm in his response—and I will certainly put out a press release later today asking the Treasurer to do this if I do not get an answer now—Martec's estimate of the loss of revenue from the buyers' strike of $450 million. I think he will be reluctant to do that. He certainly, if he wished, would be able to tell the House precisely what the revenue cost of reducing the wholesale sales tax to the same equivalent level as the GST would be, either for the whole of the year or on a monthly basis, and I would ask him to do that. I also ask him to tell the House whether the impression that Senator Minchin sought to give the Senate yesterday—that the government was looking at this issue, was intending to act and was prepared to act—is true. I also ask him to tell the House whether any action is imminent or whether, because the cost to revenue of acting will be about $100 million a month, the situation will be that the plight of the car industry will be left to get worse, month after month. Will we see more plant stand-downs and shut-downs as the industry seeks to reduce its production of passenger motor vehicles in this country because of the declining demand, with all the attendant effects that that will have on component suppliers who supply the vehicle assemblers, and all of the spin-off effects that that will have on other parts of the economy which are dependent on the wages of all the people in those industries who supply business inputs to the component and vehicle industries?It is the biggest issue in Australian manufacturing this year, and I think the vehicle industry and the people who work in the vehicle industry are entitled to much clearer answers about the government's attitude to it than they are presently getting from Senator Minchin.10:34:0011422Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—I would suggest that some of those questions that the honourable member has just raised, particularly with regard to Senator Minchin's intention, be asked directly of him. I am not a mind-reader, and do not profess to answer on his behalf. However, I am pleased to see that the opposition is not going to block this bill from going through now, and I am sure that will be a great relief for the car industry.Question resolved in the affirmative.10:35:0011422Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—by leave—I present the reasons for the House disagreeing to the Senate amendment, and I move:That the reasons be adopted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills11422r81811422Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 5), before item 1, insert:1A Subsection 3(1)Insert: inquiry certificate day has the meaning given by section 117 of the ACIS Administration Act 1999 .(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 9), omit "1 January 2005", substitute "the inquiry certificate day".(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (after line 14), omit "1 January 2005", substitute "the inquiry certificate day".(4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (after line 5), omit "1 January 2005", substitute "the inquiry certificate day".(5) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (after line 10), omit "1 January 2005", substitute "the inquiry certificate day".(6) Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (after line 4), omit "1 January 2005", substitute "the inquiry certificate day".(7) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (after line 9), omit "1 January 2005", substitute "the inquiry certificate day".(8) Schedule 1, item 8, page 7 (after line 2), omit "31 December 2004", substitute "the day before the inquiry certificate day".(9) Schedule 1, item 8, page 10 (after line 1), omit "1 January 2005", substitute "the inquiry certificate day".10:36:0011422Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—The government disagrees with these amendments for the reasons that I have stated previously. I move:That the amendments be disagreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10:36:0011422Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—I present the reasons for the House disagreeing with the Senate amendments, and I move:That the reasons be adopted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills11423r73311423Debate resumed from 11 October, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—The member for Calare, after a long wait, in continuation.10:37:0011423Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—It has been a long wait, but I am sure those searching for my words of wisdom will not find it too difficult to find the beginning of this contribution. I was, when interrupted by the adjournment the other night, commenting on the restructure of the commission which, as set out in the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 , has the potential for leaving subject areas of discrimination virtually unrepresented.I understand that the government has attempted to cut and paste this bill and subsequently amend the section relating to transitional times and arrangements for the specialist commissioners, who would have found themselves automatically terminated. The amendment goes some way towards maintaining a minimum amount of independence for the commission—a token amendment, if you like, and one of the many recommended by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, which examined this bill.The government realised it would not get away with a lack of transitional arrangements for the commissioners, as it contradicts the Paris principle on national human rights institutions. That principle clearly states:In order to ensure a stable mandate for the members of the national institution, without which there can be no real independence, their appointment shall be effected by an official act which shall establish the specific duration of the mandate.I am disappointed that the government has made this amendment purely on the basis of the Paris principle and legal obligation. Surely, moral obligation would dictate provisions for transitional arrangements to be included from the outset. This bill proposes that the commission undergo changes in its functions in the hope of improving human rights for all Australians. I support any initiative to improve human rights for all Australians—as, indeed, would any member in this parliament—but not this robbing Peter to pay Paul principle that permeates this bill.While I welcome the proposal for the commission to focus on education, education alone does not guarantee that all people will treat each other with the respect that they deserve or that their human rights dictate. Education does not provide the independent scrutiny which the commission performs in compliance with Australia's international legal obligations.The other new function presented under the education umbrella includes the creation of guidelines for the commission to assist business and the community to avoid discrimination. That is fair enough and difficult to argue against, but it does not make sense that if the commission is to have the authority over businesses and individuals in terms of advising on discrimination issues then it should have its very powers to exercise that authority reduced.Now I move to the abolition of the Community Relations Council under the new functions of the commission. Although it is argued that the commission is able to consult with appropriate groups or individuals as required and that the advisory council was never fully utilised, the situation mirrors that of the commission's power to recommend damages. Even if the tool is not always accessed, it does not mean that it will not be required in the future or that it is useless.Let me turn to some other issues, notably the renaming of the commission to the Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission. There was no public input and no apparent support or submissions on this matter, and no logic, in fact, for the change, except perhaps to flag support for the Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities, which emphasises responsibilities at the expense of rights and to which we are not yet—I emphasise `yet'—a signatory. Perhaps the mutual responsibility team from social services got to work on this one too. If it has to be renamed, amend it to `Human Rights Commission'. The public, the media and most of us refer to it by that name anyway. Let us turn that practice into law and keep it that way. The government might also wish to consider that any name change costs time, effort, resources and funds. How about channelling those funds into worthwhile areas to assist the commission, such as legal aid, instead of new stationery and signage for the commission?Further, on legal aid, which I mentioned earlier in the first part of my contribution to the debate late on Monday evening, the number of constituents with legal aid problems who walk into my office every day falls just short of Telstra complaints and about on par with complaints about child support, with which legal aid has a close connection. The decision announced by the government to cut $120 million over three years from legal aid funding, and consequently dismantle Australia's national unified legal aid system, is having a profound effect on the ability of Australians to enforce their human rights. In accordance with the provisions of this bill, discrimination law disputes will now be determined in the Federal Court of Australia—if, of course, you can afford the legal costs. The legal aid cuts over the six years budgeted by the coalition government represent a $231 million reduction in legal aid funding in real terms. Every year this government is spending $46.5 million less in real terms on legal aid funding.The current Commonwealth-state agreements for legal aid, introduced in 1997, contain a guideline for the commission to grant assistance in terms of funding for equal opportunity and discrimination cases. This sounds fine, except that guideline unfairly excludes people suffering from discrimination from access to legal assistance. The rhetoric of human rights is contained in the guideline; the practical reality of delivering through proper legal aid is just not there. We do not want Australia to become a country where human rights are only an issue if you can afford to defend them.The Human Rights Commissioner, Chris Sidoti, has only recently returned from Burma, where his undoubted skills may hopefully inspire a breakthrough in human rights and eventual establishment of an HREOC in that country. I find it inconceivable that, at a time when there is a call for a more comprehensive federal legislative framework to address discrimination issues, the government is attempting to muzzle a highly internationally respected institution and reduce access to achieving those rights. Mr Sidoti has stated that as a nation we are at a point where discrimination on the grounds of age, sexual orientation, trade union activity, criminal record and religious and political opinion require the same level of legislation as sex, race and disability grounds.If anything, there should be an expansion of the commission's duties, powers and responsibilities and, in turn, an expansion of resources. Instead, the government has produced a piece of legislation that trends the other way. If you listened to the government, you could be fooled into thinking that the bill will help develop the commission and bring it into a new cultural era. However, it is a culture all too well recognisable, a culture of government control of processes, a further concentration of executive control over areas which should be at arms-length from government—not unlike the deceitful republic model on offer. This executive intrusion is especially repugnant in the area of human rights and discrimination, where the government may all too often be a party to the dispute. I have studied the opposition's amendments in detail, and I recommend them to the House as a means of substantially restoring fairness and logic to this legislation.10:45:0011424Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—in reply—I would like thank the members who have participated in the quite extensive debate on the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999. They are the members for Barton, Curtin, Oxley, Calwell, Sydney, Jagajaga, Northern Territory, Chifley, Isaacs, Gellibrand, Throsby, Shortland and Calare. As I noted in my second reading speech, the bill is the result of a lengthy and detailed examination, commenced under the previous Labor government, of the structure and operations of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The bill seeks to implement changes to the commission that will increase its capacity to promote and protect the human rights of all Australians and to deal with human rights issues in a constantly changing and developing social context.Under the provisions of the bill, the structure of the commission will be freed up to deal with the broad range of human rights issues by establishing three deputy presidents rather than designated special-purpose commissioners. This will provide the commission with the flexibility to change its culture and organisation to meet the community's needs and address particular issues of concern in a changing environment. It will also assist in enhancing the commission's image as an institution concerned with protecting and promoting the human rights and responsibilities of all Australians, not just of those who fit within the narrow classification of specialist commissioners.This is an important move which would address the current perception among many in the community that the commission is focused only on specific areas such as sex, race or disability discrimination. I note that under the present structure of the commission there are six members who have the status of deputy secretaries in the Australian Public Service. Despite having many more staff at a more junior level, my own department, in comparison, has only two deputy secretaries to cover its entire range of responsibilities. This results in the commission being simply top heavy and inhibits the commission's ability to use its resources efficiently and to the benefit of as broad a cross-section of the community as possible.I am constantly being asked to establish more commissioners to focus on other groups who perceive that their particular interests are not served by the designated commissioners. Children, the aged, refugees and those in same-sex relationships are just some of those who claim not to have their interests represented by the current commissioners. The calls for representation by these groups highlight the problem that there is really no limit to the number or types of groups who may claim not to be properly represented in a commission structure which relies so heavily on specially designated commissioners. These groups also reflect the changing range of human rights issues which arise over time and which would be better served by a flexible commission structure.I note also in this regard that the bill will enhance the commission's ability to organise its staff and resources to reflect human rights priorities and areas of focus or attention. I note in particular that the commission has recently appointed Mr Graeme Innes as the Assistant Disability Discrimination Commissioner. In this role, Mr Innes will work with the Disability Discrimination Unit to advise and assist the Acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner, Ms Susan Halliday. The bill should make it easier for the commission to make this type of flexible, needs based arrangement in the future.While Australians can be proud of our human rights record and our commitment to developing and fostering a tolerant community where the human rights of all its members are protected, we need to look at human rights and antidiscrimination as global issues and to focus on the community as a whole. In this way, more effective action can be taken to secure and protect the rights of all Australians. I believe that the establishment of deputy presidents will take us in this direction.The bill makes it clear that the new commission's priority will be to educate Australians about human rights and discrimination and to help them to understand their responsibility, as members of the Australian community, to respect other people's human rights. This refocusing of the commission's functions and the emphasis on education is reflected in the new name proposed in this bill, the Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission.I note that the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee has reported on the bill and made some recommendations in relation to it. I advise that I will be moving amendments at the consideration in detail stage to address issues in that report relating to transitional provisions for the current commissioners and the commission's power to intervene in court proceedings.I note that the majority report also recommended that the bill be amended to clarify the legal status and effect of guidelines created by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The government does not intend to move such an amendment. I do not consider it appropriate to provide in legislation for the status of such guidelines. I agree with the commission that the guidelines are a policy interpretation of the application of the law and, as such, are there to assist people and organisations to comply with the law. To attempt to specify in legislation that they do or do not have legal status would run the risk that the guidelines are either elevated to a status that is not intended or, alternatively, diminished in their importance. I consider it best to leave it as a matter for the courts in any particular case to determine all the facts surrounding a complaint, whether or not there has been compliance with legislative requirements and whether the actions of parties were reasonable in all the circumstances, including whether policy guidelines issued by the commission have relevance to the facts in a particular case.I note the views of the members for Barton, Oxley, Sydney, Chifley and Isaacs in relation to the comments made by the Committee for the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. This bill will not change in any way the functions of the commission in relation to the enjoyment and exercise of human rights by Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders. While there will no longer be a designated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, the bill will confer the functions on the commission as a whole. It will then be up to the commission to delegate the responsibility for the performance of these functions to a deputy president.The government expects, of course, that the commission will allocate these functions to the deputy president with responsibility for racial discrimination and social justice. That deputy president will in this way be able to develop his or her own knowledge and expertise in relation to indigenous human rights. The commission will also continue to have the benefit of the specialist expertise of the staff currently working in its Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice unit. The functions of the specialist units in the commission will not be affected by the bill.The member for Calwell has criticised the move to deputy presidents on the basis that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of complaints to the commission based on racial and ethnic prejudice. This is not the case. While it is true that there was a substantial increase made in the number of complaints made under the Racial Discrimination Act in 1998-99, the commission advises that, of the 898 complaints made, 467 were against the same respondent and related to the same subject matter. If these complaints are removed from consideration, the remaining 431 complaints actually represent a decrease from the 482 reported for 1997-98. The 482 in 1997-98 also represented a decrease from the 683 complaints under the Racial Discrimination Act made to the commission in the previous year.The members for Barton, Oxley, Calwell, Sydney, Chifley, Isaacs and Throsby have once again raised the issue of cuts to the commission's budget. The member for Calare raised it this morning as well. Once again, I utterly reject any claims that this government has used budget cuts to undermine the commission. The government remains strongly committed to maintaining a strong national human rights institution. However, in tough financial times that institution's funding cannot be quarantined.I would like to take this opportunity to outline for the record some history of this issue, as some fairly outrageous claims have been made in this parliament and in other public fora. First, the initial reduction to HREOC funding in the 1997-98 financial year was no more than the efficiency savings that were imposed on all agencies within the Attorney-General's portfolio and the Australian Public Service. This amounted to a four per cent savings in running costs and a one per cent efficiency dividend. The government was forced to implement budget reductions across the Public Service in order to address the financial problems which remained from the previous Labor government's misman agement of the economy. The other relevant factor in that financial year was that the commission had completed a project for which specific funding had been allocated. Any responsible government would of course not continue to allocate funding to an organisation for tasks that are completed.With respect to the 1998-99 budget, the portfolio budget statements, which are freely available to the public, indicate that the commission's funding was reduced by approximately 25 per cent—nothing like the figure of 43 per cent that has been consistently and misleadingly used. Again, there were sound reasons for these reductions. First, efficiency dividends were again necessary which applied to the commission and all Commonwealth departments and agencies. Second, in order to address the High Court's decision in the Brandy case, the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Act No. 1, which was passed by this parliament on 23 September 1999, will transfer the commission's hearing function to the Federal Court. A reduction to the commission's funding base therefore accounts for part of the reductions that appear on paper, though the actual reduction will not take place until the transfer of function proceeds. Third, the commission had completed another project which had received specific additional funding. Again, the government was not going to continue funding the commission for projects that had been finished.Members should also note that any reductions should be considered in context. HREOC's growth over the decade prior to this period had been significantly disproportionate to that in other areas of government. Over the nine years prior to the first cuts, funding to HREOC had increased fourfold. Over the same period, staff members increased from 51 to 200—at one stage exceeding 220. The commission's budget now reflects a more realistic allocation for it to undertake its core functions.One of those core functions is education of the Australian community about human rights. I thank the member for Barton for indicating his commitment to education. It is unfortunate that opposition members do not support the government in its aims, therefore, to provide the commission with a greater focus in this area by supporting this bill. The opposition have alleged that this government has little commitment to educating Australians about the need to respect each other's human rights. The opposition conveniently ignore the government's commitment to establishing a National Committee on Human Rights Education to form part of Australia's response to the United Nations call to celebrate the Decade for Human Rights Education. I anticipate that the committee will lay the groundwork for developing a national approach to human rights education by pursuing joint initiatives with non-government organisations and with the business sector.Last year I announced that the government had endorsed Dr Eric Tan AM as the chair of the national committee. Dr Tan brings with him a great deal of experience and has already shown an enormous enthusiasm for the task of coordinating and promoting the work of the national committee. This government is committed to promoting community harmony and cultural diversity. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs launched, in August last year, the Living in Harmony campaign to combat racism and bigotry in our community. A centrepiece of this campaign is a community grants program which will allocate $2.5 million to community projects aimed at promoting community harmony. These are but two examples of significant initiatives undertaken by the government to educate the community about human rights. It is a pity that the opposition will not assist us to build on such initiatives by supporting this bill and its central aim of enhancing education by providing the commission with an increased focus in this area.The members for Barton, Sydney, Chifley, Isaacs and Throsby raised concerns about the proposed change of name for the commission to the Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission. The government is seeking a change in the commission's name to reflect the fundamental changes proposed to the commission's structure and focus. The government intends that the commission's priorities will in the future lie in the areas of education and dissemination of information on human rights and assistance to business and the general community to comply with their human rights obligations. Of course, making people aware of their responsibilities to respect other people's human rights can be, in the long run, more effective than educating people about their own rights. Certainly, one cannot effectively occur without the other. The government hopes that the commission will actively encourage people to think about their responsibilities in this regard and to act accordingly. If we can engender in the Australian community a sense of deep respect for human rights born of a recognition that the enjoyment and protection of such rights carries with it a responsibility to respect the rights of others, we will be a long way down the road to achieving effective protection of the rights of all Australians. I find it difficult to accept that any person who is genuinely concerned about ensuring and promoting human rights can argue that the proposed new name for the commission does not reflect its role and aims.The member for Oxley demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of how the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission operates when he stated that the prohibition on the delegation of the president with respect to complaint handling will `eventually force individuals to take their concerns outside the commission'. This, of course, is a change which was made under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Amendment Act (No. 1) 1999 and not under this bill. That act remedied a longstanding difficulty in relation to the non-enforceable determination of disputes by the commission, resulting from the decision of the High Court in Brandy, by removing the commission's redundant hearing function. Under the act, the commission will continue to handle and attempt to conciliate disputes. The act reorganises and streamlines the complaint handling functions of the commission under the president, freeing commissioners to focus on their inquiry and education functions.Under this bill, the commission will still have the same complaints function and the role of conciliating with respect to those complaints that it now has. In practice, the commission has a well-staffed complaints unit that takes on this function and people's complaints will continue to be capably handled by that unit of people with experience and expertise in this work. This bill is an important step in making the commission more relevant and more responsive to the needs of the Australian community.Despite extravagant claims to the contrary, it does not limit the commission's ability to protect and promote human rights in Australia. In fact, the government believes that the bill will assist the commission in more effectively achieving this goal, by giving it a more flexible and less top-heavy structure with the capacity to adapt and reflect the needs and concerns of all Australians. I challenge the opposition to get serious about promoting human rights in Australia by supporting this legislation and assisting the government to bring about much-needed structural change to the commission. I commend the bill to the House.Question put:That the bill be read a second time.11:05:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl)71Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr K. J. AndrewsMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr BroughMr CadmanMr CameronMr CausleyMr CharlesMr CostelloMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Ms GambaroMrs GashMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HardgraveMr HawkerMr HockeyMrs HullMr JullMrs 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 SlipperDr SouthcottDr StoneMrs SullivanMr C. P. ThompsonMr A. P. ThomsonMr TrussMr TuckeyMr M. A. J. VaileMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs Worth56Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr AndrenMr BreretonMr CoxMr CreanMr DanbyMr EdwardsMs EllisDr EmersonMr M. J. EvansMr L. D. T. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMr KerrMr LathamDr LawrenceMr LeeMs LivermoreMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MossfieldMr MurphyMs O'ByrneMr O'ConnorMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*Mr SciaccaMr Sercombe*Mr SidebottomMr SmithMr SnowdonMr SwanMr K. J. ThomsonMr WilkieMr WiltonMr HowardMr BeazleyMr BarresiMrs CrosioMrs GallusMr ZahraMr ProsserMs BurkeMr SomlyayMr McLeay* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.11429Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.11:10:0011429McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 1 to 14:(1) Schedule 1, item 15, page 5 (lines 1 to 2), omit the item.(2) Schedule 1, item 22, page 6 (lines 5 to 6), omit the item.(3) Schedule 1, item 24, page 6 (lines 9 to 11), omit the item.(4) Schedule 1, item 25, page 6 (lines 12 to 31), omit the item.(5) Schedule 1, item 36, page 8 (lines 30 to 32), omit the item.(6) Schedule 1, item 37, page 8 (line 33) to page 9 (line 19), omit the item.(7) Schedule 1, item 38, page 9 (lines 20 to 21), omit the item.(8) Schedule 1, item 39, page 9 (lines 22 to 23), omit the item.(9) Schedule 1, item 83, page 15 (lines 19 to 22), omit the item.(10) Schedule 1, item 85, page 15 (line 25) to page 16 (line 15), omit the item.(11) Schedule 1, item 119, page 21 (lines 17 to 19), omit the item.(12) Schedule 1, item 122, page 21 (line 24) to page 22 (line 18), omit the item.(13) Schedule 1, item 138, page 25 (lines 17 to 19), omit the item.(14) Schedule 1, item 140, page 25 (line 24) to page 26 (line 10), omit the item.To a certain extent, these opposition amendments have been superseded by intended action on the part of the government, which intends to move its own amendments. Nonetheless, we think the government's amendments do not go far enough, and hence we are proceeding with the amendments that we have circulated.The amendments relate to a procedure whereby the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is required under the bill, as drafted, to seek the leave of the Attorney-General before intervening in court proceedings. We say that that is abhorrent and quite inconsistent with the role of these bodies existing internationally as independent agencies. No similar control has been placed on any other similar agency in any Westernised nation. As I say, it is entirely objectionable, and it exposes the government's agenda for what it really is: to suppress the independence of this impartial body.In particular, there has been no evidence at all that the commission has misused its powers of intervention. No application for intervention has ever been refused by a court, and there have been a number of occasions where the Federal Court of Australia has gone out of its way to thank the commission for its submissions, which, in several instances, have been instrumental in breaking the ground in the human rights area.The government's bill fundamentally ignores the vital role played by the courts as the gateway to whether they consider it is appropriate or inappropriate for the commission to be intervening in the proceedings. We note that all the submissions to the Senate committee inquiry into this bill opposed the gateway through the Attorney-General, and we welcomed the views expressed by government senators—Senator Coonan, Senator Payne and the then Senator O'Chee—who stated:The changes proposed may well give rise to conflicts of interest for the Attorney-General, and be perceived by the community as compromising the independence of the commission. At the same time the proposed changes impose an additional level of administrative procedures to be observed. The committee is also concerned that the proposed legislation contains no accountability or review provisions to make the decision-making process transparent, predictable and reviewable.So, when the government's own senators express concerns about the gateway scrutiny through the Attorney-General, something has to be done. We note the government is proposing to do something but, nonetheless, it will still be legislating to restrict the ability of the commission to approach a court at their own discretion when they deem it appropriate. Under the government's amendment, as I understand it, they will be required to give a specific notice to the Attorney-General. The wording of the government's proposed legislation is ambiguous, but it also raises questions as to what would happen if the government for some reason regarded the commission's notice as being insignificant.In short, the ability of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to intervene in court proceedings is essential, and it has been proven to be groundbreaking in promoting human rights in Australia. It has been groundbreaking in establishing principles coming out of the court, and those principles, in turn, have performed a significant educative role in society.11:15:0011430Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The government does not support the opposition amendments. Under the bill, the commission would retain its existing powers to intervene and become a party in court proceedings involving human rights issues. The government will move its own amendment, as foreshadowed to the House and as noted by the member for Barton. The amendment the government proposes to move seeks to ensure that the Attorney-General of the day is informed about proposed interventions and has the opportunity to discuss the arguments with the commission.The Commonwealth has a number of legitimate interests in the conduct of human rights litigation. As first law officer of the Commonwealth, I have a responsibility to maintain an oversight of all litigation in which the Commonwealth is a party or in which it has an interest. It is also necessary for the Commonwealth to keep itself informed of issues involved in human rights litigation.The government amendment to the bill, which I will explain to the House, will ensure that the commission's intervention power is always exercised with the broader public interest in mind and will take account of these legitimate Commonwealth interests. I reiterate something that has been omitted from the debate in a number of respects: the change the government seeks would not affect the provision in the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Act (No. 1) 1999 for the commission to be able to assist the Federal Court as amicus curiae, or friend of the court, in proceedings arising under the Commonwealth antidiscrimination legislation. The government maintains that including this requirement in the bill is consistent with ensuring the Commonwealth's legitimate interests in being kept abreast of human rights litigation are protected.The member for Barton specifically referred to the report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on the bill. While I acknowledge that coalition members and senators did support the retention of the commission's power in its current form, I note also that nowhere in the report, to my knowledge, is there an acknowledgment of the existence, or at that stage the intended existence, of the power of the commission to act as amicus curiae under antidiscrimination legislation. On that account, I do not give as much weight to the recommendations of the committee as I might otherwise have given. I think the government's proposal in its proposed amended form seeks to strike the right balance, and I commend the government's position to the House.Amendments negatived.11:18:0011431McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I move opposition amendment No. 15:(15) Schedule 1, after item 146, page 27 (after line 18) insert:146A Specialist Commissioners(1) If a person who was a specialist commissioner immediately before the commencement of this item is not appointed as a Deputy President, the person is to be employed to work on such matters concerning the Commission as the President determines.(2) The remuneration of a person subject to the provisions of subsection (1) is not to be less than the remuneration of the person received as a specialist commissioner before the commencement of this item.(3) For the purposes of this section, a specialist commissioner is the Human Rights Commissioner, the Race Discrimination Commissioner, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner or the Disability Discrimination Commissioner.This amendment relates to the lack of transitional provisions in respect of specialist commissioners moving into the new commission. It again has been superseded to some degree by amendments proposed by the government. Fundamentally, the opposition is opposed to the abolition of specialist commis sioners because they perform a symbolic role in the various areas they operate. Indeed, the government's move to abolish their specialist roles is completely inconsistent with initiatives it is proposing in respect of the Privacy Commissioner, where it is establishing the Privacy Commission as a separate and distinct commission from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.The human rights commission in its 1997-98 report set out particular reasons why the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner and the Disability Discrimination Commissioner should be retained. The reasons given are instructive. Ms Zita Antonios criticised the government's move. She said:I believe unequivocally that the office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner should be held by an indigenous person.The opposition is also firmly of that view. The Acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner, Mr Chris Sidoti, criticised the government's move to abolish that office by saying:The loss of a specialist position devoted solely to disability discrimination issues comes only five years after the enactment of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and the establishment of the position. Much has been accomplished during those five years but equality for Australians with a disability remains at best unfinished. The case for maintaining the specialist position remains compelling.Indeed, we note that the proposal to remove the specialist position of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner was criticised by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. When an international committee—for the first time, as I understand it—expressed its concern about actions in this area on the part of a Western government, it is an embarrassment for the entire nation. It is regrettable that the government so readily dismissed the concerns of that international committee. The fact is that we cannot purport to promote human rights in our own region if we do not ourselves have the reputation as a respectable and decent international citizen. Simply ignoring and dismissing comments made by such a committee is completely the opposite of what is required of a decent international citizen.The government's amendments, as I understand them, will be proposing that commissioners, on the condition that there are only three, will be transferred into the new role of deputies in the new commission for the remainder of the duration of their office. Due to the circumstances which have existed for only several weeks—where Zita Antonios, the Race Discrimination Commissioner, has now finished her term of office—the number of specialist commissioners has been pared back to three and that probably gets over that difficulty. Indeed, one suspects the government may have withheld reintroducing the bill until that had occurred. It is offensive as a matter of principle not to guarantee the security of all existing commissioners, whatever number they may be, and it sets a very bad precedent. We say that the government's proposal is, at best, half-hearted and half-baked. So the opposition has proposed its amendment, which would unambiguously retain the continuity of existing commissioners.11:23:0011432Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The government opposes this amendment as well. This amendment actually has the potential to undermine a key plank of the government's proposed legislation. The government does not anticipate that there will be more than three specialist commissioners at the time the relevant item commences. I agreed some time ago with the commission—it was at the time that this bill was introduced into the parliament—that interim arrangements would be put in place for current commissioners to act in other commissioner positions. For example, the current Sex Discrimination Commissioner is acting as the Disability Discrimination Commissioner, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commissioner is acting as the Race Discrimination Commissioner. I see no reason for this arrangement to be departed from. The arrangement has worked reasonably well and the commission has put structures in place to ensure that appropriate support is available to commissioners.For example, as I noted in my concluding remarks, the commission has recently appointed Mr Graeme Innes as the Assistant Disability Discrimination Commissioner. In this role, Mr Innes will work with the Disability Discrimination Unit to advise and assist the Acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner, Ms Susan Halliday. In the unlikely event that there are more than three commissioners at the time of the commencement of the bill, a decision in relation to appointments will be made through the proper processes. As foreshadowed, I intend to move a government amendment in relation to this matter.The member for Barton cites the just recently retired Race Discrimination Commissioner, Ms Zita Antonios, and the current Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commissioner and former Acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner, Mr Chris Sidoti, in support of the view that specialist commissioners should be retained. If one looks at the question of the appointment of portfolio commissioners from the point of view of the constituency that they deal with, there is always a compelling case. There is equally a compelling case for the appointment of a children's commissioner, an aged commissioner, a commissioner for refugees and a sexuality discrimination commissioner. But, as I indicated in my closing remarks in the second reading debate, it is just not feasible to appoint a commissioner—particularly given the high level at which they are appointed—for each area of human rights that can be identified as time passes.The member for Barton referred to the report of the CERD committee. I have previously made a number of comments on the CERD committee in public. The government rejected the report of that committee for very good reason. It was an unbalanced report that failed to take into account the true situation in Australia in relation to a number of factors. It reflected the views of non-government organisations, which were not tempered in any way by facts on the ground or by actions taken by the government. The government continues to maintain its position in relation to that report.The government opposes this amendment and will move its own amendment in relation to the subject of the transitional provisions relating to specialist commissioners.Amendment negatived.11:26:0011433Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos 1 to 10:(1) Schedule 1, items 24 and 25, page 6 (lines 9 to 31), omit the items, substitute:24 At the end of section 11Add:(5) Before the Commission seeks leave to intervene in proceedings as mentioned in paragraph (1)(o), the Commission must give the Attorney-General written notice of the Commission's intention to do so together with a statement of why the Commission considers it appropriate to intervene. The notice must be given at a time when there is still a reasonable period before the intervention is to take place.(2) Schedule 1, items 36 and 37, page 8 (line 30) to page 9 (line 19), omit the items, substitute:36 At the end of section 31Add:(2) Before the Commission seeks leave to intervene in proceedings as mentioned in paragraph (1)(j), the Commission must give the Attorney-General written notice of the Commission's intention to do so together with a statement of why the Commission considers it appropriate to intervene. The notice must be given at a time when there is still a reasonable period before the intervention is to take place.(3) Schedule 1, item 44, page 10 (lines 7 and 8), omit the item.(4) Schedule 1, item 83, page 15 (lines 19 to 21), omit the item.(5) Schedule 1, item 85, page 15 (line 25) to page 16 (line 15), omit the item, substitute:85 At the end of section 67Add:(3) Before the Commission seeks leave to intervene in proceedings as mentioned in paragraph (1)(l), the Commission must give the Attorney-General written notice of the Commission's intention to do so together with a statement of why the Commission considers it appropriate to intervene. The notice must be given at a time when there is still a reasonable period before the intervention is to take place. (6) Schedule 1, item 119, page 21 (lines 17 to 19), omit the item.(7) Schedule 1, item 122, page 21 (line 24) to page 22 (line 18), omit the item, substitute:122 At the end of section 20Add:(2) Before the Commission seeks leave to intervene in proceedings as mentioned in paragraph (1)(e), the Commission must give the Attorney-General written notice of the Commission's intention to do so together with a statement of why the Commission considers it appropriate to intervene. The notice must be given at a time when there is still a reasonable period before the intervention is to take place.(8) Schedule 1, item 138, page 25 (lines 17 to 19), omit the item.(9) Schedule 1, item 140, page 25 (line 24) to page 26 (line 10), omit the item, substitute:140 At the end of section 48Add:(3) Before the Commission seeks leave to intervene in proceedings as mentioned in paragraph (1)(gb), the Commission must give the Attorney-General written notice of the Commission's intention to do so together with a statement of why the Commission considers it appropriate to intervene. The notice must be given at a time when there is still a reasonable period before the intervention is to take place.(10) Schedule 1, page 27 (after line 18), after item 146, insert:146A Commissioners become Deputy Presidents(1) This item applies if, immediately before it commences, no more than 3 persons hold office as a Commissioner mentioned in paragraph 8(1)(b), (c), (ca), (d) or (f) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (as in force at that time).(2) When this item commences (the transition time ), each of those persons becomes a Deputy President of the Commission by force of this item.(3) The Attorney-General must determine under which of paragraphs 8(1)(b) to (d) of that Act (as amended by this Act) each of those persons is to hold office as a Deputy President. The determination takes effect at the transition time, whether it was made before or after that time. (4) Each of those persons holds office as a Deputy President for the period equivalent to the person's remaining period of appointment as a Commissioner as at the transition time (but is eligible for re-appointment).(5) Each of those persons' tenure as Deputy President by force of this item is taken for all purposes to have been continuous with the person's appointment as a Commissioner immediately before the transition time.(6) Each of those persons is taken to have accrued an entitlement to benefits, as a Deputy President, that is equivalent to the entitlement that the person had accrued as a Commissioner immediately before the transition time.In the report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, I note the recommendations on the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 , in particular those on the function of the commission to seek leave to intervene in court proceedings involving human rights or discrimination issues. I am disappointed, as I mentioned earlier, that the report of the committee failed to take account of the role of the commission to act as amicus curiae, or friend of the court, in discrimination proceedings, noting that this function is not subject to the approval of the Attorney-General.Nevertheless, I am prepared to move amendments to a number of items in relation to the commission's intervention function under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. When seeking leave to intervene, the commission will be required to give notice to the Attorney-General of its intention to do so and of its reasons for doing so. This notice must be given within a reasonable time in advance of the court proceedings. In doing so, I accept the offer made by the commission that a written protocol be developed for use in cases where there may be a duplication of resources and submissions if the Commonwealth and the commission were to intervene in the same matter. I will ask my department to discuss with the commission the details of such administrative arrangements.The move in this respect is perhaps a watered-down response to the experience I have had in relation to interventions by the human rights commission where the commission has intervened in proceedings the Commonwealth has intervened in and has put forward submissions which directly contradict the human rights issues being pursued by the Commonwealth. In one case, in the full court of the Family Court, the submissions were directly in contradiction of submissions being put by the government in support of the children's interests in a family breakdown situation being paramount. That prompted the response that the government has made. That remains a good reason, I believe, for requiring the commission to provide the government with notice in advance of its intention to intervene and its reasons for doing so.I also move an amendment to the bill to remove an item which would have repealed subsections 37(2) and 37(3) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986. These provisions have the effect of imposing age restrictions on the appointment of members of the human rights commission. The item is no longer necessary, as these provisions now form part of the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Act (No.1) 1999, which was passed by the parliament on 23 September 1999.Finally, I move an amendment which makes provision for the persons holding offices of commissioners of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission at the commencement of the bill to become deputy presidents of the new commission provided at the time there are no more than three such persons. The person so appointed will hold office as deputy president for a period equivalent to the remaining period of the person's appointment as a commissioner of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission but will be eligible for reappointment. The minister will determine which of the deputy presidents' responsibilities are to be assigned to each person so appointed at the appropriate time. I commend the government amendments to the House. I table the supplementary memorandum.11:30:0011434McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I will respond to the government's amendments to the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 . The true colours have been shown by the government with respect to the amendments to require the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to give notice to the Attorney-General before intervening in the proceedings. The Attorney-General expressed concern that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission appeared in several Federal Court cases and one in particular—7V5WILLIAMSMr Williams—The Family Court.JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—The Family Court, as the Attorney-General notes, and put submissions directly contrary to the government.7V5WILLIAMSMr Williams—Contrary to the children's interests.JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—Indeed, he argued contrary to the children's interests. That may or may not have been the case, depending on the interpretation of the court. But the more important principle is that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission should be putting submissions irrespective of what submissions the government may be making. Indeed, we have to remember that in many societies, and certainly in our society, the body most likely to infringe and impinge upon human rights is the government of the day. These agencies and the independence of these agencies to take on the government are vitally important to preserving the fundamental freedoms of civilians in society.Whatever particular argument was put in that Family Court case does not detract from the general principle that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission should be separate and distinct and operate fearlessly and independently from whatever pressure the government may put on it. So we see as a fundamental problem this legislative prescription that the commission must first notify the Attorney-General within a reasonable time. What is a reasonable time? What is the penalty for failing to notify the government? Is the ability to intervene in proceedings negated or taken away as a result of that failure? As we see it, this provision is impractical and unworkable.Certainly any responsible advocate appearing on behalf of any party in the proceedings would consult with their opponents or other parties in those proceedings before appearing. They would responsibly give an outline of the arguments that they intended to make, but the requirement that they do so should not be there as a prescription simply to, if you like, put the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission under the spotlight of interrogation as to why it is intending to intervene in proceedings. Reading through these amendments and, with respect, having regard to the Attorney-General's comments in his last contribution, that clearly is the government's motive for moving these amendments.We accept that it is a significant improvement on the wording of the bill in that the Attorney had complete discretion as to whether or not he would permit the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to intervene. That discretion has been removed and there is this mandatory obligation to notify and be subject to, one presumes, interrogation and pressure. The opposition trusts that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission will have the integrity and the fortitude to withstand that pressure, that if it forms the view that an issue needs pursuing it will, irrespective of any pressure brought on it by the government, pursue that issue.In the other area where the government is proposing to give continuity for the three commissioners, we repeat what we have previously said: we are very concerned about the abolition of those specialist commissioners. While the Attorney criticised the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, CERD, with respect to findings generally, the finding with respect to this abolition of specialist commissioners was specific. It cannot be dismissed so readily by the government. The committee quite unambiguously said that to remove specialist commissioners, particularly in the racial discrimination area, detracted from the nation's ability to protect the interests of those who are most vulnerable.The government's amendments are certainly an improvement on the bill. They are not what the opposition wants. The opposition should indicate formally that it does not approve of the direction the government is going in but, insofar as these amendments do improve some significant defects, the opposition will not oppose them. (Time expired)Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.11436Bill (on motion by Mr Williams)—by leave—read a third time.Bills11436r93511436Bill presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.1143611:37:0011436Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill responds to the High Court's decision in the case of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v. Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273, which was handed down on 7 April 1995.In that decision, the court found that by entering into a treaty the Australian government creates a `legitimate expectation' in administrative law that the executive government and its agencies will act in accordance with the terms of the treaty, even where those terms have not been incorporated into Australian law.The court also said that, where a decision maker intends to act inconsistently with a treaty, procedural fairness required that the person affected by the decision be given notice and an adequate opportunity to put arguments on the point.If not, the decision could be set aside on the grounds of unfairness.The High Court made it clear that such an expectation cannot arise where there is either a statutory or executive indication to the contrary.The High Court's decision gave treaties an effect in Australian law which they did not previously have.The government is firmly of the view that this development is not consistent with the proper role of parliament in implementing treaties in Australian law.It is a longstanding principle that the provisions of a treaty to which Australia is a party do not form part of Australian law unless those provisions have been validly incorporated.Under the Australian Constitution, the executive government has the power to make Australia a party to a treaty.It is for Australian parliaments, however, to change Australian law to implement treaty obligations.For these reasons, on 25 February 1997 the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I made a joint statement which set aside legitimate expectations arising out of entry into treaties.This was a clear expression by the executive government of the Commonwealth of a contrary intention referred to by the majority of the High Court in the Teoh case.The joint statement of 25 February 1997 replaced a joint statement which was made by the previous government on 10 May 1995.However, the 10 May 1995 joint statement continues to apply to decisions made between the date of that statement and 25 February 1997.At that time, we also announced that legislation would be introduced into the parliament to displace the legitimate expectation in administrative law which would otherwise arise out of the entry into treaties.The Administrative Decisions (Effect of International Instruments) Bill 1997 fulfilled that undertaking and passed the House of Representatives on 26 June 1997.It was introduced into the Senate on 27 June 1997.The 1997 bill was not debated by the Senate prior to the proroguing of parliament before the 1998 election and it lapsed with the calling of the election.The text of the present bill is identical to the 1997 bill.It is a clear statutory indication to the contrary as discussed by the High Court in the Teoh case.It gives this parliament a role in restoring the effect of treaties in Australian law to that which they had prior to the High Court's decision in the Teoh case.In passing this legislation, the parliament will also be reasserting its proper role in changing Australian law to implement treaties.Indeed, the bill complements the treaty reforms this government initiated on coming into office.One of the principal aims of those reforms was to enhance the role of parliament in scrutinising treaty action by the executive government.Those reforms included the tabling of treaties in parliament prior to the government taking action to fully become a party to a treaty, the preparation and tabling of national interest analyses for each treaty to which it is proposed Australia become a party, and the establishment of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties to examine treaties.These measures, giving the parliament a proper role in the treaty making process, could have been introduced by the previous government.However, it was too intent on keeping the parliament in the dark about treaties.This veil of secrecy has now been lifted.I turn now to the terms of the bill itself.The bill will restore the situation which existed before the Teoh case.That is, if there are to be changes to procedural or substantive rights in Australian law resulting from adherence to a treaty, they will result from parliamentary and not executive action.Indeed, this proper role of Commonwealth, state and territory legislatures is emphasised in the fifth paragraph of the preamble to the bill.Clause 5 of the bill gives effect to the statement by the majority of the High Court that a legitimate expectation arising out of entry into a treaty by Australia can be displaced by executive or legislative action.Clause 5 provides that no legitimate expectation providing a basis at law for challenging an administrative decision can arise out of the fact that Australia is bound by an international instrument or the fact that an enactment reproduces or refers to such an instrument.The term `international instrument' is defined in clause 4 and covers, amongst other types of instruments, treaties and conventions.To fall within the definition, the instrument must be binding at international law.The definition also covers parts of such instruments.The terms `administrative decision' and `enactment' are also defined in clause 4.The act will apply to administrative decisions made after it enters into force.However, the term `administrative decision' extends to an administrative decision reviewing, or determining an appeal in respect of, a decision made before the commencement of the legislation.The 25 February 1997 joint statement will continue to apply to decisions made between 25 February 1997 and the date of entry into force of this bill.It is unclear from the decision of the High Court in Teoh's case whether state and territory administrative decisions may be the subject of legitimate expectations arising out of treaties.This uncertainty could not be allowed to remain.Therefore, the bill is expressed to extend to state and territory decisions.Since ratification of a treaty is a Commonwealth executive action, it is entirely appropriate for the Commonwealth to legislate to control the effect of that action in Australian domestic law generally.The states and territories support Commonwealth legislation on this issue.However, they differ in their views on whether the Commonwealth legislation should be applied to state and territory decisions.Therefore, clause 6 of the bill contains a `roll back' provision.This excludes the operation of the bill in relation to state or territory administrative decisions where the relevant state or territory legislature passes, or has passed, legislation having the same or similar effect as this bill.This means that it will be open to a state or territory to have its own legislation of similar effect.South Australia enacted such legislation in 1995.Therefore, the bill will have no application to state administrative decisions in South Australia.Nor does the bill prevent any state which wishes to do so from passing a law or taking its own executive actions in relation to treaties accepted by Australia which might themselves create a legitimate expectation.In that case, the legitimate expectation would flow from state law and not the Commonwealth executive act of ratification.Clause 7 puts it beyond doubt that parliament is not affecting the way in which treaties may otherwise have relevance in Australian law.Let me mention a number of existing uses covered by clause 7.The bill will not affect the operation of treaty provisions which have been incorporated into Australian law.For example, it does not affect the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which are given the force of law by the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act 1967.Secondly, the bill will not affect the operation of an act which provides for the redress of grievances in respect of alleged breaches of international instruments to which Australia is a party.For example, the bill does not affect the operation of procedures available under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986.Thirdly, the bill does not affect the operation of legislation which provides that compliance with an international instrument is a relevant consideration in making an administrative decision.For example, under the Air Navigation Regulations, compliance with Australia's bilateral air services agreements is a relevant consideration in making various decisions.Fourthly, the bill does not make compliance with an international instrument an irrelevant consideration in making an administrative decision where that would otherwise be consistent with the scope and object of the particular statutory provision.Fifthly, the bill will not affect the use by courts of international law in the form of treaties in the interpretation of statutes.Finally, it will not affect their use of international law as a source of guidance for the development of the common law.This use of treaties as one source for the development of the common law is to be distinguished from the High Court's finding that treaties gave rise to legitimate expectations in administrative law.It is the legitimate expectation aspect of the Teoh decision with which this government and the previous government disagreed.That is the aspect addressed by this bill.I note that the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee reported on the 1997 bill.While the majority recommended that the bill be passed as introduced, the reports of the minority, including opposition senators, opposed the bill.This change of position on the part of the opposition is monumental.When the 1997 bill came before the House of Representatives, it was supported by the opposition.Furthermore, the strength of feeling which the opposition, when in government, demonstrated on this issue was no more evident than in the speech given by the then Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and former member for Holt to the Mason and Beyond Conference in September 1995.He stated:My lack of enthusiasm for Teoh is not especially a function of my lack of appreciation of how it has narrowed the gap between international and domestic law: rather it is a function of my belief that Teoh creates a decision-making environment that is unworkable in practice, and that it goes further than the court was compelled to go by any legal principle, or should have gone, in upsetting the present balance between Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. The pre-Teoh balance was a delicate one, to be sure, but nonetheless one perfectly attractive in theory and workable in practice.There can be no doubt those are the words of the former member for Holt.They encapsulate the reasons why this legislation is necessary in order to restore the proper role of this parliament in the implementation of treaties.I commend the bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Laurie Ferguson) adjourned.Bills11439r64611439Consideration resumed from 20 September.Senate's amendments—(1) Page 2 (after line 4), after clause 2, insert:2A The objects of this Act(1) The objects of this Act are as follows: (a) to ensure that Regional Forest Agreements between the Commonwealth and the States are consistent with the National Forest Policy Statement 1992; and (b) to establish a Wood and Paper Industry Council.(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a Regional Forest Agreement is consistent with the National Forest Policy Statement 1992 if it: (a) provides for: (i) the development of internationally competitive and ecologically sustainable wood production and wood product industries, maximising value-adding opportunities and efficient use of wood resources; and (ii) the management of Australia's forests in an ecologically sustainable manner for a range of uses that includes tour ism, recreation and the production of non-wood products; and (iii) the maintenance of an extensive and permanent forest estate in Australia; and (iv) the protection of nature conservation values in forests; and (v) conservation of the full range of values that forests can provide for current and future generations, including biological diversity and heritage, indigenous and other cultural values; and (vi) the protection of catchment values to ensure the availability of reliable high quality water supplies from forested areas; and (vii) the expansion of employment opportunities and the skills base of people working in the forested industries; and (b) ensures that Australia fulfils its obligations under relevant international agreements; and (c) applies the precautionary principle within the meaning of section 3.5.1 of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment (a copy of which is set out in the Schedule to the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 ); and (d) fosters community understanding of and support for ecologically sustainable forest management; and (e) provides opportunities for public participation in decision-making.(2) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 24), before paragraph (a) of the definition of RFA or Regional Forest Agreement , insert: (aa) the agreement has regard to the objects of this Act;(3) Clause 3, page 2 (line 25), omit "was entered into having", substitute "has".(4) Clause 3, page 3 (after line 8), after paragraph (c) of the definition of RFA or Regional Forest Agreement , insert: (ca) if the agreement is made after 1 March 1999, it was made in accordance with the public and parliamentary scrutiny provisions of this Act;(5) Clause 3, page 3 (after line 10), after paragraph (d) of the definition of RFA or Regional Forest Agreement , insert: (da) the agreement provides for structural adjustment packages, including relocation and retraining for affected workers and their families; (6) Page 3 (after line 30), after clause 4, insert:4A Public scrutiny of draft RFAsWithin 21 days of receiving agreement from a State or Territory to the text of a draft RFA, the Minister, after consulting with the Minister for the Environment, must publish in the Gazette : (a) a statement as to whether the draft RFA is in accordance with this Act; and (b) a notice of the Minister's intention to enter into the RFA; and (c) a copy of the draft RFA.4B Parliamentary scrutiny of draft RFAs(1) The Minister must not enter into an RFA on behalf of the Commonwealth except in accordance with this section.(2) Before entering into an RFA on behalf of the Commonwealth, the Minister must cause a copy of the proposed RFA to be tabled in each House of the Parliament.(3) Either House of the Parliament, within 15 sitting days of that House after the proposed RFA has been tabled, may, under motion upon notice, pass a resolution disapproving of the proposed RFA.(4) Where: (a) a notice referred to in subsection (3) is given with respect to a proposed RFA; and (b) at the expiration of the period during which a resolution disapproving of the proposed RFA could have been passed: (i) the notice has not been withdrawn and the relevant motion has not been called on; or (ii) the relevant motion has been called on, moved and seconded and has not been withdrawn or otherwise disposed of; the proposed RFA is deemed to have been disapproved of.(5) If: (a) either House of the Parliament passes a resolution in accordance with subsection (3); or (b) the proposed RFA is deemed to have been disapproved of under subsection (4); the Minister must not enter into the proposed RFA on behalf of the Commonwealth except in accordance with subsection (7).(6) If: (a) neither House of the Parliament passes a resolution in accordance with subsection (3); and (b) the proposed RFA is not deemed to have been disapproved of under subsection (4); the Minister may enter into the RFA on behalf of the Commonwealth on or after the day immediately following the last day on which a resolution disapproving of the proposed RFA could have been passed.(7) If an RFA has been disapproved of under subsection (3) or (4), the Minister may resubmit the RFA under subsection (2) provided that a period of not less than 15 sitting days has elapsed since the day on which: (a) a resolution disapproving of the RFA was passed by a House of the Parliament; or (b) the RFA was deemed to have been disapproved of.(8) An RFA which is resubmitted under subsection (7) may be resubmitted in an amended form.(9) Proposed amendments to an RFA are subject to section 4A and this section. A reference in these sections to a proposed RFA includes a reference to proposed amendments to an RFA.(7) Page 3 (after line 30), after clause 4, insert:4C Minister to establish forest databaseThe Minister must cause to be established a comprehensive and publicly available national forest database to ensure that decision-making and management of long-term timber supplies are based on the best available information.(8) Clause 5, page 4 (line 20), at the end of paragraph (d), add ", except in so far as it applies to: (i) a property included in the World Heritage List; or (ii) a wetland included in the List of Wetlands of International Importance kept under the Ramsar Convention; or (iii) forestry operations that are incidental to another action whose primary purpose does not relate to forestry.".(9) Page 4 (after line 27), after clause 6, insert:6A Amendment of RFAsNothing in this Act is to be taken to prevent the amendment of an RFA by the parties to an RFA where the parties agree that the circumstances are such as to warrant amendment of the RFA and where they have consulted interested stakeholders about the amendment.(10) Heading to clause 7, page 4 (line 28), after "breach ", insert ", amendment or termination ". (11) Clause 7, page 4 (line 29), after "compensation", insert "in relation to actual losses arising from the loss of legally exercisable rights".(12) Clause 7, page 5 (line 1), after "RFA", insert "for a breach, amendment or termination of an RFA".(13) Clause 7, page 5 (after line 8), after subclause (2), insert:(2A) The Commonwealth is not liable to pay compensation except in accordance with subsection (1) or (2).(14) Clause 8, page 5 (line 19), at the end of subclause (1), add:; and (c) incorporating the full text of the RFA.(15) Clause 8, page 5 (after line 24), at the end of the clause, add:(3) In this section: RFA includes an amendment to an existing RFA.Motion (by Mr Tuckey) agreed to:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent a Minister moving amendments to the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 during the consideration of Senate's message No. 192.11:49:0011441Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I move:That the amendments be disagreed to.The Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 provides legislative support to the outcomes being achieved under the regional forest agreement process. The government is working cooperatively with the states to implement the National Forest Policy Statement, which is the framework for a long-term and lasting resolution of forest industry, conservation and community interests and expectations concerning our nation's forests. The bill is intended to provide a degree of certainty for forest conservation and management not seen for several decades. It provides certainty that a comprehensive, adequate and representative forest reserve system is guaranteed under nationally agreed criteria which far exceed any such criteria in the world. It provides certainty that our forest industries will have access to the timber outside that reserve system, and it ensures that these multiple-use forests will be managed under agreed pre scriptions for ecologically sustainable forest management.The government must therefore reject the Senate amendments which seek to change the objects of the act. Those amendments offer so many opportunities for litigation that the impact would be to fatally flaw the regional forest agreement process. The government must also reject the Senate amendments which seek to require any RFA made, or sought to be made, after 1 March 1999 to successfully undergo public and parliamentary scrutiny prior to it being recognised as a RFA under the bill.In relation to the 1 March 1999 cut-off, there is no objective basis on which such a differentiation can be justified. The only difference appears to be a political one, not one that goes to the substance of the agreement or the process undertaken in its development. In any case, under existing Commonwealth legislation, the Commonwealth is already required to meet all its environmental obligations before it agrees to enter into any RFA. Additionally, given the extensive public consultation that has taken place in relation to all RFAs, there is no reason to suggest that the notification of the Commonwealth's intention to enter into an RFA or the publishing of a draft RFA will serve any purpose.As for the Senate amendment to provide the opportunity for either house of parliament to disallow a regional forest agreement, the government's legal advice, which I have tabled previously in this place, is that such a provision would contravene section 99 of the Constitution. The opposition has so far declined to table any contrary legal advice, despite its claims to be able to do so. I indicated in my response to the majority report of the Senate inquiry on this bill that I am willing to ensure that all completed RFAs are tabled in the parliament, thus providing a further opportunity for discussion and extending the already very open and transparent nature of the RFA process. In reaffirmation of that commitment, I seek leave to table the regional forest agreements for Tasmania, the Central Highlands, north-east Victoria, south-western Australia, Eden and East Gippsland.Leave granted.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—I thank the House. I turn to the amendment proposing that the definition of RFA or regional forest agreement include a requirement that the agreement provides for structural adjustment packages, including relocation and retraining for affected workers and their families. This amendment provides no benchmark an RFA would have to meet to qualify as `providing for' such structural adjustment packages. It fails to recognise that the impact of an RFA on industry structures in each region is different, requiring different approaches to structural adjustment, and that in the states with multiple RFAs structural adjustment packages are constructed on a state-wide basis.This amendment also provides a clear differentiation between coalition party policy and Labor policy in this particular area. (Extension of time granted) It appears that Labor is still committed to job destruction arising out of forestry policy. It focuses on compensation, buying people out of their business, buying people out of their jobs. The evidence that this particular policy is a disaster is clear to find. You need only go to certain areas where previous Labor governments delivered this arrangement. The people used that finance, they thought wisely, to pay out their home mortgage, for instance. They now find themselves stuck with a house in a town that has lost its only industry, the house is unsaleable and job replacement, whatever the training, simply does not exist.That stands in stark contrast to the policy that the government is following of funding industry development. We keep people in employment, even where there is a reduced wood supply, by directing them into value adding for which they need very little extra training. A sawmill operative can continue to operate planing machinery. A forklift operator can just as easily load timber into a drying kiln as onto the back of a truck to send it away in its lowest value form as green sawn timber. It is a clear line of demarcation, evidenced by the fact that all that the Labor Party could focus on with their amendments was making sure people got paid to leave the industry. All of our efforts are in keeping them in the industry and expending government funds for that purpose.Another Senate amendment proposes that the minister must cause to be established a comprehensive and publicly available national forest database to ensure that decision making and management of timber resources are based on best available information. This amendment is vague and invites further unnecessary legal debate. In any case, the Commonwealth already publicly provides a state of the forest report. Another amendment proposes to qualify exemptions provided to RFA forestry operations under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 by incorporating qualifications contained in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The proposed amendment attempts to connect the two processes without any substantive reason for so doing.The government also rejects the Senate amendments which propose to alter the compensation clause in the bill in a way that not only is confused but will have no effect, as the liability to pay compensation continues to arise out of the terms of the RFA itself. It is unclear as to what the term `losses arising from the loss of legally exercisable right' actually means. It is clearly designed to open opportunities for litigation and create uncertainty in terms of the compensation a dispossessed company would otherwise anticipate.Other Senate amendments deal with the requirements for consultation and making information available. I need say no more than that the regional forest agreement process has been one of the most open and consultative processes ever undertaken by governments in this country. I repeat my commitment to that process. I can give you evidence in recent times of the RFA process in Western Victoria. It is interesting to note that the local member, Mr O'Keefe, has congratulated me for my consideration of fair, reasonable and substantive propositions put to me by organisations such as the Wombat Forest Group.To conclude, the government introduced this bill to secure the outcomes of the regional forest agreement process and to provide certainty for the world-class sustainable management of our forests and the industries and the communities which depend upon them. Shortly I will be moving an amendment to establish a Forest Products Advisory Council. This amendment and the bill are supported by the CFMEU, the National Association of Forest Industries, the Forest Protection Society and, to the best of my knowledge, the Australian Workers Union. The bill as amended by Labor in the Senate is supported by no-one, not even the conservation lobby whose Senate allies voted against it, and certainly not the Labor state governments who are aghast at the prospect of their RFAs being overturned in the Senate. (Extension of time granted)As Tasmanian Deputy Premier Lennon has said, the Tasmanian RFA, which has been completed in good faith, is at risk of being compromised by federal Labor's proposed amendments to the bill. As the member for McMillan has so astutely pointed out in a letter to me, the RFA process should rise above the pettiness of partisan politics. I urge the opposition to take heed of this advice and indicate their support for the bill. In closing, I challenge the member for Reid to take this opportunity to reaffirm the Labor Party's commitment to the National Forest Policy Statement which they wrote in 1992 and the sustainable harvesting of native forests outside the CAR reserve system. I thank the House.NaN:00:0011443Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—At the outset I take up the point just raised by the Minister for Forestry and Conservation and reiterate Labor's strong support for the National Forest Policy Statement. It is interesting to note that part of the rhetoric over there is to delete from the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 objects that essentially come verbatim from the National Forest Policy Statement. As we can see, they are trying to delete them from this series of amendments that came from the Senate. Labor remains strongly committed to the process, notwithstanding our public disquiet about the performance of the current minister.We understand that a need has emerged for legislation to resolve various legal uncertainties surrounding the RFA process, particularly the compensation provisions of certain exist ing agreements. It is very interesting to note that, in trying to slag off about Labor's proposals in regard to compensation and in saying how fantastic the current situation with RFA agreements is, the reality is that this legislation is needed because of the failure of the then Liberal government in Tasmania and the federal government to properly negotiate compensation wording in the RFA agreement in Tasmania. That is why we have got this bill.Mr Nairn interjecting—8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—Ask the minister. For reasons known only to the government, this bill has been before the parliament for the best part of a year. It was stalled on the Senate business paper from mid-February until late August.Ms Bailey interjecting—8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—It was stalled by the government for a period of six months despite the grandstanding by the current minister. Given the predictable opposition of the Greens and the Democrats, the third reading of the bill was only carried in the Senate on 2 September with Labor support. The committee stage of the Senate debate ran for more than a week. In the final analysis 15 amendments were carried. Many other amendments were defeated, including the opposition's proposal to establish a wood and paper industry council. When the minister says that the CFMEU supports his current watered-down, lukewarm provisions with regard to the wood and paper council, he well knows that the very amendments that he is rejecting are almost totally the view of the CFMEU.The government has had six weeks to decide what to do about the legislation. It had the option of resolving the matter in a constructive manner given the bipartisan support for the RFA process which I am reiterating here today. Instead, it has decided to reject out of hand all the Senate's amendments. It has done so not for sound policy reasons, not for any great matter of principle and not for any concern about the industry, investment, development or technology but simply because this minister has made a judgment that there is some political advantage in continu ing to misrepresent the opposition's intentions. Given the track record of the Minister for Forestry and Conservation this should come as no surprise. He calls Richard Court an `appeaser'. He constantly engenders debate with Cheryl Edwards, the minister over there. Marie Tehan, well known to those opposite, told him to keep out of Victoria, thank you very much. Peter Beattie had to bypass him and go straight to the Prime Minister to get a proper hearing of Queensland's case. We have read the positive press releases from the Queensland government as a result of those discussions with the Prime Minister.The situation is that he continues to punish the timber industry in New South Wales for having the temerity to cooperate with the state Labor government. As we well know, one of the Labor Party's amendments is that there must be gazettal within 21 days. What we are seeing in New South Wales is, if truth be known, that small sawmillers and tree-fellers are being told that their produce cannot be taken by major companies because of the uncertainty in the New South Wales industry occasioned by the minister's constant prevarication and stonewalling on the New South Wales agreements. We know that after all the rhetoric he carried on with about the Eden area—after months of attacking it, saying how dreadful it was, that the world was collapsing and that he would not tolerate this kind of thing—at the end of the day the amendments and changes that he accomplished counted for nothing. What we are seeing in the north of New South Wales at the moment is a repetition of that. The industry is held up because of his failure to finalise this agreement.We all know he has been writing to Queensland sawmillers and other interested parties in Queensland and saying, `Please give me some reasons to criticise the Queensland agreement. I haven't got the information. Please, write me. Tell me what's wrong with Queensland.' We all know that the Queensland Timber Board has not exactly been on the same line as the minister; they have been somewhat supportive of the Queensland agreement. So the situation around this country is that, when he talks about working cooperatively with the state governments, with the exception of South Australia—which has no forests—I cannot find a government with which he is in total accord.It can truly be said that if he had been the minister at the time, agreement to the National Forest Policy Statement would never have been entered into. It would never have happened, given his performance in negotiations and his compromise with the various states of this country. (Extension of time granted) As evidence of this, let me go through the specific amendments that the government is now proposing to reject. First, there is the objects clause. The very first Senate amendment the government seeks to reject is the insertion of an objects clause in the act—objects taken directly from the National Forest Policy Statement. We did not persevere with all those specifications in the National Forest Policy Statement. If it was the view of the opposition that this is essentially to try to accomplish legal problems for the industry, we might also have included those provisions in that part of the National Forest Policy Statement which deals with forestry research and development and the farming of plantations and forest. We did not include them because they might indeed engender a degree of legal debate and litigation. These statements, I reiterate, come from the National Forest Policy Statement—the very thing that this government tries to throw back, saying that Labor repudiates it. They refused to put those very same objects, which they supposedly signed up to with state and territory governments around this country, in the bill under the pretext of some legal possibilities.In his second reading speech the minister explicitly linked the bill to the National Forest Policy Statement, saying it provided:. . . the framework for a long-term and lasting resolution of forest industry, conservation and community interests, and expectations concerning our nation's forest.That is what he said was his aim, and now he seeks basically to delete those requirements. He then turns around and says he is completely opposed to the parliament acting to put into effect the very goals of the National Forest Policy Statement by inserting them in the bill. He is similarly opposed to an entirely reason able amendment that requires individual RFAs to have regard to the objects of the act.Senate amendment (5) requires individual RFAs to provide for structural adjustment measures to assist workers and communities affected by reduced timber harvesting volumes. While we can start carrying on and trying to score minor points over this, the fact of life in this country is that, even with the government's negotiations, jobs will disappear and plants around this country will close. The minister likes to masquerade as a friend of blue-collar workers, and then comes in here and totally rejects a reasonable amendment that insists that structural adjustment measures for timber workers must be a core element of each RFA, not an optional extra that he might allow if he feels like it or is in the mood or is actually feeling kindly toward somebody. We are saying that this structural adjustment payment must be part of the actual process.Senate amendments (4) and (6) provide for a limited process of public and parliamentary scrutiny for RFAs signed after 1 March 1999. The government opposes these key amendments, as it clearly wants free rein for the minister to do as he pleases, despite the havoc that he has created, in Western Australia in particular. We all know about the constant repudiation by the member for Eden-Monaro's colleagues around this country in every state administration. He well knows that we found his National Party colleagues voting in the parliament of New South Wales in regard to agreements that this minister opposes.OK6NAIRNMr Nairn—That was disgraceful.8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—`Disgraceful,' he says. Go and tell that to the state opposition. The minister would insist that we give a tick to an RFA signed in May that the Western Australian government has since moved away from. He would have insisted that there be no public scrutiny of that, that the rest of Australia have no say, that it was his authority alone and that he can be trusted. What has happened over there? We know the reality. The Western Australian government has walked away from it. Ever since then, we have had acrimony, whingeing and complaining from the minister about how dreadful his coalition colleagues in Western Australia are. We all know that he had significant complaints from a number of his colleagues from that state.The minister would have us pretend that an agreement offers a secure framework for managing the south-west forests over the next 20 years, when we all know that the Premier announced in July a substantially amended package. We also know that the minister wanted to suspend all FISAP funding to Western Australia, until the Prime Minister overruled him. Once again, he went out front, making a whole lot of statements about how he was going to push the state government of Western Australia around and deny them funding and, as he well knows, he was repudiated by the Prime Minister. The minister can look amazed by the claim, but it is a fact of life.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—They haven't got any money yet.8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—They may not have the money, but you know the Prime Minister's decision on it.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—The proof of the pudding is in the eating.8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—You know you were repudiated by the Prime Minister; stop playing games here. Yet the minister now turns around and says to this parliament and the Australian people, `Trust me with a blank cheque.'Senate amendment (7) requires the minister to establish a comprehensive and publicly available national forest database to ensure that decision making is based on the best available information. I think we have seen around this country, regardless of our views on each of the state agreements, the degree of debate, the degree of argument, the degree of contention about the nature of the comprehensive forest agreement. There is a need for a database. Rather than being a stick-in-the-mud and saying, `It is too much trouble,' et cetera, you would think that any minister who was keen to ensure that there was a more informed debate about forest policy issues would enthusiastically support such a proposal. Not surprisingly, the current minister takes a different view. (Extension of time granted) The minister insists that the parliament is not going to amend his bill, as if he is the first minister who has ever had to accept the Senate exercising its right to make amendments.The legal uncertainty surrounding the compensation provisions of existing RFAs is the key reason this bill was introduced. Some people over there might not know it, but the minister is well aware of that reality. The opposition supports the concept of compensation and is happy to clarify any legal uncertainties. Equally, we have an obligation to protect the interests of the taxpayers of this country. We believe the bill is deficient in failing to properly define the extent of the Commonwealth's potential compensation liability. Senate amendments (10) to (13) do this, chiefly by linking compensation to `actual losses arising from the loss of legally exercisable rights'.Labor reiterates its support for the original Wood and Paper Industry Council, rejects totally the government's contention that there is not the possibility of a bipartisan sensible compromise in regard to these amendments and looks forward to further discussions with the government over these matters.12:12:0011446Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—This is actually the fourth time that I have spoken on this Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 or aspects of the legislation. It is the fourth time that I have had to get up and defend the government's position of wanting to support those workers out in the rural towns, whom the members opposite are determined to walk away from. It is the fourth time that I have had to get up and defend the people out in my electorate and in the central highlands of Victoria because the Labor Party are determined to walk away from the position that they took to the people of Australia at the last election, when they said that they supported a bipartisan approach in introducing the RFA legislation based on the National Forest Policy Statement. What the Labor Party are doing to this legislation is an absolute travesty, as is what they are doing to people out in all of the small rural communities throughout our nation.The member for Reid happened to mention the CFMEU, and he was saying how people on this side of the House do not support the blue-collar workers. Let me quote what Mr Michael O'Connor, the National Secretary of the CFMEU, had to say on 10 May about the member for Reid's side of this House and, in particular, about the leader of the Labor Party. He said:Beazley's comments were a betrayal of tens of thousands of workers throughout Australia employed in the forest and forest products industry. Beazley has torn up the ALP national policy and has deceived workers, their families and communities of regional Australia, and he has signalled that the federal ALP is out to get timber workers. Beazley's comments have given ALP commitments to the National Forest Policy Statement the value of a dud cheque.That is what the CFMEU has to say, so it is no good the member for Reid standing here in this place and simply using rhetorical statements, completely unsubstantiated, to back up his comments. Let me also remind the member for Reid of what Mr Tim Daley, the WA branch secretary from the AWU had to say:I am particularly concerned that the decision taken by the ALP is a political decision and not one based on science or fact.That goes to the absolute nub of this question, because those opposite are not interested in the science: they are content to walk away from the science on this issue and are simply concerned with making political statements. These amendments must be disagreed with.Let me read something else that goes to the absolute nub of this, and that is the legal advice that the government has received on this matter from the Australian Government Solicitor. The Australian Government Solicitor said:The bill if amended as proposed would confer on the Houses of Parliament an unlimited discretion whether to permit the minister to enter into any particular RFA. In these circumstances, it is likely that the bill would be regarded by the High Court as authorising the giving of preference to one region over another contrary to section 99 of our Constitution.He goes on to give a reference and in fact says: The bill if enacted in that form would then be invalid.It is against that advice that every member of the opposition is going to stand up and try to defend their position; and this is simply untenable. Instead of supporting legislation which would provide opportunities for all those small rural communities—opportunities for the workers that they purport to support—what they are doing is in fact closing off opportunities: opportunities for investment, for employment in all of those small regional towns and communities, and for those small rural communities to actually survive. Each one of them—the member for McMillan, who I notice is not in the chamber today; and, I suspect, other members—knows the truth and will not stand up for it. (Time expired)12:17:0011447Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—Let me first reassure the House of my support for the National Forest Policy Statement and its objectives and for the RFAs that have resulted from it. It is a very good statement, and we need legislation to pass this parliament to give support to it. There are some comments being made, and certainly within my own party there seems to be some resonance to do with forest based industries, especially the hardwood industry. There seems to be some feeling that the hardwood industry is bad and that softwoods or plantation hardwoods are good. They do not seem to be able to move through that and see that there is a whole history of industry there and that it is a much more complex industry than that and that we need to look at it.We do need to have forest products advisory councils or a body to help government, along with the stakeholders in this industry, to drive it forward. We need to push through, and I think some people in my party need come to grips with the fact that this country does import $1.9 billion worth of forest products and forest based products and that there is a need to make sure that we can replace some of those with Tasmanian and Australian grown industry products. In Tasmania we have a situation of pulp wood coming in from Indonesia to go into our paper making plants. We have woodchips sitting on the wharf in Burnie to go off to Japan. It is a pretty hard thing to tell people that there is some rational industry plan or rational understanding of this industry going on or that we have got our act together. We certainly have not; and, when they see that, it is very hard for people to understand—especially when workers and communities are suffering because of it.In Tasmania we have been selling woodchips to Japan, and only to Japan, and this is now of course starting to reflect on us as well, because we have had all our eggs in the one basket and, with the downturn in that industry in Japan, the pressure that is being applied back into Tasmania onto the contractors in the forest based industries and also onto the workers in these industries is quite severe. There are a lot of people suffering greatly.It does not help that we go through some of these tortured positions and cannot find goodwill, even within this parliament, to make some way forward in this. I feel quite bad and inadequate that we have not been able to move forward. I think it reflects on some people within the process that they have got very closed minds and are unable to shift in this area. The minister read out what the member for McMillan was saying—that is, that we should get above the political process and endeavour to move forward, and I think we should. With regard to the disallowance amendment that my party moved, I have stated publicly that I am opposed to it and will continue to oppose it. It came about because of the RFA position in Western Australia and the associated problems there. The campaign push to discredit RFAs was moved to the eastern states and failed; so I think people should now move on and find some goodwill so that we can make this bill pass the parliament and build a forest products industry, find investment, give security and get on with it for those communities and those people who work within this industry. (Time expired)12:22:0011447Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—It is all very well for the member for Lyons to struggle through that sort of speech trying to support his colleagues, but in fact he does not support the Labor amendments; he really does support the workers out there in the bush. He knows it, because the Deputy Premier of Tasmania said:The Labor amendments, as they are currently drafted, have serious implications for Tasmania and the now enacted Tasmanian RFA. The Tasmanian RFA, which has been completed in good faith, is at risk of being compromised by the proposed amendments to the bill.That is the reality of it. I think all of the Labor members in Tasmania must be feeling pretty poor at the moment that they are being forced to support amendments that the Labor Party are putting forward. When the National Forest Policy Statement was brought down by the Labor Party in 1992, many people thought it was too good to be true. The reason they thought it was too good to be true was that it was based on science. For the first time in almost decades, the Labor Party were prepared to put something together in the forest industry which actually had a science base. How long did it last? Not that long, it seems, when you look at these amendments. All of a sudden, out went the science and in came the political science, because that is the only type of science that is known on that side of the House. Go around all the members of the ALP and try and find one single person who really understands science—impossible. They all have studied political science—you do not get into parliament with the ALP unless you are a political scientist, not a real scientist. That is really the crux of this. It was actually shown quite clearly in that quote which the member for McEwen read before. The whole quote from Tim Daly of the AWU read:The AWU in WA represents workers in the forest industry in this state. I am today advised that the ALP caucus has decided to support a disallowance provision to be placed on the Regional Forest Agreement Bill.I am particularly concerned that the decision taken by the ALP is a political decision and not one based on science or fact.Even the AWU know that the ALP have thrown out science and brought political science back in. The quotes are there to support that.In my electorate of Eden-Monaro there was no better example than the Labor Premier of New South Wales, Bob Carr, who totally ignored the science—even before the science was completed. He did not even allow the economic science to be done to look at the socioeconomic impact on the communities. That had not even been completed. And what did he do? He locked up all the forest areas into national park. He conned the Liberal and National parties in New South Wales to support a bill in the New South Wales house and consequently the National Forest Policy Statement was basically out the window when it came to the Eden agreement. The minister at the table, Minister Tuckey, did his utmost under the circumstances of what was left to negotiate to get a slightly better deal out of it in the end. But it could have been a much better deal—not only for the workers in the bush, so many of whom were lost to my electorate well before I came into parliament, but also for conservation. When you throw away the science, you also throw away the science of the environment. People should remember that. Too often they come up with a so-called good political decision but ultimately it will be a bad decision scientifically—not only from the timber industry point of view but also from the conservation point of view.The Southern RFA at the moment is under negotiation in my area. There is a long way to go with that, and this is why this piece of legislation in the form in which the government has put it is crucial to give the security. It really is beyond me why those members opposite who represent communities that will benefit from resource security for the timber industry have not applied pressure to their leader on this. As we have heard from various people recently, the shadow minister has been sidelined on this debate; it has been run by political hacks out of Beazley's office. I am surprised that the members for Paterson, McMillan, Bendigo, Braddon, Bass, Franklin and Lyons have not realised that their leader is not in much of a bargaining position at the moment—he needs all the help he can get, and I think he needs to keep the member for Hotham at bay. I urge the Labor Party to listen to the people and, like the Deputy Premier of Tasmania and Michael O'Connor, take the political science out of this debate and put back the real science. (Time expired)12:27:0011449Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—I wish to address some technical legal matters that have been raised in this debate. The proposition that has been put forward that the bill may be vulnerable to legal challenge is false. It has been done on the basis of an opinion provided by the Office of General Counsel, dated 10 August 1999. The thrust of that opinion is that the amendments would create two possible outcomes that could result in an infringement of section 99 and that the bill itself if amended as proposed would probably infringe section 99. Both propositions are expressed in the most qualified of language and are wrong. Moreover, the reasoning supporting them conflicts with the considered advice, dated 12 February, tendered to the parliament by the Office of General Counsel to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, whose report has been published in this parliament.The issue of what constitutes the kind of discrimination that constitutes a prohibited preference is discussed in Hanks's Australian Constitutional Law, 6th edition, at pages 620-622. What appears clear from the decided cases is that the approach that the High Court has adopted in the past has been to look to the form of the law. If the law applies the same set of rules uniformly or if the difference in treatment is unrelated to geographical criteria, then the law is not invalid by reason of section 99, notwithstanding that the application of the law may lead to unequal outcomes. Thus, in the opinion submitted to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, the Office of General Counsel concluded at paragraph 8.21:The consequence of sections 5 l(ii) and 99 being considered as establishing a `free trade area' throughout the territory of the Commonwealth is that the discrimination that they prohibit is discrimination between different places on the basis of geographical criteria . Legislation will not be discriminatory in this sense if it applies non-geographical criteria even though the application of those criteria may have different consequences in different places because of inherent differences between those places.The amendments proposed by the opposition do not discriminate in that sense at all. It may be conceded that the amendments `discriminate' between those RFAs signed and in effect at the date of the commencement of the act and future prospective RFAs by deeming the former to have complied with the act's procedural and substantive requirements whilst reserving the right of the houses of parliament to examine the latter to satisfy themselves as to whether they in fact comply, but this does not offend section 99.This is not discrimination with respect to states or parts of states. It is merely the parliament adopting a process of dealing with the fact that some RFAs will have been completed and signed at the date of the act's commencement and some will not. Having actual knowledge of those already signed it consents to them; not having knowledge of those yet to be entered into it requires them to be submitted for scrutiny and disallowance if they do not meet the standards mandated by the legislation. Plainly, on the state of the existing authorities, the amendments are constitutionally sound.For completeness, I should indicate that Hanks draws attention to the fact that the High Court's historical approach in section 99:. . . may require reassessment at some later stage in light of the High Court's decision in Street v Queensland Bar Association .But, were it to do so, it would mean looking at the actual operation of the law and the court comparing each RFA given legislative sanction by the act. It could lead to a quagmire of issues regarding whether the processes and substantive outcomes between different RFAs were or were not materially different. If they applied that test, they would apply the test that, in the words of Mr Justice McHugh:Discrimination can arise just as readily from a law which treats as equals those who are different as it can from a law which treats differently those whose circumstances are not materially different.But that difficulty, if it arose, would apply equally to the bill as amended and to the bill as submitted by the government.If the High Court would set aside its hitherto unanimity, then that issue would arise irrespective of the course of this debate. Indeed, from a positive point of view, it may be argued that the disallowance mechanism actually provides the means for this parlia ment to ensure greater opportunity to ensure compliance with the equality of treatment provisions mandated by section 99.12:32:0011450Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—What a sad day for timber workers and their families. Let us be absolutely clear about this, and let no-one be in any doubt at all, that the member for Lyons has very clearly summed up what his position is. The great challenge for him now is to vote against his party, and I challenge him to do that. The great challenge for the member for McMillan is to come in here and defend his position vis-a-vis his comments to Minister Tuckey in relation to the urgency of this legislation going through. Let us be very clear that what we are talking about today is the ability of timber workers and their families, and conservationists, to have some certainty in relation to an industry that this nation desperately needs.We are not talking about an industry that you can package up in a small ball and toss in the wastepaper basket. We are talking about an industry upon which many hundreds of thousands of regional and rural Australians rely. It is not just the people in the forest, it is the people outside the forests servicing them. Those families and those children—Mr Horne interjecting—XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSON—Now, Bob, you are in an incredibly difficult position because you have not got the intestinal fortitude to stand up for your timber workers and the blue-collar workers that you are meant to represent.UU5HORNEMr Horne—I can't support this minister.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Why don't you support your timber workers?UU5HORNEMr Horne—Why don't you support my timber workers?XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSON—Let us not underestimate the significance of this debate today. This extraordinary attempt by the Labor Party, against every single person in the process, to talk about disallowance and other motions is just plain nonsense. The member for Reid—someone that I personally respect and admire because we have taken up issues together—simply cannot come into this House and read a prepared speech, prepared by one of his staff members, the great basis of which was to attack the minister. What does that add to the debate? Nothing at all. There was no talk about the issues, and I am personally disappointed. I want to read from a letter from Trevor Smith, the National Secretary of the CFMEU, the union that represents the workers in the forest and the union that has been very happy to have the minister that you have been attacking stand side by side with them in timber mills throughout Australia.Surely you do not mean to tell this House, Laurie, that they do not respect the minister when they are prepared to stand side by side with him! He is invited to do so because they know that the coalition government is the one providing a reasonable opportunity for some certainty in an industry that is pivotal in rural and regional Australia. In a letter dated 12 March, Trevor Smith, National Secretary of the CFMEU, said:On the issue of disallowance, I again repeated the Unions position that it does not support this proposal as we believe that it is a proposal that would again take the Parliamentary Labor Party down the road of tearing itself apart over forest issues.Quite frankly, I am not terribly interested whether the Labor Party tears itself apart over forest industries, but I am terribly interested in the forest workers and the people in regional and rural Australia. He goes on:In fact the mechanism of a disallowance mechanism was never raised during the ALP Opposition's response to the first introduction of the RFA Bill by Minister Anderson last year.If the disallowance mechanism becomes part of the RFA process, then every RFA will become subject to a disallowance vote and a campaign from those who wish to derail the RFA process. This could see the whole NFSP/RFA initiative of the former Labor Government being completely gutted.I am going to stay here because I want to speak on this again, but I challenge people whom I respect on the other side of the House to get some commonsense in relation to something that should not even have to be debated today. It is far too important to those people out there who are relying on us to give them a future. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—I remind the honourable member, the Chief Government Whip, the next time he speaks to observe standing order 80.12:37:0011451Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—It is very important that we realise what we are doing here today, and that is basically examining amendments that the Senate has required in order for this legislation, the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 , to be passed. It need be said the legislation would be passed if these amendments were accepted. So, if there is any delay, it is on the part of the government. You simply have to accept these amendments. In my view, these amendments from the Senate are a reasonable minimum required by this parliament. Why the government is resisting them is beyond belief.Regional forest agreements have a long term and massive impact on our forests. Therefore, it is quite reasonable that the Senate and this House ask for better scrutiny. It is reasonable that the regional forest agreements be subjected to public scrutiny before their final ratification.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—They are.XS4Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCE—The minister interjects that they are. In Western Australia, the Regional Forest Agreement was signed off before anybody else saw it. There was no public scrutiny. That is the way this operates. It is essential too that we look at this expanded set of objectives that the Senate has requested. They better reflect sustainable management, conservation values and the need for a decent industry. They are, as has been said, the intent of the national forest policy. Why is the government resisting them? They are in the original agreement, the one it purports to support.The Senate disallowance, in my view, is the best mechanism for making sure there is proper public scrutiny of these very important agreements. These agreements are not only about the present but also about the future. We are talking about the next 20 years. The experience in Western Australia is instructive, and it is very important in assessing these amendments. We in Western Australia have seen a very flawed process by all, leading to a very poor outcome. Depending on the polls you look at, 80 per cent or 90 per cent of Western Australians agree with that assessment.By the way, before the RFAs were properly concluded or even debated, considered or examined, one of the first acts of the Court government was to massively increase the woodchip levels, pretty much to double them. The woodchip industry is a low employment sector, taking the forests for very little value. There was a very significant slowdown in the alternative of agroforestry and plantations. They took a backward step in 1993, and we are now living with the consequences.Members opposite like to talk a lot about science and the scientific assessment of these processes. But, in Western Australia, the people involved in the RFA have repudiated and ignored scientific advice, and systematically so, what is more. Just recently, we in Western Australia were told by the government that, in the course of reaching their RFA mark 1, which they have now repudiated, 500 scientists were involved. They were a bit embarrassed when they went back and discovered that a lot of people who had been put on that list of 500 did not agree that they had been involved in the assessment of the RFA. I know a couple of them. They got letters from the minister asking that they commit themselves to be named publicly as being part of the RFA process.Mr Tuckey interjecting—XS4Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCE—No, the minister in Western Australia. Needless to say, since they had not been involved, most of them did not agree to that and the 500 scientists disappeared without a trace. So there is a lot of suspect science going on in the Western Australian Regional Forest Agreement.We have seen domination too by the Conservation and Land Management Authority, which benefits financially from the continued and expanding exploitation of forests. They are not innocent bystanders; they are players. They are not in a position to properly assess sustainable levels, and there clearly was in Western Australia, again by all assessments, inadequate consultation with the community—not just the conservationists but everybody.The Regional Forest Agreement that was finally entered into between this government and the state government provided for only a very minuscule increase in the areas reserved. Of course, the result was that it violated the original national forest policy principles and failed to meet even the very inadequate RFA principles that were endorsed by this government. It fell far short of it, and everybody could see that.There has been a refusal by this government to heed the very strong community opinion in Western Australia, and there has been harassment and attempts by the Western Australian government particularly to exclude protesters from forests, and I will speak a little more about that later. But the original agreement failed to provide for restructuring of the industry and industry development as well. (Time expired)12:42:0011452Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—We have heard now the voice of the party machine from the member for Fremantle. We heard the legal gobbledegook from the member for Denison. I would like to flip back again to the words of the member for Lyons. He was talking about the importation of $1.9 billion worth of forest products from places like Indonesia. I have bad news for the member for Lyons because, under the crazy and ridiculous agreement proposed by the Labor Party in Queensland, we are going to see more of this sort of importation. I will just give you a quick summary of what is being proposed there.We are talking about locking up 425,000 hectares of native forest immediately, shutting down all native forest logging within 25 years, and planting and growing to maturity hardwood plantations to replace that natural resource within 25 years—yeah, right! We are going to buy out all of Boral's resources. We are going to keep all the other mills operating, in part, on an area of timber of the order of, I think, 200,000 hectares, on which special logging rules are going to apply, and in that area we are going to log every tree of 40 centimetres or greater diameter—in 200,000 hectares, every tree over 40 centimetres in diameter will be cut. If that is a conservation agreement, if that is an economic agreement and if that is an agreement that takes into account the social consequences, I am the Pope!The first rule of these important regional forest agreements is that we have to harvest the native forest resource sustainably. The second rule is that we have to involve an assessment of the consequences in an environmental sense and an economic sense, and we also have to consider the social consequences of the agreements that we are reaching.The grounds on which the Labor Party want to amend this legislation we have now ignore all of those consequences. If you take into account the idea that we are going to propose compensation on the obscure grounds they are proposing to apply, how does that impact on the social consequences? When you simply operate a compensation system where you buy out a mill and you give them a cheque, what does that do for the workers? What does that do for the towns they live in? Who is going to provide for their existence? What is that going to do for the value of homes in that town? Nothing. That compensation completely ignores the onflowing consequences.As for structural adjustment, the Labor Party's scheme proposes the same kind of cockamamie idea for every single state. Structural adjustment here, structural adjustment there, and everyone will feel wonderful. I can tell you that that is not the basis of a regional forest agreement. The idea of a regional forest agreement is that you look at the specifics for every state, not the great, big, wonderful, Labor Party scheme for every one of them—we ignore the needs of the specific states when we apply one rule for the whole lot.Also, there is the idea that we bring it back to parliament and have it debated in parliament. I can accept assessing the environmental consequences, economic consequences and social consequences, but the political ones? Do we really have to bring it back here and run a political ruler over everything we do to see if it is politically correct or not? I do not think that is what we should be debating at all.One of the things that has arisen from what the member for Lyons had to say is whether or not the Labor caucus has had its say about all of this. I know on our side of the House we have been through it backwards and forwards, up hill and down dale. You have not taken it to your caucus, have you? You have not got their backing for this position.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Order! Address your remarks through the chair.84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—We want to see a genuine position. I believe there are more people on the Labor side other than the member for Lyons and the member for McMillan who have grave concerns with the position being foisted on them by the Leader of the Opposition. We have got here a party dictate running the agenda of the members opposite. I invite the member for Lyons and the other members over there to stand up and get your position straight: represent the forest workers in your areas and make sure that, with us, you go ahead to create proper regional forest agreements in every state, not ones driven by a party agenda for political purposes rather than for the purposes of endorsing the timber industry and providing its future on a sustainable basis.12:47:0011453Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—Isn't it interesting to come in here today and listen to the hypocrisy of those members of the government who claim they defend blue-collar workers? If there is a book I look forward to being written, it is a book by Wilson Tuckey called `My View of the World'. It will rank with Gulliver's Travels and Alice in Wonderland , but it will not have one ounce of fact in it.Let us talk about fact and let us talk about RFAs in New South Wales. The minister knows, I understand, about RFAs in New South Wales and he knows that his inaction in my electorate is costing jobs right now. This minister knows that the state government of New South Wales passed its regional forest agreement last November. It passed it with the support of the Labor Party, it passed it with the support of the National Party and it passed it with the support of the Liberal Party. What has this minister done about it? The RFA sat on his desk, it sat in a pigeon hole, it sat somewhere, but has he acted on it? No.What is happening today? Woodchip is being refused from mills. Minister, you would see that if you came into my electorate and visited a few mills. That woodchip is cash flow, but it will not be taken for export. This minister knows that, as of 1 January next year, if that woodchip is carried over, it cannot be sold because the export agreement would be completed by then. If he has not signed off on the RFA that woodchip cannot be exported.What do we find? The woodchip depot in Newcastle ceased taking woodchip a month ago. Why did it cease taking it? Because this minister refuses to sign off on the RFA for the North Coast and the Mid-North Coast that was supported by his state colleagues in both the National and Liberal parties nearly 12 months ago. He has the audacity to come in here and say that the Labor Party is holding up the progress of the forestry industry, and that is costing jobs in the forestry industry. If ever there was a minister who should be condemned for his inaction on the industry he represents, it is the minister at the table today. He has a deplorable record.Some members opposite who were not here in 1993 spoke about the National Forest Policy Statement and the urgency for bipartisan attitudes. Hey, I didn't see too much bipartisan attitude back then. I saw lots of people assisting the blockade of Parliament House. I saw lots of people creating as much chaos and as much uncertainty in the timber industry as they possibly could. They were not concerned about blue-collar workers or a dynamic industry at all. All they were interested in was creating havoc, and they did it.We are talking about a government that has been in power for four years. How much have you done with the National Forest Policy Statement and the RFAs? It has taken you four years to get this far. In New South Wales, it has taken you 12 months to even read it. You certainly have not acted on it. You have not acted in the interest of workers. Really, the forestry industry is embarrassed that it did show you some support in 1996, because it knows that under this minister and this government the industry has gone backwards.Minister, the next time you want to come to my electorate, I am quite willing to make a day or so available to you. We will travel around and talk to some sawmillers and forestry workers, and we will personally see the respect they have for you. We will also visit some of those people who have lost their jobs because woodchip is not being accepted because of your inaction.12:52:0011454McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—What an amazing phenomenon we have here in this House today for those people who were here in 1995 and saw the blockade around the parliament. Members of the Labor Party are saying that they will not support the RFA; they have experienced ministers in the former Labor government fighting amongst themselves—Minister Collins, Minister Beddall and others. They understood that the RFA process was a flow-on from the National Forest Policy Statement and they instituted the arrangements. They understood the difficulties of putting the RFA into practice and they were part of the loggers blockade around this parliament. Yet they come into the parliament today and basically want to remove the RFA process. They want to remove the fundamental legal aspects of the RFA process—the National Forest Policy Statement that they put in place when they were in government.We have a position where the shadow minister at the table, Mr Laurie Ferguson, has sold out on the workers; he has not been in the forest like the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, who is also at the table. The shadow minister has not supported his workers. The member for Lyons has got the courage and the understanding to support his workers in the electorate of Tasmania, because he understands the timber workers and he understands the issues. He understands that we import $1.9 billion worth of timber products and he supports the position that the RFA process is good. The member for Fremantle has got the temerity to come in here and argue about the RFA. I think she was part of the government at the time, but she understood the arguments. The member for McMillan has made a public statement, but he is not here. Where is he to support the timber workers of McMillan? The member for Paterson is here. What is his position? Is he going to vote for or against the RFA? Does he support the workers?Members of the House should fully understand that the RFA process is based on science—it is sustainable, and, in any one year under this process, one per cent of the hardwood forests will be harvested. Let us get that fact very clear: one per cent of hardwood forests will be harvested in any one year. Throughout Australia, that is the position. This argument that great tracts of forests are being harvested is factually not true.To put it clearly on the record again for those opposite who do not understand, the RFA process will provide for a sustainable yield over the next 20 years. It was agreed to by the various parties. There has been a lot of debate on the comprehensive adequate reserve system, but it will be in the RFA. What about job creation? This is creating jobs, not taking jobs out of the system, as members on this side have talked about. We are trying to create jobs in the forest industry, and it will be ecologically sustainable on the basis of scientific assessment. There is the JANIS system, supported by a number of people in the environmental movement, whereby we have 15 per cent pre-European, 60 per cent old growth forests and 90 per cent high quality wilderness.In my own area, the Otways, we have four timber mills, directly employing more than 200 people, with further flow-on jobs. The RFA process that is under consideration in western Victoria affects those people; it affects jobs. The Kirner government were well known for their environmental tendencies. Indeed, then Premier Kirner had a long interest in the whole debate. The Kirner government's report suggested that there would be 44,000 cubic metres of sustainable yield. That was done on a scientific basis under a Labor government, and that will be the basis of a lot of debates in that area.Minister Tuckey came down to Colac in the heartland of Corangamite. He was a friend of the workers. We had 200 workers in Colac supporting Minister Tuckey because he was supporting their position, supporting their jobs. He put the arguments cogently and clearly to the workers of Colac and the timber workers at the Otways. He had very strong support for his position because he outlined to them what the RFA process was about. The Tasmanians have signed their RFA. New South Wales have signed it, but there is a lot of suggestion that it is not sustainable. The Victorian Central Highlands have signed; the north-east have signed; East Gippsland has signed. Gippsland and Western Victoria will sign.The RFA is based on science. The premiers and the Prime Minister sign the RFAs. That will ensure that jobs will be available for the next 20 years. Members opposite are putting up some amendments to try to remove the effectiveness of the RFA process. (Time expired)12:57:0011455Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—Today demonstrates several things, and the first is that the history of this issue is basically bound up in conflict and consensus. I do not hear anybody in this House saying that they do not want consensus on this issue. Everybody in this House says that they support the National Forest Policy Statement and the principles associated with it. We share that. We also support regional forest agreements and the processes. What we have difficulty are the clauses, the regulations and the methods that we use to go about achieving the principles of the National Forest Policy Statement.It is a nonsense for those opposite to suggest that, because I do not agree with them about the method and the process, I do not care about the jobs of people working in the forest industry—and they know that. It goes on in this House over just about every policy that we may disagree on, and it is stupid. Everybody in this House at the moment supports the families and the communities associated with the timber and forest industries. So do not start shouting at me and saying that I do not care. I do, just the same as you do. So let us stop that nonsense.Mr Cameron Thompson interjecting—849Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM—Well, it is. The way we carry on sometimes really does beggar belief. I know that you care. I know that, for all your intervention, Minister, you care as well. We are going to disagree about how we go about it, so be it; that is what we will argue. There are difficulties for some of us with these amendments. They have come back into this House from the Senate. We say to you, Minister, `Take up these amendments, consider them in more detail and we will arrive at a consensus,' because we will then achieve the aims of the regional forest agreements that we agree on, and we also support the principles of the National Forest Policy Statement.I recognise that it is impossible to legislate for investment in downstream processing. The loss of jobs highlights why we must strive for some form of mutual obligation in the RFA process. There is an absence of true, Commonwealth sponsored industry development, and we have still not heard about the so-called action strategy. This strategy has been long awaited, Minister, and I do look forward to it because I know that you have a passion for this industry, like we do. I look forward to the detail and hope that you will share that with us. We will reach consensus on that and stand here in this House and say, `Let's get on with it.' I look forward to that, Minister. But in the absence of that to date, many of us have reservations about legislation which gives a blank cheque to future RFAs that has not been scrutinised by this parliament.An industry which is environmentally responsible and economically sustainable and which creates jobs is the key to the success of regional forest agreements at state and federal levels. Any RFA must be accompanied by a comprehensive industry policy that grows jobs, not just trees and profits. The 1995 Wood and Paper Industry Strategy developed by the federal Labor government set the wheels in motion for the regional forest agreements that are now being taken up around Australia. The federal Australian Labor Party has consistently given in principle support to the legislative enactment of the objectives of the National Forest Policy Statement of 1992, and we have reaffirmed that since, as you have.Not only does this principle endorse the RFA process of balancing the economic, environmental, heritage and cultural factors involved but it clearly incorporates within the RFA a commitment to industry development, downstream processing and value adding—in short, to mutual obligation. The amendments proposed by the ALP ensure that out of a RFA a commitment is made to implementing an industry policy that will provide job security for the current work force and grow more jobs by value adding the resource rather than seeing that resource going out as woodchips or unprocessed whole logs. My colleague the member for Lyons talked about the woodchip pile at Burnie and the fact that we import pulp. People want to see an association between protection and security and downstream processing. We all agree with that, so we need to encourage value adding. This will be done not through resource security alone but also through an industry policy being attached to it. (Time expired)13:02:0011456Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—With the greatest respect to the member for Braddon, we are not talking today about things at the edges, about little bits and pieces of minor regulations. We are debating today the integrity of this process. You cannot, on the one hand, say, `We support the National Forest Policy Statement, we support (a), (b) and (c) and we support RFAs.' The realities are that, if this goes through—if the Labor Party has its way—the utter integrity of this process will be put at risk. It is just not good enough to stand there and say, `I do care for my timber workers. Do not accuse me of not caring for them.' I am sure that the member for Braddon does care for them. I have never said that he does not, but the outcome of what he is doing today means that he is going to attack those timber workers and their families and their future. This is not about bits and pieces at the edges. It is about the integrity of the process. I am sure that the timber workers in Tasmania would love to read the member for Denison's speech where he talked about constitutional matters—I doubt that is going to be of great importance to them. I will again read to you the comments of Trevor Smith:If the disallowance mechanism becomes part of the RFA process, then every RFA will become subject to a disallowance vote and a campaign from those who wish to derail the RFA process. This could see the whole NFPS/RFA initiative of the former Labor Government being completely gutted.So we are not, with the greatest respect to the member for Braddon, talking about bits and pieces at the edges. We are talking about the basic principles of this process. It is not good enough, with the greatest respect to him, to stand there and say, `We can reach a bit of consensus and compromise on this and get it through.' You have the opportunity here as a member of the Australian Labor Party to support the government on this and to support your timber workers. It is not about those things at the edges; it is about the basic principles of the RFA process. That is the decision that you guys have to make—whether you are prepared to stand up for and effect your own policy. We are implementing your policy—you are voting against your policy.There are many people in my own electorate, in the Wombat Forest, who have an extraordinary interest in this matter—whether it is the Forest Protection Society and its local branch president, Debbie Mauric, or the Wombat Forest Society—which is an environmental based group led by Tim Anderson—everyone has a great interest in this. The member for Braddon, the member for Lyons and the shadow minister for forestry and conservation know that the integrity of this process, in relation to both the industry and conservation, is what makes the RFA process what it is—it is a mixture of both. It looks at all those issues. The three main objectives of the RFA—I want to read them into Hansard—are:to protect environmental values and a Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative (CAR) Reserve System based on nationally agreed criteria;to encourage job creation and growth in forest-based industries, including wood products, tourism and minerals; andto manage all native forests in an ecologically sustainable way. It is a complete package; you know that and I know that. But you must also understand that, if you destroy the absolute fabric of the RFA process—which is the certainty for industry and environmentalists—you destroy the principles of the RFA process. That is what your decision is about today. You cannot come in here and say, `I support the RFA process,' and then continue with your amendments because, by voting against the government, you are not voting for the RFA process—you are voting the RFA process down. It is as simple as that. While we can talk about things at the edges, that is what this debate today is about. Ultimately, you have that in your hands. If you are prepared to support us, you will see the certainty and the integrity of the RFA process that you want maintained. If you do not vote with us, you are voting against the process. That is something that you will need to go back to your own members about. (Time expired)13:07:0011457Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—I congratulate the parties to an historic agreement on the future of the forests of south-east Queensland. I congratulate the Beattie government, especially Jim Elder as the Minister for State Development, the officials of the Department of State Development and Rod Welford, the Minister for Environment and Natural Resources. I congratulate the Australian Workers Union. It bargained hard and negotiated hard on this agreement to protect the jobs of workers and insisted on extra jobs being created. That is what has been achieved in this agreement. Bill Ludwig has been at the forefront of that endeavour, and he has succeeded. I congratulate the conservation movement. Most active in that movement have been Dr Aila Keto and Keith Scott. I congratulate the Queensland Timber Board, which is also a party to this agreement. I am very disturbed, however, to hear suggestions that the National Association of Forest Industries has advised the Queensland Timber Board against this agreement.This is a historic agreement and it reflects the negotiating skills and goodwill of all the parties to the agreement. This agreement involves the creation of extra jobs in the forest industry and provides certainty that has never been available before—for a period of 25 years—for the forest industry of south-east Queensland. I was extremely concerned to hear the contribution to this debate from the member for Blair, who condemned the agreement. He condemned an agreement that will provide certainty to the industry for 25 years and create extra jobs. The member for Blair is opposed to the creation of extra jobs in the forest industry. This is completely perplexing to me. I say to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation: in a spirit of goodwill, I urge you to sign up to this agreement. If he and his department and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet have concerns or questions about the agreement, I want those concerns and questions expressed, as they have been, to Queensland officials, and have this issue resolved quickly.I understand that the meetings have been going pretty well, so I see no reason—other than the possibility of political opportunism—for the minister not to sign up to this agreement. The mills that are affected by this are being offered the prospect of certainty in their investment decisions for a full 25 years. The mayors of those towns are urging the federal government to sign up to this agreement—to recognise it as a proper regional forest agreement and to be a party to it. Those mills need the financial support that is potentially on offer from the federal government. Yet the minister continues to ask questions. I want to see that resolved so that those mills get the certainty that they deserve.OK6NAIRNMr Nairn—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: this debate is about the RFA legislation and the amendments made in the Senate, not about a Queensland agreement totally outside the National Forest Policy Statement, which is all the member is talking about. He is not talking about the bill before us.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—There is no point of order. I have listened very carefully to what has been said.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—That was a frivolous point of order. We are talking about a regional forest agreement here. It is a historic agreement. In a spirit of goodwill, I am urging the Minister for Forestry and Conser vation to sign up for the historic agreement and allocate the necessary funds to complete the arrangements for it. If the member for Eden-Monaro does not understand that this debate is about regional forest agreements—and what we are talking about for Queensland is a regional forest agreement—he has walked into the House by accident and is participating in another debate completely.As a result of these discussions between officials, it is time for the minister to make his decision to support the future of the forests and workers and to give certainty to the timber mills being offered certainty as a result of this excellent agreement involving all parties in Queensland. Please, Minister, sign up to the agreement. Get on with it so that we have that certainty, future prosperity in the industry and the good conservation outcome that is promised by this agreement.13:12:0011458Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—I do not think I should let what the member for Rankin has just said go by. The Queensland agreement that he was referring to is not good for the timber industry or the environment in Queensland. It does not fit the social needs of the people of Queensland. It is not going to help the economy of Queensland. In fact, it is a disaster. I was interested to hear the member say that the National Association of Forest Industries has advised the Queensland Timber Board against it. I am not surprised at that at all. The Premier of Queensland, Mr Peter Beattie, made a huge hullabaloo about the agreement, but all his TV ads called it `a historic agreement'.The agreement was signed not by the Australian Workers Union, which was a party to an earlier agreement involving the Queensland Timber Board, but by various representatives of the Greens, one representative of the Queensland Timber Board and the Queensland Premier. They were the only signatories. The one name from the Queensland Timber Board was Mr McNamara. Now the Queensland Timber Board have put out a statement, which they have sent to a member of Queensland parliament, saying that they are no longer calling it a `historic agreement'; it is now an `in-principle agreement'. On 11 October, the Queensland Timber Board said:We look forward to a thorough, robust and rigorous investigation of the primary data surrounding the in principle RFA agreement so that any flaws uncovered can be quickly debated and that appropriate parts of the agreement can be renegotiated.That is not an agreement; that is a recipe for disaster. I spoke earlier about some of the ramifications of the agreement. It locks up 425,000 hectares of native forest immediately, shuts down all native forest logging forever in 25 years and proposes that we plant and grow an entire hardwood resource from seedlings to maturity in 25 years to such a point where the government anticipate they will get 10 times the yield of a native forest resource in Queensland in 25 years. Yet they cannot say what species they are going to grow, and they do not have one square metre of ground on which they are going to grow it. I would call that an absolutely airy-fairy agreement. How the Queensland Timber Board ever got sucked into it I do not understand. Frankly, how the environment movement ever got sucked into it I do not understand either. By shutting down this native forest hardwood resource and not sustainably logging it, they are ensuring that instead we will continue to rip down more forests in Indonesia and places like that which, as the member for Lyons said, we import timber from.This crazy agreement is going to take away from us the responsibility of sustainably managing our forests and deputise the responsibility for that management to Indonesia, Korea, Finland and those places. We are going to sit back here, twiddle our thumbs and wait for the seedlings to grow. By the time the seedlings come up, our timber industry in Queensland will be history. That is a simple fact. There is no way that we will accomplish that kind of outcome in 25 years. I am not surprised now that the Queensland Timber Board should be backing away from the stupid agreement that it signed with the Queensland Premier.If we are going to reach an RFA, the first thing the Queensland government is going to have to do is make an agreement under which it is going to sustainably log that existing native hardwood resource. We would all love to get onto plantations sooner or later, but that resource has to be protected and, by harvesting the logs, we provide the mechanism for its protection. This is a eucalypt forest. If we get out of there, we can say that it is protected. But our word to protect it will not stop the next bushfire that comes along, particularly when we have taken away all the road resources, the people up the fire towers and all the other things that come with logging. The simple fact is that that is the way the industry is managed in Queensland—a simple fact that the Queensland Timber Board and the greenies completely ignored when they signed the stupid agreement.13:17:0011459Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—It could be said that there have been some interesting contributions from the government side in this debate. The member for Eden-Monaro, in a very elitist tone, gave the House the impression that the only people who can comment on the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 are those with a science `background'. I am often reminded in many of these debates of Dr Johnson's contention that `patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel'. Quite frankly, in the way this debate has been handled—with the self-important tone that it is all science—science certainly seems to be becoming the last refuge of scoundrels. The way in which both sides of this debate around the country can conveniently find what is wrong with the science and its actual process is quite interesting.Despite the processes the government went through in New South Wales—which were supported by the state coalition very fulsomely, as the member opposite would know—supposedly science was not adhered to. Science was adhered to in Western Australia, and yet the Western Australian government walked away from the agreement. The member for Fremantle cited that Cheryl Edwards spoke about having the support and involvement of 500 scientists. Yet, five minutes later, the government supposedly walked away from this scientifically based agreement. We have the Minister for Forestry and Conservation and the member for Blair whingeing and whining about the Queensland agreement. That is the reality out here. Let us stop kidding ourselves about the supposed scientific basis of either side of the argument. Of course, the minister has not bothered to give the legal advice he received to a number of members opposite.It is quite interesting to note that, when the same organisation that gives advice to the government in legal matters went before the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, in its report on the provisions of the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 it gave diametrically opposite advice. The reality is that the same office came before that committee and said that in that case it was not discrimination. Five minutes later, on the same day the minister sought the advice, it was able to rush across an opinion, which he well knows is basically only out there to confuse the debate, diametrically opposed to what it told the Senate committee in similar provisions. Quite frankly, if there is any validity whatsoever—and there is not—with regard to the government's contentions about our amendments, the same thing can be said about the whole RFA process. The same challenge can be mounted. In both cases, the challenge is fallacious. In both cases, there are no legal grounds for defeating either the bill or our amendments.The other point is the question of scrutiny. It is dreadful that the Australian people, through their supposedly elected representatives, can have any oversight of this process. We have heard the members opposite saying that any questioning of the minister and what he comes up with undermines this industry. Yet he raced around Tasmania last week boasting about the amount of investment coming into the industry. Of course, that was at the same time as the $218 million deterioration we saw in our forest trade deficit in the last year or so. In all this undermining of the process around the country, he has not given much attention to that aspect of it.Let us see what parliamentary scrutiny involves. It involves a 15-day process, a 15-day scrutiny of the legislation. For the members opposite to say that the process of oversight by the Senate and by the House of Representatives—elected by the Australian people—was basically an attempt to look at what the government was doing is dreadful, the end of the world, et cetera. The process will not drag on for 20 years; it must be decided within 15 days.The other point that the member for Paterson made quite clearly is that, at the moment, the minister can sit around twiddling his thumbs and try to undermine various states around Australia with regard to agreements they come to with their industries in their states. He can basically undermine that attempt to intimidate those states and industries and not come before this parliament with the agreement. The other provision that Labor has in its amendments is that, within 21 days, these agreements are basically gazetted so that the parliament has some say and so that the minister is under some pressure to stop stuffing around and undermining state agreements, industry, employment and jobs.In conclusion, we have had a complaint by those opposite that supporting structural adjustment payments to the industry is supposedly condoning the loss of jobs. The fact of life is the reverse. There will be losses of jobs under this government and under any government. They are saying that they do not want to provide for these workers. They do not want to give one cent. We all know that, under the industrial relations provisions of this country, where there are 15 or fewer employees people receive no redundancy payments. (Time expired)13:22:0011460Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—I sometimes despair about the forestry debate in Australia. As the member for Reid would know, I entered the New South Wales parliament some 15 years ago with him on the same day. If he had listened to my maiden speech, he would have found that it was basically about forestry, because my youth was spent in the forests of northern New South Wales and I know something about them. I know something about the management of forests and I know something about the resource and its ability to provide very good decentralised industry to this country.In recent times, since the Victorian election, members have stood up here wringing their hands about the plight of regional Australia. I say something to the Labor Party: if they want to help regional Australia, then start helping the forest industry because that is a decentralised industry and it provides work for people in the rural areas. It is not high paying work, I might say, but it is work.Over 15 years now we have had a dishonest debate about forestry. The green movement have hijacked the agenda with the help of the media. They never print the facts. They always go out there and make some gross dishonest statement about the last remaining trees or the last animal or make some other emotive argument. They never get down to the facts about these issues.As I said, I grew up in the forests and I can tell you now that koalas do not live in old trees. They are smarter than that because the leaves on an old tree do not contain the nutrients that they need. They live in young, growing trees that are around 15 years old. I have been there and I have seen it. If you lock up these forests—Mr Wilton interjecting—4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—That is typical of what we get from the cities. We get from the cities all the time this argument which is dishonest and not based on fact. The previous Keating government—and I did not agree with a lot of the things it did—made an honest attempt to get some facts and some science into this debate. It made an honest attempt to do that. If you get the facts and the science into the debate, you might get some resolution of this dispute.If the member for Reid wants to talk to me about what is going on in New South Wales, I can enlighten him on that as well, because that process has been totally manipulated by the NSW minister, Mr Yeadon. Yet he stands up and says, `We want a value adding industry.' How are you going to have a value adding industry if you have not got certainty of resource? That is what this is about. Industry have been saying as long as I can remember—for almost 15 years—that, if we have to invest millions and millions of dollars into equipment that will give us the ability to value add, then we have to have security of resource. That is absolutely basic. The Labor Party in its about-turn on this particular issue wants to have a parliamentary look every time the licences come up. Do you think that is security? There is no way in the wide world that industry will accept that.The member for Reid says that the coalition agreed to it in New South Wales. I might enlighten him a little bit on that. The coalition agreed to that motion in the parliament only because Col Dorber tramped the corridors of the parliament and threatened them with political repercussions if they did not agree to it, and they were stupid enough to listen to him. He represents only a handful of the sawmilling interests in New South Wales. Why does he represent them? Because they want to get their share of the very small resource that is left at the present time.The Labor Party has divided and conquered in New South Wales. It has offered some of these people money and said, `We will give you a long-term agreement,' but it has thrown the rest to the wolves. I remember when I was in the New South Wales parliament that Bob Carr, who was the then Minister for Planning and Environment, came into the House one night in a rage after he had announced I think six national parks. He said about the green movement, `They are like timber wolves: you throw them a national park and they look up with languid eyes and ask for more.' That is exactly right. They will not be satisfied until they lock up the whole of the native forest industry in Australia.If the Labor Party agreed to that, it is an absolute disgrace. No wonder the working classes have said that you have totally deserted them. I think it is about time that the shadow minister started to listen to someone who knows something about it instead of playing politics, because it is not helping Australia and not helping the workers. (Time expired)13:27:0011461Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—I want to add to my earlier remarks. There has been some comment, quite properly, about the employment generating effects of the forest industry. One of the conspicuous failures of Western Australia's first attempt at an RFA, which was signed off by this minister, was that it failed to provide for such structural adjustment and industry develop ment. Indeed, the history of this industry is a history of declining employment. It has had nothing to do with access to the resource; it has had to do with mechanisation and the changed base of the industry.I condemn a lot of the people opposite because they fail to provide for the future of workers in these regional areas. They link them to an industry which is inevitably in decline and offer them no hope for the future. It is of interest in Western Australia that those towns where mills have closed down in the south-west, in particular Denmark and Walpole, have been booming since that has occurred. There are alternative industries. There is alternative forestry industry available if the government only had the foresight to embrace it.The result of the first RFA in Western Australia—and this is why we need scrutiny in public and before the Senate—was community outrage, quite properly, because it failed to meet all reasonable criteria. Of course we had the National Party in Western Australia backing away from it at a million miles an hour—and, before long, most of the backbenchers were too. The government did a backflip and came out with the revision, which was acceptable to nobody, including, apparently, the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, who is at the table. We also saw incitement by certain people to violence, which previously had not occurred in this debate in Western Australia. The minister at the table I think can be fairly said to have encouraged workers in the south-west to invade some of the protest camps.13:29:0011461Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I seek leave to make a personal explanation.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Leave is granted.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—The most forgetful person in the world has just told a lie and that lie is that I incited anyone. That is totally unparlia mentary, amongst other things. I ask her to withdraw it and I invite her to make the statement outside this place.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—You did not rise on a point of order. I will ask the member to continue her remarks and take on board the comments of the minister.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—I take a point of order that I want that allegation withdrawn.13:30:0011462Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—I think if the member examines what I said, he will find that I said, `He is said to have incited.' That is the report that came out of the Sunday Times , where it says:ANGRY timber workers warned shaken protesters yesterday to leave the South-West or risk being bashed by night hit squads.Conservationists were terrorised by 40 armed loggers who ransacked and burnt a bush camp at Wattle Block, 55 km south of Manjimup.The vigilante loggers wielded baseball bats, axes and sledgehammers as they wrecked the camp and threatened to kill eight protesters.They also turned on the Sunday Times photographer Kerry Berrington when they spotted him at the edge of the camp.The account goes on:Some of the loggers wore balaclavas to hide their identity.That is certainly something that the opposition knows about. It is very clear that some days before, as reported by the Sunday Times :Mr Tuckey said it was time the anti-logging protesters were forced out of the South-West.The Sunday Times reports that he spoke of a war in the forests. It is very clear that, prior to the intervention of this minister, the protests were occurring in a reasonable manner. There was disagreement certainly in Western Australia but nothing of this kind took place. For the first time we had violence taking place in the south-west of Western Australia.As a result of that backflip by the Court government we have yet another inquiry into the sustainability of logging. It is very clear that Wesfarmers/Bunnings, who have a virtual monopoly in Western Australia, used the government about-face as a blind for further reduction in the work force. They blamed the policy change, but it was completely unrelated. The minister says that the revision is unacceptable, but he is being provocative and florid in attacks on his own party. Had the original RFA been set in concrete, as the government's RFA legislation proposed, this RFA would have been impossible to modify, would have been impossible to change. That is what all the voters of Western Australia want, Minister. It is interesting that no government member from Western Australia is in this House. They know that that is the community opinion.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Before I call the member for McEwen, I issue a general warning to members to address their remarks through the chair.13:32:0011462Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—I rise yet again in this debate to remind those members present and those listening what this debate is really about. I am going to use as an example the Central Highlands, which is within my electorate of McEwen. We have a signed RFA for the Central Highlands of Victoria. The Central Highlands is made up of many small towns.I listened to the previous speaker in this debate, who is now departing the chamber, accuse members on this side of representing areas where we are not encouraging new industries. We do not have just the timber industry in the Central Highlands; we have groups of people developing new industries like wasabi, green tea and tourism. These people are desperate to remain within the beautiful Central Highlands of Victoria.Most importantly, hundreds of families have been involved in the timber industry over many generations. During that period many of those people have moved with the times; they have learnt how to value add a timber product. Gone are the days when those timber families went out into the forests, clear felled, brought the product back and simply sold it off in its original raw state. That value adding takes a lot of investment.When the RFA was actually signed in the Central Highlands I had numerous contractors, mill owners, people working in all areas of the timber industry—that is, people working in the forests and people servicing people working in the timber industry—coming to me because they wanted a copy of the RFA. They wanted a copy of that RFA to take it to their local bank manager because the bank manager recognised that as security. Not today will those bank managers in the Central Highlands look at a copy of an RFA and regard that as security in lending money to people who want to invest in their region in order to create employment.Members can stand up in this place and make spurious arguments. We have seen the member for Denison stand up and give an alternative legal opinion. That actually proves the very point that we are making that, wherever you get two legal practitioners, you are going to get a difference of view. That is the very aspect that is undermining the security for investment that could flow if we get this legislation through.We have also heard people talk spuriously about the science that has been involved. The whole RFA process, based on the National Forest Policy Statement brought into this place in October 1992, has undergone the most open period of scrutiny of anything that I have ever been associated with in this place. Yet these people stand up and say that there has not been sufficient consultation and they question the science. This is a nonsense.I pay credit to the member for Lyons because he at least knows his communities. He knows what the security and certainty of this legislation means to those families and workers within the area he represents. I challenge all those members opposite to stand up and support this legislation. Stop the rhetoric, abide by the bipartisan stance that you all took to the last election and support the RFA legislation. (Time expired)13:37:0011463Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—I have a request of the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. Could the minister please indicate in his summing up and response to this debate whether he is disposed towards supporting the agreement that has been reached on forests in Queensland. The reason I ask is that this is a very important agreement. It provides security and certainty for the industry for 25 years, it creates additional jobs and it achieves the important conservation objectives. I am asking this in a spirit of goodwill because this debate about the future of forests in Australia has gone on for many years. I was first associated with it back in 1986. Here is a rare and unique opportunity to remove the politics from this debate. All the parties to the agreement in Queensland have worked very hard, in a spirit of cooperation and goodwill, to achieve the agreement that has been reached.I am alarmed by the comments of the member for Blair. I hope what he has had to say does not reflect the official government position in relation to the agreement in Queensland. He may see some merit in making speeches like that from the point of view of his own electorate. I guess that is up to him. I would like to see the minister and the government embrace the agreement in Queensland. Here is an opportunity today for the minister to indicate not necessarily his final position on it but whether he is moving towards endorsing this agreement and thereby providing Commonwealth assistance to bring the agreement into full effect—assistance that is needed to allow these mills to continue operations for a guaranteed period of 25 years, which is a long time in any investment horizon. There is a great opportunity. I want the politics removed from this debate. So I say sincerely to the minister, in a spirit of goodwill, could you please indicate the direction in which you are moving in relation to the Queensland agreement.13:40:0011463McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—I wish to add to the remarks I have put on the record previously and continue to argue the case that the amendments put forward by the Senate bring certainty to the RFA process. The member for Denison supported that argument quite strenuously in his contribution to this debate by saying that there can be some legal interpretation by both sides of the debate on the amendments and the way in which the Senate might look at the RFA process. The very point we are making on this side of the parliament is that the amendments open up the RFA process to yet another debate. The shadow minister at the table suggested 14 days. This allows everyone in the political process to have yet another go at the RFA that has been agreed to.The RFA process is based on the science of forestry. I notice that members opposite are challenging that position. The truth of the matter is that, when the Labor Party was in government, it agreed that a process should be set in train that allowed the scientists, the environmentalists and the loggers to make a contribution on the sustainability of forest operations.Mr Laurie Ferguson interjecting—VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHUR—The shadow minister at the table understands, because he was in the government at the time and he understood that it was very difficult to make judgments about which parts of the forests should be logged and which parts should be locked up for national parks and non-logging.The RFA process involved consultation between the various interest groups. The conservationists had a go. The loggers had a go. The departments had a go. The federal government had a go. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry had a go. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage made a contribution. In the Labor government there was a great argument between the two ministers as to what the final outcome would be—so much so that the departments had logging coupes in Bass Strait. That is how stupid it was. What we are saying is that this process, difficult though it is, should be one where all parties are involved.Professor Ferguson, who is known to me, is a professor from Melbourne University and the Creswick School of Forestry and regarded as a world authority on forestry matters. That is a world renowned institution for producing foresters and reputable undertakings and for making scientific assessments of forestry matters. Professor Ferguson has broadly endorsed the RFA process. He is prepared to comment and add his weight of scientific opinion to the process.I remind members opposite and members of this House that forests comprise young trees that grow to become mature trees that eventually die. I think a lot of people who have contributed to this debate have tended to overlook that fundamental issue.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I remind the minister of standing order 57, which is that no member may pass between the chair and the member who is speaking.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker.VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHUR—The process of forestry allows trees to mature and, if no harvesting takes place, eventually die. We have an opportunity in Australia for these trees to be harvested for commercial purposes. The RFA process is an open and world-class process. Both sides would agree with that. This is unlike a lot of other countries around the world, where there is no such process for allowing various groups to put their points of view.The hardwood timber used by a number of these mills, which provide jobs, as the member for Page has so clearly pointed out, comes from public forests in general terms. The suggestion that there would be a plantation of hardwood has never been substantiated by any advocate of that position. Hardwood forests take between 40 and 60 years to reach maturity. There are insufficient hardwood plantations to make up that shortfall. In the case of Queensland, the suggestion that after 25 years there will be sufficient plantation hardwood logs to make the product and allow the industry to continue is fanciful.On a political point, I quote again the statement of Michael O'Connor, the National Secretary of the CFMEU, on the Labor Party's position:Beazley's comments were a betrayal of tens of thousands of workers throughout Australia employed in the forest and forest products industry. Beazley has torn up the ALP national policy and has deceived workers, their families and communities of regional Australia and he has signalled that the federal ALP is out to get timber workers. Beazley's comments give the ALP commitments to the National Forest Policy Statement the value of a dud cheque.(Time expired)13:45:0011464Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—Both the member for McEwen and the member for Corangamite have demonstrated the circum stance where there is a problem of simultaneous adherence to two contradictory positions in respect of this debate. The difficulty that they put forward suggesting there may be some legal challenge to the bill is accurate, but it arises not because of anything the opposition is proposing. In fact, I find it extraordinarily puzzling that the government is seeking to give any weight to advice that suggests the historic and constitutionally settled view of section 99 would be overturned, because, were it to be overturned, it would open not the bill as amended by the opposition to the possibility of challenge but the whole process of RFA establishment and the bill itself as proposed by the government.I have made plain that the government received a considered and extensive legal advice which it tendered to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, which reported on 25 February 1999. In that advice the government pointed out that preference necessarily involves discrimination or lack of uniformity but discrimination or lack of uniformity does not necessarily involve preference. It referred to the case of Elliott v. The Commonwealth and the judgments of Chief Justice Latham and other authorities. On that basis, and on the advice that was tendered to the Senate committee—a considered advice—there would be no difficulty with the constitutional validity of the bill as proposed by the government, nor the amendments as proposed by the opposition.I raised that the subsequent advice which was obtained by the minister—sought and obtained on the same day to a different effect—was intended to throw some doubt about the constitutional legitimacy of the opposition proposed amendments but, were it to be argued successfully, would have the effect of actually undermining the legitimacy of the bill itself, because it would mean that the attack on the whole RFA process would depend not on the form of the law but on whether one or more of the RFAs were materially different and whether the legislative underpinning of materially different RFAs gives discriminatory preference to a state or part of a state.Even with respect to existing RFAs of which we have knowledge, such claims are regularly, if mistakenly, made and there is no doubt that there are potential litigants—the Greens and many others—who are ready to seize hold of these arguments, which appear to be buttressed by this minister as if he were entering into a debate in a helpful way to support his legislation. But what he is doing is giving credence to a view of the law which the High Court has hitherto not held and which is put forward speculatively by Hanks in his book as saying that the issue may require some reconsideration in the future. There is not one authority that presently exists in relation to this section that would justify it, but he is saying that on that basis the opposition amendments would be constitutionally invalid. The problem for the minister is on that basis.The whole process of the RFA settlement and establishment which is meant to bring security is open to attack. Each individual RFA could be inspected by a potential litigant. The arguments are mounted on science, of which there are obviously contested views. The shadow minister has raised the point of how in this debate science has been used by many in different and contested ways. The processes could be contrasted, the outcomes with respect to exporters could be contrasted and, as the Office of General Counsel indicated in its Senate advice, those circumstances between individual exporters were that this approach to be adopted could undermine that.That is not a situation which I would have thought this minister had any interest in pursuing. The opposition has no interest in pursuing it. Our interest is to hold the traditional view of the law which the High Court has expounded in many cases and which has been unchallenged since 1934 and which this government, for spurious and selfish political interests, and on the basis of advice sought and tendered on the same day against its own considered advice, has put into this debate. (Time expired)13:50:0011465Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—I wish to participate a second time in this debate and follow the spirit of the argument put forward by the member for Braddon, who is my golfing colleague, and talk about investment and, in particular, the disallowance aspect of these amendments. Before I do so, could I comment on a couple of matters that have been raised throughout the debate here today. Firstly, the member for Fremantle in her first contribution was rubbishing the procedures that the department in Western Australia, CALM, ran as part of the regional forest agreement. The same procedures were set up when she was the Premier. They were okay when she was the Premier over there but now, because it does not suit the political argument, she was in here rubbishing them. Perhaps she forgot that she was actually in charge at the time those were put in place.Also, the member for Reid had a go at me for concentrating on science. I do not apologise at all for concentrating on the science, because that is what it is really all about. My charge of those opposite that none of them understand real science at all, and that they understand only political science, was proven by the member for Paterson when he attacked Minister Tuckey over the record of passing RFA legislation. Clearly, he has no science background, and maths is a science. He attacked the minister for actually signing six RFAs in 3½ years whereas, when he was the member for Paterson prior to being thrown out in 1996, under a Labor government they signed zero RFAs in four years. Maths is my background in science and zero out of four is certainly not as good as six RFAs in 3½ years, I can assure the member for Paterson.Also, the member for Reid talked passionately about this disallowance only being 15 days. What he did not say is that it is 15 sitting days, and there is a significant difference between 15 days and 15 sitting days. That brings the politics back into it again. Talking of politics, when members opposite say that these things will not be a problem, I remind them of a quote from Senator Bob Brown representing the Greens of Tasmania:The Senate can now disallow most of the regional forest agreements. The Western Australian RFA in particular is doomed.That is what they would have to cope with under these sorts of amendments.That brings me back to where I started in relation to investment and disallowance. I agree with the member for Braddon that we can work through some of this. The real sticking point is in relation to this disallowance. The reason we are absolutely passionate about this is that it is the link to investment. I made the charge before about the members opposite not understanding science, and I am afraid that I have to make the same charge against the members opposite in relation to investment. There are not too many opposite who have been through these sorts of processes. They have to understand how the real world works. When someone goes to their bank manager wanting to expand their business and put on more people, they have to give some security. What sort of security is it to tell the bank manager that they have this fantastic value adding project that they want to implement? Hopefully, it will be in my electorate of Eden-Monaro where we need it or in one of the other regional areas with high unemployment. How can the bank lend them money if the person wanting the loan says, `I might get resourced for a year or a couple of years; the parliament can always look again at those things and throw them out'? That is effectively what will happen under this disallowance.Unemployment continues to be a problem in regional areas. I notice that member for McMillan did not come into this place for any of this debate. He is often standing up complaining about unemployment problems in his electorate, but he has not been here in two hours of this debate. He should be in here telling his Labor colleagues that the amendments that they want will stop investment. They will not provide the investment, and you will not get the jobs unless you get the investment. (Time expired)13:55:0011466Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—I wish to re-enter this debate to make a few points. It is important that the parliament go back and assess the National Forest Policy Statement that this originates from. The National Forest Policy Statement clearly said that we should have an assessment of our natural forest resource and set aside those areas that need to be set aside—those areas which are genuine wilderness, those areas that would be better reserved in national parks, and also areas that were working forest. That is very important to isolated areas of Australia. Many in my electorate of Page up around Woodenbong, Urbenville and Bonalbo have little else but a forest industry that sustains their local economy.That is the important part of this. It was said that when a regional forest agreement was assessed, agreed to and signed off then there was long-term security to industry; they could be assured that they would get that resource. As the member for Eden-Monaro rightly says, if you are going to invest millions of dollars in an enterprise which is to give the value adding that everyone wants, you cannot amortise that against five years of resource. You have to have a long-term resource of maybe 20 years if you are going to amortise the investment in that industry.State governments have to be honest in this as well. I have to say that I do not believe that the New South Wales state government has been honest at all in the assessment of its forest areas. If I remember correctly, the National Forest Policy Statement said that we should look at about six generic areas across Australia and set aside up to 15 per cent of pre-1750 species. Assessing what species were around in 1750 is difficult, so that raises one debate. The second one, of course, is that New South Wales did not look at the generic area particularly on the North Coast of New South Wales and southern Queensland where the species are basically the same. It divided the state up into small areas and said, `Right, we are going to ignore the national parks we have already got. We are going to ignore the crown land that we have already got. We are going to look at these small areas and we are going to lock up 15 per cent of these areas.' Effectively, what it did was to leave only about 30 per cent of the resource available to industry. Many members would realise that I was the minister for forests in New South Wales.8T4FERGUSONMr Laurie Ferguson—Tell Souris this.4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY—The member for Reid remembers that. The foresters tell me that the way this has been manipulated in New South Wales means that the resource in northern New South Wales might last eight years. A statement made by Pam Allen when she was Minister for the Environment rings clearly in my ears. She said, `I intend to phase out the native forest industry in New South Wales within eight years,' and, by golly, that is just what it is trying to do.The problem with the Labor Party is that they do not understand how a forest can be managed. A forest can be managed in such a way that it can continually be harvested for the resource that we need. The problem with the Labor Party is that they ignore that and want to go long with the popular opinion in the city which is misinformed. The city is never informed by the media of the facts about how these forests can be managed. There is always this emotional debate. The Labor Party are removing the certainty—even Minister Yeadon claims that to be the reason for the RFAs in New South Wales—because they want to bring this back to politics every few years. There is absolutely no certainty in politics, and that is why these amendments are absolutely atrocious.The Leader of the Opposition is now in the chamber and it is about time he stood up for the working class in Australia and workers in the timber industry. It is about time he represented those particular workers. The Labor Party are listening to the academics from Perth, like the one we heard a while ago, but they are not listening to the working class who are losing their jobs in droves around regional Australia. It is no use getting up in here and wringing your hands about regional Australia. Get out and do something about it; get out and defend and protect the jobs out there. This is a decentralised industry and one that will continue to grow. It is about time the member for Reid learnt something about it and that he listened to the blue-collar workers who are out there trying to earn an honest living.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.Ministerial Arrangements1146814:00:0011468Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs will be absent from question time today to attend an investiture ceremony at Government House for bravery award recipients in relation to the HMAS Westralia disaster. The Minister for Defence will answer questions on his behalf.Questions Without Notice114681146811468Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. I refer the minister to a report which appeared today in the Australian 's higher education supplement. Do you stand by your undertaking to the Australian people on 17 April last year and repeated by the Prime Minister during the election campaign that `the government has no intention of introducing vouchers for post-secondary education'?11468Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The government stands by undertakings that it has made in the past.1146811468Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Minister, would you inform the House of the government's response to developments in Pakistan overnight?11468Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Hughes for her question and for her interest in this issue. I can confirm to the House that the Pakistan military has seized control of the government, but the situation remains fluid and unclear and our High Commissioner and High Commission in Islamabad is continuing to monitor developments. There are unconfirmed reports that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is under house arrest after his failed attempt to dismiss the Chief of the Pakistani Army Staff, General Musharraf. There are also reports that Pakistan is now under martial law with army units in control of key government installations including radio, television and airports. There have also been some unconfirmed reports of gunfire, although generally the situation remains calm in Pakistani cities. General Musharraf, who appeared on television last night to declare the army had seized control of the government, indicated the situation was calm, stable and under control.Australia is deeply concerned at the unconstitutional overthrow of a democratically elected government in Pakistan. Australia calls for the earliest restoration of democracy to Pakistan and that the constitution and the rule of law be respected. The Australian High Commission is contacting Australian citizens resident in Pakistan to urge them to exercise caution and limit unnecessary movement. There are around 470 Australians registered with the High Commission. Honourable members may be interested to know that my department is in the process of issuing a new travel advisory note for Pakistan.1146811468Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is again to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Now that you have reiterated your undertaking on vouchers, do you also stand by your pledge on 21 April last year that the government has no intention of deregulating university fees?11468Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The government's policies in relation to education are on the public record.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister has the call.BT4Dr KEMP—We have policies on this side of the House. That is the difference. The government's policies in relation to higher education have been clearly stated. We have made available fees for undergraduate students to expand opportunities for students to attend Australian universities. Fees are available also for postgraduate students and, as a consequence of this, we now have more university students on campus in Australia than at any previous time. Universities in this country are better funded than at any previous time. The government's policies therefore are always aimed at expanding opportunities for all students who are qualified to gain a university education.1146811468Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House how the government's reforms to the business tax system will contribute to investment, jobs and growth in the Australian economy? How does the Treasurer respond to recent objections to business tax reform?11469Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Bradfield for his question. Obviously the opportunity to reform Australia's business taxation system is a great opportunity for Australia and a real opportunity to build economic growth in this country. What the government proposes is to lower company tax rates so that we will be one of the most competitive economies in the region. We propose to introduce a simplified taxation system for small business which gives them the benefit of pooling arrangements. We propose to allow investment by exempt pension funds into Australia to have rollover relief in relation to farms, small businesses and the like and, as the Ralph inquiry found, a consequence of that will be to add to GDP growth. I think that is why the business tax reforms have been so warmly welcomed, because they will add to GDP growth and make Australia a stronger economy.The Labor Party are unable to announce a policy in relation to business tax reform. They are making every possible excuse to avoid any responsible position in relation to this, including the absolutely false and far-fetched claim by the Leader of the Opposition this morning that somehow he cannot announce his position on business tax reform because of East Timor.This is a claim that he made yesterday. I overlooked it yesterday, thinking it was most probably an error, but he returned to it today and said this: `A dollar will go into the pocket of high income earners in this country and out of the pocket of our troops in Timor.' This is one of the grubbiest claims that he has made to date in relation to East Timor. Nothing could be further from the truth than that grubby claim repeated for a second day in a row by the Leader of the Opposition, who should be taking the advice of callers to talkback radio in Perth when he looks at his position on East Timor.The troops in East Timor not only are fully funded but also have taxation exemptions in relation to their salaries. You are never going to help Australia's military effort at home or abroad by running a weak economy. What backs up our troops and what backs up our international position is a strong economy. We would not be able to do this if our budget were $10 billion in deficit. We would not be able to do this if we had sat back and said, `We're not going to reform our labour markets and our product markets and secure our banking system and make Australia one of the strongest growing economies in the region during an East Asian financial crisis.' We would not have been able to do this if we had sat on our hands for the last three years, as the Labor Party was saying, and we will not be able to realise the important role that we have unless we keep the Australian economy strong. That was a grubby claim, and it was a false claim. It is about time that, instead of snooping around those sorts of false issues, the Leader of the Opposition showed enough courage to finally announce a policy.1146911469Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. As the education minister who presided over $800 million in cuts to operating grants for universities—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell will come to his question.MG4Mr LEE—Will you, as Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, take responsibility for the universities that have been forced to operate at a deficit? Do you, as minister, accept that there are regional campuses whose very existence is now at risk as a result of your policies?11469Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—This is a question from a shadow minister who is under very serious pressure within his own party. The member for Fremantle is eyeing that spot on the front bench. If that question is any sign, she is going to be there in the not too distant future. The suggestion that there are regional university campuses at risk is absolutely absurd, and I completely reject that. The government is not only supporting universities to produce the highest revenues that they have ever had but also strengthening the provision of higher education in regional and rural Australia. A significant proportion of the moneys which the government has put into the development of higher education campuses in Australia in recent years has gone to campuses in regional Australia.The contrast is between a former Labor government—which locked tens of thousands of qualified students out of Australian universities and which provided access to universities for overseas students that was not provided to Australian students—and a government which has opened the doors of Australia's universities to qualified students, has virtually eliminated unmet demand and has put the universities in a position where they may now be better resourced than ever before. In fact, the total revenue of Australian universities this year is some $700 million higher than it was in 1995 under the previous Labor government. So let there be no mistake: this government is committed to access to quality university education for qualified students in metropolitan and regional Australia.1147011470Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, could you inform the House of research which has been done indicating the effect of the current unfair dismissal law on many employers' ability to employ? What action needs to be taken to reduce the adverse effect of this burdensome regime?Opposition members interjecting—8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Can't be Bastion's research!11470Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Petrie. To respond to the preliminary interjections, what Rob Bastion said was that capital gains tax relief for small business is well and truly overdue. And why wouldn't he say that? If we can encourage our small businesses, they will grow, and that means more jobs. It is a very simple but obvious message which seems to have failed to have caught the attention of the Leader of the Opposition and those on the other side.Yesterday, as released in the papers this morning, we had another survey of employers and their attitudes to the unfair dismissal law. The Recruitment Solutions survey showed that six per cent of companies surveyed indicated that they had recruited fewer permanent staff, which is a quite clear statement that fewer people are getting jobs than should be; eight per cent had not employed people permanently but had put on people as casuals; and 35 per cent had been the subject of an unfair dismissal claim during the past 12 months.If you did just an on the back of an envelope calculation, given the number of small businesses in Australia, you could extrapolate that and say that 60,000 jobs have been lost because of the unfair dismissal law and that, furthermore, another 80,000 people have gone into jobs as casuals instead of getting a permanent job. That is a pretty relevant point, because the opposition are always complaining—and I might say exaggerating—the number of people who are employed as casuals and yet, in opposing our reforms to unfair dismissal, the opposition are forcing a lot of employers to actually put people on as casuals instead of as permanent staff.A lot of small business people say, `I don't want to get caught up in this unfair dismissal law, and I can't afford the legal costs, so I'll put somebody on as a casual.' You as the Labor Party cannot complain about the number of casuals and then go over to the Senate and vote against a measure which would encourage permanent employment.It is yet another demonstration that, on an important issue relating to employment, Labor have no alternative of their own and their only position is to oppose sensible measures which would actually create jobs. It is time that they had a policy. We were promised a policy on employment. It is about time the Leader of the Opposition showed a bit of leadership, showed a bit of fortitude, stood up to his masters in the ACTU and actually developed policy that would help small business, whether it is on unfair dismissal, capital gains tax or many of the other reforms Labor continue to oppose.1147111471Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is again directed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, you have just claimed credit for raising the quality of university education. How do you reconcile this public tub thumping with your private references to universities facing `higher student staff ratios, less frequent lecture and tutorial contact, the persistence of outdated technology and gaps in key areas of professional preparation'?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell knows that he is abusing the standing orders and will come to the question.MG4Mr LEE—It is a question, Mr Speaker. Finally, Minister, do you deny ever expressing these views in public or private?11471Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The government's policies for higher education have put the universities in a position where they have greater capacity and autonomy to manage their own affairs. It is up to the universities what policies they pursue internally. We, for example, have given the universities the opportunity to receive payment from the government for taking on students beyond the fully funded places. We have provided the universities with $2,500 for every student enrolled above the fully funded places.MG4LEEMr Lee—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question in part was a quote. I asked: does he deny expressing this view in private? On relevance, I ask you to bring him back to that question. Did he express these views in private—yes or no?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell on the point of relevance knows that the minister cannot be required to answer the question in a particular fashion.BT4Dr KEMP—It will be a long time before I tell the member for Dobell the contents of any private conversations that I may be having. What I am drawing the member for Dobell's attention to is the fact that the government has provided the universities with the opportunity to gain additional resources and greater flexibility in deciding what policies they will pursue on campus. The universities have responsibility for that, and the conditions on their campuses are matters that are in the hands of the university management.1147111471Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer inform the House of recent economic indicators and provide an update on the performance of the Australian economy?11471Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Curtin for her question. As the House would know, the Australian economy grew at 4½ per cent in the last financial year, and the government has forecast somewhat of a slowing in 1999-2000 from those very high levels. But what we saw yesterday released with the National Australia Bank monthly business survey was that business conditions remain at around the highest levels recorded since the survey commenced in 1997. The survey stated that it was `the first since the government's response to the Ralph business tax proposals and, as such, the kick in confidence could well be related'. So it was finding in the business community a lot of confidence coming out of the government's tax changes—and, of course, the sooner they are supported and enacted, the sooner that confidence will translate into increased activity and increased jobs.The NAB's Chief Economist, Alan Oster, noted that overall the survey points to another very strong performance by the non-farm business sector in September. Importantly, the survey also finds a continued absence of any significant wage and price pressures in the non-farm business sector. At Merrill Lynch's investment conference in New York, its chief economist, Mr Peter Osborne, had this to say to potential investors in Australia:Inflation is low and stable, interest rates are low in both nominal and real terms, the fiscal position is strong and the banking system is extremely healthy.That is the kind of news that is being received about Australia around the world. The more we attract investment, the more we get business going, the more jobs we will have in this economy—and business tax reform is a very big part of that. We will not increase the growth rate of the Australian economy by doing nothing. Those people who have a genuine interest in increasing growth in the Australian economy will be looking to implement business tax reform.I remarked recently when talking to investors overseas in both America and London that because productivity growth has averaged 2.9 per cent under the government—about double the productivity growth that occurred under Labor—it is possible that the long-term growth rate of the Australian economy could lift up a notch. If we can maintain productivity, the long-term growth rate could lift up in the next decade to 3½ to four per cent, which would be a quantum shift up. That is the return on good economic policy.The return on good economic policy—whether it be labour market reform, banking reform, corporate regulation reform, fiscal reform, the new monetary policy, low inflation or putting the budget back into a balance, which were all opposed by the Labor Party—is the productivity lift that could sustain a step up in growth in the Australian economy in the next decade. As I said at the time of the last budget, if that were to occur, the next decade could be a special one for Australia. The important thing is that we keep the economic momentum going, that we complete the great task of tax reform, that we move into the area of business tax reform and that we make sure that this economy has the potential to produce the goods and services which will lift living standards, create jobs and offer better opportunities for Australians in the future.1147211472Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is again addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, contrary to the four previous answers, haven't you prepared this cabinet submission which states:My preferred reform option is a demand driven system characterised by fee and admissions deregulation.Does it go on to say:Institutions, rather than the government, would set the price for a course of study.Doesn't this cabinet submission also propose:. . . a universal tuition subsidy which follows the student to public and private providers.Isn't that a voucher? Minister, doesn't this cabinet submission show that you and the Prime Minister have ratted on your promises?11472Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I am not going to comment directly or indirectly on the document that the member for Dobell claims to have. I stand by the answers that I have given to the House. Any decisions that this government takes in relation to education at any level will be designed to improve access, to improve quality and to improve opportunities for Australia to become a highly educated and skilled country.This government is the government which is providing leadership to Australia in educational standards and educational outcomes. The record of the Labor Party in government was absolutely abysmal. It was abysmal at the higher education level in terms of squeezing opportunities for qualified Australian students. It was abysmal at the vocational education level. Indeed, as we saw from Neal Blewett's book, the former education minister, Mr Dawkins, referred to Labor's appalling record in that area.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order under standing order 145 on relevance. The government blames us for a lot, but we are not responsible for this submission. He cannot make that comment relevant to that question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. He has addressed the standing order. It is difficult to draw any relevance between former Minister Blewett's book and the question. I invite the minister to come back to the substance of the question.BT4Dr KEMP—Mr Speaker, if indeed they do have a copy of a cabinet submission of mine, all I can say is that that will be the most intelligent and best thought-out proposal on education that the Labor Party has had in its hands for a very long time.1147211472St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Would the minister advise the House of progress being made to improve Australia's trading position in South-East Asia? How does this reflect on our standing among our regional partners?11473Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the honourable member for New England for his question. It is a very serious question. Through the good efforts of our government and the Australian people, we have managed to quarantine the Australian economy from the economic downturn in Asia. We are actively engaging in building and strengthening our relationship with our South-East Asian neighbours.Having just returned last week from talks between the trade ministers from the ASEAN countries and the Australian and New Zealand trade ministers, I can report that our relationship with our regional partners is in very good order and is very strong. This region accounts for about 12 per cent of our total trade efforts. Prior to the economic downturn in South-East Asia, it had been experiencing about 10 per year growth per year.Our ASEAN neighbours fully recognise the importance of strengthening our relationship, particularly the trade relationship with Australia. Highlighting this, the Singapore meeting a week and a half ago agreed to establish a task force to undertake a feasibility study into the possibility of establishing a free trade agreement between the ASEAN nations and Australia and New Zealand, being the CER countries. The high level task force will be headed by the former Prime Minister of the Philippines, Mr Cesar Virata.The concept of a free trade area is strongly supported by the Australian Industry Group, who have welcomed its potential to deliver additional market access for our exporters. In fact, they engaged an independent economic analysis of what benefits would flow to the Australian economy. That modelling showed that the Australian economy would stand to benefit by more than $8 billion a year by that sort of involvement in the region. They put out a press release which said:The Australian Industry Group congratulates the minister on this ground-breaking announcement and looks forward to working closely with the task force to progress this important development in building closer linkages with the region. I accept those congratulations on behalf of the government. This agreement clearly shows that our ASEAN neighbours recognise the very important role that Australia is playing in developing a more prosperous and secure region in which we live. We will continue to work with our ASEAN neighbours in strengthening that relationship.1147311473Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, doesn't this cabinet submission also state:Some universities may seek to position themselves at the premium end of the market.And:The pricing of universities after fee deregulation cannot be predicted with certainty.Minister, how can you gamble with the future of students by advocating a shift towards student fees deregulation if you have no idea how high the fees will rise? How can we build a knowledge nation if your American style university fees make it impossible for smart kids from Australian families to ever afford to go to university?11473Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The hypocrisy of the Leader of the Opposition is absolutely breathtaking. Here is the leader of a party which in government pursued policies which locked out of universities the most marginal students. Up to 30,000 or 40,000 marginal students—students from poorer families, students from blue-collar families, students who did not have the educational opportunities of other students—were denied a university education by the Labor Party. It is through this government's policy of making possible fees for undergraduate places that students are getting their preference and vacating government funded places. It is this government, by its marginal funding of over-enrolments, which has opened the doors of Australian universities to qualified students from poorer backgrounds. For you to get up here and pretend through your rhetoric that somehow or other you were looking after those students when you denied them access is gross hypocrisy.If indeed the Leader of the Opposition has in his hands a copy of a cabinet submission that I prepared, all I can suggest to him is that he reads it very carefully and compares it with what he is not getting from those who are responsible for education on the other side of the House.1147411474Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—My question is also addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of the outcomes of the recent tender round for new apprenticeship centres?Mr Swan interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Lilley!WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—How will this benefit regional and rural Australia?11474Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the honourable member for his question, and I acknowledge his great personal interest in the provision of educational opportunities for students in regional and rural Australia. The tender for the new apprenticeship centres has just been completed and will see some 425,000 Australians over the next three years gaining assistance in their enquiries in relation to new apprenticeships. The new apprenticeship centres provide support to employers by helping them with information on registration and the provision of incentives and facilitating any other advice and assistance that employers need.As a result of this tender round, 34 organisations will provide new apprenticeship support services in 311 sites over the next three years across Australia. This is an increase on the 208 sites operating at the present time. One pleasing feature of the tender round was that a number of employer organisations have won contracts to operate new apprenticeship centres. This shows that business is very strongly supportive of the reforms which the government has put in place. A key aspect of this tender round has been its focus on making sure that employers and apprentices in regional and rural Australia are better served. In fact, a signal of this is the dramatic increase in the number of sites for new apprenticeship centres in rural and regional Australia and in remote regions. The number of sites increases from 118 to 200 under the new arrangements in regional and remote Australia.This government is committed to providing quality education in regional and rural Australia. That is a great deal more than I can say for the opposition. Recently, when the Leader of the Opposition issued a press release about easing the workload of the member for Dickson, he referred to the fact that the member for Batman had been active in developing a training policy for regional and rural Australia. I have got a suggestion for the member for Dickson—that her first question to the member for Batman be: where is the policy? Where is all this work that has actually been done on regional and rural Australian education because we have not seen it. No-one else in Australia has seen it. There is no policy out there from the opposition. The quality education and training policy in this country is coming from the government.1147411474Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is again addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, doesn't your cabinet submission also support the abolition of HECS and the imposition of `a universal loan scheme to help students pay tuition costs with a real rate of interest'? Minister, doesn't this mean that a student doing physiotherapy will be faced with a total bill of $100,000—$40,000 in net fees plus $60,000 in interest—paid off over 28 years? Minister, why should young Australians, or their parents, have to pay $100,000 just to go to university?11474Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—He is raving now, Mr Speaker. If indeed the member for Dobell has a copy of a cabinet submission which promotes the extension of loans in Australia, I would have thought that that was a policy that maybe the Labor Party would be very interested in. So far as the nonsensical figures promoted by the member for Dobell are concerned, I just reject them.1147411474Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Minister, would you inform the House what action the government is taking to counter the increase in arrivals of illegal boat people?11475Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for Blair for his question, and I thank those members of the opposition who noted that this is Austcare Refugee Week. I want to use this opportunity to restate the government's commitment to assisting those people who are refugees and to remind the House that Australia maintains the largest per capita refugee and humanitarian program in the world. On top of that, this government has initiated the arrangements that have enabled 4,000 people from Kosovo to be given safe haven in Australia until it was safe and secure for them to return home and has also made provision for East Timorese people to be accommodated in Australia until it is safe and secure for them to go home. This was all on top of the measures that have been maintained over a long period.Notwithstanding our generous and proud record in this area, our refugee and humanitarian program is under challenge. It is important to recognise how it is under challenge. There has been a very rapid escalation in unauthorised arrivals to Australia. During the course of this year, 1,500 people have arrived by boat off the west coast of Australia, in comparison to a mere 200 last year. The fact is that they are often people—unlike those we have seen before who have not been able to sustain asylum claims—notwithstanding our generosity in relation to Iraqis and Afghans in accommodating them through the regular refugee program, who have been living in security and safety for a number of years in third countries, and are now seeking to get to the front of the queue for asylum places in Australia.I am determined—and so is the government—to protect Australia's places for those who are genuinely in need and not to stand by while the system is exploited by those who do have alternatives and while those who have no alternatives miss out. In the context of the measures that the government has already announced—in relation to enhancing Coastwatch, Customs and Navy capacities to intercept vessels arriving, the penalties for people smugglers, the additional resources that we put into boosting our intelligence information offshore and in transit countries and the legislation that we have before us at the moment to enhance our powers of search and pursuit of vessels involved in people smuggling—it is important that we do more to reduce the attractiveness of Australia as an option for those who seek to come here unlawfully.We also need to be able to identify clearly those people who have had claims accepted offshore—in other countries—who seek to hide their identity and ensure that we do not know who they are, where they are from and that they have had claims accepted before.Today I announced a comprehensive package of measures to respond to this problem. It includes providing temporary protection only in the first instance to unauthorised arrivals found to be in need of refugee protection. That measure is not unusual. It was a measure of a sort that was put in place by a former government, and I think is required again to reduce the attractiveness of Australia as a destination. We also need to legislate to prevent the protection visa system from being clogged up with people who already obviously have alternative protection available to them. We need to amend the law to ensure that, if they have had claims accepted elsewhere, they stay there where they are safe and secure and do not deny a place to somebody else who has no place to go. Finally, we need to strengthen the powers under the Migration Act to allow testing of unauthorised arrivals and asylum seekers to prevent identity fraud.I am pleased at the silence with which I have been heard and the nodding heads I have seen, and I look forward to the comprehensive support of the opposition to all of these measures in their entirety.Distinguished Visitors1147511475Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I am pleased to inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from Mexico, led by the coordinator of the Mexican parliament's foreign affairs committee, Senator Calderon. The delegation is accompanied by His Excellency the Mexican Ambassador to Australia. On behalf of the House I extend to the delegation a warm welcome.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice114761147611476Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is again addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, can you explain how under this secret plan, now exposed, families and young people are supposed to come up with $100,000, a figure based on the current fees for physiotherapy at Melbourne University? Minister, will families be expected to take out two mortgages—one for the house and one for their children's education? Why are you forcing Australian families to make a choice between saving for a house and saving to educate their children?3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question is excessively argumentative. It is nothing more than an invitation to debate, and it ought to be ruled out of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Parramatta makes a valid point of order. A number of questions from the member for Dobell, as I indicated earlier, have in the way they were framed advanced an argument. But that is not unusual for questions in the parliament. I would require the member for Dobell not to advance argument in his questions to the degree that he has been so doing.11476Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—Any education policies that the government puts forward will continue to pursue the objectives that the government's education policies have pursued up until now, and that is to improve access to education for all students, regardless of their financial circumstances.1147611476Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Has the minister seen an article in the Australian newspaper at the weekend which raises concerns about exotic pests being introduced to Australia from overseas in ships' ballast water? What is the government doing to prevent exotic pests from entering our waterways? Is it true that the government has decided to act unilaterally to enforce strict new rules on the management of ballast water?11476Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the honourable member for Dunkley for his question and recognise the contribution that he has made to the debate on this issue, including raising it in the parliament on quite a number of occasions. Certainly, I have seen the article in the Australian , which refers to the introduction of exotic marine pests into Port Phillip Bay. I understand that the article arose from a CSIRO study on the issue, which I think produced information of concern to all Australians that many exotic marine pests and diseases are able to travel to Australia and that many of them have come through ships' ballast water.It is of interest to note that each year about 10 billion tonnes of ballast water is transported around the globe. It has been estimated that as many as 10,000 plants and animals are transported each day through ballast water. So it is a matter of potential concern that new pests and diseases can come to Australia through ships' ballast water. There is already evidence of a number of organisms reaching our waters through this mechanism.Last month, the government announced that we would indeed be acting unilaterally to introduce strict new rules for international ships to manage their ballast water so that we can minimise the introduction of exotic pests to Australia. Australia has been active in this field for quite some time, and we had been hoping that an international agreement on ballast water management would have been reached by now. It is clear that that is still some years away. We cannot wait, and so the Australian government has announced that we will be acting unilaterally, and new requirements will come into force from 2001.I have been very pleased at the warm response that this action has received from the shipping community and from those involved in Australian exports and imports. There has been unanimous support from industry. They are working with us to implement appropriate guidelines and to prepare the necessary regulations and mechanisms so that Australia will have the toughest rules in the world to deal with ballast water management. I commend the honourable member for Dunkley for his interest in this matter. We are interested in not only the waters of Port Phillip Bay but all Australian waters, to ensure that there is the minimum possible risk of importing exotic pests and diseases through ballast water.1147711477Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, isn't it the case under your submission that a student with a $40,000 bill for fees who works for three years but then takes three years off to raise a family will be faced with a total bill, including interest, of $150,000 and that it will take her 40 years to pay off the debt? Doesn't this cabinet submission state:For the community the benefits are also substantial. The deregulation of fees will allow the proportion financed by taxpayers to decrease.Minister, don't you understand that deregulating fees, abolishing HECS and introducing a student loans scheme—IK6LLOYDMr Lloyd—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. Under standing order 144, this question is obviously hypothetical and should be ruled out of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When the House has come to order, the Speaker will have an opportunity to rule on the point of order raised by the member for Robertson. I include the member for Denison in that. The Leader of the Opposition was in fact quoting from a document and, in that sense, the question could not be regarded as hypothetical. The only obligation that the Leader of the Opposition faces under the standing orders is the obligation to authenticate the document.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—I think that has already been done. Minister, don't you understand that deregulating fees, abolishing HECS and introducing a student loans scheme with real interest rates not only wipes away 30 years of decent education policy but takes Menzies-era student fees, deregulates them and replaces scholarships with expensive, American style loans?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the Opposition is now advancing an argument and will resume his seat. I had already asked the member for Dobell to resist the degree to which arguments were being advanced in the question. The Leader of the Opposition concluded that question with what could only be determined as advancing an argument. I require the minister only to respond to the first part of the question.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, taking up the point that you made at your own initiative about authenticating the document, could we have a copy of the document?MG4LEEMr Lee—On that point of order, Mr Speaker, am I to understand that the minister is asking me to authenticate his cabinet submission? Is that what you are asking me to do?WI4REITHMr Reith—No. No.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Your department's got a copy.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Manager of Opposition Business! Is there no courtesy left in the parliament? I have been asked to respond to a point of order. The only obligation that the Leader of the Opposition faces is an obligation to authenticate the document. I understand that he has indicated that the document is an authentic document. The chair has consistently over the years required people from both sides to indicate whether or not the statistics they were using or the documents they were reading from were authentic. I have asked the Leader of the Opposition to respond to that.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—Further to your ruling, Mr Speaker, you said that the Leader of the Opposition had an obligation to authenticate the document. Surely that would require him to actually produce the document for the purposes of authentication.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Under what standing order is that?CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—Under the standing order that that is the ruling that the Speaker has given, that you have an obligation to authenticate. Mr Speaker, I ask you whether that was the purport of your ruling.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Has the Treasurer finished his point of order?CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—My point of order is this: you have ruled that the Leader of the Opposition has an obligation to authenticate a document. A document can only be authenticated if it is produced.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—In response to the point of order, Mr Speaker, I point out that I authenticate this document on the same basis that ministers opposite authenticate the confidentiality of theirs. It is authentic.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for the Northern Territory and other members are running perilously close to finding themselves out of the parliament, in spite of the fact that they have been elected to be here to represent individual areas.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker, under standing order 144, which says:Questions cannot be debated.When a question is debated, it must follow that it is out of order. When a question is out of order, it is not to be answered and it would be normal to call someone from the other side. The point about this is that there has been a series of questions today, none of which have inquired for any information or facts; they are simply opportunities to make a speech in this place. I draw that to your attention on the grounds that when a question is out of order, as you have said, then we should pass on to the next questioner.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will address what now seems to be more than one point of order. The first is the question of authenticity. It has been the practice, for as long as I can recall, for Speakers to require ministers, frequently, and sometimes people asking questions, to authenticate the statistics they are using or the documents from which they are quoting. In every instance, the word of the member has been used as sufficient indication of the authenticity of the document or, in the case of the requirement of people to table documents, of the confidentiality of that document. I have no intention of reflecting on the character of any one of my colleagues in the parliament by suggesting that the documents are other than authentic once they have claimed that they are.On the matter raised by the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, it is fair to say, as I commented earlier, that there have been a number of questions that have advanced more argument than could reasonably be tolerated. It is also fair to say that almost every question asked in the parliament is a question that contains a measure of argument in the way it is framed. For that reason, I indicated that the question from the Leader of the Opposition, as he well knows, in its latter part contained more argument than I could defend. I therefore required the minister to respond only to the first part of the question.11478Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—We have the extraordinary sight of the opposition claiming that there is a secret plan, and they seem to be doing their best to try to keep it secret. They have been asked to table the document and make it available—and they are so far refusing to do it. So let us see it. This immediately raises questions about why the opposition is refusing to table a document. Insofar as the opposition leader's question addressed the issue of access, I simply repeat my last answer—that this government's policies are all designed to expand access to education for all students, regardless of their financial background, and our policies have done this.Opposition members interjecting—BT4Dr KEMP—That is why we have more students in vocational education and training than ever before—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne is warned.BT4Dr KEMP—and more students on university campuses than ever before. Our policies will continue to be policies that will expand access for students from whatever financial background they come.1147911479Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. What is the latest evidence of increased public support for the excellent Work for the Dole program? Can the minister outline this to the House?11479Mr ABBOTTMr ABBOTTUNKNOWNUNKNOWNUNKNOWNUNKNOWN00—Thank you, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The same conditions as apply to the member for Melbourne Ports also now apply conspicuously to the member for Blaxland.UNKNOWNMr ABBOTT—Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to answer the question. I thank the member for Robertson for his question. I recently had the opportunity to visit Work for the Dole participants in his electorate and I appreciate his commitment to this great government program. I am aware of a new study by the Social Policy Research Centre at the University of New South Wales based on a national survey of 2,400 people. This survey showed 80 per cent support for the proposition that unemployed people under 25 should be required to participate in Work for the Dole. It showed 77 per cent support for the proposition that unemployed young people should be required to participate in mutual obligation activities and it showed 70 per cent support for the proposition that the long-term unemployed should be required to undertake mutual obligation activities.This survey is further evidence of strong public support for these three signature programs and initiatives of the Howard government. The survey was not all good news, I am afraid. Nearly one-fifth, or 20 per cent, of respondents thought that job seekers should not be required to look for work, thought that job seekers should not have to accept any jobs offered and thought that job seekers should not be required to undertake training. I think that Australia cannot afford this kind of negativity. Attitudes like this are unacceptable to this government. They were unacceptable to the former government. They were unacceptable to the former shadow minister for employment. And the question is: are they also unacceptable to the new shadow minister for employment? Perhaps she might tell us sometime exactly what she thinks about Work for the Dole and mutual obligation.1147911479Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, haven't you, with your cabinet submission, broken your commitment not to deregulate student fees, broken your commitment not to introduce vouchers, developed a plan to place debts of $100,000 on ordinary Australian families? Will you now dump this unfair, unconscionable, un-Australian plan?UT4NUGENTMr Nugent—Mr Speaker, under standing order 146, this question has clearly been asked before. It has clearly been fully addressed before and I ask you to rule it out of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I do not believe the question in this form has been asked before. That is why I had not ruled it out of order and I will allow it to stand.11479Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—Obviously, I reject the absurd rhetoric of the Leader of the Opposition, and the answer to the rest of his question is no.Censure Motion114791147915:00:0011479Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I move:That this House censures the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs for attempting to mislead the House and the Australian public by not truthfully explaining the government's plans on higher education reform, their breach with previous government undertakings, and for his deceitful answers in the House which are contradicted by confidential government documents which he has prepared for cabinet.Let me open the debate today on proceedings that will change Australian education back to where it was before Menzies was in government and before the Commonwealth Scholarship Scheme was introduced—but in an era when student fees charged, compared with what is being charged now, in that 25 per cent hitherto devoted to purely privately funded tuition. It seeks to shift our education system back to that point which will give negligible opportunities for middle-income Australians to get themselves to university.As I speak to this censure motion, I am mindful of the fact that I was a beneficiary, from a middle-income Australian family, of Menzies' Commonwealth Scholarship Scheme, as was the minister. I reflect on the fact that the Minister for Health and Aged Care, the Treasurer of this nation and the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation all were beneficiaries of a free higher education system, which they have made thorough use of since they got in this place and, of course, prior to that. Having had that opportunity, they now wish to drag the ladder up behind them so that ordinary middle-income Australian families are not able to get there again.Let me reflect upon answers we have been given today. Dr Kemp has said various things including:The suggestion that there are regional university campuses at risk is absolutely absurd, and I completely reject that. The government is not only supporting universities to produce the highest revenues that they have ever had but also strengthening—Et cetera. Elsewhere in the same answer he says that the government has put the universities in a position where they are now better resourced than they have ever been. He says:. . . this government is committed to access to quality university education for qualified students in metropolitan and regional Australia.I will devote most of my remarks to the impact that these propositions will have on Australian families. But let me start with the situation in which we now find ourselves—and that the minister prates about in this House with such evident pride—as a result of three years of starvation of the system. It is as though the minister has tied up a dog for those three years, starved it, then unleashed it and pointed it straight at the students and families of Australia to sate its hunger for the resources that it needs to deliver.Let us now reflect on what he says in the cabinet submission about how well they are doing in regional Australia. He says that eight institutions appear to be operating at a deficit and that some regional campuses are at risk. We quoted some of that submission to him in one of the questions that we asked here today that he walked away from and refused to tell us whether it was his private opinion. It was in fact the opinion that he expressed in his cabinet submission. He says of his high-quality campuses to date—this is his analysis to his colleagues—that there are higher student-staff ratios, less frequent lecture and tutorial contacts, the persistence of outdated technology and gaps in key areas of professional preparation.That is what happens when you take $800 million worth of public funds out of the education system. That is what happens when you drive the universities of this country into the ground. That is what happens when we confront a situation where the University of Singapore, for example, on public funds, is funded to the tune of twice that of the wealthiest Australian university. That is what happens when you decide you will kill the knowledge nation. That is what happens when you decide to deprive your society of a belief that what we ought to be doing is encouraging excellence in our higher education institutions, knowing that our higher education institutions, more than any other sector of our education system, drive the new ideas, the new technologies and the new opportunities for future industries and future employment in this country.This minister presides over a unique situation in the industrialised world. He is the only education minister—the only one—who is presiding over a decrease in public funds to higher education. He is the only education minister who is presiding over a decrease in resources going to education, training and research in this country. He is the only one presiding over a falling percentage of GDP. This has been a matter of deliberate strategy. It started of course as a matter of social revenge.The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business—holding half the portfolio that this minister was stripped of after the last election—drives his industrial policy with his prejudices against workers who decide they will band together to secure a decent wage and a decent life for their families. So does the education minister—in his revolt against the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s when in regional Australia ordinary middle-income families began to find themselves opportunities in higher education—despise the institutions that grew and developed in the Western Suburbs of Sydney, in the working class suburbs of Melbourne, in the bush and in regional Australia. He despises them as not really appropriate to the image that he has of hallowed sandstone halls around which we quietly drink sherry with our professors and enjoy a civilised, philosophical discourse. Just as he despises what has generated education opportunity for the ordinary Australian, so this submission is his final act of social revenge on middle-income people.I can make a plea in here for poor Australians, and I will. But it would be falsely cast because the people who are really being driven into the ground by this submission are ordinary, aspirational middle-income Australian families. The people who are pilloried by this submission are the households where, say, the principal breadwinner is on $40,000 to $45,000 a year and perhaps the spouse is earning $15,000 to $20,000 a year, thereby basically moving themselves out of most compensatory arrangements associated with the rearing of families. If they have a set of kids now in their mid-teens, watch out, because this bloke has got them. If this cabinet submission comes in, if this proposition is put in place and the start-up date—listen to this—is 1 January after the latest date for the next election—the ultimate act of cynicism—what he does not realise is that people with 15-year-olds can also count. They know exactly what is going to happen to them as a result of this.This brings me to, for the remainder of my remarks, the actual effect of what he is saying. Contrary to his undertaking, this represents a proposal to deregulate all university fees. That means that, whereas now fully privately funded places in courses are limited to 25 per cent, it will be 100 per cent from this point on. There is no cap. For example, while the calculation of the tuition subsidy is based upon the average cost of a course of $11,000 a year, if the course happens to cost $15,000 or $17,000, as it is with the physiotherapy example that we cited—and Melbourne has a two-year course of law at $72,000—the student bears it through a loan system now calculated on the basis of a real interest rate, according to this particular proposition. It is effectively the introduction of vouchers, despite his undertaking.The subsidy as it exists now, as the minister boasts proudly, has a lesser and lesser impact in terms of the total percentage of costs on the student or the student's family as opposed to the taxpayer generally. Those students will now find themselves in a situation where they can hawk that particular proposition as a voucher from university to university. What is actually going to happen to the regional universities of this country? What is going to happen to the universities of Western Sydney? What is going to happen to the eight universities—they are not named here but they have an operating deficit, and you can bet your bottom dollar most of those are in regional Australia, and indeed he says some regional Australian campuses are at risk—when they lose any critical mass of students?I am surprised the Deputy Prime Minister is not in here because, if this happens to go through, the Deputy Prime Minister stands naked in regional Australia. Scattered though regional Queensland in particular but also regional New South Wales, regional Victoria and, to a lesser degree, the other states, is the development opportunity of regional communities based on industry associated with universities. That is there. That is what gives us hope that opportunities will arise in regional Australia for the development of new industries based on new information technologies, new biotechnologies. They are gone if this proposition ever gets put into place and if HECS is abolished and replaced with an unfair loans scheme.Mr Lee interjecting—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—An afterthought, yes. We referred in question time to the example of what would happen. I know of so many female students—in fact I have produced a few of them myself; at least my wife has, but I have had something to do with it—who anticipate this for their lives. They anticipate completing their courses, they anticipate perhaps a couple of years in the work force. They then anticipate, of course, several years of child rearing in which they will exit either the full-time work force or the work force altogether.What they will be experiencing as that occurs is compounding interest. So after their children reach school years, or perhaps earlier, and they come back into the full-time work force, triggering the repayment schedules in their income tax associated with this submission, they will then find themselves in a situation where they will carry a debt for 40 years—a 40-year debt burden on the ordinary Australian family.This is the Americanisation of the Australian system without the American protections. It is all very well to talk about Americanising the system, but the average wage in the United States is darn close to twice ours. Prices for houses and prices for most consumer goods are way below Australian prices, but not in the area of education—until now. In the propositions this government has been operating with regard to HECS increases—and remember it increased HECS by 125 per cent in some areas—we actually have approached now, and in some cases exceeded, the cost of state universities in the United States. What this will do is go three times over the top of them on what were hitherto state universities here in Australia. That will be the impact of this proposition. It will be extraordinarily damaging to the average family.Remember I stated this is a major attack on middle-income Australians. There is also a proposition here, the minister says—as a sort of afterthought—that there must be some protection for low-income individuals, and he cites reasonably enough our indigenous communities. But the amount he is talking about in here is about $20 million a year, in a system of over $5 billion! There is no prospect in this for Australians to attend a university, except for the very, very bright young working-class Australian—no prospect at all.This is a product of extreme right-wing conservative ideology imposed on middle Australia in a way, I suppose, that Victorians with Jeff Kennett have become all too familiar with. It is bad enough for the average Australian family confronting this disaster. It is bad enough for the average Australian tax paying family who have seen the older kids down the street go through a system in which they were provided by the taxpayer with real opportunity. It is bad enough for them as they scrimped and scraped while their kids were five and six years old and watched the Costellos and the Wooldridges of life go through fully funded in university; but when their kids now make it themselves, they are going to be hit with bills cumulatively of $100,000 or more.Any kid who wants to get into the premium priced sandstones—the University of Melbourne, the University of Western Australia, the University of Adelaide or the University of Queensland—and this is all anticipated here, will face the very worst impact of these real interest rates imposed on their so-called student loan. They will face a massive impact. They will give up. There is a massive price sensitivity in higher education, and they will give up.But the ultimate betrayal in this document is a betrayal of the collective Australian people in the middle of an election campaign. Let me go to our beloved Prime Minister on this particular subject. During the last election campaign in a press conference in Perth, on the matter of vouchers he said:As far as West—that is the West report, and this is far worse than anything West suggested—is concerned David Kemp had something to say about her attitude—that is a mistake and that should be `our' attitude—to vouchers and things like that, ruling them out absolutely.That is the Prime Minister's word. What is that worth?He will get up, like he did with the cutesy on the GST, and say, `I said I wouldn't introduce it but, because it comes in after the next election, it really isn't a broken promise. Because this will come in the January after the next election, it isn't really a broken promise.' It is with that sort of moral slovenliness that politicians in this country come into gross discredit in the electorate.But the real penalty is ultimately paid by the Australian people on this one. If we are going to build a knowledge nation, we need all our people with that opportunity to obtain every educational opportunity that their skills will permit them—every opportunity. If they are priced out of it, they will suffer as individuals, but this country will suffer massively.You are a completely worthless minister. Your Prime Minister worked that out sufficiently in the employment area, and you have demonstrated adequately your worthlessness in the collapse of the universities you attest to in your submission. You should be censured and gone. (Time expired)10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?MG4LEEMr Lee—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:21:0011483Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—We have just heard a typical example of the confected outrage of this empty Leader of the Opposition. The sounding drums strike loudest when they are large and empty, and what we have is large rhetoric and no substance. We are in a position to evaluate the Leader of the Opposition because he has been minister for education. He left no legacy as minister for education. No-one in Australia remembers a single achievement from the time he was—4G4DOWNERMr Downer—I didn't even know that he was the minister for education.BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—My colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs has expressed surprise at the historical information that the Leader of the Opposition was the minister for education, because there was absolutely no achievement.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The minister is entitled to at least as much courtesy as was extended to the Leader of the Opposition.4G4DOWNERMr Downer—The socialists have gone nuts. You hate being called socialists, don't you? You used to argue for it!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Minister for Foreign Affairs is being of no assistance to the minister. When the House comes to order, the minister will have the call.BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—The Leader of the Opposition has had the chance to demonstrate his commitment to education. When he was minister, we saw nothing. When he was Leader of the Opposition, we saw him preside over a policy process which produced an education policy at the last election that was so flawed that the shadow minister who was asked to be responsible for it resigned and went to the back bench.The education policy that this empty Leader of the Opposition put forward at the last election was a policy that was actually going to cut funding to university research; that had four lines on the largest social justice issue in education, which is literacy; and that was based on totally mistaken assumptions about the funding of technical and further education in Australia. It was a completely incompetent policy endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition. When the member for Werriwa—one of the few thinkers on the other side of the House—saw this policy, he felt that he could not accept personal responsibility for it and resigned. The Leader of the Opposition was able, however, to find somebody to take responsibility, and that was the member for Dobell.Since then the member for Dobell has been the perfect spokesman for the policy vacuum, because he has said nothing. He has issued nothing. He has done nothing. He is a shadow minister who has been under tremendous pressure and threat. Michelle Grattan, in the Sydney Morning Herald on 2 October, urged the Leader of the Opposition to reshuffle this shadow minister, the member for Dobell, out of the way and replace him with the member for Fremantle. She said:This is an area of priority for Mr Beazley, who aspires to be the education Prime Minister. Mr Lee could be better used elsewhere.I do not think the fact that some mate somewhere may have slipped him a document is going to make him a decent shadow minister for education. Let us look at the substance of what the Leader of the Opposition said. The Leader of the Opposition, rhetorically, with enormous confected emotion, talked about Australia becoming a country based on ideas and knowledge.Australia must strike out its position in the 21st century based on the quality of its education and the skills of its people. That is where we are going to get our great comparative advantage in the world—because we have a highly skilled, highly knowledgeable population. The Labor Party, however, has never suggested a single policy which will achieve that. Indeed, it would have to be the last major political party in the world which has yet to confront the issue of achieving a focus on outcomes in education. The Labor Party has always taken the attitude that you throw money at something and you solve the problem. Of course, the Australian Education Union requires it to do that.At the end of Mr Beazley's term as education minister, 30 per cent of young Australians could not read properly. They were young Australians who were struggling. He did nothing about them. When I became education minister, I found that the Labor Party had suppressed—I use that word quite deliberately—20 years of research into education standards amongst young Australians. That research had provided information about the literacy and numeracy skills of young people in year 9, age 14. They were very large surveys, taken throughout the time when you were in government. Those surveys have been deliberately kept secret. The Australian Education Union did not want the results published.Unless the Labor Party commits itself to achieving better outcomes for young people and starts to support policies which will achieve better outcomes for young people, it has no credibility whatever in its education policy. It is nothing more—has never been anything more—than the mouthpiece for the Australian Education Union and the National Tertiary Education Union. It never says anything original. It never says how the money that is spent is going to produce decent outcomes. It weeps crocodile tears about young people from low-income backgrounds who cannot gain access to education, but when it has a chance to do something about it, it does nothing. It was those students from low-income, blue-collar suburbs, surrounded by a culture of low educational expectations, whom the Labor Party surrendered and did nothing to help throughout its 13 years in office. So many of those young people are now in their mid-20s and they have never known a year's continuous employment, because of the failure of the Labor Party.When we look at the state of university education under the Labor Party, we find that there was an enormous unmet demand. At times that unmet demand reached a figure of round about 40,000 qualified students who could not get places. Why was that? Because the Labor Party restricted artificially and ideologically the entry of qualified Australian students to the university system. It failed to fund students that universities admitted over and above the fully funded places. It failed to give young Australians access to universities on the same basis as overseas students. It shut and slammed the doors in the face of qualified young Australians. And those young Australians who were shut out of universities were the most marginal applicants. And we know from all the research that those young Australians were the ones from the most disadvantaged educational backgrounds. So the Labor Party, for all its rhetoric, barred from higher education tens of thousands of qualified young people. It is this government that has opened the doors. We have opened the doors to educational opportunity at all levels of education. We have opened the doors to Australia's most important social justice education policy ever—our National Literacy Plan—3J4SAWFORDMr Sawford—You are the only minister to reduce funding.BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—to tens of thousands of young people who previously had no future whatever.3J4SAWFORDMr Sawford—Have a look at your backbench. They are not too convinced.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Port Adelaide!BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—We have opened the doors of Australian universities to tens of thousands of students who were previously locked out.3J4SAWFORDMr Sawford—You can say all you like, but you do not convince them. Look at them.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Port Adelaide.BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—It is the commitment of this government to continue to act to improve access to quality training for young Australians. Under the previous government the apprenticeship system was essential to so many young people from the kinds of families the Labor Party likes to think it appeals to. Yet the Labor Party almost wrecked Australia's apprenticeship system, and it did that by insisting that the trade union movement be one of the overseers of Australian apprenticeships, and many employers would not take on apprentices because it meant inviting the unions into the workplace. We have rebuilt Australia's apprenticeship system. We have opened opportunities for tens of thousands of young Australians to do quality apprenticeship training.The Labor Party has never committed itself to that. The Labor Party has never committed itself to the National Literacy Plan. The Labor Party has never committed itself to the New Apprenticeships system—a business owned enterprise friendly system—because its union mates will not let it. It has never committed itself to maintaining the funding for universities which has opened the doors that the government has put in place. When it attempted to develop a policy it lost its shadow minister, who was appalled at the quality of that policy. Now we have the Leader of the Opposition coming into this House pretending that he cares for the educational future of this country. He has no record, he has no performance and he has no policy.The Labor Party are claiming that they have a copy of a cabinet submission that I have prepared. They will not table this cabinet submission. They intend apparently to keep it secret.8I4MARTINMr Martin—You've got it. You wrote it.BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—Well, we do not know what documents you have got. Maybe they are frightened that we might find out where it came from. Maybe they are frightened that there will be many aspects of that policy that will be exceedingly popular, that will be widely welcomed in the community.MG4LEEMr Lee—It was boxed an hour ago, you fool.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell would rather like the call, I would have thought, in a minute or two.BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—Any policy that this government puts forward for education will be a policy which will continue our determination to make Australia an educated, knowledge based society with opportunity for all, and that will include opportunity for all qualified students regardless of their financial background. It is those students who are already in universities who were not there when the Labor Party were in office. The Labor Party do not like the fact that we have opened the doors. They do not like the fact that we have rebuilt educational opportunity in Australia. All they have is the empty sound of the big bass drum—sounding empty, saying nothing.This government is very proud of its educational record. This is a government with policy ideas. This is a great reforming government. This is a government which has rebuilt the economy of this country, which is building the social partnerships and coalitions on which a healthy society will be built. I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"the House censures the Member for Dobell for his failure to develop any manner of education policy and orders the Member for Dobell to produce forthwith, without any further amendment or debate, the original document purporting to be a Cabinet submission, and any copies thereof made by the Opposition, from which he was quoting during question time today."15:37:0011485Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—This document will see off David Kemp. This document should see off David Kemp because every person who is listening to the radio, every parent who is up in the gallery—WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask the member to table the document he has just made available. He is not claiming that it is confidential, is he?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will recognise the member for Dobell in just a moment. I thought the obligation to table papers was an obligation that rests with ministers, but I will hear the Leader of the House. It is not my intention to frustrate his request.WI4REITHMr Reith—My point of order is quite simple. Under standing order 316 there is a requirement for the tabling of papers. It has been quoted from by a member in the House and not just during question time.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Which standing order, Pete? Which one are you making up now?WI4REITHMr Reith—This point of order relates to standing order 316, on the advice of those experts close to me, who do not need to be brought into the controversy. But it is quite clear: there is a standing order. It is true that it is not often used, as has also been my advice, but there is a requirement. It is obviously on the claim of the shadow minister that it is not a private document or a confidential document. He claims to have been boxing it up in the gallery. My point is that I have seen the document which they are boxing in the gallery and it is not the document which he now has. So he ought to be required to table it.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On the point of order, Mr Speaker: standing order 316 says:Papers may be ordered to be laid before the House, and the Clerk shall communicate to the Minister concerned all orders for papers made by the House; and such papers when received shall be laid on the Table by the Clerk.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am aware of standing order 316. I would have thought the standing order would be implemented by the order of the House rather than by a request for leave. I would have thought also that the motion moved by the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs would effectively make that sort of order of the House.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, on the point of order: I only make the point that the Labor Party is claiming one document here but boxing another. That is deceiving people; that is misleading people.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The member for Lilley is skating on very thin ice, as I am sure he is aware. He is also now taking up the time of the member for Dobell, whom I now recognise.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—All the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs had to say was, `The cabinet submission does not exist.' The reason he did not say that is that we know this minister has developed a submission to do these very things. The minister had half a dozen occasions in question time today to deny it was the case, and he did not because he knows he has lodged this submission. The reason we have moved this censure in the House today is that this minister has deceived the House. This minister has misled the House. Question after question was put to the minister today, and he deliberately deceived the House. Let me make it clear where he has done that. We asked him whether he stood by his pledge not to bring in vouchers for higher education, and he said, `The government stands by undertakings that it has made in the past.' That is what he says publicly, and privately he produces a cabinet submission to do the exact opposite.Then we asked him: do you stand by your pledge not to deregulate university fees? And he said, `The government's policies in relation to education are on the public record.' That is what he says publicly; privately, he prepares a cabinet submission that says the exact opposite in relation to the deregulation of fees for universities. Then we asked him: do you take responsibility for the fact that so many universities are now operating at a deficit? We asked him whether he accepted that there were regional campuses at risk, and his answer was, `The suggestion that there are regional university campuses at risk is absolutely absurd, and I completely reject that.' That is what he says in public, but in private he says, `Already, eight institutions appear to be operating at a deficit, and some regional campuses are at risk.'There is no more important responsibility of a member of the Australian House of Representatives than to tell the truth in here. Today that man did not tell the truth in here, and this man should go. This man has misled the House; he has deceived the House; he is not fit to be Australia's minister for education. The point we make is that he understands how much damage his $800 million cuts have done to Australian education. He knows there are more students in the lecture theatres. There are fewer tutorials being held. The quality of education is being undermined by the things he has already done.We learnt today that this has been part of a four-year strategy. For four years this government, under Prime Minister John Howard and under Education Minister David Kemp, has had a deliberate strategy to chain up the higher education system with $800 million worth of budget cuts, to starve them of funds for another four years and then to say to them, `The only way that you can get money is to fleece the students. The only way that you can solve the crisis in higher education is to attack the students. Take the money from the students and, in the process, make it harder and less affordable for ordinary working-class kids to get to university.' We are going to hold this minister accountable for this submission. We are going to make it clear to the parents and the students in the gallery today. The parents and the students that are out there are going to hear of your plan. We will hold you accountable for this plan.This plan will mean a number of things. It is going to mean that, first of all, the fees charged will go through the roof. The minister challenged our figure of $100,000 in the debate today. The figures are based on an analysis of what it would cost someone doing physiotherapy. People who are doing physiotherapy who are not getting the HECS funded places are already paying between $16,000 and $18,500 a year at Melbourne University. So it is based on fees already out there in the system. If you look at the impact of charging those fees over the period of time it takes to become qualified in physiotherapy and also the impact of the government's plan to intro duce a loans scheme with a real rate of interest, it can be seen that people will be forced to pay $100,000 to go to university—$40,000 in up-front fees and another $60,000 as they repay that money over 28 years.It gets worse. Take a female physiotherapist who works for three years and then takes three years off because she wants to raise a family. The impact on her is that she will be up for a total cost of $150,000—a massive burden that ordinary Australians cannot afford to pay. The point we make is that, before the election, those opposite said there would be no vouchers. Before the election the Prime Minister and this minister guaranteed that there would be no vouchers. Before the election they said that there would be no deregulation of fees in higher education. Yet we now understand that that was just to get them through the election.I say to my colleagues: we will fight every inch of the way to stop this plan. But, even if we succeed with John Howard sacking David Kemp tomorrow and the legislation being defeated in the Senate, let me warn my colleagues: know that under a government led by John Howard this will be the second wave of higher education changes after the next election. We know that this government has a long-term strategy to deregulate fees in higher education, to bring in vouchers, to bring in a loans scheme with high interest rates. We know that, even if we succeed to block the legislation in the Senate at this time, or even if we get the minister's scalp, a government led by John Howard will try and try again to implement these changes.I say to my colleagues: we have to mount every attack possible to stop these changes. We will do that because this government with this plan is saying to parents, `You're going to have a very ugly choice: if you're battlers, you're going to have to choose between whether to buy your house or buy a decent education for your kids.' How can ordinary families afford an extra burden of $100,000? Ask the people who live in Western Sydney, or the families living in Burnie, in north-west Tasmania or in the Hunter. Ask the parents living in Penrith whether they can afford to pay $100,000. The battlers are the ones who will have to choose between paying for the house or giving the kids a decent education. Those families who are slightly better off and who think, `Well, we'll make that extra effort to pay the extra $100,000,' will be left with the decision, `Do we pay off the mortgage for the house first or do we pay off the mortgage for the higher education debt?'XS4LAWRENCEDr Lawrence—What if there are two of them?MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Imagine a young couple that incurs two of these debts. How will that couple ever be able to afford to raise a family when saddled with these sorts of debts?Those in regional communities in particular will be faced with an invidious choice. Universities in regional Australia are already under threat. If sandstone universities get the right to massively jack up their fees, enormous pressure will be put on regional campuses. Those regional campuses know that they will be forced to drop their fees. They will be forced to have less revenue than that now coming into them. Regional universities will be the ones that are forced to cut back on the number of staff they employ, to cut back on the number of courses they offer, to cut back on the great impact they have in regional communities. Often it is the universities that provide the driving force for development in regional communities. All of this is placed at risk by this government's deliberate attempt to move down the deregulatory path. We will end up with two classes of university: universities for the rich, with very high fees, with students who carry very high debts, and universities for the rest of us. It is the sort of process that will lead Australia towards the American style of university system, with students carrying massive loans for many years to come.It is quite clear that this is just the beginning. We have Senator Newman with a secret plan to make changes in social security that will cause enormous pain to low income earners right across the community. Today we have exposed a secret plan to deregulate higher education with the introduction of massive fees for students who are studying at university and a loans scheme with a real rate of interest which will force young people to carry a debt for years to come. This is the government's secret plan in higher education. Mr Speaker, can't you just see that twinkle in David Kemp's eye with his plan for TAFE, his plan for schools? You can just imagine that this is only the beginning of the changes that this minister wants to bring in.But we are going to hold this minister accountable. We are going to hold those opposite accountable for the changes they are trying to make to the Australian education system. We will be doing it for the young people in the gallery today and for the young people who are out there studying hard in secondary education. Their future depends on us stopping this plan. We will be going in to bat for those 15-year-olds who are out there today studying hard in their secondary schools. If this minister has his way, every one of those young people who might be clever enough, smart enough to get into university will be faced with these debts—these massive burdens of up to $100,000.Those young people deserve more. If they are prepared to make the effort to study hard enough to ensure that their results at the end of their secondary school education are high enough to get into university, they deserve the right to a university education without being saddled with a debt of $100,000. The arguments being put forward by this government place the future of those young people at risk. If those young people in secondary school today want a high value, high wage job in years to come, they know they have to try to get into university. This government is trying to put up additional barriers to those young people being able to afford to go to university.It is also apparent that this minister has clearly misled the House. For that reason, this minister must go. He has deceived the House. He has breached his own pledge that there would be no vouchers. He has breached his own pledge that there would be no deregulation of university fees. He has breached the Prime Minister's promise that there would be no vouchers in higher education. He has developed a plan whereby young people will be forced to carry debts, which will mean they have to repay amounts of up to $100,000. He has developed a plan for a new loans scheme that will be like a ball and chain shackled to the ankles of young Australians, discouraging them from trying to go to university, denying them the opportunity to get high value, high wage jobs of the future. This minister therefore must be held accountable. John Howard must sack David Kemp today. John Howard: this minister deserves to go.15:52:0011489Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—The Leader of the Opposition asked hypocritically, `What about Australia's regional universities?' Australia's regional universities are being delivered to in spades by this government, much to the neglect of the previous government. This is a government that has delivered in my electorate of western New South Wales new universities in Dubbo and Broken Hill.Mrs Irwin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Fowler.834Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER—The communities in the western region of New South Wales are looking forward to the higher education opportunities that are being delivered by this government, including the related jobs, the related opportunities, the entertainment and the cultural benefits that will be delivered to rural and regional New South Wales by the provision of rural universities and campuses delivered by the Howard government.It is absolutely hypocritical for the Leader of the Opposition to stand up and cry crocodile tears about what he believes rural universities should have. This is the man who wanted to be the Education Prime Minister of Australia. He also wanted to be the finance minister of Australia—and he left this government with a $25 billion deficit.SD4CADMANMr Cadman—How much?834Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER—Twenty-five billion. Do we accept the staking of his claim as the Australian employment minister when he left us with 11 per cent unemployment? The man has no credibility.I ask the member for Dobell: where have you been in the education debate in the last six to 12 months? He has been missing in action. Now he is taking an opportunity to try to raise his profile by slandering this government, by raising false accusations about what this government has not done and by ignoring the benefits that this government has delivered to the education sector in Australia. This is a government that keeps its election promises. This is a government that promised to deliver cheaper diesel fuel to the bush, and it has delivered. This is a government that promised to deliver decreases in personal income tax, and it has delivered. This is a government that promised to abolish wholesale sales tax, and it has delivered. Those opposite were in government when they promised to deliver l-a-w tax cuts. Where are the l-a-w tax cuts? Those on the other side of the House were in government when they put up the wholesale sales tax, and they did not say anything about it, let alone make any announcement before the election.There are three areas of education that we need to look at: schools, universities, and vocational education and training. The `damage' done by the government to higher education has resulted in an extra 26,000 undergraduate places at universities in total. That is an extra seven per cent on what was left behind by the Labor Party. `But that includes fee payers,' they say. In 1999, fully funded actual undergraduate places increased by 12,665 or 3½ per cent more than those available in 1996. Who was in government at the start of 1996? Not this side of the House. In 1999, the estimated total university revenue was $376 million more than it was in 1996. So the money available to universities under the coalition government has increased by $724 million over the last four years.We talk about equity in education. There are more people in every equity group at university now than there were in 1996. The number of students from rural areas is up by seven per cent. The number of indigenous students is up by 12 per cent. The number of students from low SES backgrounds is up by 9.4 per cent, and the number of students with disabilities is up by a massive 61 per cent. Disadvantaged groups are the major beneficiaries of the increasing undergraduate places under this government. The ALP offer no constructive options for equity. They continue to support schemes that have not been effective in the past.I must admit that I am particularly concerned about the smaller groups from remote areas that perhaps are lacking an increasing presence in tertiary education due to the difficult situation that many of us find ourselves in with drought and commodity prices. But we can see that universities are increasing investment in education, and university revenues are now at a record level. No matter how the opposition try to twist the figures, universities have never had more money than they do today.The Labor Party's policy on HECS is to charge people studying a course like medicine, which has a huge income earning potential, the same amount as people studying a course like arts, whose potential for earning has nothing to do with a degree and is more relevant to the skill of the person. In effect, they want the same HECS charge to be applied to someone earning a lower income as someone earning a higher income. Under the coalition government, universities are becoming deregulated. There will be greater pressure on them to maintain and improve teaching standards. In the last year of Labor, $399 million was provided for research funding for higher education. Now up to $460 million is provided by the Howard-Anderson government.One of the great initiatives instituted by this government is the expansion of the role of universities in regional Australia. Construction of a permanent campus at Charles Sturt University in Dubbo will become a reality in the new year, with the announcement of a $3 million capital development grant from the federal government. This new funding, along with the $1 million that was already allocated by the government for 1998, and a further commitment by the university of $5 million, will provide people in the western area of New South Wales with a new university established for a combined cost of about $9 million.This campus will be built with state-of-the-art technology. Stage 1 plans to include an interactive learning centre that will feature large student work areas, computers and Internet and interactive video access. A microwave link which already provides a high quality telecommunications link between Charles Sturt University's main campuses in Albury, Bathurst and Wagga will increase the number of courses and the opportunities for people in western New South Wales. This is an example of the Howard government's innovative approach to education. Not only will we have the provision of a university in Dubbo; the construction of a new super-high school on the same site very near the TAFE college will provide enormous new opportunities in education for students in the whole area of western New South Wales.I believe the communications capabilities of this university will lead to a much wider range of choices of courses for people living in my area, not only around Dubbo, Parkes and Forbes but right out through Cobar and Broken Hill. Opportunities such as these were previously not available. Under the previous government, people had no chance of taking advantage of these opportunities.The courses that will be offered at the Dubbo campus will be Bachelor of Business Accounting for both full- and part-time students, Bachelor of Nursing, Bachelor of Health Science, Graduate Certificate in Small and Medium Enterprise and Graduate Certificate in Applied Science. One of the important benefits I see of the university being established in Dubbo is that it will offer an innovative management course in applied science. This will link with the Western Plains Zoo and provide even more opportunities not only for regional and Australian students but also for overseas students to come and study at Dubbo with reference to the Western Plains Zoo. The benefit to Australian students of studying alongside international students will be enormous. It will bring more tourism opportunities and put country places like Dubbo on the international education map—again, an achievement of the Howard government.Also recently constructed in my electorate under the Howard-Fischer government was the Department of Rural Health campus for Sydney University built out at Broken Hill. This has been an enormously successful innovation and is part of an ongoing commitment by this government to provide medical training to people in regional Australia. Not only are we providing the opportunity for people studying medicine to experience life in the bush, which will lead in the long term to a better delivery of medical services, but also the benefits to Aboriginal health out in the far western area of New South Wales have to be seen to be believed. It has long been recognised that the best way to address the shortage of doctors in rural and regional Australia is to train them in the bush or at least provide some significant component of their training in the bush. As well as the places at the Broken Hill campus, the government has provided 60 places at Queensland's James Cook University at a cost of over $28 million—as promised at the last election. We also know that the Wagga campus of Charles Sturt University will be taking medical students from the University of New South Wales under a program to which this government has committed over $13 million. So far we have been able to identify that any damage that has been done to education in country Australia has been done by those on the other side, not by this government.The area of vocational education and training is a very sore point with members of the opposition. They know that they cut the vocational education and training opportunities of people right across Australia to the bone. They had no interest when they were in government in anyone who was not going to go to university. The chardonnay socialists tried to bring everyone up to university level with no regard for people who did not have the intention, the desire or the ability to complete tertiary education. That government did not recognise the message that it gave to young people—that it was university or nowhere.The New Apprenticeships scheme which this government has introduced has delivered in spades to people in rural and regional Australia. Apprenticeships are now available in industries that previously had no interaction with the training system. Training is now based on industry determined competency and on ability rather than on time periods alone; an innovation that we were able to put in place because we untied the concept from the union movement. As we know, only 30 per cent of students leave school and go straight to university, and this has posed a challenge for some years to provide a pathway between school and work for the remaining 70 per cent of school leavers. Employers in occupations experiencing skill shortages in non-metropolitan Australia receive an additional $1,000 incentive payment when their apprentices progress from certificate level 2 up to level 3, bringing total employee incentives up to $5,000.Another successful program in my electorate to improve education is the Jobs Pathway Program. Many students have no idea of the demands of the workplace. They have limited interview techniques or practice and often have no idea how to handle a situation when they are interviewed by people senior to them. In some cases, careers advisers themselves have not had the necessary training to assist, and often both they and their students had little knowledge of apprenticeships. The Jobs Pathway program is yet another promise delivered by the Howard government to improve the education opportunities of and access to further education by young Australians. One of the great things about it is that it will assist these kids who, as I said, have not had good advice at school and perhaps may have gone to a disadvantaged school. They will finish up with the same advice—or often, in fact, better advice—as those who have been lucky enough to go to one of the stronger schools. Private enterprise is better able to provide current information on what employers are seeking in the workplace today.While we are talking about youth, how about the $60 million that will be provided over the next four years to continue the job placement education and training program that helps young people at risk overcome the barriers they face in maintaining stable accommodation, finding work, accessing training and re-entering the education system? Over 40,000 young people will be assisted in this area.Mr Speaker, just recently I had the pleasure of announcing large amounts of funds to different schools in my electorate. To quote a few: $1.3 million has been allocated to upgrade facilities at Parkes High School, and $1½ million has been contributed by the federal government for a special education unit that upgrades food and music education at Parkes High. At Dubbo South Public School I had the pleasure of announcing funding of almost $3 million. This money will go towards major construction projects such as a hall, a library and a covered outdoor assembly area. In a place like Dubbo, the covering of an outdoor assembly area is an enormous benefit to the ability of students to concentrate in their classrooms. Dubbo's multi-campus senior school concept—I have already mentioned that it is to be constructed in conjunction with Charles Sturt University—has received $7.6 million in federal government funding. This proposed senior college will cater for years 10 to 12 at a new campus incorporating high-tech learning and links to tertiary institutions. This round of funding will upgrade the buildings at two existing high schools in Dubbo to accommodate the new system and consolidate the Dubbo Public School at one site. One of my favourite announcements—even though, on a monetary scale, it is much smaller than the other ones—was the $12,000 grant allocated to the Paroo Contact Children's Mobile Service out at Wanaaring.Mr Wilton interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Isaacs is warned! He is not even in his own seat.834Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER—The service is invaluable in providing social stimulation and educational experience for young people on remote properties.Mr Speaker, you can see that it is this government that is delivering in spades to regional and rural Australia. Millions of dollars have been spent in my electorate not only on upgrading universities, building new universities, upgrading schools and providing new education opportunities for the youth of Australia but also on reimplementing and reinvigorating the vocational education and training which was so sadly neglected by the opposition when they were in government prior to the election of this government.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I have a question for you. Part of the amendment before the House in relation to the member for Dobell says:. . . and orders the Member for Dobell to produce forthwith, without any further amendment or debate, the original document purporting to be a Cabinet submission . . .My concern is that page 682 of House of Representatives Practice , third edition, talks about enumeration of privileges, and it says:The following were listed by Quick and Garran as among the original principal powers, privileges and immunities of each House, and of the Members of each House . . . as at 1901.XT4RONALDSONMr Ronaldson—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. At this stage you have nothing before you on which to answer the member for Banks' question. The matter has not yet been put to the House. It would be after the matter had been put to the House that the question from the member for Banks would then have some appropriateness, if at all. It certainly does not at this stage of the debate.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—I am questioning the power of the question to be put before it is put, Mr Speaker, and I think you are entitled to rule if the House or the government does not have the power to move that amendment in that form. I am questioning where the government derives its power to order a member of parliament to produce a document forthwith. This is a serious question. Up until now—and, indeed, in the Senate at the moment—the Senate has required a minister to produce—TK6SOUTHCOTTDr Southcott—Mr Speaker, on the point of order, in response to what the member for Banks is saying, the list he is reading from is listed by Quick and Garran as:. . . among the original principal powers . . . of each House . . . as at 1901.Specifically, if you look at standing order 316 it does imply that the House does have the power to order that papers be laid before the House.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thank the member for Boothby for his contribution to the point of order. The Chief Government Whip is seeking my call. I am happy to accommodate him if he wishes.XT4RONALDSONMr Ronaldson—I was just waiting for my point of order to be ruled on.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Mr Speaker, just on the point of order by the whip, before mine is ruled on, I would argue that this is the appropriate time to rule—before the question is put before the House—because, if you rule that the government does not have the power to move this amendment, then the amendment should not be put. We would only be debating the original motion before the House. I am happy to defer my point of order until you rule on whether it should be taken now or after the question is put.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I was happy to hear the member for Banks.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Thank you, Mr Speaker. Page 682 lays down the original principal powers, privileges and immunities. The House does have the power to then enumerate those things. I say that nowhere in the standing orders does the House enumerate the power to do what the government is seeking to do in their amendment. Indeed, standing order 316 specifically refers to papers. It says:316 Papers may be ordered to be laid before the House—this is not a paper—and the Clerk shall communicate to the Minister concerned all orders for papers made by the House . . . The inference there is that this is in relation to government papers; the communication is to the minister. That is consistent with the practice. Indeed, it is consistent with the motion of the Senate that has been carried already ordering the minister to produce particular papers, and the minister has defied that. There is nothing that I can see in terms of precedent or practice in the past that has required members of parliament to produce papers. So I say to you, Mr Speaker, `Nice try, but they do not have the power to move their amendment,' and I would ask you to rule accordingly.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, on the point of order as to the validity of the motion—4T4MELHAMMr Melham—The amendment.WI4REITHMr Reith—The amendment, which will become the motion. I put it to you, Mr Speak er, that the proposed amendment is entirely valid. It is within the powers of this House to pass such a motion, and it then places an onus on the subjects of that amendment to comply with an order of the House.DT4CREANMr Crean—You know all about complying.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition takes far more liberties than he should.WI4REITHMr Reith—I refer you in particular to House of Representatives Practice , third edition, Chapter 17, `Papers and documents', page 555, which says:The House itself has a right, expressed in the standing orders, to seek information in documentary form.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—`Seek'—does that mean `order'?WI4REITHMr Reith—How else would you seek them but by requiring them to be laid before the House?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I require the member for Melbourne, after a great deal of patience has been exercised, to excuse himself from the House under standing order 304A.The honourable member for Melbourne thereupon withdrew from the chamber.WI4REITHMr Reith—In respect of the standing order, the fact of the matter is that this motion stands in its own right. In a sense it stands above the standing order. The standing order does not in any way constrain the capacity of the House to require that this document be so tabled. Mr Speaker, just to put the matter in a more complete context, what is happening here is the document—which I can see—is being said by the opposition to have been boxed in the parliamentary press gallery. But I have seen the document that they have boxed in the parliamentary press gallery and—tantalisingly close as it is—they refuse to box that document. They are deceiving people. What they have done is taken a document and doctored it.Miss Jackie Kelly interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the Minister for Sport and Tourism! The Leader of the House must come to the point of order.WI4REITHMr Reith—On the point of order, I rely upon the House of Representatives Practice , which makes it crystal clear that this is a valid amendment to a motion before the House and it can therefore be put and voted upon and, when it is voted upon, it will be the obligation that that particular document—that one which I can but very closely touch—be actually tabled.8I4MARTINMr Martin—On the point of order, Mr Speaker, I too go to page 555 of House of Representatives Practice .Mr Reith interjecting—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—No. You are far too smart by half.8I4MARTINMr Martin—In making your deliberation on the question that has been raised—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Cunningham will resume his seat. There would be a good deal of precedent created if simultaneously both the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of Government Business were required to leave the House. I am not in the mood for creating precedent, but neither am I in the mood for having the debate interrupted.8I4MARTINMr Martin—Mr Speaker, again I go to page 555, which the honourable Leader of the House referred to in his point of order. I would put to you, in making your deliberation on the point raised by my colleague the member for Banks, that quite clearly this particular area goes to responsibility of government. It talks about the fact that, in order to exercise effectively its responsibility to oversight the activities of the executive government, the parliament needs to be kept informed of the government's activities; and it goes on in two paragraphs to talk about the fact that this particular issue goes to the tabling of documents by ministers, by the executive government, so that that particular area of responsibility and accountability can be open and certainly under scrutiny by the parliament.I would put to you, in making your ruling on the point of order raised by the member for Banks, that the particular document that has been referred to in the amendment to the motion before the House this afternoon does not fit the criterion of being part of the government's administrative responsibility. If they in fact do want to see that particular document tabled, then they should get the original tabled by the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs.XT4RONALDSONMr Ronaldson—Mr Speaker, on page 555 it quite clearly says that papers and documents are presented to the House in a number of ways, including by order of the House. On page 550 it is quite clear that there is a provision under House of Representatives practice for it to be delivered by order of the House.8I4MARTINMr Martin—On the same point of order, Mr Speaker, I wonder whether, in view of the intervention by the Chief Government Whip, you might be able to indicate the precedent for where this particular issue is represented in House of Representatives Practice and how in fact, in those paragraphs that I referred to on page 555, it was supposed to refer to anything other than the government tabling information.RH4KERRMr Kerr—On the same point of order, Mr Speaker, it is very plain that the power of this House to seek and to require the production of documents does go, as the member for Cunningham indicated, to the responsibility of this parliament to ensure the oversight of the executive. That is the framework on which the standing orders are set. It also illuminates conventions that have applied since this parliament was established in 1901. For example, irrespective of the power of this House notionally under standing orders to seek production of a document from a Senate minister, no Senate minister is compellable. Indeed, this issue has been considered and commented on by the High Court to the effect that it may be in fact a matter of substantive law.Further, it is plain that in this instance the purported exercise that is being carried through by this proposed and purported amendment is not designed in any way to illuminate the capacity of this House to require the accountability of the executive. It is in fact the executive seeking to abrogate its responsibility to this parliament. It is precisely a circumstance where both the law and con vention would indicate that this parliament should not entertain this amendment. You, Mr Speaker, charged with the responsibility of determining whether a matter of this nature is cognisable by this parliament, have to determine this in the same way as you would if a motion were put forward by this House requiring the attendance in this House of a Senate minister or the production of a paper by a Senate minister—or, indeed, were the Senate to require the attendance of a minister from this House to produce a document. The Senate can control the production of those documents and by convention, although the act is silent, as a matter of law the court has said that that is to be inferred.Similarly, if you look at the context and purpose of the standing orders, it is plain that they are designed to allow this parliament to have an independent role in the scrutiny of the executive—albeit that now we are in a party system when the executive occupies a majority of seats in this place, and so it is a power which is not used in this House by practice but is used in the other place from time to time and is resented and ignored in practice from time to time by this government. As a matter of law it was never intended or put forward as a basis whereby that component of the House which has a temporary majority could, by a measure of this kind, require a member of the opposition or a backbench member or an Independent to produce a document in these circumstances. It is a misuse and it is traducing the whole tradition of this parliament, and it does not stand in accordance with the intent and indeed with the question of how the standing orders are properly to be operated.Mr Speaker, you do have a point of order in front of you as to whether this is a lawful implementation of the standing orders in parliamentary usage. I say there has been no precedent for it whatsoever since this parliament was established. If you can point to any precedent in any Westminster parliament, or if you can point to its having occurred in the parliament of the United Kingdom, I cannot recall it. I know of none. I have recently been working on an article which will be published in the November edition of the Australian Bar Review and which goes precisely to the power of the Senate to require the production of executive documents, and I know of no such precedent. You should rule this out as being outside the parliamentary reach of this House either by convention or by the proper interpretation of the standing orders by parliamentary convention and practice.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, my further point of order is that that is a frivolous point of order. Furthermore, whilst a point was being made in that point of order, the Leader of the Opposition took the document, gave it to a member of the deputy opposition leader's staff so as to remove the document from the House, which demonstrates that these points are frivolous and contemptuous of the House.Miss Jackie Kelly interjecting—YK6WILTONMr Wilton—Toss her out. She's at it the whole time. Yap, yap, yap.8T4FERGUSONMr Laurie Ferguson—She's been warned.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Isaacs will excuse himself from the House under the provisions of standing order 304A.The honourable member for Isaacs thereupon withdrew from the chamber.849SIDEBOTTOMMr Sidebottom—What about the minister?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Braddon.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On a further point of order, Mr Speaker, there is no precedent anywhere in the standing orders or the explanatory document for standing orders for ordering a member to do this, as this motion seeks to do. You would be making a ruling that allows this to stand which removes essential protections from private members based solely on argument around standing orders which are clearly intended for questions of the provision of documents from the executive. It would be a precedent in this almost century-old parliament which would have no equivalent in the Westminster system nor any background from any state parliament here. The questions of return to orders have always been—as our standing orders indicate—questions related to requiring documents of ministers.In the House of Representatives Practice section on papers and documents by private members, it states:Other than providing for the tabling of committee and delegation reports, the standing orders make no provision for private Members to table papers and documents.The honourable member, although he is a member of the frontbench, is a private member of this place. Governments do have power and authority in this chamber—that is how they are formed. But Speakers also protect the situation of private members because, unless the situation of private members is protected, that essential element of parliamentary accountability simply cannot be pursued. So use of force majeure or raw numbers will not do in this case. When you search diligently through it, the only reference you can find that in any way relates to a private member is to indicate that the private member does not have standing, as far as that is concerned. This is a motion which is completely out of order and completely without precedent. In making a precedent like this, I submit to you with the greatest respect, you would do serious damage to the rights of individual members of this chamber.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Do the decent thing and withdraw it.Mr Reith interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House and the member for Batman!Mr Ronaldson interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the Chief Government Whip! I have had quite enough of the chair being ignored.XU5LIEBERMANMr Lieberman—Mr Speaker, on the argument before you, if you were to accept the arguments put forward by the Leader of the Opposition and his supporting speakers on this point, you would in fact be enshrining an absurdity in the practice of the parliament. It would be an absurdity if a private member—or, in this case, a member of the opposition—could get up and use the form and privileges of the House to quote from a document, make serious assertions about a document, as they did in this case, deny completely the opportunity for natural justice and defy and neuter the parliament by saying, `Notwithstanding the private member being able to identify a document, authenticate it and do all those sorts of things, nobody can look at the document if ordered by the House to do so, because the House does not have jurisdiction to require the document to be tabled.' That is an absurdity. If one were to allow that to be a precedent of the House, then you would have a situation where any member of the House other than a minister—who is covered by special rules—would be able to get up and allege that certain matters are contained in a document and then not be able to verify the document.The other point to consider is that at no time did the member referring to the document say that he was doing so and claim some confidentiality, which is a special rule allowed for ministers—even in that case he did not do it. So you have a situation where this House should not allow a member to go away and make assertions from a document which he said was authenticated and then say, `However, I am not going to show it to you, if the House asks to be shown the document.' So it is fundamental and important for this House that it does have access to that document.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I wonder if you could listen to something from Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice .10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is this a matter of choice?PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On this point of order—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am being frivolous. I recognise the Leader of the Opposition.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—At page 388 it states:There is no rule to prevent members not connected with the government from citing documents in their possession, both public and private, which are not before the House, even though the House will not be able to form a correct judgment from partial extracts.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—What is that all about?PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—What that means, my friend, is that irrespective—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will address his remarks through the chair. PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—What that means is that the content of a document or whether or not people found it satisfactory is irrelevant to the case. On the same page there is a footnote from an 1855 House of Commons debate in which a private member's action in handing a document to a minister—that is, actually handing it across on a voluntary basis—in support of arguments was ruled to be very irregular.That is the nearest precedent that you have to these circumstances: an individual member was citing a document, it was voluntarily put across to a minister and that was found to be an irregularity. That is it. That is the House of Commons' bible, in so far as parliamentary practice is concerned. There is nothing in our bible that deals with this at all, because it is clearly something not anticipated in that the return to orders in our standing orders apply exclusively to the executive. In the House of Commons, there is a specific protection of the right of an individual member of parliament to do this, to do it without duress, and to do it without a requirement upon them. Even though it may be required of them to substantiate the totality of an argument, it is regarded as irregular that they should be obliged to do that, according to Erskine May. This motion has nothing to support it, nothing to substantiate it within the framework of our standing orders and our parliamentary practice; in fact, it does just the opposite, it opposes it according to the tradition of the mother of parliaments.OK6NAIRNMr Nairn—Mr Speaker, given the seriousness of the debate on this point of order, would it not be appropriate if the original document was handed to you for safekeeping while you deliberate on this very important issue?84CTHOMPSONMr Cameron Thompson—Mr Speaker, it was my sincere belief that in this place we could move a motion or amend a motion as we saw fit. There is a section in the standing orders on amendments—it goes from standing order No. 171 through to No. 187—that speaks about the adding or removing of words when someone is making an amendment. It does not specify the words or what they should order. This House can order any way it feels fit. I find the efforts of the opposition in drawing red herrings and various other parts of standing orders into this debate quite irrelevant. We are making an amendment to a motion, and we can amend it in any way that we see fit and, if the House so votes, that is it.RH4KERRMr Kerr—Mr Speaker, in relation to the power which you inherently have in the management of this process, I mention to you one matter which I believe is material—that is, that the boundaries and extent of this parliament's powers with respect to its privileges are not simply matters which are unilaterally to be determined by a resolution of the House. It is plain that the questions about the existence of or boundaries to the powers and privileges of legislative chamber in Australia are justiciable—that is, they are capable of being determined by the court.That principle is established in the case of Egan and Willis at pages 530 and 572, paragraphs 133 and 135. The High Court maintains a general supervisory jurisdiction as guardian of the Constitution and in extreme cases where the parliament has demonstrably acted beyond its lawful remit the court may intervene. Chief Justice Barwick, in Cormack and Cope, stated: . . . it is not the case in Australia, as it is in United Kingdom, that the judiciary will restrain itself from interference in any part of the law-making process of Parliament. Whilst the Court will not interfere with what I have called intra-mural deliberative activities of the House . . . there is no parliamentary privilege that can stand in the way of the Court's right and duty to ensure that the constitutionally provided methods of law-making are observed.Importantly, in this area, the court has established the constitutional privilege that goes to the right to conduct freedom of political debate. It is a constitutionally provided right which the High Court of Australia has said is inherent. Nothing could be so destructive of that constitutional right than the executive seeking, in the pursuit of its objectives, to require an individual member of this House to produce a document in a circumstance that is unprecedented since 1901, is unprecedented in any Westminster parliament and is plainly not a response to the reason why these standing orders are included or the powers that are granted either by constitutional implication, as they flowed when the Constitution was first granted, or in the statutory redrafting of that when those powers were codified to some degree by this parliament.Mr Justice Kirby in Egan and Willis said that courts in this country, at least in the scrutiny of requirements to the Australian Constitution, have generally rejected the notion that they are forbidden by constitutions of parliamentary privilege, or of the ancient common-law of parliament, from adjudging the validity of parliamentary conduct when this must be measured against the requirements of the Constitution.Not only would a resolution of this kind not be justifiable on the basis of proper interpretation of standing orders; it would not be referable to any action taken in this parliament since the formation of the democratic system of national government. It does not have a precedent that can be established in any state parliament. To the best of the research that has been capable of being undertaken to date, and I believe it has been extensive—at least, on my part—there is no precedent whatsoever for this having occurred in the Westminster parliament itself nor indeed in the parliaments of Canada or the United States.Mr Speaker, you are being asked to assent, within the standing orders of this parliament, to a motion which would turn on its head the very reason for this standing order to be there, which is to enable the parliament to examine the lawful reach of executive conduct, a reach which has always been within the power of this parliament—in both its chambers; the House of Representatives and the Senate—to inquire into and to hold ministers to account. It would be to turn that entirely on its head, most improperly, to then apply that to the conduct of an individual member who is not a member of the executive.Most importantly, adding to that point which is internal to this parliament, it would also mean that, were the parliament to take any further step in purported observance of that, it opens up the whole question of whether or not those issues may be the subject of further proceedings outside this parliament which relate to that constitutional power—that is, the right of every member of parliament and, more than every member of this parliament, every member of this community, to exercise lawful, free speech. The reason there is absolute privilege with respect to all that is said and done in this parliament is so that those rights can be observed. It would cut right across that fundamental principle, which is part of our traditions—and which you, Mr Speaker, were sworn to uphold—were you to allow this monstrous motion to go through.WI4REITHMr Reith—I feel duty-bound to respond to the references to Erskine May and to put something on the record. I have now looked at the reference made by the member for Banks or the Leader of the Opposition.DT4CREANMr Crean—It was the Leader of the Opposition.WI4REITHMr Reith—He read it only because somebody handed it to him. He just read it out.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House will come to his point of order.WI4REITHMr Reith—I only make the point that you should read it, understand it and then present it to the House. The particular section is on citing documents not before the House and relates to different circumstances. If you go to the papers index and look at the principal issue, you will find that it relates to the powers of the House, particularly in respect of committees.Opposition member interjecting—WI4REITHMr Reith—Yes, it does. This is the 21st edition, which only confuses the matter because you have a different edition. The more general point that Erskine May makes is:There is no restriction on the power of committees to require the production of papers by private bodies or individuals and the like.That is a power exercised by the committees. It cannot possibly be that the House has lesser powers than the powers which it has preferred to its committees for the conduct of its work. Clearly, the House has these powers, and therefore the motion is a valid one. Ultimately, this is a matter for the House to decide as commonsense would dictate. In the end, it is for the House to decide the manner in which it will exercise its powers. It clearly has the powers and they ought to be exercised, particularly in this case, where we have what appears to be a stolen document.Opposition members interjecting—WI4REITHMr Reith—The Leader of the Opposition made the claim during question time that, by his word, the document was authenticated. He is saying that it is definitely a cabinet document. It clearly has not come to them by any form of authorisation. We can only therefore fairly assume that it is a document which has come into their hands by illegal means. We now know that a different document is being circulated in the press gallery. I know it is a different document because I saw it before it was whisked away from the table out of the chamber, out of our vision and out of the jurisdiction of the chamber so that the opposition could try to deny the fact that we have two different documents. That is outrageous. It is therefore in the public interest, and certainly within the powers of this chamber, to require the production of that document. On that basis, we stick to our position. We think that the matter ought to be soon brought to a head, and there should be a vote.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The chair has heard a great deal of advice from sundry and assorted legal sources and is inclined to think that injecting a little commonsense into the debate may be somewhat advantageous as well. I will hear the Leader of the Opposition, I will hear one other member from the government and I then intend to rule.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I am very glad that you sought the application because I wish to assist you in that regard. The section of Erskine May from which the Leader of the House was quoting is in fact not exclusively related to committees at all. It is a section headed `Citing documents not before the House'. It starts with the documents not before the House most likely to be cited—that is, documents utilised by ministers. It starts with a discussion of ministers and documents before the House. It says:A minister of the Crown may not read or quote from a dispatch or other state paper not before the House unless he is prepared to lay it upon the table. Similarly, it has been accepted that a document which has been cited by a minister ought to be laid upon the table of the House if it can be done without injury to the public interests. A minister who summarises a correspondence and does not actually quote from it is not bound to lay it upon the table. The rule for the laying of cited documents does not apply to private letters or memoranda.It goes on to detail that. It goes through documents of the clerks and documents from committees. Then it comes to its one discussion in relation to members of parliament. As I cited before, it states:There is no rule to prevent members not connected with the government from citing documents in their possession both public and private—And this is a public document—which are not before the House, even though the House will not be able to form a correct judgment from partial extracts.I reiterate the point I made earlier. It is for the protection of individual members. Members will frequently partially quote documents in this place for a variety of purposes. Sometimes the documents may become public documents. Sometimes they are government documents. More often than not they are documents of a confidential nature handed to members by individual constituents.If this proposition is allowed to carry, it means that the majority of the House of Representatives for the first time in any parliament in the Westminster system will be able to utilise its majority to override the position of private members and their absolute protection to be able to cite documents, as indicated in Erskine May. I would say that it is quite clear by implication. Otherwise, why would you bother to represent the question of not being able to form a correct judgment from partial extracts other than that the member of parliament is entitled to do so partially? This obviously protects an individual member of parliament from somebody standing up and demanding that they produce the entirety of a document in order that we can understand whether or not the partial extract actually represents it. They are protected. They can choose not to do that. Parliamentary practice protects their right not to do that.Obviously, a private member at some point of time gave into the blandishments of a minister like this back in the House of Commons in 1855 and handed a document to the minister in support of statements he was making. The Speaker ruled on that occasion that what that member had done then was `very irregular'. In 19th century terms, that is about as harsh as you can get in telling a person he has done the wrong thing. In terms of parliamentary practice, to support this motion would be to do the wrong thing; for this particular motion to be carried and to have affect would be the wrong thing and also it would be the wrong thing for it to be put.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I remind members opposite that some of them have very little leash left.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—The member for Eden-Monaro recently put a proposal to you, which I presume you are considering, regarding the retention within this chamber of that particular document. I want to put to you that there is a very substantial reason for that because it is evidence. We have seen some interesting events today. Quite frequently, when members of parliament choose to refer to a document and they are asked about its source, they say, `It fell off the back of a truck.' I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that when the Leader of the Opposition had that opportunity he did not use it. He stood up instead and said to you that he could—XS4LAWRENCEDr Lawrence—What is your point?SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—The point is that there has either been a misleading of this House or the Leader of the Opposition has admitted to theft. They are the two options.Opposition members interjecting—SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker, I am speaking to this point. The point I am making to you is that at your special request the Leader of the Opposition guaranteed that the document he was holding was authentic. If it is authentic, Mr Speaker, it has been stolen, and it was stolen with the knowledge of the Leader of the Opposition because he has told you it is authentic. The only alternative is that it came to him without his knowledge and, therefore, he misled the House by claiming to you, sir, that the document was authentic. That is, of course, a breach of the fundamentals of the responsibilities of members of parliament to uphold the law such as thou shalt not steal.It is up to you, sir, to consider this in terms of any reference you might make to the police authorities, because we are now dealing with a Leader of the Opposition who has said to you that a document, which could never come to his hands by proper means, is authentic. That is something I have not heard in this place before. I have never heard anybody produce a cabinet document in opposition and tell a Speaker it is authentic because it is an absolute admission that he or she knows the source and that it has come to that person illegally. Therefore, sir, I think it is appropriate that the document should remain in this place and I suggest that it may have to be your responsibility to draw this matter to the attention of the Federal Police.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The chair has a fundamental responsibility to protect the rights of all individual members and to so conduct the House that whatever is the will of the majority becomes in fact what the House does. What the member for Dobell has done today in bringing in a document and—to use the words of the Leader of the Opposition—`citing' it in question time, quoting from it and using it as a substance for questions that were asked, and even then in fundamentally making sure that it was no longer in the House, is the entirely proper conduct of an individual member.The question before the chair is not the question of whether the member for Dobell ought to have brought the document in or used it. The only requirement I felt I had was to ascertain whether it was an authentic document, as I asked and was reassured. The question before the chair right now is whether the House has the power to require the production of that document. It seems that, if we look to the matter of precedent, in fact it has. In 1905, a Mr Wilkes moved that there be prepared and laid on the table certain documents from a royal commission. The High Court has determined in both Egan v. Willis and Egan v. Chadwick that the House has a constitutional right to require the production of documents.The dilemma that the chair faces is much more substantial than any of those that have been addressed, if I might say with great respect, in the point of order. The dilemma the chair faces is that if the chair regards this motion currently before the chair as out of order then the chair is limiting the power of the House in relation to the production of papers, not limiting the power or the right of members to bring in and cite certain documents as indicated by the Leader of the Opposition. It is not my intention, as holder of this chair, to limit the power of this House to determine what can or cannot be produced. I have always occupied this chair on the understanding that the House was master of its own destiny, and I rule that the motion may be put.Debate interrupted.Dissent from Ruling1150116:51:0011501Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I move:That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.Mr Speaker, I understand quite thoroughly the dilemma the government has placed you in, and I understand the difficulties you have in arriving at the decision you have arrived at. I also understand that you could not have anticipated in the very short time that you have had available to reflect on this matter all the precedents and all the issues that are entailed herein, and these are the problems that any Speaker would confront in your circumstances. But I would respectfully submit to you and the House in this regard that you are wrong. You are the victim of an extraordinary assault on parliamentary privilege by the executive. It is an extremely difficult position for a Speaker to be in, and you have to make up your mind on that. But the parliament also has the capacity to deliberate on your rulings in relation to standing orders, and it should do so now.As I recollect, I was Leader of the House for about seven or eight years. In the course of that, at least on two or three occasions, cabinet documents were presented by the opposition, and on every occasion I did precisely what the Leader of the House did: demanded of the person who was citing from the alleged cabinet document to table the document. On each of those occasions, that was refused. It was refused for the obvious reason that the persons with that document wanted to protect the sources from whom they obtained it and the sources who were advising them in order that they be able to perform their duties of holding the executive accountable. That is why they repeatedly refused my requests that they table the documents when I was Leader of the House.On a number of occasions they were cabinet documents and on other occasions they were not—nevertheless, they were documents from which they were arguing. On each occasion when I was refused, though we had the numbers in parliament, I never took this step, and they included cabinet submissions and other documents. In the 13 years we were in government and in the eight years I was Leader of the House—and though from time to time I suspect we were guilty of trampling individual members' rights—we always knew when we would take the precedent, our actions or our majority too far.We know darn well that, from time to time, cabinet documents will have within them little curls and tricks which enable you to detect their source. They had it in our day and, no doubt, they have it now. In those circumstances we knew that, if we had used our parliamentary numbers to demand the return of those documents, we may well have advantaged ourselves as the executive. But we, as members of parliament as well as members of the executive, always had sufficient respect for this chamber, a sufficient sense of honour and a basic level of decency which prevented us from taking that step too far in terms of knocking over our political opponents. This is a level of restraint that the Leader of the House has not found himself capable of upholding.I have not had the chance to study the precedents you cited, Mr Speaker, but the particular precedent you went to related to a royal commission document outside the gift of the chamber. This goes to a document that is in the hands of the executive and that the executive can peruse. It is not as though the executive requires this document for its information. It is the originator of this document. It requires this document, of course, to follow up its source. If this parliament gives up this document, it gives itself away.There is no anticipation of this anywhere in our standing orders, and I would suggest that the precedents you cited do not actually come to that either. In the entire section of House of Representatives Practice relating to papers presented to the House, there is no reference to papers in these circumstances. It says:In order to exercise effectively its responsibility to oversight the activities of the Executive Government, the Parliament needs to be kept informed of the Government's activities. The presentation of papers and reports by Ministers is very important to Parliament in fulfilling its critical role. It demonstrates the accountability of the Government to the Parliament and, through it, to the community. Papers presented to the House are important primary sources of information from which a Member may draw in asking questions and in making a useful contribution to debate. The presentation of a paper to the House places it on the public record.So it goes to all the circumstances, and none of them includes documents in the hands of private members. The Leader of the House says, `We need to have your document in order to be able to authenticate it.' I would submit to you, Mr Speaker, that you have already ruled on that matter. If this were to be upheld on this occasion, it would be fair, every time a minister stands at the dispatch box and says that he is quoting from confidential papers, for the House to move a motion to require those papers to be tabled in order for the House to satisfy whether or not the individual authentication by the minister actually pertains to the truth.Mr Speaker, you rightly ruled in question time that the same obligation, that the same standard of authentication, applies to the opposition as much as it does to the government. You rely on the word of the member that it is an authentic document. Therefore, on your own previous ruling in this place, it is not a requirement for this chamber to see this document in order to authenticate it.Why do they want it? They want it in order to be able to burn a source of a document which has seriously embarrassed them. I spoke of my experience as Leader of the House in relation to the at least three occasions I can recollect where something similar happened to me. But if anything other than my experience had been in the gift or the opportunity of leaders of the House before me, or of anyone else in control of government business before me, there would have been precedents appearing in this book as to those occasions when governments of any particular political hue had asked for that documentation.There is nothing here that in any way relates to it. To get at it, to get at anything that could be remotely regarded as perhaps a precedent for this that caused somebody writing on parliamentary practice to know something about, we have to go to the House of Commons. The truth of the matter is that our standing orders and our documentation associated with those standing orders basically refer back to Erskine May, although there are some precedents of practice in Australia which do not go to the practice of the House of Commons.It is wonderful when you deal with these Liberals! They are supposed to be the constitutional party. They are supposed to be the party of conservatism that stand by appropriate practice and convention in this place—the party of convention. The moment a convention or practice is no longer acceptable to their executive, they seek from their backbench supine support. I am pleased to say that we did those sorts of things ourselves, once or twice.I will tell you one thing I am proud of my father for. When Prime Minister Whitlam and Minister Cameron sought to remove Speaker Cope from the chair in a totally illegitimate way in another wrongful use of the executive power—though totally unrelated to this precedent—my father walked out of the chamber even though he was a minister. He took with him Gordon Scholes and he took with him a number of our members of parliament who would not stand with that. It will be an interesting test of the substance of Liberal Party members later today when this motion is ultimately determined. We will see how independent they truly are.Let me go to Erskine May on this matter, and this was completely falsely quoted by the Leader of the House. He quoted the paragraph before it, which dealt with committee papers, but he refused to start at the top, at `Citing documents not before the House'. That is the starting point at which you would deal with the citing of documents not before the House.The paragraph starts with the circumstances in which ministers would find themselves citing documents not before the House. It lays out that sort of precedent you deal with when you ask a minister about the issue of confidentiality. It goes to the extent that documents not before the House have executive privilege attached to them. Erskine May is pretty tough about it, but it does leave wriggle room at the end of the day for ministers to evade an obligation to table a document not before the House. It starts with ministers and, having proceeded through committees and others, it ends with individual private members of parliament in this way:There is no rule to prevent members not connected with the government from citing documents in their possession, both public and private, which are not before the House, even though the House will not be able to form a correct judgment from partial extracts.That is a very interesting point. Why would `a correct judgment from partial extracts' be there? It is there because obviously it anticipates that, when you are standing in this place citing a document, your opponents who have an interest in the debate would invite you to table such a document in order for them to establish whether your partial citing in fact reflected the true purpose of the document. A reasonable debating point to make, you would think.But if the member of parliament chooses not to respond to that invitation, the member of parliament is protected. He is not obliged to do it. Indeed, any sense of obligation is a worry to the Speaker and the procedures of the House. Evidently, back in 1855 some member of parliament did it when invited by a minister to give him the document he was citing. Erskine May states:A private member's action in handing a document to a minister in support of arguments was ruled to be very irregular. That is the ruling from Erskine May. Who is being protected here by the fact that this unprecedented motion placed before the chamber has never been placed before? Mr Speaker, I would respectfully suggest to you that the precedence you cited had nothing to do with these particular propositions relating to a royal commission's papers. Relying on that in this particular case does not give you a precedent at all.Individual members of parliament in this place, in protection of their constituents, will often cite anonymously individuals who have presented to them fears they have that have touched the hearts of the individual members of parliament as they perform their tasks on behalf of their constituents. You can think, for example, of a whole variety of reasons why an individual member of the electorate communicating with a member of parliament might not want their name cited or evidence provided as to their authenticity, beyond what the member is prepared to give.That is, I suspect, one of the reasons why we see in Erskine May some obvious protection for a member of parliament in this situation. Constituents may feel their life might be threatened, their employment might be threatened, the employment of members of their family might be threatened or their standing within a particular organisation might be threatened. All these things are there to protect the capacity of an individual member of parliament to perform their functions as members of parliament. That is what protection there is for them here.It is your concern that you should be able to hear the majority opinion of parliament on this matter. I would respectfully submit to you, Mr Speaker, that there are occasions when Speakers need to stand against what they anticipate might be the majority position of the parliament. There is no point at which a Speaker should be prepared to stand against that more thoroughly than to protect an individual member's rights. At the end of the day, the Speaker is not the servant of any particular majority of the House; he is the servant of the collective House—that is, the minority member as well as the majority. If it is the case that the individual member of parliament is irrelevant and that without the protection of standing orders any particular motion can be put forward, then the standing orders are irrelevant.It is possible simply to rely on the majority of the parliament, if that is what you want to do, to overrule any particular standing order that stands here. That is a possible thing for you to do. You can go against any particular standing order, simply by relying on the majority and not ruling a particular proposition out of order. That is effectively what is happening here. Section 316, the only section which refers to the ordering of papers, states:Papers may be ordered to be laid before the House, and the Clerk shall communicate to the Minister concerned all orders for papers made by the House; and such papers when received shall be laid on the Table by the Clerk.That refers not to members of parliament, it refers exclusively to ministers. So you are in a very invidious position here, Mr Speaker—a terrible position. You are here, as usual, courtesy of an out of control Leader of the House. I know that it is the unfortunate and confused minister for education who moved this particular motion, but he has been wandering around in a daze—for understandable reasons—as his speech clearly indicated to this chamber, as he floundered away trying to defend what are obviously massive breaches of undertakings that he has given the Australian people, which are the subject of the censure motion about which this issue has arisen.I absolutely exempt the minister from criticism for the cobbled together motion, drafted by the Leader of the House, which he has moved. This is a product of a chap who has no problem in dealing with ordinary Australians via guard dogs and boot boys. The Leader of the House has no problem with that in his portfolio. So it is not surprising that he has a similar attitude to the rights of individual members of parliament. The application of brute force is what is being applied here.Mr Speaker, what you have here is a clear-cut situation that requires your direct intervention to protect us all. If you were to have ruled this out of order, you would have had ample opportunity to cite the precedents I have cited as to the reasons why you should do that. If you had sought to look at the past behaviour of governments, you would have seen ample precedent, from the time that we were in government and from the time when our predecessors were in government, that when cabinet documents were cited in that way—invited to be tabled, but not tabled—that, as Leader of the House, on at least several occasions, I had not taken advantage of the opportunity to direct the production of such documents, even though I was thoroughly aware in cabinet security matters of what advantages that might actually reveal to me.If this motion to dissent from your ruling is carried, then everything will be fine. But if your ruling is upheld—in other words, if this motion is defeated—it is going to change for all time the character of the capacity of the individual member of parliament to perform his or her function. It will change it for all time. It will mean that, when some untoward behaviour has been detected within the executive—it goes beyond cabinet documents—the documents substantiating that can be forced to be tabled. And it may well be illegal activity. The person who is responsible for putting that in will be traced. If your ruling is upheld, it will be a very sad day for this parliament indeed. (Time expired)10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?17:11:0011504Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—I second the motion. I am concerned that this proposal overturns the long established principle that the executive is accountable to parliament and indeed substitutes an entirely wrongful principle that the parliament becomes responsible to the executive. Each and every individual member of this parliament will have occasions where a constituent will come to them with some matter in which they do not wish their name, particulars or circumstances to be the subject of public disclosure. Hitherto, those members have been able to come before this House secure that they are protected absolutely in their right to bring forward matters of public concern touching on the conduct of the executive, to demand an account of it and to seek answers to questions without having to disclose those matters to this House.Mr Speaker, with the greatest respect to your ruling, this motion moved by the minister for education is akin to assenting to the obstructing of a member of this parliament in the conduct and carriage of their responsibilities. It is the executive that is responsible to parliament. The member of parliament is responsible to their electorate and to their conscience, and it is not a matter which should be set aside.Mr Speaker, you have referred to two matters in relation to the precedents which you drew the House's attention to in respect of this ruling. The first precedent you drew to the attention of the House was an order moved by Mr Wilkes for the production of documents from a royal commission. That is not material at all to the question before this House—the conduct of a member of this House in the carrying out of their lawful responsibilities.I point out to you, Mr Speaker, that you prefaced your remarks regarding this matter by ruling that everything the member did in relation to this matter was not only proper but entirely in accordance with parliamentary practice. If it was lawful and proper and entirely in accordance with parliamentary practice, it does not become less so because the government decide to pursue an improper course. That improper course is that they are seeking by this means to identify who produced the document to the opposition. The reason they are seeking this method is that the opposition retyped the document—not altering any of its content—because the security arrangements that now operate in relation to the transmission of electronic documents, which this government have put in place, make minute changes in each original. So the identification of the exact area from which this document came would be identified by the production of the original. So what they wish to have is a witch-hunt under the authority of this parliament. What they wish to do is to overturn those centuries of parliamentary tradition where members can bring before this House, without imperilling those who give them their confidence, matters of national public importance.What a diversion, what a matter of immense public importance, this matter fundamentally was. These changes are of immense public importance to the community of Australia. It surely is a matter of legitimate public debate and public concern that has been exposed. This witch-hunt that has been pursued is entirely improper and not worthy of the support of this House by way of its resolution but, more importantly, Mr Speaker, again with respect, unworthy of you.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is unparliamentary for the member to cast reflections on the chair. He should withdraw that remark.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thank the Leader of the House. I know the member for Denison well enough to know that he was not in fact deliberately reflecting on the chair. But I would ask him to reflect on the comment he made and withdraw it because it is appropriate, although I know he did not intend it as an offence.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—I certainly did not and I withdraw it to the extent that anyone drew that inference from it. I mentioned the royal commission matter which is plainly entirely beyond any question of a member's responsibility for the production of documents. The two other matters that you, Mr Speaker, referred to were the Egan cases. The Egan dispute arose from a situation where the parliament was carrying out its proper and historical function of scrutiny of the executive. The fact of that matter is that the Hon. Michael Egan was the Treasurer of New South Wales and the government leader in the state's upper house, the Legislative Council.The Egan cases stem from the ongoing refusal of the New South Wales Treasurer, who was then acting in accordance with crown law advice, to produce certain state papers demanded pursuant to resolutions of the Legislative Council. The circumstances were that on 1 May 1996 the Legislative Council passed a resolution requiring Mr Egan to table state papers relating to the commission of inquiry into the Lake Cowal goldmine. Following this refusal, the Legislative Council adjudged the Treasurer guilty of contempt and suspended him from the service of the House. Then there was a series of legal proceedings touching upon that matter. Egan v. Willis was heard by the New South Wales Court of Appeal in 1996, and it dismissed Mr Egan's application which he brought in relation to trespass, as he was removed, except in relation to his exclusion from the parliament building—his exclusion from the chamber was held to be lawful.Central to that case was the extent of the powers and privileges of the Legislative Council and relevantly the chamber's power to demand documents and its capacity to punish a member of the chamber for refusing to comply with such a demand. But what was plain in the litigation that followed is that the court based its whole determination on the right of a legislative chamber in the historic conduct of its task of ensuring accountability of the executive to the parliament to insist on a member of the executive producing a document which was material to its scrutiny—a member of the executive producing a document.There were two central issues. The first issue was a matter relating to public interest immunity. In relation to public interest immunity, the court said that the principles of responsible government are so important that it is inherently within the powers of a common law chamber of parliament, which was the circumstance of the Legislative Council, to demand the production of documents, despite the claim by the executive that they were exempted under this public interest immunity document. The only exception they allowed was an actual cabinet document, not a document that was simply submitted to cabinet but a document which revealed the actual deliberations of the cabinet. They said for the reasons that had been historic in relation to that matter they would not require that to be produced.They then turned to the issue of legal professional privilege, and in respect of legal professional privilege they rejected the defence entirely. They said there was no basis for legal professional privilege arising in circumstances where the parliament was exercising its lawful responsibility to demand accountability of the executive. But they addressed this matter on the basis of these doctrines of responsible government.It is entirely a misapprehension that either Egan v. Willis or Egan v. Chadwick or any of the litigation that was associated with the Egan dispute in any way justifies the conclusion that you drew in respect of those matters. I appreciate, Mr Speaker, that you had all of perhaps two hours at the most or less to be advised of those complex issues. They are matters which this House could not expect you to have proper cognisance of. But nothing in those determinations or judgment goes to the least to the proposition that has been asserted that this House is acting in accordance with the proper processes in relation to this matter or that you should have allowed this motion to have come before the chamber.The key point is that the government is calling on the opposition to produce its document. This is the absurdity of the situation. The government—the executive—is calling on the opposition, which has had released to it for obvious reasons of public importance a document from a source who for quite obvious reasons—XS4LAWRENCEDr Lawrence—Agonised over it.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—agonised but would not wish their identity to be disclosed, to produce this document. The opposition in the proper exposure of what is actually occurring in the back rooms of this government has raised this as a matter of public duty. And what does the government do? What an ironic response. The government says, `Expose to us our document. Give us our document.' The absurdity of a situation of that nature—where the content and the actuality of that document is known by the government and where it plays no part in the constitutional role of this House whatsoever in holding the executive to account—is so palpable that this matter will create a hideous precedent. Mr Speaker, you have ruled that this matter comes before this chamber for a vote, and the sense of the individual rights of each member of this House becomes subsumed by the general will of the chamber.That is a dangerous and most wrong doctrine. Each individual member of this parlia ment must have some basic rights. That is the reason we have absolute privilege in this place. That is why the Bill of Rights 1688 says that nothing said in this parliament can be challenged or utilised in any court or proceedings out of this place in any way. Since the divine rights of kings have been overturned and the accountability of the executive to the parliament has been established, not one precedent of this nature can be established by the government in making this proposal.This proposal runs entirely against the reasons we have lawful and democratic elections. Ultimately, the whole role of individual members of parliament is going to be greatly lessened by this. Each member will have fear, if they come forward in circumstances where somebody has delivered to them a document which is a bit sensitive and which, if released, would give rise to them being pursued, that similar courses may be pursued in the future. They have no fear for themselves in present circumstances other than, if in honour of defending the confidentiality of a source, they are then further pursued to be punished for standing up and conducting what is plainly a rightful piece of parliamentary conduct—as you, Mr Speaker, have identified.The logic of your inconsistency in relation to this position is that a member can conduct themselves in this House lawfully, properly and in complete consonance with every tradition that this parliament has had for decades and then be punished for not revealing the source of material in circumstances not where the parliament is seeking to hold the executive to account but rather where the executive is seeking to hold the parliament to account. That is not a situation which this parliament can entertain.The electorate does recall these things. There are instances in the not so distant past where a state government which made a practice of contempt in relation to secrecy and the ways it sought to avoid disclosure—it sought to misuse its position of great authority in two chambers of Victoria—was ultimately brought to account for precisely these kinds of abuses. The Leader of the Opposition has rightly drawn attention to the conduct of his father and Gordon Scholes in relation to other circumstances where it would have been a dishonour to have remained in this chamber and to support a piece of conduct which, although supported by government, was wrongful.The only possibility of you, Mr Speaker, not becoming the first Speaker ever in the Westminster parliamentary system to further bring the individual rights of members of parliament down to a level that they never have been brought to before is if there are one or two people of good conscience on the other side, because this matter will now go to a vote. But the rule of the majority does not determine the moral foundation of this place or the rights of individual members. We must assert them always. (Time expired)17:26:0011507Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The question before the House is a motion to dissent from your ruling. The basic proposition that is advanced in support is that, upon the motion being put, you should have ruled it out of order. Let me put that another way. The dissentients in your ruling are saying that you should have taken it upon yourself to limit the powers of the House. When you put it that way, the Leader of the Opposition is putting quite an incredible proposition. He says that you, the Speaker, should stand alone—regardless of the powers of the House and regardless of the long established principle that the House shall determine its own affairs—and singularly, individually and unilaterally take it upon yourself to prevent the House from making a decision on the powers of the House. That is a nonsense. That has always been a nonsense.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Change the standing orders you move the motion under!WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—You say `Change the standing orders'. But what a foolish remark that is! On your dissentient motion, you are saying that, if I did not like the change, it should never have been put, that the House should not be able to determine its own affairs. The House, of course, should determine its own affairs. Mr Speaker, your ruling is the only possible ruling. The only possible ruling you could have made was to accept the motion and to reject the proposition that the motion should be thrown out. One could cite many authorities for this very simple, well-accepted proposition, but I am indebted to the member for Cowper, who has pointed out page 316 of the House of Representatives Practice , where it states:The House has the power, within constitutional limits, to make a determination on any question it wishes to raise, to make any order, or to agree to any resolution. In the conduct of its own affairs the House is responsible only to itself.It can be responsible only to itself as it has the opportunity to vote and to make decisions about the conduct of the affairs of the House.Mr Speaker, all that you have done in accepting the motion is facilitate the House making such a decision. It is an absolutely open-and-shut case that the dissent to your ruling is ill-founded, unsubstantiated and quite contrary to long established precedent on the powers of the House to order its own affairs. Not only is the claim that this is unprecedented wrong but it also portrays a deep concern now welling up within the opposition about its conduct on the issue, and I will come back to that in a moment. But in rejecting the claims of this being unprecedented, I do so with living authority. For example, the member for O'Connor is living proof that all members are accountable to the House. In fact, he had seven days in the cooler, as it were—SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Sitting days.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Sitting days, as a result of a motion of the House ordering its affairs. Hugh Mahon—no relation to the member for Batman—was expelled. Ken Aldred, the then member for Deakin in 1989, was the subject of a resolution of the House demonstrating that private members, all members, have an accountability to the House as a whole. In New South Wales recently—and I have to say that I have not had an opportunity to thoroughly check the claim that I now make, but it was the subject of a lot of political controversy at the time—there was the behaviour of Franca Arena in the upper house. My memory of it is that there was a resolution of the chamber to the effect that she be required to produce evidence to back up the claims that she had made. That is just another example of where a private member has been held to be accountable to the chamber. There is nothing new about this. The claim is, `Oh, it's unprecedented.' This has been the law, the practice, the convention for as long as anybody can remember.The essence of the claim is `Oh well, the House could not have the jurisdiction to order the laying on the table of certain documents.' That is the basic claim. Mr Speaker, again, when you analyse this claim it is clearly without foundation. In fact, the exercise of this particular power is commonplace in the operations of the parliament. Of course, it is not the day-to-day occurrence in the chamber, and the reason it is not is because, more often than not, the work of looking at evidence, of documents and the like is the work of the committees. That is the reason we have committees. I could cite you many examples where the terms of reference of a committee have included a jurisdiction to require the production of documents.Opposition members interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—No, at large. It is hard for you blokes to understand a simple point—at large; that is the point. Committees have a power to so require documentation. The authority of the committees to so require is sourced here in this chamber. It cannot possibly be that our committees have a greater authority, a greater power than this chamber itself has. The fact is that this chamber does have this power. It has a power which we see regularly exercised by the committees. That is absolutely, again, beyond doubt. The Leader of the Opposition says, `Oh, this is unprecedented.' Again, Mr Speaker, as you yourself have been able to cite, there are precedents going back to, what, 1904 or 1905. There is nothing new about this whatsoever.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Except that you can't find one precedent.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—So says the interjector. In fact, the Speaker gave you a precedent. The only problem with that precedent is that it is not comfortable for your purposes. That is all.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—It is also not relevant.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—It is a precedent of the power and the exercise of the power. That is the only issue before the House: whether or not the Speaker has failed in some way to fully exercise his discretion by allowing the procedure to be followed of a motion being put to the House. That is the only question before us. Clearly, there is a power within the chamber and so, therefore, it was entirely valid for the Speaker to rule the motion in order so that we can shortly have a vote on it.This question of the power of the parliament in respect of papers again is also the subject of commentary in House of Representatives Practice, third edition, page 580. It states:By the end of the 19th century the United Kingdom Parliament was invested with the power of ordering all documents to be laid before it which were necessary for its information.I am voting no, but it is interesting how all the yes people are straight off to the House of Commons for their many precedents. It continues:Despite the powers of each House of the United Kingdom Parliament to enforce the production of documents, a sufficient cause had to be shown for the exercise of that power. This unquestioned power of the House of Commons is extended to the Australian Parliament by way of section 49 of the Constitution.Again, it is an open-and-shut case. Does the parliament have the power to require the tabling of documents? The answer is yes. It is as absolutely clear, as night follows day.As for what has happened today, in some ways I suppose I would have to say that it is the leak of a document. In the long years of wilderness in the opposition, there is no greater sport than to get a document out of the government. Those opposite will feed off this like hyenas on the safari plains for weeks and weeks and weeks. When you have no policies of your own, gee, what a welcome sight it is to be able to release a discussion paper by a member of the government. As the minister implied, this is the best commentary on education policy the opposition has released in living memory.In the time since question time, we have seen a rather more serious development. I do say that documents becoming available to an opposition from governments is not uncommon; that is true. I can remember Laurie Oakes got the budget when John Howard was Treasurer at the end of the 1970s. It happened to me not so long ago. A document was made available to the opposition and, to the best of our knowledge, somebody got into the computer system in the department and recreated a document, including words which had been the subject of a delete button.I think I can fairly say that, in each and every other case that I have known of when the opposition have had a document, they have actually produced the document itself. Today is unprecedented. I will tell you why it is unprecedented.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—It's not, sport.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Well, you may have done this before.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Yes, in relation to you.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—What has happened on this occasion is that the so-called cabinet document was produced here during question time. After question time I was standing here, Mr Speaker, and I could see the document there, with its orange highlights. When I brought to the attention of the House the fact that the document was there, the Leader of the Opposition picked up that document, took it to the advisers box, gave it to an adviser who works for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and they whisked that document out of sight and out of the chamber. Furthermore, Mr Speaker, I now know, because I have seen the front cover of this document—8I4MARTINMr Martin—Superman!WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Super sleuth that I am. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that document is not the document that is in the parliamentary press gallery, because I have seen the document that has been boxed. These people are on a campaign of deceit.You have taken a document which we are entitled to infer has come into your hands by illegal means, and you have then doctored that document. When you are asked to table that document, you put up the most feeble excuses as to why you are not prepared to be open and transparent with the Australian people. You reckon it is a cabinet submission. It may well be. But why is it that you are not prepared to make that document available? Is this some grand principle? No. You want to protect the illegal activities of people who have supplied that document to you. We are entitled to see that document. We are entitled to see not only the original document that you have but also the doctored document so that we can see by which means you have doctored the document.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—You check it with your original.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—No, I have not seen what you have got.Opposition members interjecting—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Ha, ha!WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—He laughs too heartily, Mr Speaker. Mr 30 Per Cent laughs too heartily, and quite frankly he talks too much. He had not realised the purport of producing the document in here today and then misleading people by putting another document in the gallery, attempting thereby to deceive and to mislead people about that document. If you consider this matter to be as serious as you clearly will, then you have a public obligation to put that document on the table here. All that this motion requires, within the powers of the House, and within the bounds of what could be described only as commonsense, is for that document to be revealed here today. Then we can have as much further debate on it as you wish.Mr Speaker, the House is entitled to vote on the motion which has been put to you. Your ruling was a very simple one—that is, that this is a matter for the House to decide. How could anybody dispute a ruling from a Speaker who in the end says, `Where there are such disputes, it will be a matter for the House'? We reject the dissent motion. (Time expired)Motion (by Mr Reith) put:That the question be now put. 17:46:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew)73Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr K. J. AndrewsMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr BroughMr CadmanMr CameronMr CausleyMr CharlesMr CostelloMr DownerMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Ms GambaroMrs GashMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HardgraveMr HawkerMr HockeyMr HowardMrs HullMr JullMrs D. M. KellyJackie KellyDr KempMr LawlerMr LiebermanMr LindsayMr LloydMr McArthur*Mr I. E. MacfarlaneMrs MayMr MooreMrs MoylanMr NairnMr NehlDr NelsonMr NevilleMr NugentMr PyneMr ReithMr RonaldsonMr RuddockMr St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperDr SouthcottDr StoneMrs SullivanMr C. P. ThompsonMr A. P. ThomsonMr TrussMr TuckeyMr M. A. J. VaileMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs Worth59Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr BeazleyMr BevisMr BreretonMr CoxMr CreanMr EdwardsMs EllisDr EmersonMr M. J. EvansMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMs KernotMr KerrMr LathamDr LawrenceMr LeeMs LivermoreMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MossfieldMr MurphyMr O'ConnorMr O'KeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*Mr SciaccaMr Sercombe*Mr SidebottomMr SmithMr SnowdonMr TannerDr TheophanousMr K. J. ThomsonMr WilkieMr WiltonMr BarresiMrs CrosioMrs GallusMs O'ByrneMr ProsserMs BurkeMr SomlyayMr McLeay* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question put:That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.17:51:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew)59Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Beazley, K. C. Bevis, A. R.Brereton, L. J. Cox, D.Crean, S. F. Edwards, G. J.Ellis, A. L. Emerson, C.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Gerick, J. Gibbons, S. W.Gillard, J. E. Griffin, A. P.Hall, J. G. Hatton, M. J.Hoare, K. J. Hollis, C.Horne, R. Irwin, J.Jenkins, H. A. Kernot, C.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Livermore, K. F. Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McFarlane, J. S. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Mossfield, F. W. Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Plibersek, T. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Ripoll, B. F.Roxon, N. L. Rudd, K. M.Sawford, R. W.* Sciacca, C. A.Sercombe, R. C. G.* Sidebottom, P. S.Smith, S. F. Snowdon, W. E.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Wilkie, K.Wilton, G. S.73Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baird, B. G.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Bishop, B. K. Bishop, J. I.Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Costello, P. H.Downer, A. J. G. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Fahey, J. J. Fischer, T. A.Forrest, J. A.* Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Haase, B. W. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hockey, J. B.Howard, J. W. Hull, K. E.Jull, D. F. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lawler, A. J. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Macfarlane, I. E. May, M. A.McArthur, F. S.* Moore, J. C.Moylan, J. E. Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Pyne, C. M. Reith, P. K.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Schultz, A. J. Scott, B. C.Secker, P. D. Slipper, P. N.Southcott, A. J. St Clair, S. R.Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J.Thompson, C. P. Thomson, A. P.Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W.Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S.Wakelin, B. H. Washer, M. J.Williams, D. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M.Mrs CrosioMr BarresiMs O'ByrneMrs GallusMs BurkeMr ProsserMr McLeayMr Somlyay* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Censure Motion1151211512Consideration resumed.Question put:That the amendment (Dr Kemp's ) be agreed to.17:56:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew)73Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr K. J. AndrewsMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr BroughMr CadmanMr CameronMr CausleyMr CharlesMr CostelloMr DownerMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Ms GambaroMrs GashMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HardgraveMr HawkerMr HockeyMr HowardMrs HullMr JullMrs D. M. KellyJackie KellyDr KempMr LawlerMr LiebermanMr LindsayMr LloydMr McArthur*Mr I. E. MacfarlaneMrs MayMr MooreMrs MoylanMr NairnMr NehlDr NelsonMr NevilleMr NugentMr PyneMr ReithMr RonaldsonMr RuddockMr St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperDr SouthcottDr StoneMrs SullivanMr C. P. ThompsonMr A. P. ThomsonMr TrussMr TuckeyMr M. A. J. VaileMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs Worth60Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr BeazleyMr BevisMr BreretonMr CoxMr CreanMr EdwardsMs EllisDr EmersonMr M. J. EvansMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMs KernotMr KerrMr LathamDr LawrenceMr LeeMs LivermoreMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MossfieldMr MurphyMr O'ConnorMr O'KeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*Mr SciaccaMr Sercombe*Mr SidebottomMr SmithMr SnowdonMr SwanMr TannerDr TheophanousMr K. J. ThomsonMr WilkieMr WiltonMr BarresiMrs CrosioMrs GallusMs O'ByrneMr ProsserMs BurkeMr SomlyayMr McLeay* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Question put:That the motion (Mr Beazley's ), as amended, be agreed to.Question put:That the motion (Mr Beazley's ), as amended, be agreed to.18:02:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew)73Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr K. J. AndrewsMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr BroughMr CadmanMr CameronMr CausleyMr CharlesMr CostelloMr DownerMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Ms GambaroMrs GashMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HardgraveMr HawkerMr HockeyMr HowardMrs HullMr JullMrs D. M. KellyJackie KellyDr KempMr LawlerMr LiebermanMr LindsayMr LloydMr McArthur*Mr I. E. MacfarlaneMrs MayMr MooreMrs MoylanMr NairnMr NehlDr NelsonMr NevilleMr NugentMr PyneMr ReithMr RonaldsonMr RuddockMr St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperDr SouthcottDr StoneMrs SullivanMr C. P. ThompsonMr A. P. ThomsonMr TrussMr TuckeyMr M. A. J. VaileMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs Worth60Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr BeazleyMr BevisMr BreretonMr CoxMr CreanMr EdwardsMs EllisDr EmersonMr M. J. EvansMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMs KernotMr KerrMr LathamDr LawrenceMr LeeMs LivermoreMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MossfieldMr MurphyMr O'ConnorMr O'KeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*Mr SciaccaMr Sercombe*Mr SidebottomMr SmithMr SnowdonMr SwanMr TannerDr TheophanousMr K. J. ThomsonMr WilkieMr WiltonMr BarresiMrs CrosioMrs GallusMs O'ByrneMr ProsserMs BurkeMr SomlyayMr McLeay* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.11513Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Members on my left, including the member for Melbourne, who has already been warned, might be unaware of the fact that the Prime Minister just moved that all further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .The House has resolved that the member for Dobell should be censured for his failure to develop any manner of education policy and orders the member for Dobell to produce forthwith, without any further amendment or debate, the document purporting to be a cabinet submission from which he was quoting during question time today. That was the resolution of the House. I ask the member for Dobell to respond.18:04:0011513Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Mr Speaker, I am unable to comply with the motion, because the document is no longer in my possession and therefore I am not in a position to produce it. For the record, I should state that I do not acknowledge the right of the House to require me to produce the document.Honourable members interjecting—11513Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—It would seem to me in circumstances such as these that it would be quite unparalleled for me to have to in fact name someone. The member for Dobell must be aware that the latter remarks he made may be deemed to be in contempt of the House, which I do not think would have been his intent. If he wishes not in any way to revise the statement he has made, then I will invite him to reconsider his position. If he chooses not to reconsider his position, then it is a matter that I will refer—properly, I think—to the Privileges Committee. I invite him simply to indicate whether he wants to reconsider his position.Honourable members interjecting—10000Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Eden-Monaro and members on both sides of the House are doing the member for Dobell no courtesy at all, in a position which he must find somewhat invidious.18:06:0011514Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Mr Speaker, because as a member of this House I believe that it is wrong for the executive to impugn the rights of members—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am hearing the member for Dobell but I will not extend to him any leniency in terms of the way he deals—MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—This is not an argument, Mr Speaker. This is an important issue.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Of course. That is precisely why I am dealing with it as I am.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—You have asked me for my position and, because of that, Mr Speaker, I am not in a position to withdraw the second part of my statement. If you have to take that position, I understand.Documents1151411514Reith, 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 papers:Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—Annual Report 1998-99Repatriation Medical Authority—Fifth Annual Report 1998-99Health Insurance Commission—Equity and Diversity Annual Report 1998-99Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance115141151410000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER— I have received a letter from the honourable member for Dobell proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The damage done by the government's cuts to public education.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—Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:That the business of the day be called on.Bills11514r91411514Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.Bill read a second time.11514Bill (on motion by Mr Reith)—by leave—read a third time.Committees11514115141151418:10:0011514Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I present the 10th report of the committee for 1999 relating to CSIRO Clayton (Eastern Precinct) Development Works, Victoria.Ordered that the report be printed.4V5Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN—by leave—The report which I have just tabled concerns the proposed construction of facilities at the CSIRO's Clayton site in Melbourne. Research complexes at the Clayton site now house the largest concentration of CSIRO scientific expertise in Victoria. The site is the centre of CSIRO research into minerals, forest products, molecular and polymer science, manufacturing science and technology and mathematical and information science.The proposal examined by the committee will enable the consolidation of CSIRO's divisions of Manufacturing Science and Technology, Mathematics, Information Science, Information Technology Services and Petroleum Resources at Clayton. This consolidation will enable CSIRO to vacate sites at Preston and Syndal, freeing up these sites for sale. It will also relocate staff and resources from leased premises.The extent of the proposal will provide nearly 7,000 square metres gross floor area of new building accommodation, together with another 7,000 square metres of refurbishment in an existing laboratory complex. The scope of the proposed works will provide laboratories, offices, process and technical bays, research support facilities and staff amenities. It will provide modern scientific research facilities for over 370 staff.When referred to the committee, the estimated cost of the project was $28 million. The committee has recommended that the project should proceed. In arriving at this recommendation, the committee has concluded that, since 1961, substantial investments have been made by the Commonwealth in the construction of major CSIRO research laboratory complexes at Clayton.A number of elements of research divisions—in particular, Manufacturing Science and Technology and Petroleum Resources—remain at other centres within the Melbourne metropolitan area in properties owned or leased by CSIRO. Capacity remains at the Clayton site for further co-location and rationalisation of research activities. This rationalisation would result in reduced overheads and realise proceeds from property sales for investment in new and upgraded research facilities at Clayton. It would also facilitate interaction between research groups and between divisions, cooperative research centres and staff and postgraduate students from Monash University, which is located adjacent to the Clayton site.In property terms, sites at Preston and Syndal and leased premises at Carlton and Clayton could be vacated and staff relocated to Clayton. On this basis, the committee concluded that a need therefore exists to provide additional research facilities at the Clayton site for more than 370 CSIRO staff. The committee has also concluded that the scope of the proposed development includes refurbished and new accommodation at a standard commensurate with modern research requirements and on a scale consistent with the number of staff to be employed. The scope of the project can also be justified as making innovative reuse of refurbished buildings with new construction reflecting contemporary generic research facilities already provided at other sites. There is also capacity for expansion.Two matters need to be addressed by the CSIRO. Firstly, the committee has recommended that the need for stainless steel downpipes proposed for the refurbished David Rivett Building should be reviewed. Secondly, the committee has recommended that the CSIRO should develop a master plan for the further development of the site which will avoid costly removal of existing facilities and infrastructure. I commend the report to the House.115151151518:15:0011515Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund, I present the committee's report, including evidence received by the committee, entitled Interim report for the s.206(d) inquiry—proceedings of conference on 12 March 1999.Ordered that the report be printed.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—by leave—Today, as Deputy Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund, I table the committee's 15th report. This is an interim report for the section 206(d) inquiry and was prepared following a conference held at Parliament House on 12 March this year. The conference marked the commencement of the committee's public hearings for this inquiry. Given the broad terms of reference and the issues to be canvassed, it was considered appropriate to invite a wide range of speakers to present papers and give evidence.The conference proved to be most successful and has provided important background information for the subsequent public hearings already held by the committee in Western Australia and Queensland. Over the coming months, the committee intends to visit additional rural and regional centres, as well as capital cities, to gather evidence for this most significant inquiry.This interim report is limited to information that was useful to the committee in preparing for the conference last March and provides the background against which the committee began to receive evidence for the inquiry. It is not, therefore, a report commenting on the evidence given at the conference; rather, it is hoped that the report will assist individuals and organisations as they participate in this inquiry in the future.In terms of background to the inquiry, pursuant to section 206(d) of the Native Title Act 1993, the committee is required from time to time to inquire into and, as soon as practicable after the inquiry is completed, to report to both houses of parliament on a range of matters which include: the effectiveness of the National Native Title Tribunal; the extent to which there are recognised state and territory bodies; the extent of extinguishment or impairment of native title rights and interests as a result of the operation of the Native Title Act; the effect of the operation of the Native Title Act on land management; and the operation of the Indigenous Land Corporation and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund.Originally, section 206(d) provided for an inquiry at the end of two years. The committee, therefore, could have commenced this inquiry in 1996. However, factors including the handing down of important court judgments, such as Wik, the time taken to pass amendments to the act, and the federal election in 1998 meant that it was not feasible for the committee to begin its inquiry prior to 1999.While the section 206(d) inquiry is ongoing, it would be useful now to canvass some of the key issues that have already arisen and that the committee will further pursue as this inquiry progresses. The first of these is the effectiveness of the National Native Title Tribunal. The committee is required to examine the effectiveness of the National Native Title Tribunal. This is a difficult undertaking. Since the commencement of the Native Title Act, there have been eight court determinations of native title; five of these were agreed or consent determinations and the remaining three, including Mabo No. 2, were judicial determinations. In comparison, by the end of June 1998, there were more than 700 applications for determinations of native title lodged with the tribunal.This unresolved backlog, however, must be understood in context. It must not be considered in isolation; nor are they the sole determinant of the tribunal's effectiveness. The tribunal's core function is to provide a mediation service to assist with the resolution of native title claims. The tribunal states that since the commencement of the act there have been more than 1,200 agreements reached. Many of these agreements, while motivated by the recognition of native title by the Mabo No. 2 decision and the Native Title Act, have been non-native title agreements and outside the scope of the act. Nonetheless, many of these agreements were only possible due to the mediation assistance and support of the tribunal. And the tribunal also has an arbitral role in relation to settling disputes over proposed mining, exploration or compulsory acquisition of land by governments for transfer to third parties.In all of its functions and activities, the tribunal is required, under the Native Title Act, to operate in a fair, just, economical, informal and prompt way. The committee's inquiry will compare the tribunal's actual functions and operations with those prescribed by the act, to ascertain the tribunal's effectiveness, particularly in relation to its important mediation functions. In an effort to address the issue of its own effectiveness, the tribunal has also published a document titled Native title: a five year retrospective 1994-1998, which has been of assistance to the committee's work.Another key aspect of the committee's inquiry is an examination of the extent to which native title rights and interests have been extinguished or impaired as a result of the operation of the Native Title Act. The extent of extinguishment or impairment is affected not only by the provisions of the Native Title Act but also by the emerging case law. For example, High Court decisions in cases such as Wik and, more recently, Fejo v. the Northern Territory of Australia have further informed the understanding of extinguishment of native title and the effects of that extinguishment.Under the amendments to the Native Title Act, which were passed in July 1998, the extent of extinguishment of native title by the act was widened. Notably, the word extinguish in relation to native title is now defined as permanent extinguishment. However, in other case law developments, the Federal Court held, in Mary Yarmirr and Ors v. Northern Territory of Australia and Ors, that native title could exist over the sea and seabed, which has widened the potential scope for the recognition of native title.The actual extent of extinguishment and impairment of native title rights is still being established as a result of these cases, and it may be some time before all aspects of this issue are settled. The committee's inquiry under section 206(d) will focus on the effect of the Native Title Act on the extinguishment and impairment of native title rights and interests since its commencement, bearing in mind the clarification which may be provided by the emerging case law on this issue.The committee also has a duty, under section 206(d)(vi), to report on the effect of the Native Title Act on land management. The Native Title Act affects land management in a number of important ways. These include the regulation of future acts by governments—for example, the grant of a mining or exploration licence, the compulsory acquisition of land where native title may exist, the right to negotiate and the provisions providing for agreements about native title matters.In amending the act, substantial changes were made to these provisions. For example, the amended act outlines the 12 specific grounds on which future acts can be validly undertaken. In addition, the right to negotiate is now excluded in certain situations, although in some instances it is replaced by other procedural rights, and the scope for agreements is strengthened through the provisions of the new indigenous land use agreements—ILUAs.The committee will examine how effective the Native Title Act has been in governing and regulating the use and management of land and access to land in situations where native title may exist. In particular, the committee will examine whether the introduction of indigenous land use agreements offers greater scope for the resolution of native title matters by agreement about land management.Another major task the committee will undertake as part of this inquiry is the examination of the activities of the Indigenous Land Corporation and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund in comparison with their statutory functions and obligations. The land fund was originally established in recognition of the fact that many indigenous people would be unable to benefit from the decisions in Mabo No. 2 because in various circumstances they could no longer establish their native title. The Indigenous Land Corporation, or ILC, was seen as necessary to ensure the effective operation and management of the fund. In the second reading speech of the bill to establish the land fund and the Indigenous Land Corporation, the then Prime Minister, Paul Keating, described the main purpose of the land fund as:. . . to enable indigenous people to acquire land and to manage and maintain it in a sustainable way to provide economic, social and cultural benefits for themselves and for future generations of their peoples.The ILC receives an annual draw-down from the land fund to enable it to fulfil its extensive land acquisition and land management activities. The extent to which the ILC and the land fund will satisfactorily meet the land needs of indigenous people throughout Australia is an issue of considerable interest to the committee.The section 206(d) inquiry is perhaps the most significant undertaken by the committee since its establishment. By its conclusion, the committee will have undertaken an expansive and far-reaching examination of the operation of the Native Title Act, the Indigenous Land Corporation and the land fund. The committee's 15th report, which is tabled today, provides an important insight into the inquiry background and flags many of the significant issues for the committee's ongoing investigation and reporting pursuant to section 206(d) of the Native Title Act 1993. I commend the report to the House.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If no-one else is seeking to make a statement, the member for Northern Territory may wish to move a motion in relation to the report.11518Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—by leave—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills11518r81511518Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate does not insist on its amendments disagreed to by the House.Bills11518r81811518Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate does not insist on its amendments disagreed to by the House.Bills11518r64611518Consideration resumed.18:26:0011518Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—As a member for north-east Victoria, I would like to mention very briefly how important it is that the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 , put forward by the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, be no longer delayed and frustrated, as has happened, sadly, since it was first debated quite some time ago—in fact, I spoke on this bill at the time. May I just record the appreciation of the community I represent for the work of the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, who is at the table, and his advisers, staff and department in dealing with the regional forest agreement proposals for north-east Victoria.There is a mill called Mount Beauty Timbers in Mount Beauty. Mount Beauty is a beautiful town which has gone through some tremendously difficult times and social and economic change. It originally was a town used to house the construction workers for the hydro-electric scheme in the Kiewa Valley. After that, it was a town to house the staff of the State Electricity Commission, for which I was the minister in Victoria for a time. There were many hundreds of employees there, but with the passage of time the employment in SEC has been reduced to virtually a handful.There has been massive change, great difficulties and a lot of unemployment in that town. The Mount Beauty mill, which has been assisted substantially by the government, is an employer of 60 to 70 people. If that mill is lost, those people will lose their work, their jobs and their livelihood and their families will suffer substantially, and that community will be brought to its knees. On the other hand, because of the leadership and assistance of the minister, with the support of the Prime Minister, a proposal has been put forward to provide industry assistance to the industry to enable it to make changes to use the logs that will become available as a result of the regional forest agreement, logs that are not as large as the mill can accommodate at the moment. It is a very critical issue, and I would urge my friend at the table, the shadow minister, and the opposition to heed the words implied by the member for Denison and the member for Lyons to get this legislation through so that the help for communities and workers can be delivered without further delay or confusion.Sadly, there have been two youth suicides in Mount Beauty in the last couple of years or so which I think are indirectly associated with the problems of social change and upheaval. I want that community to have hope and to have a future, and under the management proposals of the minister at the table, supported by the Prime Minister, it has. But this legislation is needed in order that the whole process can be completed efficiently. So I make this personal plea to members on the other side: support the minister in the work he is doing and enable this legislation to go through. It has been delayed far too long, and it should not be delayed any further.18:30:0011519St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—I too would like to support the minister. I have been involved in the timber industry for 33 years. I am a sawmiller and was a sawmiller for 16 years immediately prior to coming into this place—a practical sawmiller with the practical experience of actually being there with my men. I have seen a great deal of change come over the industry, as we all do in various practices, but it has been particularly so in the timber industry. The mill I happen to own, which is a very small mill, never employed probably more than five or six people in the small town we are in of 88 people, but it has been there since 1887. For the 10 or 12 years prior to 1887, it was further out of town. During the last 15 or 16 years, I have seen a concerted effort that I believe started probably in the mid-seventies. I remember that a minister in the state as she became, Pam Allan, set about destroying small native hardwood sawmillers in New South Wales in the middle of the seventies.Back in those days, I remember a front page photo on I think the Sydney Morning Herald of a kangaroo standing in the middle of a felled paddock and all you could see was the felled area. It basically was appealing to the preservation people who lived in the cities that this was the type of rape and pillage of the forest that was going on. What the article failed to show and describe was the regenerated regrowth timber in the rest of those areas that had been logged before.The member for Lyons spoke earlier, and I know he understands regrowth in native hardwood forests because in Tasmania it has been something that has been done on a sustainable basis and run by professional foresters, workers and people for many, many years. In fact, the member for Indi mentioned Mount Beauty Timbers. I also remember doing business in the Gippsland, Nowa Nowa, Waygara, Orbost, Omeo and all sorts of different places where the sawmilling industry built this nation. Then I watched over the period when the corruption, in my belief, started to enter the game, where big companies started to form a pact, particularly in New South Wales, with the big unions. With some of the forest products associations under the control of Col Dorber, they also set about the destruction of us little fellows. There were a lot of us through this nation, as you can imagine.In the New England today, there are more trees than there ever has been in the history of this nation. My sawmill was the last little one to close on the whole of the New England tableland area of New South Wales. There is one left at Walcha. Under these RFAs and from the information that has been given over the years, I believe they will strip the areas they have within the next 10 years and leave it as bare of trees as the floor of this House.I also implore the opposition to pass the RFAs, particularly in Queensland where I have colleagues and friends in the central tablelands area who have no security. They understand that change has to take place. They understand that native hardwood sawmilling under the preservationists, and particularly with the governments of both Queensland and New South Wales, is going to destroy the little fellows unless something gives. To bring an RFA back to the parliament every time you have an alteration is quite ridiculous.I just want to give another idea. In the town of Nundle, which is a small town in my electorate, the Sommerville family run a sawmilling business. They are traditionally hardwood sawmilling people and have been there for many generations. They are turning to plantation pine, which is great; I have no problem with that. The issue is that there are stands of growing trees that are now going to waste, to be burnt. (Time expired)18:35:0011519Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I thought I might start by responding to the remarks of the members for Braddon and Lyons, who both put a case for bipartisanship. That is not surprising because they come from Tasmania and that is exactly what has happened in the Tasmanian parliament. There is no conflict and there is no political point scoring of substance in the Tasmanian parliament on the issue of forestry. One of those speakers might remind me, but I think the industry represents 20 or 30 per cent of the employment in that state.Those people down there, including Deputy Premier Lennon, with whom I have an excellent relationship, desperately want this legislation. It is no secret that Mr Lennon attended the Senate inquiry relating to this matter in Melbourne and said, `The state of Tasmania wants the legislation without amendment.' That is the position of people who have put the interests of their constituents above the opportunity for some political point scoring. A couple of times by way of interjection today it has been said to me, `Give in and you get your bill.' It is not a case of giving in; it is all a case of making sure we are delivering what is clearly understood to be the right and proper legislation as assessed by both sides of politics in the biggest timber employing state, Tasmania.Other people who have made a contribution to this issue—and the quotes have been read to the House today—that is, the CFMEU, NAFI, AWU and the Forest Protection Society, all desperately want this bill and they want it without amendment. They unanimously want—and I will refer to this later—a Forest Products Advisory Council.I would like to put what people want in words: they want secure and uncontestable resource security for their industry. Furthermore, we in this place will not be the judges of that; the judges will be the people who are being asked to invest $100,000, $1 million, $10 million or $2 billion. The challenge to this House is not to keep telling ourselves who is right—my dad can beat your dad—but to present a piece of legislation that the people who are going to make these substantial investments to the benefit of so many other people can trust.The member for Braddon asked: where is your action agenda? I can tell you where it is. It is stalled on this piece of legislation. I am out there—I am not a bad salesman—and I am putting arguments. I have listened to experts. I have arguments to put to all sectors of the industry as to how we might bring this together. I have had two meetings. I have people meeting in focus groups and steering groups trying to get this thing up. A lot of those people see the benefit of the Forest Products Advisory Council.But when I talk to those who have real money they ask, `When are you going to give us resource security?' They do not want me to tell them that there is a little bit in there—as the member for Denison has said—where there is opposing legal opinion. They do not want any prospect of legal action whatsoever. They are keeping their cheque book zipped up until that happens. (Extension of time granted) If we therefore want progress in the forests, it is our job to put up legislation which the rest of the world says is secure and uncontestable.I interjected once in this House about lawyers: they cannot be that smart because every time they go to court one of them loses. All we had from the member for Denison today was an example of that. We do not want that. We do not want anything in this legislation that opens the opportunity for litigation and consequently creates a circumstance where people just simply say, `I don't need the trouble.' I have people kicking my door in looking for my billions every day. More particularly, we need expertise if we are going to get that level of investment in Tasmania that returns things to the way the member for Braddon believes they should be—a very substantial pulp and paper opportunity. Of course we are now noticing that having taken a decision in Tasmania to import paper pulp the price is going up, so the opportunities are improving.I think it is also reasonable to lay down in this place that the regional forest agreement process is not a dud and is not dishonest. More than anything, it is time politicians and green activists laid off the scientists, public servants and others who are involved in the process. Not long ago the officials representing Australia went before a tribunal in the Hague with scientific evidence and convinced them that the Japanese were taking too many southern bluefin tuna. We all cheered in this place—we were bipartisan. How did we win that case? We won it on scientific evidence. Yet people tell me, `You can come up with a resource base of the southern bluefin tuna in an international arena, but we have not got one scientist competent enough to count trees, to measure them, to take photographs of them or to see that certain trees are growing out of the ground.'If you heard some of the green activists' rhetoric, you would wonder why trees need seeds because the old ones never die and if you cut them down nothing grows in their place. We know that is not true. There are good scientists and decent people out there who go into our regrowth forests and our old-growth forests and set little traps out there—not to destroy the animals but to see how many are there. When they go into the old-growth forests, they catch them. When they go into the regrowth forests, they catch them. But if you listened to a well-known dress designer, who was quoted in the Woman's Weekly—and it is no credit to the journalist—you would believe that if you cut down trees all the animals would die. Well, they do not. She made a similar claim that the birds would stop cohabitating, but of course we can breed them in captivity, and of the animals that will not go into a regrowth forest we have photographs of them on golf courses!As people leading this nation, when are we going to stop listening to rubbish like that? And you wonder why the member for Fremantle can run the argument that 80 per cent of people do not like regional forest agreements. The suggestion is that in some states and in other places there has been a lack of transparency and there has been a lack of consultation. The fact is that that is just not true either. The process is set down in these books. It is followed religiously.8T4FERGUSONMr Laurie Ferguson—But that's what happened in Queensland—exactly that.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—A process was followed in Queensland until the state government decided to do something on its own, which did ignore what had happened. But I think it is reasonable to lay down what happens in the regional forest agreement process—which, for instance, did not happen prior to the last state election in New South Wales on the North-East Regional Forest Agreement—and that is the following. First, there is a public announcement that there is going to be a region al forest agreement assessment. (Extension of time granted) A map is published as to the region involved.Then starts a process primarily funded by money obtained from this House for scientific assessments. They are environmental assessments, they are social assessments and they are economic assessments. Why is that the case? Because that is what this book tells us to do. When one gets into the JANIS criterion which deals with the reserve area—section 5.4—we find that even the scientists who were expressly commissioned to deal with the reserve area tell us:It should be recognised that the extent of potential social and economic impacts may limit the ability to meet reserve criteria.They wrote back to us after they were commissioned and said, `It's not fair to save the forest if you can't save the people.'I want to comment on that. I hear all these wonderful schemes as to how you would make some three-fingered sawmill operator serve at tables. It is a silly concept. It is not one I accept and, furthermore, every time there is a new tourist job, I want some currently unemployed kid to get that job. I do not want a situation where we are shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic while there are better alternatives. So we go out and test those things, and we spend around Australia over $100 million—usually $10 million or $12 million per state. We hire the best people. They are not crooks, and they are not fools. In Western Australia, they published 46 scientific papers. I want to come back to that in regard to some of the comments of the member for Fremantle.We get those people to advise us. I do not get up some mornings as the Minister for Forestry and Conservation and think, `I know enough about forests. I'll make all the decisions. This is it. Give me a map. I'll draw some squares on it.' Vegetation mapping is done. Aerial photographs are taken and analysed. We have had forest industries around the world for thousands of years. There is a huge body of expertise. We have some of the more outstanding schools of academic forestry in the world. That work is done, and nothing is secret.As those reports are given to the government, they are published. They are not given to me. We have a task force. It is made up of representatives—officials of Environment Australia, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and AFFA. They are the decision makers. A lot of social inquiry is done through public meetings. People go out and ask, `What are your problems? Could you get another job?' We go to so many of these towns, and we try to materialise jobs. It never works. The one resource for many of those towns is native timber and if you do not let them use it nothing else comes up by way of a job.We get to the position where we have all of this advice, we publish it—it goes on the Internet—and then we have some very specific acts. We publish a comprehensive regional assessment. There are a couple about to go out in Victoria. This is a summary of all those facts and figures. When that has been in the public arena for a period of time—and everybody who genuinely wants to know can get one—we put out an options paper. It has maps in it; it has all these things. It says, `You can do this, that or something else.' It describes how it might or might not meet the JANIS criteria, it describes the social effect, et cetera.Typically—and there has been a little bit of pressure lately that has restricted this—we then allow six weeks for public submissions. One of the problems we had there in the early stages was that certain people thought that was some sort of popularity poll, and they loaded us up with 20,000 or 30,000 submissions, the greatest bulk of which were form letters—a waste of woodchips. And, by the way, since I have been making that point, there has been a drop off. It is an opportunity given to people to make substantive responses. (Extension of time granted) I recently had three people come to me who have a sincere interest in the Wombat Forest, which is in the electorate of Mr O'Keefe—forgive me, I can't think of the name. They had an area of concern that the state agency was not to be trusted in calculating the sustainable yield. They said, `But if you are to get Dr Turner from the ANU Department of Forestry to reassess that, we would accept it.' I said, `Done.' I do not even know how much it is costing us. Mr O'Keefe turned around and said to me, `That was a great thing you did, Wilson.'I have been jibed at all day because the then state Minister for Conservation and Land Management, Marie Tehan, told me to butt out of Victoria. I told her that I will not. I want it understood that, when I take responsibilities on, I take them on on both sides but that I have a bias towards the interests of the industry. I make no secret of it, because I think the people who work in the industry are the salt of the earth, and I think they have equal rights to a job, particularly when there is nothing else about.When we have eventually got those submissions, they are considered. And eventually someone has to sit down and make the final decision, which is called a RFA and I tabled seven of those today: Tasmania, Central Highlands, north-east Victoria, south-western Australia, Eden and East Gippsland. The interesting thing, for the information of the member for Paterson, is that all this policy was set down in 1992. The Labor Party lost government in 1996, and there was not one RFA finished. That is what we have achieved since then. That is in response to the sorts of silly arguments that we have had brought up here today.One of the arguments emanating from the opposition is that we should take it back and let them have another fight about it. When the options were put out in Western Australia there were three—A, B and C. A was the greenest and C the brownest. Everybody was saying, `We are bound to get C. Isn't it dreadful.' The actual agreement—which, by the way, was presented to the Commonwealth by the state government; it was their choice—was greener than any of those three. We signed it at their request, and I supported them. That was the situation. They have not walked away from the agreement—they are hanging on to that like grim death—but they are working within it to change their forest management practices, which is their right under the agreement, to take a lot of wood away. They started complaining. I think the member for Fremantle complained that they started to lose jobs, and that was nasty old big business.Bunnings had a workshop which, on the strength of that agreement, they decided to put to work to build all the drying kilns for their Pemberton mill. That was going to be a big experiment, because it was the first serious time anyone had tried to kiln dry kauri. That is what those workers were going to do. Overnight, Richard Court—you know, the only living heart donor—took away all that kauri. In four years time, that Pemberton mill closes down. It is a big mill; it closes down. So what did they need their workshops for? To fix a couple of trucks. They just wrote their business down by $30 million, so they closed it. And Court and his mates said, `This is dreadful,' and the member for Fremantle carries on in the same way.Let me tell you what the outcome of all these processes was with regard to Western Australia. The outcome was the best JANIS outcome of any agreement signed to that time, a decision taken not by CALM, which of course Brian Burke and the member for Fremantle created, as to what the sustainable yield of the remaining forest was but a decision made by Professor Ian Ferguson of the Melbourne School of Forestry. It was made by Dr Turner, whom I have just mentioned has been endorsed by another green group. (Extension of time granted) And it was endorsed by a nominee of the Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority. They set down what that quota should be, and it vastly exceeded the contracted entitlements of the sawmilling industry in Western Australia at this moment and until 2003.The sawmilling industry said, `If you are going to give us this agreement and you are going to give us guarantees for 20 years at those new levels, we will forgo voluntarily our unsustainable contracts.' The fourth and the best item was on the signing, and for some weeks after, nobody lost their job. That was partly because we brought $20 million of Commonwealth money to the arrangement, which was all to be addressed and directed to value adding of the nature I have just mentioned. Stop cutting hardwood into green sawn timber and recognise its value in the highest value markets in the world. The potential for our hardwood has soared, and processed timber is so high that it may be too expensive for Australians. That is the potential. We have got these people trying to kill it off. Why would you do that? So that is the system. It is transparent, right up to that last minute. Of course there is a point in time when the ministers have got to sit down and sign the final agreement. If we agreed to that arrangement, that would just be a springboard for another grab.The member for Paterson keeps saying in this place that there is a RFA on my desk. Of course there is not. A RFA is just that—an agreement between a state government and a federal government. It cannot be the unilateral decision of a state government. He might think that the one that New South Wales put together was a really good one in every respect, but it could have been lousy for the environment. His suggestion to me was, once they have made their mind up, I should tick off on it. Why do you think we used the export power for woodchips? To make sure we got satisfactory environmental outcomes. That was the intention of the Labor Party back in 1992. The member for Paterson gets up and says, `The state government have made up their mind, Tuckey, sign off on it.' But he also misleads further when he says that people are not able to get their woodchips sold on account of this. Boral, the major exporter, for that reason, has a letter from me guaranteeing the time lines for that RFA.Mr Laurie Ferguson interjecting—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Well, it is possible that they do not need their product; business is a bit quiet. But the reason is not the one that the member for Paterson announcedMr Laurie Ferguson interjecting—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—I would not be surprised. But they have a letter from me that says that they are all right, and the time lines will be met or else. And you know a bit about what `or else' means. So there is that opportunity. And `or else' is not a threat, as the member for Reid knows. That is why we had those export controls. It is just plain silly. I have touched on a few of the myths of the forest debate, but we have never had even the starting point of an RFA in New South Wales, other than in Eden. That was the only place where we had got to the point of having public consultation. Yet the member for Paterson says that it was lovely.Let us get a few things straight while I quickly respond to some of the other people. I have mentioned most of the issues related to the Western Australian RFA. Let me say that I have seen this business with the state Labor Party. It is even worse. They want to close down what is left and, of course, they too are going to have a miracle. Everybody is going to be bought out of their jobs. The state of Western Australia is currently running a deficit budget, so one does not know what hospital beds or police stations will be closed down to find that money. But they are going to make a very large and prosperous town that did not need their help into a mendicant situation.It was raised by the member for Reid and then by the member for Lyons, and very correctly so, that we have a $1.9 billion cash trade deficit. We borrow $1.9 billion from the rest of the world every year. (Extension of time granted) But we have the third highest per capita forest resources in the world and we are large exporters of wood in its primary form, its raw form. We will not get a change in that situation until we get secure and uncontestable legislation—and it is for that reason we are sticking to the points.But the member for Reid did get a little bit cute when he said that we would not have a database. I gave him a bit of paper saying that, if we could get a final agreement, we would have a database. There are so many databases, but if he had wanted that in the legislation and they were going to support it—Mr Laurie Ferguson interjecting—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—You were given the offer of having it and some other matters, but they were not enough for you. You are still of the view that the best thing to do is to close down the forests, give the people a bit of cash and tell them to go away and forget about it. Richardson did that in the rainforest in Queensland. I was up there the other day and the effects are still very obvious.The member for Fremantle just went on and on. I just want her to know one thing. She said that we have ignored scientific advice. Some doctors advertised that—100 of them—and I wrote to them and said, `Please send me the papers.' When a doctor is going to operate on me, I hope he has read the instructions. Let me just put it to you that, for doctors—including that doctor opposite, an academically trained woman—to make that claim, I would have thought they actually would have read the documents they were talking to. So I wrote and asked them for those papers. They could not provide them. They sent me a list that I had previously got from the Wilderness Society of 33 scientific references. I gave it to my department who replied, `31 of those 33 references are included in the 46 scientific papers, Mr Minister; the other two say nothing about Western Australia.'The member for Fremantle went on to suggest that I had incited violence—and I found her suggestion to be outrageous. I know what I said. I said that the people camping in the forest were as illegal as those people who camp on beaches and get their shacks knocked over by council bulldozers and I said that I thought it was time the local council asked them to move, under the law. Any action of any sawmillers or other people after that had nothing to do with my comments, and in fact happened some many days later. It is just silly to make that remark, but it is also outrageous coming from someone like her. I will not even talk about what she did.Let me just say this to the member for Braddon, the member for Lyons and the member for Rankin, whom I do have to respond to. He wants to know whether I would go ahead with what has happened in Queensland. I have the agreement here. I do not have time to read it all, but I will read 215 to you. It states:In the interests of either transferring additional areas into part A . . . the Queensland government has first right of refusal in terms of any mill seeking to sell their wood supply allocation or their business. It is an agreement signed by the managing director of the biggest pine milling operation in Queensland, and he is signing off a right of first refusal for every little sawmill in Queensland. And the member for Rankin wants me to go ahead with it. But we have asked some simple questions. They have said that they are going to have 10 million trees. Doesn't that sound good? That is 10,000 hectares. By the time the trees get to maturity, you would have only 2½ million left. The member for Lyons would know why that happens in proper silviculture. The reality is that we said, `Well, you've made all these statements. You've gone and bought television time. When are you going to plant the trees?' They do not know. But they only have 25 years to get them up, and the scientists in my department say that you will really only know how well you are travelling up there in five to 10 years of research.It is pretty interesting because they came down and asked for $18 million of Australian taxpayers' money—and I am a bit concerned about that because I do not want to be tied into Tuckey's folly. We said to them, `But hang on a minute, there are many more millions than that available through the tax system.' The private sector is planting practically 20,000 hectares—certainly in that region—per annum in my electorate and the same is happening in Victoria and South Australia. Why aren't they planting them in Queensland? It just might be that they are not sure they will grow in a competitive way. And they do not want pulp wood; Queensland wants sawlogs because they are going to close down the entire forest.I have to know a bit more than that. (Extension of time granted) I have to know that if Commonwealth money is expended—and it will not be expended on plantation—there will be a long-term future. The member for Blair wants to know where the native forest timber will come from for the next 25 years. The member for Lyons and the member for Braddon know that, if you cart it too far, it becomes uneconomic. Let me say of the plantations: when they are on stream, where are the sawmills going to be? Right alongside them. Not in Gympie, not in Maryborough. All these people say that they have got a job for the future. It is my job to ask those questions. I will not be satisfied with a document—and there is a photocopy of it, it has not even got a letterhead on it; it was just done for publicity purposes—and now they are running around in ever decreasing circles trying to prove up the science. As the member for Blair has said, they want to cut down every tree over 40 centimetres and call that sustainable management.It is pretty easy to answer the claims. I love the member for Fremantle's reference to it being a declining industry. The projections are that in the next 40 years timber sales for wood products will grow from 1.7 billion cubic metres per annum to 2.3 billion cubic metres per annum. The other day a wholesaler rang CSR and said, `Can you send me my usual order of wood?' They said, `Sorry, mate, we have just sold 100,000 cubic metres of pine to China.' Why is China buying wood? It is building three times as many houses a year as the entire Australian housing stock. And the member for Fremantle says it is a declining industry. She says that there are no jobs in it because they count how many people stand around a woodchipper. She believes the trees get up out of the forest and walk there. Just think how many people are involved in transporting a million tonnes of anything—it is a lot of people—not to mention the tyres and everything else that are required.So much was said, and I thought it was my responsibility to speak to a bit of it, but there is a very good reason the member for Braddon and the member for Lyons should not vote against our rejection of the Senate amendments. It is all in the words of Senator Brown. What did Senator Brown say? He said that he was so pleased to see those particular—8T4FERGUSONMr Laurie Ferguson—Since when is he the Bible ?SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—You know what he said.Mr Laurie Ferguson interjecting—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Do not worry about his vote. He told the truth for once. He said that your amendments will blow the RFAs out of the water. We went right around Australia boasting how successful he had been. Question put: That the amendments be disagreed to.19:13:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl)69Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr K. J. AndrewsMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr BroughMr CadmanMr CameronMr CausleyMr CharlesMr DownerMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Ms GambaroMrs GashMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HardgraveMr HawkerMr HockeyMrs HullMr JullMrs D. M. KellyJackie KellyMr LawlerMr LiebermanMr LindsayMr LloydMr McArthur*Mr I. E. MacfarlaneMrs MayMr MooreMrs MoylanMr NairnDr NelsonMr NevilleMr NugentMr PyneMr ReithMr RonaldsonMr RuddockMr St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperDr SouthcottDr StoneMrs SullivanMr C. P. ThompsonMr A. P. ThomsonMr TrussMr TuckeyMr M. A. J. VaileMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs Worth59Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr BevisMr BreretonMr CoxMr CreanMr EdwardsMs EllisDr EmersonMr M. J. EvansMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMs KernotMr KerrMr LathamDr LawrenceMr LeeMs LivermoreMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MossfieldMr MurphyMr O'ConnorMr O'KeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*Mr SciaccaMr Sercombe*Mr SidebottomMr SmithMr SnowdonMr SwanMr TannerDr TheophanousMr K. J. ThomsonMr WilkieMr WiltonMr BarresiMrs CrosioMrs GallusMs O'ByrneMr ProsserMs BurkeMr SomlyayMr McLeay* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.19:17:0011526Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I move:(1) Page 5 (after line 24), at the end of the Bill, add:9 Forest Products Advisory Council (1) A Forest Products Advisory Council is established by this section. (2) The Council consists of: (a) the Minister, as Chairperson; and (b) such other members as the Minister appoints in writing. (3) A majority of the members appointed by the Minister must be from the Forests and Wood Products Sector and its workforce. (4) The functions of the Council are: (a) to provide advice to the Minister on the development and implementation of the Action Agenda for the Forests and Wood Products Sector, incorporating the Wood and Paper Industry Strategy; and (b) any other functions that are determined in writing by the Minister. (5) A determination under subsection (4) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 . (6) Meetings of the Council are to be convened by the Minister. The Minister must convene at least 2 meetings in each calendar year and such additional meetings as are requested by a majority of the Council. (7) The Council may determine the procedure to be followed at its meetings. (8) The Council may establish working groups to assist in the performance of its functions. Working groups may include persons who are not members of the Council. (9) In this section: Forests and Wood Products Sector means the following industries: (a) forest industries; (b) wood products industries.This amendment proposes that the government's Forest Products Advisory Council, with membership drawn from the forest industries work force, be established under legislation to provide advice to the government on matters affecting the forest and wood products industries.I initially had some doubts about the need for such a council to be created under the legislation as I felt we could achieve for the industry without that particular activity. However, I decided after close consultation with the industry and the unions that such a legislative arrangement was desirable to ensure the industry had a formal mechanism to place its views accurately and directly with the government. The establishment of the council is also consistent with and complementary to the government's action agenda which will drive the next period of industry development.The formation of the council provides an opportunity for the forest and wood products industries to build on the cohesion among its different sectors. Over 80,000 Australians work in an industry which now will have a direct voice in Commonwealth decision making concerning their industry. Member ship of the council will predominantly comprise representatives from the forest and forest products industry, including its work force. However, I anticipate that membership will also include representatives of the state and Commonwealth agencies and independent people with expertise in sustainable management of forests. The establishment of this council and this amendment is supported by stakeholders, including the CFMEU, the National Association of Forest Industries and the Forest Protection Society.It is now time to make it abundantly clear that this government amendment is the only amendment the government will accept to this bill, the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 . As the shadow minister is well aware, he has been approached to give him an opportunity to suggest practical amendments which did not destroy the integrity and purpose of this legislation. It is clear he has been totally sidelined and that the real shadow minister for forestry is a staffer in the office of the Leader of the Opposition. What I am saying to the opposition is that this bill is now a package including the Forest Products Advisory Council measure. It contains this measure in a form approved by the CFMEU and NAFI and, I believe, the AWU. This is the only amendment so far considered that has such approval. If the opposition in the Senate is instrumental in forcing other amendments through, then the bill will not be accepted by the government and this vital amendment to create a Forest Products Advisory Council will also be lost. The Labor Party cannot therefore argue to its own constituency that it voted for this measure whilst proposing other unacceptable amendments as such amendments will mean no forest products advisory council. I commend the amendment to the House and I provide the supplementary explanatory memorandum.19:22:0011527Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—The amendment moved by the minister to the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 to establish a Forest Products Advisory Council was moved in the Senate by this side of the House as well, but it did not seem to have the support of the government at that time. There is certainly a need for it, which I want to go over. The minister outlined some of the RFA process quite well. In Tasmania, as well, the process was certainly long. It was thorough. Nobody could argue it was not the correct process or that it did not meet the guidelines. That is why the RFA in general terms has met with approval. That is why it has the support of the stakeholders—the industry, the trade unions, the state Labor government, the state Liberal Party and, hopefully, this parliament.I also want to reinforce a couple of things that were said in the debate in relation to forestry. The issue of constantly trying to deal with the rhetoric becomes rather tiresome. It is impossible to always agree, but let me say that there is no scientific indication that one species of animal has been lost because of forestry in Australia. Nothing has been proven in that regard; there is science to say otherwise.An industry council is urgently needed. We talked about this earlier in the day. The $1.9 billion of imports into Australia for forest and forest based industries is significant. We need to build the industry if we are going to give the jobs that we talk about in those small regional communities and if we are going to give our union members the work that they deserve. At the moment the industry is not going in the direction that it should. It seems to be getting its act together in the promotion of woods much better than it did in the past, and I commend it for that. We need to pull this industry together. We need to stop the bantering from one political side to the other and to endeavour to deal with this industry in a positive manner.19:25:0011528Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—One would have thought from the contribution of the Minister for Forestry and Conservation to the debate on the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 that there was some similarity between the amendment he has put forward today and the suggestions of the CFMEU in relation to a council. He well knows that that is not the case. The reality is that the council he put forward today—which he said he has done with some reluctance; that he originally opposed the idea; that he did not think it was a good idea—is totally inadequate. If we look at the features of it, we see that it must meet at least twice a year. That is the only commitment he says it has with regard to its meetings—twice a year.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—That's the minimum.8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—It is the minimum. As he well knows, it falls far short of the suggestions of the CFMEU and the amendments that the opposition put forward in the Senate. If we look at the membership of the council that he is putting forward today, once again, it asks for another blank cheque for a minister who has been sidelined. As we have seen with Premier Beattie's dealings recently with this government, if there is one person being sidelined, it is the minister opposite. Despite that reality in Australian politics, despite the reality of the very positive comments coming out of the Premier of Queensland after discussions with the Prime Minister, the minister is saying that we should give him a blank cheque on this as well. The amendment says:(2) The Council consists of: (a) the Minister, as Chairperson; and (b) such other members as the Minister appoints in writing.There are no specifics on where they might come from, who they are or the nature of the parts of the industry they represent.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Trust me.8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—A number of coalition governments around this country have found themselves to have made a mistake in trusting you previously.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Reid will address his remarks through the chair, and the Minister for Forestry and Conservation will be silent.8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—In contrast, the Labor Party's amendments obviously deal in a very real sense with the nature of this industry and making sure that a variety of forces are represented. It specifies that somebody be there from the hardwood sawmilling section, another from the softwood sawmilling sector, someone from the pulp and paper sector, someone from the timber furniture industry sector and another from the reconstituted wood products sector. It specifies that there be one from each state. It requires that the ACTU have at least two people on the board.We have heard complaints from some of those opposite about the big end of town in the industry—as represented, allegedly, by the Queensland Timber Board or by their nemesis Col Dorber in New South Wales; these dreadful people who do not agree with the minister opposite—and how sawmillers are being marginalised, ignored and pushed out of industry. Yet what we are seeing here today is a proposal that this minister should be given the total say about who is on the industry council. Frankly, there is a very urgent need for all sectors to be represented and for the representation to be specified, so that we do not have the kind of problem that the government is alleging occurs.Frankly, if we are to say that the minister should be trusted, we have to look at the track record of those opposite. The former Labor government consulted key stakeholders about the development of a wood and paper industry strategy. The strategy was publicly announced in December 1995 and included additional funding of $38 million in addition to the $107 million previously announced for structural adjustment. It was intended that the strategy be driven by a high-powered wood and paper industry council, chaired personally by the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources.However, what is the performance of the government in this area where they supposedly profess so much interest in our deficit, so much interest in the employees, so much interest in regard to their work practices? What is the record of the coalition in regard to this matter? They abolished the council and put in place a low key Wood and Paper Industry Forum. The minister, Mr Tuckey, has admitted that this body met on only two occasions during the last parliamentary term: in October 1997 and February 1998. This is fairly indicative of the government's complete lack of interest in the 1995 strategy, and its complete lack of interest in regard to having an effective council there to actually do something.It is all right to whine about our deficit, but this industry policy has to be driven by an effective council with proper representation that represents the entire industry and actually meets. He is saying today—and I suppose they are going to trust him—that he will put in a condition here that they meet at least twice a year. What is their track record? Their track record was to abolish an effective committee that was actually doing something in the industry and to make sure that this replacement, second-rate operation met only twice in a parliamentary term. (Time expired)Consideration interrupted.Adjournment1152910000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 7.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.1152919:30:0011529Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE83ACapricorniaALP00—The questions arising for members of the opposition this afternoon are: just how low can this government go and how low can the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs go? First, over the last couple of years, we have seen huge cuts of up to $800 million to universities in Australia, and now it is the students who are going to have to pay for those cuts with the sorts of figures of $100,000 per degree floating around in that cabinet submission this afternoon.A few weeks ago I spoke in the debate on the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill 1999 and in my speech I offered to paint a picture for the minister of the university in my electorate, to tell him about the kinds of students that go to that university. He obviously did not listen, because anyone who had listened to the outline of the demographics of Central Queensland University could not have prepared this submission as a serious advance in education in this country. Here are the figures: 70 per cent of the students at Central Queensland University are the first generation of their family to attend university. We have the highest number of indigenous students of any university in Australia and we have over 40 per cent of our students coming from a low socioeconomic background. They are the department's own figures that I am quoting there.We have the highest proportion of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds of any university, according to those figures. These are all the groups in our community that have traditionally been excluded by previous conservative governments from getting the opportunity of a tertiary education. If the minister thinks that students and families in my electorate can afford to pay $100,000 to go to university, he is seriously out of touch with reality. There is another example that I have come across this week showing exactly how far out of touch with reality this minister is. It is contained in his view of the New Apprenticeships scheme. The minister has been in parliament in the last couple of days answering questions and speaking in very glowing terms of how wonderful the system of New Apprenticeships Centres is going to be. I will just tell him a bit about the reality of what is happening in Central Queensland this week with one of my group training companies.I have had a number of calls, very angry calls, from the manager of the Capricornia Training Company this week. This company has a long experience with apprentices and trainees in Central Queensland. They actually have 302 apprentices and trainees on their books at the moment and have 24 staff. They have worked long and hard for a good reputation in our town for good service to employers and to trainees and apprentices. They missed out on a contract to continue their work as a New Apprenticeships Centre. They can live with that; that is business. But what they are really upset about is how the handling of this by DETYA is reflecting on their company, and the adverse effects that this could have on the apprentices and trainees that they have tried to serve very well in the past.The Capricornia Training Company, I am told, were not advised in writing by DETYA that they were not successful in their contract. They were advised that they could check out the successful contractors on the department's web site—and they found that very difficult to do. They were told by phone on Monday that they were not successful in getting a contract to be a New Apprenticeships Centre under the next round. They got a phone call from someone purporting to be from DETYA in Canberra to say, `You have missed out, and we would like to know now which company or organisation you are going to transfer your apprentices and trainees to: QCCI or Employment National?'Worse than that, the Capricornia Training Company started getting calls in from their employer clients to say that they had been getting phone calls from DETYA as well—and this, only a matter of a day after CTC had been informed that they were not going to be successful. So here you have a company now dealing with the effects of DETYA's incompetence. The word is around all over Rockhampton that CTC is closing its doors—which is clearly not the case.This incompetence by DETYA is seriously undermining the service that this company is trying to provide to its employers and to its apprentices and trainees and is really doing quite a lot of damage to their reputation as a business with a lot of experience in this area. The minister needs to spend less time writing extremely damaging and negative cabinet submissions and spend a bit more time looking at what he is actually doing for students, apprentices and trainees in this country—particularly in the regional areas of Australia where our hard-working small business organisations—(Time expired)1153019:36:0011530Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—This weekend will be the 50th anniversary of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Scheme, a scheme which is an engineering icon in Australia and is arguably one of the greatest engineering projects of the world. In celebrating this anniversary, all Australians should recognise not only the engineering feat which has provided clean, green electricity as well as irrigation to allow the establishment of an inland food bowl but also the place the scheme has in our multicultural history.In relation to the engineering feat, I am sure that other members of this House of a similar vintage to mine will recall the scheme being under construction when probably they were at school, where we learned a lot about it. I became more intimately related to the scheme, I suppose, when I was at university where my first lecturer in surveying, Henry Werner, was a surveyor who was brought from Europe to work on this scheme—along with so many other engineers, surveyors, geologists and all sorts of other people. He used to use the scheme and various problems encountered on that scheme as practical projects for us at university.There was some quite remarkable accomplishments during the construction of that scheme. Whole new technology areas were broken in that had not been addressed before, particularly in the area of my professional background, the surveying and photogrammetry area. The Snowy scheme was one of the first engineering projects in the world that actually used stereo photography for engineering design. It was something that had not been done before. Because of the nature of the terrain in the Snowy Mountains and the difficulty of access, they had to find new solutions to problems that had been solved in other traditional ways before—they could not use traditional methods, so they had to come up with new ways. This went right through the whole gamut of professions on the Snowy—all aspects of geology, engineering, the works. So many techniques were proven during that period that were then able to be used on other projects, not only in Australia but right throughout the world.In an engineering sense, they broke new ground in going into using contractors—something that was quite new at the time as well—and out of that we have seen the establishment of some major contractors who, to this day, still are significant players in the construction industry in Australia. Thiess, particularly, is an excellent example of that. Martin Albrecht, who is the current managing director of Thiess Contractors in Australia, was an engineer on that project. He has now gone on to take over the running of that very large and successful company.The multicultural aspect is something that should not be forgotten. Something like 100,000 people worked on that scheme between 1949 and 1974—and two-thirds of them were migrant workers. Workers from over 30 countries worked on the scheme right through the planning and construction. They came from Australia, Austria, Finland, Jordan, Russia, USA, Ireland Scotland, Wales, England, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Switzerland, Turkey, Estonia, France, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Romania and the Ukraine—and I think there were a few others as well.This weekend there will be a number of events—and the Prime Minister will attend a number of them: the Adaminaby races on the Saturday afternoon, a dinner underground at Tumut Power Station on the Saturday night and a reunion barbecue at Jindabyne on the Sunday. On Saturday morning I will also be attending a commemoration of the avenue of flags in Cooma, where all of the flags of the participating nations will be flown—and I really look forward to that. I congratulate everybody who has been involved in these celebrations. Many other things have been happening throughout the year. The Snowy scheme people have done an excellent job. In particular, I want to acknowledge Vin Good, who was the acting commissioner over the last few years until recently and is still there as the associate commissioner. He has been the driving force behind these celebrations, and I look forward to a great weekend with Vin and everybody else. (Time expired)1153119:41:0011531Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—This evening I want to talk about a university. I want to talk about the university I attended and graduated from. It is a regional university—Newcastle University—and it plays a very important role in the whole of the Hunter community. The reason it plays an important role is that it holds out hope to all of those people who want to break free of the traditional work patterns in the coalmines and in the steel industry and who know that the only way they will do that is by getting a university education. That is probably more so today than at any time in history—when knowledge and information are vitally important. I am old enough to remember the Whitlam era that made university education available to all.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—You don't look it.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—No, I know that, but at the time Whitlam came to power I had been teaching for about 12 years and I can distinctly remember the heartache of counselling parents who had to make the decision: `How can we send our children to university? If we have a bright daughter and a son that is probably not as good a student, which one do we send?' After all, in those days the girls were going to get married and they did not have a career. That was the sort of heartache that families went through in that era. As a result of this leaked document, that is the sort of thing I can see coming back into Australian society.IK6LLOYDMr Lloyd—Rubbish.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—It may be rubbish to people on that side, but I am sure you have never confronted the problems of the people in the Hunter—an area that, despite its enormous wealth and its great diversity and productivity, is suffering from unemployment at twice the rate of the national average.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—He doesn't exactly know where it is.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—No, that is exactly right. This is a government that sat on its hands and allowed the steel industry to close. This is a government that has a minister that takes great delight in telling Australia, `I am proud that we have done away with the referee and that there have been 2,000 coalminers out of work in the last two years.' These are the sorts of problems that are confronting the Hunter—and now they have another problem on top of that. They have a promise by a minister in the Howard government that university education is not going to be universally available; it is going to be available to those who can afford to pay. There are many people in the Hunter who will not be able to pay. I can guarantee that. You cannot afford to send your child to university when you do not have a job, when you are worried about losing your home, when you are trying to eke out an existence on the dole. It does not matter how bright your child is, you cannot afford to send him or her to university. That is the tragedy that has befallen Australia with the exposure of this document today.I look forward to seeing the papers tomorrow, just to see how the people of Australia when they wake up and read about this react to what this government—with family values—believes is good for the young people of Australia. When I look around the House, I realise there are more graduates of Newcastle University than just me. It is really a great university. But it is not only happening at the University at Newcastle, the pattern is repeated all over the country—8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Armidale.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—Armidale, the University of New England, the University of Western Sydney. These are the places that shine like beacons to all of those families. They know that the pace of change of Australian society is enormous. Yet Australian families are prepared to give, and give generously, as long as their kids have a chance. As of today, I believe they are on notice that that chance is going to be denied them. That will be a tragedy. It is something that is going to divide Australia into classes. Those who can afford it will be able to go to the sandstone universities, as the shadow minister said today, and the others will be condemned to whatever life holds for them, without an education. They may have the ability, but this government will deny them the opportunity to live out their opportunities to the best of their ability.1153219:46:0011532Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—Like many members of the House, I have received a number of letters regarding the Jubilee 2000 program and requests from constituents that the government do more to help those poor countries that are heavily in debt. For this reason, I was delighted when, the week before last, the Treasurer announced at the World Bank meeting Australia's commitment to increasing its allocation of funds to help those heavily indebted poor countries. That is an increase of $35 million, bringing Australia's total commitment up to $65 million. This is part of a package whereby the wealthier countries are now committing $27 billion in total. Add that to a number of other programs of $20 billion worth of debt relief and IMF and World Bank relief and that brings a total package of about $100 billion to reduce the debt profile of those heavily indebted poor countries. The problem that these countries face cannot be underestimated and a couple of figures may illustrate this. The foreign debt of the 41 poorest countries in the world has, over the last 20 years, grown from $60 billion to $200 billion. Thirty-five of the poorest countries in the world have a foreign debt over 100 per cent of their GDP. Eighteen of the poorest countries in the world have debt servicing to export ratios of over 30 per cent. Many of them are borrowing just to pay the accumulated interest and to service their debt and are not making any impact at all on the capital amount outstanding.The point is that these heavily indebted countries do not just face a static debt problem; they face a self-perpetuating debt problem, that the further they go on the further into debt they get. The fact that they have high debt to begin with means that they face high interest payments, high debt servicing costs. Those high debt servicing costs then feed further into their current account deficit exacerbating their foreign debt problems. So it is not a one-off problem that can be addressed. It is a self-perpetuating cycle of debt: higher payments, higher current account deficit and further debt.There are many other angles on this self-perpetuation of their problems. The fact that they have high and increasing current account deficits means they face currency depreciations. The currency depreciation then further aggravates the problem. The currency depreciation means that the valuation in foreign dollars of their debt rises, their ability to pay that debt in domestic currency diminishes further and they face ever increasing interest payments because of their growing current account and debt problems. So they are locked into a self-perpetuating cycle, out of which it is almost impossible for many of them to escape. This is just one of the cycles of despair, if you like, that these countries face.The fact that they have high debt and high servicing costs and a weak currency makes it hard for them to attract foreign investment because of the instability and the weakness of their currency. If they cannot attract foreign investment, they cannot get the capital they need and their productivity remains low. If their productivity is low, it is hard for them to generate the extra income that they need in order to grow and in order to service the debt. It is typical of the sorts of problems these countries have. They have low levels of GDP and income. There is no surplus income; therefore their levels of domestic savings are low. If their levels of domestic savings are low, they cannot finance capital investment. If they have low levels of capital investment, productivity levels stay low. If productivity is low, the low income cycle starts all over again.The cycle of debt that these heavily indebted poor countries find themselves in is one from which it is almost impossible to escape. For this reason, I am delighted that Australia has increased its commitment and that many countries in the world have made a large commitment to help reduce the debt problem that these countries face. Australia, in conjunction with other governments, with NGOs and with the United Nations, is doing a lot to help these problems already, particularly in the poorest areas of Papua New Guinea, South Africa, South-East Asia, South Asia and Africa. Together, we are providing emergency relief programs, food aid, health and clean water supplies, education, rural development and infrastructure. I would like to see us doing more, but we are increasing our commitment to these countries and I am delighted that that is happening.Another point that needs to be made is that aid is not a substitute for having sound social and economic policies. These countries need to develop sound social and economic policies themselves. Aid is also not a substitute for removing corruption and inefficient government. It is not a substitute for responsible government on the part of these countries. Further, there is a capacity, through the tax deductibility that our government gives to private donations, for individuals to contribute to aid through many NGOs and through aid work overseas. The Australian government subsidises through tax deductibility the donations that Australian citizens give to many valuable overseas aid programs. (Time expired)1153419:51:0011534Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—I have said many times that I come from a most beautiful place in Australia but, unfortunately, we also have serious economic and social problems. We have one of the highest unemployment rates in Australia, and more than half of the population is receiving Commonwealth benefits of some kind or another. Also, unfortunately, we have some of the lowest retention rates for years 11 and 12 and for higher education in Australia.It was therefore with some trepidation that, given these circumstances, I heard today the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, in his demand driven systems option, talk about a universal tuition subsidy which follows a student to accredited higher education courses; student fees for tuition being set by the providers, which was his preferred model; a universal loan scheme to help students pay tuition costs with a real rate of interest repayable through the tax system on an income contingent basis; institutions rather than the government setting the price for a course of study; the current HECS system being abolished; and the income contingent government loans, again with real rate of interest repayable through the tax system, being available to finance the cost of tuition of any accredited higher education institution. That makes me wonder: if it is bad enough now in my electorate, I cannot see how it could get better. It could only get worse.For instance, since 1996, the Commonwealth higher education budget has cut operating grants to the University of Tasmania and reduced the number of Commonwealth funded places. Indeed, at the end of this year, the university would have reduced its operating budget in the order of $10 million and have shed 408 student places. But expansion, not contraction, is needed in the university to confer economic benefits on the state. How are we going to have expansion in university places rather than contraction when we introduce universal tuition subsidies, when we deregulate the system and when we introduce vouchers and, again, this universal loan scheme with real interest rates?I mentioned before that the retention rates in my state are some of the lowest in Australia. Indeed, on the north-west coast, for instance, the higher education participation rate is 55 per cent below the national average. So we would expect a government to target its initiatives to areas of need. But what do we have? There was a precursor to what we heard today in this demand driven system and the option that the minister prefers. The precursor was the abolition of the merit based scholarship scheme. People in my electorate directly benefited from it. In fact, 11 of the 21 offered in 1999 went to north-west coast students. Since 1996, 30 of the 68 scholarships offered by the University of Tasmania went to west-north-west students. But what happened to that? It was abolished, and we were told that that was in consultation with university campus counsellors. But in actual fact, when we reviewed that, none of them had had any consultation on this at all. No, this was a precursor of what was to come.The minister's document, which the members over there have not received yet—and it will make interesting reading, particularly in the regional and rural areas, let me assure you—talked about one of the benefits. It states:The requirement to preserve a specified proportion of premium fee income for equity initiatives should be a political plus. Such initiatives funded by institutions rather than the government might include part or full scholarships to cover fees.If you do not have enough dough in your economy already, how are you going to get people to give benefits and donations to a scholarship scheme for people who will not go to university anyway because it is too expensive now and it is going to be too expensive later? Regions like my own will be left to drift, as they have in the past. The University of Tasmania, try the best it can for the campus of the Burnie district, will be left to wonder what has happened.1153519:56:0011535Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I wish to raise the subject of suicide and youth suicide this evening. In my maiden speech in 1996, I mentioned the issue of youth suicide and the tragedy involved, particularly on the Central Coast of New South Wales. It was an issue that was affecting us greatly in our area.It was also an issue that came to the notice of our local coroner, Bryan Wilson, and he realised that official figures and statistics were not being kept throughout New South Wales and Australia. We on the Central Coast organised the first community initiated summit to look at how things could be organised in a way that could help reduce the impact of youth suicide. I am pleased to say that, some three years down the track, we believe that, through the Central Coast Suicide Safety Network, we have been able to make a significant impact on the number of youth suicides on the Central Coast of New South Wales.The youth suicide rate on the Central Coast has been dropping annually, and we believe that that is at least in part due to the injection of state and federal government funds of some $3 million allowing for the set up of that Suicide Safety Network. In fact, when I say only five young people suicided on the Central Coast, which is some two-thirds reduction on the numbers, it is still five too many, but it is a very significant drop compared with the figures of last year. So I believe that the suicide safety model is one that should be looked at throughout the rest of Australia.There is another problem with suicide that really does not receive a great deal of attention—that is, the suicide rate of males aged between 25 and 44. That seems to be ever increasing. It is a tragedy not only for the families involved but for Australia because it is a time when men seem to be involved in their workplace and with raising their families and dealing with the pressures of families. Often it is as a result of disputes that end up in the Family Court or custody battles. It is taking an immense toll that seems to be reflecting particularly in male suicide.Great work has been done by Chaplain Eric Trezise, who has been at the forefront of the Suicide Safety Network. Eric has been working hard to raise the profile of this issue because he realises that it is not getting the public profile that the youth suicide has been getting over the years. In fact, Eric Trezise is addressing the National Coroners Conference tomorrow in Canberra and will be delivering a speech on this subject. He has prepared a submission, which he will be forwarding to the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Michael Wooldridge. We have spoken with Michael Wooldridge on this subject.But, importantly, we would like to see further community consultation. That is one of the initiatives that Eric is proposing, and hopefully a national congress on adult male suicide may be able to be held in the year 2000. To be able to do something like that takes the involvement of the state governments. It is very important that the state governments become involved.House adjourned at 8.00 p.m.Notices11535The following notices were given:Mrs Bronwyn Bishop to present a bill for an act to amend the Australia New Zealand Food Authority Act 1991, and for related purposes.Mr Entsch to move—That the following orders of the day, government business, be discharged:Tradex Scheme Bill 1999: Second reading—Resumption of debate;Tradex Duty Imposition Bill 1999: Second reading—Resumption of debate; andCustoms Tariff Amendment (Tradex) Bill 1999: Second reading—Resumption of debate.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: Proposed ABC Sydney accommodation project, Ultimo, NSW.1999-10-1310000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—took the chair at 9.48 a.m.Statements by Members115361153611536Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTONYK6IsaacsALP00—I would like to draw the attention of the House to the plight of Mr Nasrullah Wahidi, an Afghani who was denied a protection visa in a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal, No. V99/10339, on 28 September this year. Mr Wahidi worked as a dentist in Afghanistan. He had a female patient who consulted him on three occasions. On the first two occasions she was accompanied by a child. On the third visit the applicant had to uncover her face—that is, lift her veil—to fit a denture he had made for her. The applicant left the room to make some adjustments to the denture, and when he returned the Taliban were there. The applicant was accused of being an adulterer. He was told that the woman had been followed and that they were aware this was the third time she had come to see him. He later learnt that the Taliban had a checkpoint outside his surgery.The applicant is not in any way linked to any particular political group. He has rightly claimed that the Taliban are against socially well-known families that are well educated and that the Taliban wished to discredit them amongst the community. For this reason, they created a false impression against the applicant. The Taliban are of the view that scholars are only those people who study religion, and they do not recognise other professions or fields of study.The applicant explained that he had a female patient who wanted a front denture. On the first visit, she came to be measured; on the second visit, he fixed the denture with wax; and on the third visit, he was to ensure that it fitted properly. The applicant's clinic had four sections, and on the third visit he had gone to another section to fit the denture. He returned from that section to the theatre only to be beaten with a gun by the Taliban who were in the surgery. The applicant was taken to an office at the police station and kept there for 16 days. He was beaten and tortured, and they tried to force him to make a statement that he had raped the woman. They said that she visited him on three occasions and they were suspicious.The applicant was asked whether the allegation was one of rape or adultery. He responded that the allegation was a sort of adultery and because of the relationship the consequence was rape. The applicant believes that he was accused of this crime because of the general intention to discredit educated people. When the applicant was in detention he was taken to the mosque five times a day to pray. Due to his habit of smoking cigarettes, he befriended a guard who asked him about his crime and he swore that he was innocent. The guard informed him that, when the Mullah returned from the front line, he would be stoned. The guard agreed to help him escape.The upshot of this is that the applicant has asked the tribunal to consider his application on humanitarian grounds. Although the applicant is at risk of harm if he returns to Afghanistan, the tribunal is limited to determining whether the applicant satisfies the criteria for the grant of a protection visa. Consideration of this rests with the minister. I urge the minister to grant a protection visa. (Time expired)1153711537Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—It is my pleasure to inform the House of the success of a major Aboriginal sporting event in my electorate recently. This year's New South Wales Aboriginal Rugby League Association knockout was held over the October long weekend in Dubbo. The three-day carnival attracted 64 football teams from throughout the state, the largest entry figure for 29 years of the competition. With the players came at least 20,000 family members, friends and supporters, according to organisers and police.The on-field action was spectacular, but the additional preparations and features of this huge undertaking also deserve mention. One of the most positive innovations was mandatory comprehensive health checks for the players. This served to gauge the players' fitness to take the field and also acted as a one-stop scan for other prevalent illnesses such as diabetes. Furthermore, sample bags for children contained educational material, while information was also readily available on a range of health and housing issues pertinent to Aboriginal communities.Anxiety about the influx of 20,000 visitors along with the thousands of other long weekend tourists was allayed by the inclusion of several indigenous police and security officers, along with other measures. For example, the alcohol-free venue provided a relaxed family atmosphere for the visitors and non-indigenous Dubbo people alike and played host to between 15,000 and 20,000 spectators on Saturday alone.Senior Dubbo police were so impressed by the organisation of the event and the behaviour of those attending that they made special mention of both in the Dubbo media in the days following. Organisers staged evening celebrations in the RAAF hangar leased especially for the occasion, which also eased the pressure on city nightspots. A number of hoteliers also expressed their appreciation for the manner in which the numbers had been handled.A ban on sales of bottled alcohol throughout the city over the weekend was praised by hoteliers. But organisers also credit regulations to maintain order, which include the penalty for unruly fans being possible expulsion of their particular team from the event. Apparently the success of the rule in almost completely eliminating antisocial behaviour over the weekend also lay in the desire of teams not to forfeit their registration fee by not getting a shot at the considerable prize money.The event was a tremendous success, bringing an estimated $6 million in income to Dubbo's economy due to the skill and professionalism of the organising committee and the commitment of fans to a blemish-free weekend. The bulk of the organisational workload was taken on by sisters from one of Dubbo's most renowned sporting families, the Peachys. Irene, Eunice and Cathy Peachy won personal praise from zone police inspector Ron Bender and Dubbo City Council officials for their efforts. With a blend of security and sensitivity they stage-managed the biggest sporting carnival in Dubbo for a decade, hosted thousands of visitors and showcased the city in the best possible light. They helped inject millions of dollars into the local economy but, more importantly, provided Aboriginal people with an opportunity to shrug off stereotypes and confound any detractors. To the credit of the people who came from near and far to do just that in my electorate, I congratulate you.1153711537Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—One of the most rewarding things about my work as a parliamentarian is the opportunity it provides for meeting and working with the younger members of my community. I am constantly amazed and delighted by the achievements of our youth. They live in a society that is far less secure than the one in which I grew up. I did not have to worry about whether I would get a job—just which one. I grew up secure in the knowledge that my family was likely to stay together, my dad would have a job until retirement and everyone in the street knew each other. I had an extended family that maintained the old traditions and rituals that made me feel safe.My friends and I enjoyed a life relatively free of violence, real or virtual. Of course we had our fears. Our parents experienced war on a worldwide magnitude, we knew what the atomic bomb was capable of and later we lived through the tragedies of Korea and Vietnam. But all that seemed remote; all was so safe at home. Violent crime, drug abuse and poverty existed, of course, but to a far lesser extent than that to which our youth are exposed today.Our young people care. They care about their future, their families and their community, both local and global. They have a strong sense of loyalty and abhor injustice and corruption, especially when it is linked with the very people and organisations we have taught them to respect. We have a strange tendency to sell our young people short. Our media focuses on the handful of unfortunate, misguided individuals who display antisocial or criminal behaviour. These are very much in the minority. I am tired of hearing and reading sensationalist, negative commentary about our young people when the vast majority are hardworking, resourceful, creative and honest.We would do well to remind ourselves of the lessons we have taught and the standards we have set. We ought to look at the state of the environment that we are handing to our youth. We should take a good, hard look at the effect of the media, the entertainment industry and the type of material that is so accessible throughout the Internet. Our young people did not create this stuff; our generation did. Is it any wonder that some of our youth are confused? They are being exploited and criticised at the same time. What are we teaching our kids; what example are we setting?I am fortunate to have the pleasure of meeting hundreds of young people each year as I travel in my electorate. I never cease to be impressed by their dedicated efforts to improve their world. They are working for the health of our natural environment, for their schools, for their sporting clubs and for their families and friends. Let us acknowledge the outstanding efforts of our youth, look at ways in which we can improve the example we are setting them and, at the same time, do everything in our power to support them, listen to them and acknowledge their efforts.1153811538Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—I recollect that the Minister for Sport and Tourism mentioned yesterday that we could expect four million overseas visitors to Australia this year for the fourth year in a row. I want to reflect on the customer service experience that those four million visitors might receive when they come to this country. Probably it is true to say that the taxi drivers and waiters of Sydney have a bigger impact on Australia's relationship with other nations than the entire diplomatic corp combined.The reality is that those four million visitors will largely form their view of Australia on the basis of their customer service experience. There have been many leaders in the field of trying to lift the standard of customer service in Australia—for example, my parliamentary colleague the member for Cook who, as head of the Tourism Council of Australia, was a passionate advocate of customer service. There is no doubt that great strides forward have been made in the tourism and hospitality sector.BV5ADAMSMr Adams—Aussie host.3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON—The Aussie host program is another example. It has run a series of seminars and training programs accrediting the hospitality sector in customer focus.I want to turn today to one young Australian who has a passion for customer service. His name is Brett Whitford. He is the Executive Director of the Customer Service Institute of Australia. He is working with a single-minded focus and determination to lift levels of excellence in customer service around the country. Brett benefits from the legendry corporate leader and motivator Brad Cooper, who has chairmanship of the institute. They are putting the spotlight on this issue for all of us.One of the endearing qualities of the Australian character is an egalitarian spirit that says that Jack is as good as his master. We benefit from avoiding the strictures of a rigid class system which has bedevilled some of our European counterparts. The downside, or the risk, of this charming egalitarian spirit is that we never fully appreciate the joy of service. We sometimes confuse professional service with civility or subservience. The Customer Service Institute is working through the development of standards and accreditation and running quality audits to lift the consciousness of customer service.Most members would agree that when you have an outstanding customer service experience you never forget it. The Jews had wisdom when they said, `Remember the widow, the orphan and the sojourner in your midst'—the traveller among you. I especially want to acknowledge the efforts of Ramzi Chahine, who is the concierge at the Parkroyal, Parramatta. Ramzi Chahine is a legend in customer service. He exceeds my expectations every day I park my car in that building. I hope other Australian service providers will follow his example. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—There being no other speakers, members' statements have concluded.Bills11539r91411539Debate resumed from 1 September, on motion by Mr Truss:That the bill now be read a second time.10:00:0011539O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 is a bill which strengthens the forfeiture and enforcement powers under the Fisheries Management Act and also provides for the implementation of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement of 1995. The opposition supports amendments to the bill as being necessary to adequately deal with the increasing problem of illegal fishing in Australia's fishing zone and to give effect to the intentions of the previous Labor government in relation to the implementation of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement.As noted in the second reading speech of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on the introduction of the legislation to the House, the objective of this piece of legislation is to strengthen measures to ensure the sustainable management of fisheries in our coastal waters. An important part of that management is to strengthen measures to ensure domestic and international compliance with existing fishery management regimes. We acknowledge on this side of the House the growing problem of illegal fishing within Australia's fishing zone and also unregulated fishing on the high seas, which is leading to the depletion of migratory fish stocks important to Australia's fishing industry.The first schedule of this bill, relating to the forfeiture and enforcement powers to combat illegal fishing, includes the following measures: an automatic catch, gear and boat forfeiture scheme to deter illegal foreign fishing in the Australian fishing zone, and incorporating into Australian law actions possible under international law to provide a more effective enforcement action against illegal foreign fishers, including actions against mother ships operating outside the Australian fishing zone and supporting illegal fishing within the zone. It also provides for the doubling of penalties for various fishing offences. It makes explicit provision for the automatic forfeiture regime for foreign fishers to prevail over the Admiralty Act. This ensures that Australian investigations and judicial actions are not frustrated by foreign third parties.When one examines the growth of Australia's fishing industry, it can be appreciated why these measures are becoming increasingly necessary. Recent surveys of fish consumption in Australia indicate an increase of some 13 per cent since 1991. Australian exports have risen over the past decade from about $783 million to just under $1.5 billion. The reality of that export performance is simply that it is based on highly prized and highly priced shellfish and other fish sold at a premium into lucrative Asian markets in Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan and China. Tuna, along with abalone, crabs, prawns, scallops and rock lobsters are all in increasing demand, especially in these Asian markets.There is an important feature of Australian fisheries that must be appreciated in this context, especially by those countries which may recklessly overfish straddling stocks on the high seas or fish illegally in Australia's waters. Australia has an enormous diversity in its fishing resource under its legal management and control. However, they are not what you would call volume fisheries compared to other parts of the globe. The products that come out of them are high value and go to lucrative markets, especially in Asia. These are important and growing markets for Australia. If they are to maintain past growth patterns and export performance, then our fisheries must be carefully managed along sustainability principles.Because of the nature of these fisheries there is a real danger that they can be overfished, and illegal fishing only exacerbates that problem. The Bureau of Rural Science recently found that four species in our fishing zone were in danger of being overfished: tiger prawns in the Northern Prawn Fishery, school shark in the Southern Shark Fishery, eastern gemfish in the South-Eastern Fishery and southern bluefin tuna, which is fished off the south-east coast of Australia. That report was referred to and contained in an article in the Weekend Financial Review of 9-10 October. The article highlighted the problems we face with these very valuable fishing resources, which are not extensive and which can be overfished, especially by illegal fishers in our waters.Schedule 2 of the bill relates to the implementation of provisions to ratify the UN Fish Stocks Agreement of 1995. Australia signed this agreement in 1995, and it is expected to come into force in the year 2000. I understand that around 30 countries have signed the agreement. Its objective is to provide rights, obligations and management principles for the long-term conservation and sustainable use of straddling stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. Some of our most lucrative fisheries fall into this category. The objects of the agreement are to gain greater cooperation in the management of these straddling stocks and to enforce sustainability principles by getting greater cooperation through regional fisheries management organisations.To ratify this agreement Australian law must reflect the obligations contained in the agreement. The process will consist of a regulation impact statement in which the effect on businesses and regional communities and groups will be assessed, followed by a national interest analysis. Of course, any legislation that ratifies an external treaty goes to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties for further examination and consideration.The amendments contained in the second schedule to the bill will provide for additional functions and objectives for the Australian Fisheries Management Authority to participate in devising and implementing international and regional conservation and management measures to regulate fishing on the high seas in particular, and requiring the observation of internationally agreed measures in the management of the fisheries. They also provide for the inclusion of stock specific reference points which implement the precautionary approach in fisheries management plans relevant to those highly migratory straddling stocks. They require Australian fishing vessels operating outside the fishing zone to meet several conditions including vessel position reporting, marking and the facilitation of boarding in accordance with the conditions consistent with regionally agreed conservation and management measures. They also create a set of powers to enable fisheries officers to inspect and board foreign vessels on the high seas to check compliance with regionally agreed conservation and management measures. They provide for new offences for foreign vessels, which may be prosecuted following authorisation by a vessel's flag country implemented through the consent of the Australian Attorney-General.Some people might have reservations about the strengthening of the provisions contained in this legislation and the fact that they are being brought into line with border control measures and other legislation that will be brought before the House. We have examined these provisions quite carefully and have weighed up the increased powers that are provided under this act with the necessity to ensure that Australian fisheries are properly managed in a sustainable way. We on this side of the House are satisfied that the provisions contained in this legislation are not excessive.However, I offer this note of caution, that officers who are charged with the responsibility of enforcing this legislation ought to be adequately trained for the task. We note that at a time when budgets are constrained at the federal level, as a deliberate objective of government policy, there is a danger that, within the authorities that are entrusted with the task of managing these fisheries, the task I have outlined can often fall by the wayside, or be incompletely fulfilled. So there is a note of caution from this side of the House to the government to consider carefully the training regimes for personnel who are going to be entrusted with the onerous responsibility of enforcing the provisions of this particular piece of legislation and, of course, other pieces of legislation that come before the House in dealing with substantial enforcement powers.It is getting dangerous on the high seas. We have illegal fishing vessels that are very fast, and we have illegal fishers who are very organised. There are quite explicit powers given under this legislation for Australia to pursue its interests outside the Australian fishing zone on the high seas. We must be very careful where this occurs that the personnel to whom we entrust this immediate task, the identification of the foreign fishing vessels either within our zone or fishing straddling stocks in an unregulated way on the high seas—an enforcement of this act—are properly trained. We must ensure not only a quick response but also an effective response from skilled officers who are aware of the powers that are granted to them under this particular piece of legislation and who wield those powers in a responsible way in Australia's national interest.The fishing industry is very important to the economic future of many coastal and regional communities throughout Australia. I was recently in Tasmania at the invitation of the honourable member for Lyons, Mr Adams, who is a great proponent of Tasmania's fishing industry. We had cause to visit a new facility in his electorate where seahorses are grown and produced. It was a very interesting tour that we undertook of that facility. The facility required very high capital investment, but it had enormous potential to service the lucrative markets that are in Asia for the products that come from this particular resource, especially the Asian medicines. I congratulate the people who are involved in this particular project. It is one that has enormous regional potential and it has important export potential for Australia.The member for Lyons is a great supporter of the fishing industry in Tasmania and, indeed, Australia. Anybody who has had cause over the past few years to attend the many functions that he organises for the Tasmanian salmon industry can appreciate the depth of his interest and his commitment to the entrepreneurs and the workers who form the backbone of this very important regional industry for the state of Tasmania and for Australia. It gives me great pleasure to acknowledge on the floor of the House the contribution that the honourable member for Lyons makes to this industry in Tasmania and Australia. I understand he will be following me in this debate. It is probably just as well that he was not in the chamber to hear the accolades that I have just poured upon him. But, seeing that he has just returned, let me say that the support that the honourable member for Lyons gives to the Tasmanian fishing industry is appreciated by the entrepreneurs and the workers in that industry in that state.We do not intend to oppose this piece of legislation. It is in line with many of the measures that Labor in power over the past 13 years has pursued. We do understand that there is a new dimension now to the illegal fishing issue. There is a greater urgency for Australia to manage in a sustainable way in the future the rather precious and valuable fish stocks in our waters and those straddling stocks that come into the Australian fishing zone. So the opposition will be supporting this piece of legislation before the House.10:16:0011542Washer, Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—I rise to support the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 as there are many people in my electorate who make their livelihood from the vast oceans off Western Australia. This bill introduces new measures to combat illegal fishing within the Australian fishing zone, as well as to develop new strategies to guarantee our vast fishing industry can be maintained without fear of overfishing and endangering marine stocks.It is well documented that Australia is recognised as a pacesetter in world fisheries management. Since 1996, the coalition government has acted unfalteringly to protect our fishery resources by working with the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, the fishing industry and the community. The coasts and clean seas initiative committed $125 million under the Natural Heritage Trust and the $10 million Fisheries Action Program has helped to rehabilitate coastal and marine environments and restore fishery habitats.In our first term, 260 foreign vessels were caught operating illegally in Australian waters, and Japanese fishing vessels have been banned from Australian ports in response to Japan's disregard of the quota set for the fishing of southern bluefin tuna, a fish that is in serious danger of extinction. Last year we established Australia's first whale policy to ensure the permanent protection of the world's whales. This recognised that, despite a general change in attitude by most countries that whaling was both environmentally and morally abhorrent, nations such as Japan and Norway are still pushing for the return of commercial whaling. Australia's policy on the protection of whales was a welcome stand.In a recent article in the Australian by Sue Arnold, Coordinator of Australians for Animals, it was said that:In a world in which governments are seen as environmental wimps, it's not surprising that Australia's stand has attracted the attention of environmental groups and the public. Neither is it an exaggeration to say the global village looks to Australia to take the lead.The management of the principal fishing industry in my electorate of Moore is also impressive by global standards.Not only is the western rock lobster, known to most of us as the crayfish, the most valuable single species fishery in Australia, but also the industry is acknowledged as one of the best managed fisheries in the world, with the longest running management plan of any fishery in Australia. The western rock lobster represents about 20 per cent of the total value of Australia's fisheries and is exported mainly to South-East Asia, the United States, Europe and Japan.The industry generates around $300 million towards Western Australia's economy each year. You have got to hear about the western rock lobster. The season runs from November to June, and the season that finished this June was a bumper, with a region off the coast of Moore increasing its catch by 41 per cent. Such is the control of the management plan for the species that this increase was actually predicted three to four years ago through the monitoring of one-year-old rock lobster samples, which were counted along the coast.The crayfish industry was first regulated in the 1960s, when licence and pot numbers were frozen as far back as 1963. A sustainable catch is estimated to be around 10,000 to 11,000 tonnes of crays each year, although the last season saw around 13,000 tonnes caught due to the increase in stock that I mentioned earlier. The rock lobster industry is big business. A 100-pot licence, along with the boat and associated equipment, is valued at around $3 million. Furthermore, around 10 per cent of pots were removed from the industry in the early 1990s, which served to add value to the remaining pots.Another strictly controlled industry is that of the abalone, with commercial fishing quotas set at around 300 tonnes per season. Specialised investigations have recently made inroads into the illegal trade of abalone, with those caught facing huge fines. A recent case in Perth saw three people convicted of attempting to sell 329 abalone to restaurants in Northbridge for $20 a kilo. They were collectively fined $90,000 and had their fishing equipment confiscated. This fine follows a record $179,000 fine issued in May of this year for purchasing abalone which had been caught illegally. The tight control of the recreational abalone fishing industry is evident in the length of the recreational abalone season in Perth. The season runs for the grand total of 7½ hours once a year in order to protect limited stocks.The restrictions and monitoring of the two industries I have just mentioned have proved to be a successful way to ensure that these industries remain sustainable while generating valuable export dollars and jobs for Western Australians. The control of the western rock lobster industry, in particular, should be used as a benchmark for other industries and other nations when formulating sustainable industries from the fragile environment around us.Schedule 1 of the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 will help to increase the deterrence of illegal fishing in Australian waters by foreign vessels, mainly through the automatic forfeiture of the vessel itself. Many of these illegal operations are highly organised and use extremely modern and costly equipment. If we can make the penalty—in this instance, confiscation of that expensive equipment—too costly to risk the venture, it will reduce the number of foreign vessels willing to take the risk. Furthermore, the doubling of penalties for illegal fishing recognises the huge sums of money that can be made from fishing in Australian waters and that the penalties have to act as a sufficient deterrent.The bill also deals with the problems experienced after the apprehension of Aliza Glacial in 1997 by the Australian Defence Force near Heard Island in the Australian fishing zone. The Panamanian registered vessel was confiscated by Australian authorities, but had to be released under the Admiralty Act to have it sold by a third party because the owners had defaulted on their mortgage of the vessel. The Australian Fisheries Management Authority reported at the time in a media release:The release of the vessel follows twelve months of extensive legal action to have the Commonwealth's interest in the vessel recognised. However, as the master and the fishing master charged with illegal fishing offences had left Australia and had not returned to face Court hearings, the prosecution was unable to proceed. Although the vessel has not been forfeited to the Commonwealth, the owners at the time the vessel was apprehended have lost their vessel and the action sends a strong message to foreign vessels who may contemplate fishing illegally in Australian waters.Under the new legislation, third party interests will not take precedence, through the Admiralty Act, over new enforcement rules—a move that will send an even stronger message to the illegal fishing industry. It is interesting to note that the Aliza Glacial , a state-of-the-art vessel, is currently valued at $9.4 million. I hope that any funds raised from the forfeiture of vessels is directed into the increased enforcement of these new international fishing rules to ensure their continued success and to minimise the cost to the Australian taxpayers.Schedule 2 of the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 demonstrates Australia's commitment to the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, the first international agreement to regulate fishing in international waters. This agreement will provide rights, obligations and fisheries management principles for the long-term conservation of fish stocks on the high seas. These stocks include: orange roughy, tuna and the much publicised Patagonian toothfish. This fish is a remarkable creature that can grow to over two metres and lives for up to 50 years. A white-flesh fish, the Patagonian toothfish was discovered commercially as a substitute after the market collapse of overexploited white-flesh fish such as orange roughy and black cod.The Patagonian toothfish is described as the `poor man's lobster' in the New York fish markets. It is found in both Australian waters and the high seas and is in serious danger of being overfished because of illegal and unregulated fish longliners. In the waters around heritage listed Macquarie Island alone, stocks of the Patagonian toothfish have dropped by a massive 90 per cent in 1998.In recent years illegal trade has by far outdone the regulated and licensed industry by about 90,000 tonnes a year. The flood of this fish into the world market has meant that the price of the Patagonian toothfish has dropped dramatically to the point where it is no longer worth operating in the legal market. At this rate, it is predicted by ISOFICH—the International Southern Ocean Longline Fisheries Information Clearing House—another initiative funded by the coalition's Natural Heritage Trust—that the Patagonian toothfish will crash to commercial extinction within three to five years. The ratifying of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement will benefit all Australian stakeholders, including the commercial, recreational and charter fishing industries, environmental interests, the Australian community and regional economies. I am also pleased that measures will be developed under the agreement to address the accidental killing of other species, such as seabirds and dolphins, through longline fishing. It is estimated that around 100,000 seabirds a year are killed through this type of fishing.This bill is also supported by another new piece of draft legislation to come through this House which deals with enhancing the powers of investigation at sea by Australian authorities, including the boarding and hot pursuit of vessels in both Australian waters and the high seas. The Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 also covers the detention of foreign people fishing illegally in Australian territory so it can be determined whether or not to charge the person with an offence related to illegal fishing.Finally, as proved by the successful western rock lobster industry in my electorate, it is possible to maintain a successful balance between environmental sustainability and ensuring that commercial fishing remains a substantial part of our primary industry base. Of course there will always be the pirates, but Australia can lead by example in acting as the water police of oceans surrounding our nation and showing these pirates that we mean business. I commend this bill to the House.10:28:0011545Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—The figures provided by the member for Moore on the reduction of Patagonian toothfish in and around Macquarie Island south of Tasmania—because Macquarie Island is a part of Tasmania—show the need for a bill like this, the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 , to be before the parliament. The purpose of the bill is to introduce new powers and offences and sanctions to ensure compliance with fisheries management measures. It is none too soon. Incursions into the Australian fisheries are having a severe effect on its viability.Others might have been interested to see a program recently that addressed the problem of fish poaching on the Tasman rise. Here was a case where we have very weak powers at the moment to undertake sufficient surveillance, and little means to stop and search vessels that have been known to have been inside Australian territorial waters.The program was graphic. It showed South African ships that somehow by magic knew exactly where to go and when to maximise its fishing. It also took far beyond the sustainable limit of fish in a few days and then disappeared from whence it came.It showed the ships fishing and moving in and out of territorial waters. It also showed that the ships were not carrying any means of identification although they were later identified to be part of a fleet that was owned by an Asian country but run out of South Africa. It turned out that this company had obtained information from a New Zealand rogue fish captain who had peddled his information on the Tasman rise and its fishing times to these unscrupulous fishing folk based in South Africa. I believe the New Zealand government is moving to rectify this matter and to make sure that its nationals cannot peddle such information in the future. I would expect New Zealand to act in a responsible manner.We have to stop this sort of poaching of our fish. We know that fish stocks are declining. More and more we need to understand what is there, when it should be taken and how to conserve what is left. The legislation is appropriate and I welcome the fact that we can ensure a more effective fisheries surveillance and enforcement within the Australian fishing zone. It means that now poachers can forfeit ketch, gear and their boat if they are fishing illegally in the Australian fishing zone. It allows Australian law actions to take into account international law to provide more effective enforcement action against illegal foreign fishers, including actions against mother ships operating outside the zone but supporting illegal fishers within it. This is of particular importance because many of these rogue fishers work in this way. It allows them greater range and they can track fish shoals very precisely these days. Cut their supply lines and processing facilities and it can curb their activities.Another important aspect is the explicit provision for the automatic forfeiture regime for foreign fishers to prevail over the Admiralty Act. This will ensure that Australian investigations and jurisdiction actions are not frustrated by third parties such as foreign mortgagees. They cannot wriggle out of charges because they are owned by a third country. In schedule 2, there are provisions necessary to ratify and then implement the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982. This relates to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. This comes into the Fish Stocks Agreement of 1995. These amendments will allow for AFMA to participate in devising and implementing international/regional conservation and management measures to regulate fishing on the high seas and requires the observation of internationally agreed measures in the management of fisheries. It includes also reference points to particular stock so that a cautionary approach can be undertaken where there are highly migratory and straddling stocks.The last one gives us the power to look after those fish on the Tasman rise that race in and out of the area using the rise as their central feeding ground. It is an area rich in species and they use this area as a feeding stop during their migration. Australians have known about it for years but have been careful to protect its values and only take a sustainable catch under past management plans. Imagine their disgust and anger to see these raiders come in and cream off the best of the catch and disappear into the night without any means to stop them. Of course, this is where the orange roughy can also spend some of its time in their millions. We are only now coming to grips with the science and therefore the management of this fish. Like the Patagonian toothfish the orange roughy is a very old fish. It takes a long time to mature and has long breeding cycles. We are still gaining that information through the science of our fishing authorities and scientific research organisations.There can now be some retaliation with this legislation. Offences by foreign vessels can be prosecuted after obtaining the permission of the vessel's flag country and the consent of the Australian Attorney-General. However, the downside is that offending vessels must have a nationality which is party to the fish stocks agreement and have contravened a conservation or management measure or a regional organisation in which Australia participates. I think that is where a lot of work has to be done on the diplomatic front.It takes me back to the work done in transport committees of this parliament in relation to the `Ships of shame'. We have the same sort of situation applying in the fishing industry where we have these rogues using capital to buy fishing boats and putting them on the high seas. They break all the rules in the world and go against the best interests of people who try to have conventions and pull countries together to look after the fish stocks of the world. We have people using ships in the same way people used the `Ships of shame' to transport freight or other commodities around the world without due regard for life or the environment.We have a very similar situation of ships being used to exploit the fishing stocks of the world without any consideration being given to the long-term implications of their actions. It goes against people who are trying in a world sense—through conventions, agreements and treaties—to come to grips with putting a quota system on a species. The quota system ensures that we can manage a fishery and that we can harvest a certain amount each year knowing that we have a very good system in place in order to continue the rock lobsters in the electorate of the member for Moore coming in.We need to constantly work on this and to constantly be involved in the world theatre of the fishing industry. We have played some part in this and we should congratulate our officials that have been involved. We will need to be there in the future, and future ministers for foreign affairs and trade will have to take up these issues.It is not clear what happens to the fish pirates from non-participating countries. We have to work hard to make sure that we drum them right out of the fishing game anywhere in the world. Hopefully, this will be covered under, as I said, international treaties on our fish stocks.The bill does, however, allow fishery officers to inspect and board foreign vessels on the high seas to check compliance with regionally agreed conservation and management measures. It puts some pressures on our own boats too. It seeks to have the Australian vessels report on their positions. It requires the marking and facilitation of boarding. It goes into monitoring and the authorisation of our vessels to fish on the high seas, while ensuring regionally agreed conservation and management measures. I think our local industry supports this as long as it does not become a prohibitive expense, to their cost. They are always conscious of that.The shadow minister for fisheries, Gavan O'Connor, mentioned the need for training. I think that is essential in this piece of legislation. The people that are going to do the enforcing and the boarding need to be trained well to have a basic understanding of what the law is and where it is coming from, so that they do it in a correct and positive manner. There will need to be some compliance costs and some initial money put forward for that training to be done.In 1997 I was involved in the hearings that culminated in the report, Managing Commonwealth fisheries, which looked into the many problems associated with management of our fisheries. It pointed out some of the glaring difficulties with having a number of agreements between the states and Commonwealth jurisdictions and the jurisdictional problems that that caused. I believe that report helped start the move towards having uniform management tools and enlisting the fishers to help in controlling the resource.You really need to have fishers who are really positive, and most of them have a lot of knowledge. We need to have them onside to manage our fisheries, not offside so that there is a them and us problem. We need to make sure that we have fishers who are supportive and who have an understanding of protecting their own fisheries. We need to make sure we use them as a positive resource in this whole management of fisheries regime.Fisheries are a renewable resource, but the renewability of stocks is entirely dependent on limiting the pressures on fish stocks and avoiding over-exploitation. Management and regulations controlling the harvesting of these valuable resources are vital, especially in fishing methods that have improved so that increasingly large catches can be taken by commercial fishers.So when the mavericks in the industry from other countries move in and raid stocks, it has some very serious implications for our own industry. While I believe we are now setting the parameters for managing the fish in our own territorial waters, and the states are getting together with legislation, we are still very vulnerable, with our huge coastline, to incursions by other countries into our rich fishing areas.There is also a problem because many of the species we fish within our waters originate from outside. For instance, the migratory pattern of tuna, which spawn in the north-west of Western Australia, follows the Western Australian coastline south into the Great Australian Bight and then around Tasmania into the Southern Ocean and back up the east coast of Tasmania. According to the experts, tuna are at their best either south or east of Tasmania. That is where their colour and their taste are at their best, where they are mature young adults of about six or seven years of age. Tasmanian waters actually have more nutrients in the water for travelling fish as the currents around the Tasman rise allow upwellings from the Southern Ocean to bring a rich source of food to our fish stocks. No wonder the pirates make for this particular spot in the Southern Ocean. There are also thousands of square miles of ocean there, which makes it very hard to police. Unless we have some prior warning, or some of our own fleet are in the area, it is very hard to detect these poachers quickly.Another aspect of the management recognised in Australia is the excess capacity of the fishing fleet and its effect on sustainability. This threatens the economic viability of the whole industry. Therefore, strict measures have been suggested to overcome this problem such as input controls on tradeable units of gear, or some proxy for gear. Catch quotas are also part of these controls. I read recently that the world has an over-capitalised fishing fleet of about 50 per cent. Maybe we are getting on top of our excess capitalisation of the fishing industry.Fishers here have some difficulty with being subject to quotas when other countries come in within the legitimate treaties situation and pick up some of that quota. They are even more incensed, of course, when raiders come in illegally and make massive inroads into their catch and therefore their viability in the industry. So I do support the basis of this bill, but not all the financial responsibilities should be laid on our fishers. We should be pursuing within our international treaties some more stringent arrangements. Countries should only be signed up to agreements where they can help contribute to the sustainable management of international fisheries. And that international law can be used to attack the poachers where it really hurts, with huge fines and the loss of vessels and gear. This bill can certainly assist in that process.I believe Australia should look to upgrading the 1998 and the 1995 international agreements and continue to work on the international scene. It is in the best interests of Australian fisheries, our fishing people and our fishing communities around our regional areas of Australia and it is in the national interest that we take an international role. I urge the government to do that. I have a great deal of pleasure in giving support to this bill.10:46:0011548Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—The Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 was introduced in the House on 1 September 1999. The effect of the legislation has no doubt been well laid down by previous speakers. It introduces new measures for sustainable fisheries management and, importantly, introduces new powers, offences and sanctions to enforce compliance with both existing and new management measures. The legislation in question is a reaction to the growing incidence of illegal fishing in Australian sovereign waters—as I have just heard the previous speaker, with a strong interest in Tasmania, mention—and the increasing practice of unregulated fishing in international waters, a practice that flouts the recognised international agreements on fishing.I am privileged to be the federal parliamentary representative of much of Australia's fishing fleet, especially those elements of the fleet committed to the fishing of the wild and open seas of the Great Southern Ocean. The City of Port Lincoln is home to the largest single fishing fleet in the Southern Hemisphere, and it is fishing that has secured the city's magnificent development.As new and innovative onshore and offshore aquaculture industries develop along the west coast of South Australia and within the Spencer Gulf, the mainstay of the seafood industry remains the fishermen of the southern seas. Those fishermen have long maintained a commitment to a sustainable management program for the southern fisheries of Australia. That commitment, reinforced by the support of the Australian government and scientists, will be strengthened by the adoption of the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 September 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, otherwise known as the fish stocks agreement.I turn now to past international fisheries management. The fish stocks agreement applies to fish populations that straddle the boundaries of exclusive economic zones, EEZs—that is, at the 200 nautical mile limit—and the high seas, along with those migratory fish that migrate through different EEZs and high seas areas. Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, all nations are able to fish on the high seas, subject to certain conditions. However, those provisions were so broad as to render a viable management system unworkable. The outcome of this failure was the collapse or severe degradation of several fisheries and the consequent demand of many nations for a comprehensive management system. These demands led to the negotiation of the fish stocks agreement between 1993 and 1995.The fish stocks agreement has a number of major themes: where fish stocks straddle boundaries or migrate great distances, management measures in the high seas sector ought to be compatible with bordering EEZs; ratifying countries must apply a precautionary approach to straddling and highly migratory species; only members of, or countries cooperating with, the relevant regional fish management organisations—RFMOs—may fish in those applicable areas; RFMO members may undertake certain compliance and enforcement actions against vessels from member countries; and member countries may take action against fishing by non-members where that fishing constitutes a danger to the implementation of the agreement.While the agreement is not yet in force, some RFMOs have already come into being. Obvious examples include the Southern Bluefish Tuna Commission and the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission. Presently, another treaty addressing the needs of the tuna fisheries of the central and western Pacific is under negotiation. The legislation before the House is intended to pave the way for the implementation of the fish stocks agreement in line with the recommendations of the Consultative Committee on High Seas and Remote Area Fishing established in 1996.Illegal fishing in Australian waters presents a number of challenges to Australian interests. Illegal fishing threatens the Australian fishing industry by depleting our fish stocks, by presenting a danger to Australian quarantine standards, and by repudiating the carefully constructed management relationship between scientists and industry. Furthermore, illegal fishing is an incursion into Australian sovereignty that challenges our defence and strategic interests and provides cover for other activities such as the importation of illicit drugs and illegal immigrants.It is frightening to realise that between March 1996 and December 1998, 285 fishing vessels suspected of illegal fishing inside our EEZ were apprehended by Coastwatch, fisheries authorities and the Royal Australian Navy. The majority of vessels apprehended were encountered in the waters off the northwest coast of Australia.Under the changes before the House, penalties for illegal fishing are proposed to be doubled, with the top penalty rising to $550,000. The changes will also overcome the difficulties brought to the fore by the case of the Aliza Glacial, a vessel that was caught fishing illegally within the fishing zone surrounding Heard Island. In that case, a third party, the mortgagee of the vessel, successfully asserted the primacy of its interest over the vessel to the detriment of the Commonwealth. These reforms make it clear that third party interest will not prevail over Commonwealth enforcement action in those circumstances.Fisheries officers will now be able to seize foreign boats and fishing gear where illegal fishing is encountered in the Australian fishing zone. Onus of proof will rest on the illegal fishers if they wish to establish legitimacy of their operations and retrieve their forfeited property. The amendments implement the international law principle of constructive presence, whereby action may be taken against mother ships supporting illegal fishing within the Australian zone.Furthermore, Australian authorities will be able to use reasonable force to require a boat to stop where, consistent with international law, illegal fishing is suspected. Such force could include: the firing of warning shots, the use of anti-propulsion devices—I am not clear what they might be but I hope they are effective—or direct action against the ship in question.The importance of fisheries management was highlighted earlier this year by the southern bluefin tuna case. The unilateral decision by Japan in June to undertake an experimental fishing program for southern bluefin tuna was roundly condemned by both Australia and New Zealand. Australia's victory before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg two months later proved comprehensively that the Japanese initiative was a cynical attempt to circumvent proper fisheries management and increase its catch by almost 20 per cent. As the Attorney-General remarked at the time:the Tribunal has stated, inter alia , in its order that:* the conservation of living resources of the sea is an element in the protection and preservation of the marine environment;* the parties (ie. Australia, New Zealand and Japan) should in the circumstances act with prudence and caution to ensure that effective conservation measures are taken to prevent serious harm to the stock of Southern Bluefin Tuna; and* the parties should intensify their efforts to cooperate with other participants in the fishery for Southern Bluefin Tuna with a view to ensuring conservation and promoting the objective of optimum utilisation of the stock.It is to be hoped that all parties continue to respect the tribunal's findings and that the bilateral relationship between Australia and Japan, a relationship that is particularly important to the Australian seafood industry, remains strong.It is worth while to take a moment in this debate to inform the House of events surrounding Greenpeace's ill-informed and dangerous incursion into the tuna industry early last year. I have already noted that the City of Port Lincoln and its fishermen have a long-term vested interest in the proper maintenance of the southern fisheries—an interest that is widely known throughout the seafood industry. Yet the political group, Greenpeace, chose in January 1998 to stage a series of stunts in the waters around Port Lincoln in which they attempted to prevent the harvesting of tuna, thereby endangering lives, vessels and sailors. At the time, the local community was naturally outraged by this action. It was testimony to their reasonableness and thoughtfulness that local fishermen did not take retaliatory action against Greenpeace on the high seas, but rather allowed Greenpeace to move on after the obvious failure of its media campaign, no doubt attempting to top up its coffers from around the world.As far as the effects of changes on Australian fishermen are concerned, the emphasis of the fish stocks agreement is on reasonable cooperation. As such, Australia will be obliged to participate in cooperative enforcement on the high seas including the boarding of vessels fishing in areas covered by the relevant RFMO and the taking of appropriate action where management measures appear to have been breached; to license all Australian vessels operating on the high seas and require maintenance of catch records and the like; to investigate suspected transgressions of RFMO measures by Australian vessels; and to prevent the vessels convicted of RFMO violations, but which have not complied with sanctions, from continuing to operate in that area.Of concern to the fishing industry has been the potential implementation costs of these changes. I understand that essential costs are likely to total $3,348,262—I apologise for not using the cents—with the bulk of that expenditure being annual in nature. I further understand that 95 per cent of these costs are to be met by the government including, for example, membership fees for RFMOs, staff and travel costs, et cetera.Optional costs of $1.828 million have been earmarked in the regulatory impact statement, with around two-thirds of this potential cost funded by the government for patrolling functions. Where management measures of this type are likely to directly benefit industry operators, costs will be recovered. I commend the bill to the House.10:57:0011551Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—I have pleasure in speaking to the debate of the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 . As has been stated earlier in the debate, there are two main purposes to this bill. The first is to provide for more effective enforcement against foreign vessels and foreign nationals engaging in illegal fishing within Australian waters and the second purpose is to implement a range of legislative measures that will allow Australia to ratify the fish stocks agreement and to participate in regional fisheries management organisations under the fish stocks agreement. The fish stocks agreement regulates control of fisheries which extend outside the Australian exclusive economic zone and into the high seas for the protection of fisheries known as straddling stocks and highly migratory fish stocks.Some might ask why I, as the representative of the electorate of Scullin, which is not renowned for its large fishing fleets, have an interest in this piece of legislation. One cannot go to the Plenty River or the Merri Creek and find trawlers at wharves, unlike the member for Grey. My interest in this piece of legislation is that it is an important piece of legislation because it is an illustration of something that has been a bit of a buzz cry throughout the 1990s, and that is the notion of ecologically sustainable development.Really, we can have no clearer example in a global sense of the way in which a natural resource has been exploited—and perhaps to a large extent overexploited—than in the world's fisheries. That is not to deny what the honourable member for Grey said on behalf of those that are involved in the fishing industry in his electorate that those directly involved in the industry are not unaware of the need to have proper practices.If we look at some of the examples thrown up by this piece of legislation, we see that we have a phenomena where, because of changing practices in the way that fishing practices were carried out, some of the fishing stocks in shallower waters were exploited and to some extent put out of existence due to the use of long-line trawling. Those involved in the fishing industry were able to go to stocks that were in deeper waters.One of the classic examples of this phenomena is the orange roughy, whose scientific name is Hoplostethus atlanticus. Those fishing stocks can be anything from 800 to 1,200 metres below the surface. This has been a clear example of where new technology has made available new fishing stock. It was a fishing stock that was very popular and quite marketable. For instance, when doing some research for this speech, I surfed the net for items on orange roughy and ended up with bookshelves of recipes on how to use orange roughy. That is a reflection that the Internet still remains predominantly an American technology in the English language and that orange roughy has been a very popular fish in the American market.A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 11.02 a.m. to 11.14 a.m.HH4Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINS—Before the suspension I was talking about the time when orange roughy started to become a fishing stock that was being commercially exploited. At that time there was not a realisation of the nature of orange roughy and there was not sufficient knowledge about the life cycle of orange roughy. In the early nineties scientists became suspicious that what was in fact happening was that the fishing practices being used were very rapidly diminishing the stock.On 30 August a Four Corners program, which I wish to refer to later in a different context, covered the situation at St Helens in Tasmania when the orange roughy became a commercial prospect. The words of the reporter were:In Australia the gold rush began a decade ago when the first breeding ground was found at St Helens off Tasmania.The way that fishing stock was exploited was just like a gold rush. People were rapidly going in there and, in this case, trawling up the fish—just as they would in a gold rush where the gold would have been dug up—as if there were no need to worry about what would happen in the future.That fishing stock lasted for only a couple of seasons because the trawlers were just queuing up, dropping their nets, filling them and going back to port—a rapid turnover. Regrettably, it was a situation in which the fish were coming ashore at such a fast rate that the catch could not even be processed, and much of it went to the tip. At about that time there was a suspicion about the age of the fish that were actually being caught, and it was decided that there was a great need to look at the situation to better understand why the stocks were diminishing at such a great rate.Of course now it is known that orange roughy reach maturity at about 30 years of age and have been found to live for 150 years or more. The problem was that the average age of the catch was about 60 years. So with such a long time to reach maturity, there had to be greater care in the way in which those fishing stocks were being exploited. Because of this better understanding, especially in Australia, the industry was quite open to government efforts to ensure that sustainable practices were put in place in the way in which the Australian fishing industry went about the exploitation of orange roughy stocks.The pressure is felt when fishing fleets from other countries decide to pursue the same fishing stock. As we have said, this piece of legislation tries to deal with that on two grounds. Firstly, where these stocks are clearly in Australian waters, this piece of legislation is to strengthen the measures that can be taken to prevent fishing fleets from other countries engaging in that type of poaching.Secondly, the other difficulty, which is exemplified by orange roughy, is where the fishing stock is either in the high seas or actually straddles the Australian fishing zone and the high seas. This is termed `straddling stock'. As has been said, if you take it at first glance, the notion of a straddling stock can be easily understood. One of the real problems in a very defendable, technical sense is being able to define what a straddling stock is and therefore getting the protection of the international agreements.Certainly, endeavours have been made. In that Four Corners program late in August there was an indication that there was a dispute between our government and the New Zealand government about whether a definite straddling stock existed in the South Tasman rise. Studies that the Australian Fisheries Management Authority rely upon indicate that, in the South Tasman rise, it is a straddling stock. It is a discrete fishing stock. It is thought that what happens is that the juvenile fish congregate inside the Australian fishing zone and the adult fish then move to the outside of the zone to spawn. In fact, what we have is a phenomenon that is occurring within a discrete fishing stock which straddles the boundary.We have tried to put protection in place through an agreement of the Australian and New Zealand governments. As I understand it, that was by way of a memorandum of understanding which I think has lapsed. I hope that the minister might be able to assist me by clarifying the position when he sums up. It would seem that because the New Zealanders want to try to get a greater share of the action they may be playing a bit hard, but we have to understand it in the context that they are going through the same phenomenon that everybody else is—that is, that within their own waters the stocks are diminishing and they want to get access to stocks that will enable them to have a viable industry.I certainly think that orange roughy is a case where, by using proper science, there is a better understanding of the phenomenon of this fish, not only as a species but as a commercial product. There is a better understanding of what is required to ensure that if that fishing stock is exploited, it is done in a sustainable way. Because of the long length of time for orange roughy to reach maturity, that is a difficult task and the quotas have to be fairly harsh. The Australian industry has shown a willingness to cooperate in this. If the stock is wiped out, the Australian industry will have access to nothing, so it is really quite happy to be involved in something that is based on fact and is able to be sustained.The other matter covered by the international agreement is the migratory fish stocks, and a clear example of that is the southern bluefin tuna. Australia took out a case against the Japanese so-called experimental fishing and had success at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea with an 18 to four decision on 27 August out of Hamburg, Germany, that granted the provisional measures sought by Australian and New Zealand. This was a fairly positive step forward, and it is something that we should welcome because it is an indication that measures put in place by international agreements can have some success.The tribunal upheld the submission of Australia and New Zealand that this experiment was in fact a thinly disguised ploy by the Japanese to take more than its quota of what is very much a threatened species. The decision of the tribunal is now before a dispute resolution process that has been triggered by the agreement under the provisions of the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna. Many observers have made the point that this is a key test of the new tribunal's powers in these matters.By way of an aside, I acknowledge that so far in this case the Australian government has properly resourced the efforts. I think that is reflected by this success, and I hope that that resourcing continues. But I do have some concerns, and I want to raise what is an unrelated example with regard to the World Trade Organisation. A firm in my electorate, Howe Leather, has been involved in an ongoing saga over American automotive leather interests in trying to determine whether the type of assistance that the Australian government has given to Howe Leather comes within WTO guidelines. I have made the observation in the past that I have some concern that Australia is not pursuing these cases as determinedly as it should, perhaps within the tribunals. I know there has been a great deal of diplomatic effort—and I acknowledge that in the Howe Leather case—but sometimes we have to show that we are fair dinkum, as we have in the case of the southern bluefin tuna, in going into the tribunals and using them to get a determination.As I said from the outset, my interest in this piece of legislation is because it is a clear example of where, if people sit down and go through the facts and do the proper science, environmental and industry concerns can be adequately covered. It is a recognition that in any industry the players in that industry will do the right thing by the environment because, as I have said in many of these arguments, it is in their best interests. I acknowledge that the honourable member for Grey feels aggrieved when environmental groups overstep the mark in their reaction to what the fishing fleets from his electorate are doing, and that, perhaps, is inappropriate. But having said that, I think we also have to understand that there is a growing awareness amongst the public of behaving in a proper way because of the need to protect the renewability of, in this case, the fish stocks.For instance, Greenpeace in America have suggested that if the American public were educated to realise that orange roughy is such a threatened species, perhaps that could have an effect. In some of the literature I saw they gave the example that the American public would not eat rhinoceros because it is acknowledged that the rhinoceros is a threatened species. Perhaps we really have to educate people that in some cases there are many fish species in the same boat.I noticed—I think it was World Ocean Day—a piece in the Age earlier this year where there was a list of fish, giving the names which they are retailed under, and suggesting that the public should think twice about whether they really wanted to use those as food products.I think it has been made clear by the number of questions that have been raised on behalf of the opposition by the shadow minister that we support this piece of legislation. We see that it is a fairly important piece of legislation. I think that this is an area where public awareness is required. I am a great defender of the concept of the Main Committee but, in this case, even though this is a non-controversial piece of legislation, it is probably the type of legislation that by being debated in the main chamber would be given the proper eminence it should have.In conclusion, I have just remembered that there was a point about the Four Corners program that I wanted to mention. Whilst I thought that it was a very good program for at least raising the issue and making people aware of what was going on, I was a bit saddened when I then read in the AFMA's newsletter that perhaps Four Corners could have been a bit clearer about an incident it highlighted on the South Tasman rise towards the end of June and in early July. What the Four Corners program did not highlight, which the AFMA newsletter does, was that the four vessels in that fishing zone finally left on 19 July. In the case of the South African vessels, negotiations—at, I presume, governmental level—led to the cancellation of the high seas fishing licence of the South African vessels, and the Belizean-flagged vessel was actually deregistered. So I think that we have to give credit where there is at least some action taken.In the 19 days that they were probably in that zone, I know that they could have done a great deal of damage because they were fairly large trawlers and they were taking about twice as much as the annual Australian quota. So I am not saying that Four Corners was wrong in highlighting it, but I think that what we have to do is to say, `Some people might say that we are toothless tigers in this regard, but there is action being taken.' This piece of legislation will definitely strengthen that action and I support it. (Time expired)11:29:0011555Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—in reply—I thank members who have contributed to the second reading debate on the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 . It is obviously a bill whose time has come in that there is a lot of community concern about these issues. As the honourable member for Scullin, who has just concluded his remarks, mentioned, the issues that this bill addresses have attracted a great deal of community attention in recent times, and rightly so. Australia has the third largest fishing zone in the world. Naturally, therefore, a lot of that zone is isolated and it has been easier for people to make illegal use of unregulated fisheries. It is a real challenge for Australia to adequately supervise such a large fishing zone.In addition, the honourable member for Scullin raised the matter of our lack of knowledge in many instances about the extent of stocks that are available. He referred to orange roughy as being potentially an endangered species. The reality is that, having regard to the very deep sea fish stock, orange roughy was hardly heard of a decade or two ago until its eating qualities became known. I suspect that, because of the nature of its habitat, we still do not know very much about the extent of orange roughy stocks in the world. That is all the more reason why we need to take appropriate action to preserve orange roughy, southern bluefin tuna—whatever the stocks may be. They are an important part of our environment and they are also an important part of our economy.Because we have significant fish stocks within Australian waters, they have tended to become an attraction to vessels from other parts of the world, including vessels from flags of convenience nations. It is therefore very important for us as a nation to have appropriate international regimes in place to address fish stock management issues.I refer briefly to a couple of the matters raised by a number of speakers, including the orange roughy arrangements and the current state of negotiations with New Zealand for future management of the South Tasman rise. Negotiations have been continuing with New Zealand to renew the memorandum of understanding for that particular area. The negotiations have been progressing cooperatively. New Zealand Minister Luxton was due here next week and it was our hope to reach finality on those matters. The New Zealand election has now intervened and he may well not be coming. That will put some pressure on those negotiations, because clearly we need a new MOU in place in time for the next potential fishing season. That is something that we need to work on very promptly indeed.As the honourable member for Scullin said, there is a fair bit about the orange roughy south Tasman rise story that we perhaps do not yet know. We are also having discussions with South Africa in relation to this matter. They have also been cooperative. But it is our view that the South Africans have information which would be very helpful to us in pursuing investigations in relation to the south Tasman rise issue. We are keen for South Africa to give us that sort of information, because I think that there are further chapters in this saga that could be written and which would be helpful to us all in regard to the future management of these areas.With respect to the southern bluefin tuna, we have had interim success in the tribunal in relation to our dispute with Japan over what they euphemistically call `experimental fishing'. I am not quite sure what the actual experiment is. Some have suggested that the experiment is to see how many you can take before there are none left, and that is obviously not an acceptable position for us. There is obviously sensitivity about this issue. We are having a number of cooperative discussions. There are, however, disputes between Australia and Japan over interpretation of the decision. We are endeavouring to reach a satisfactory conclusion to those matters. Again, we want to ensure that the stocks are preserved so that they are available for future generations. They are in high demand. The southern bluefin tuna is a very important fish, particularly as far as the Japanese are concerned. It is in their interests, as well as ours, to ensure that these stocks are preserved and managed in a sustainable way.There is considerable interest in Australia's deep-sea fishing resources and we have a particular responsibility to move towards managing those resources effectively. This particular bill will strengthen Australia's powers. It provides for securing fish resources for Australia through two particular initiatives. The first, dealt within schedule 1, has measures for more effective enforcement against illegal foreign fishing operations which are making incursions into the Australian fishing zone. This will also provide greater deterrence for those seeking to take fish from within our waters.However, there are a range of other fish management issues that are particularly important. The straddling stocks and highly migratory fish stocks cannot be effectively dealt with just by Australian law. Schedule 2 of this bill has measures to implement the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement. This agreement will provide a great deal of international support for better management of highly migratory fish stocks, both those that are fished within our waters under national jurisdictions and those on the high seas. As the member for Scullin reflected in his address, there are sometimes arguments as to whether or not a stock fits into one category or another. We have no doubt on the science that the orange roughy on the south Tasman rise is a migratory stock. I think New Zealand's argument on that score is scientifically utterly threadbare. But there are occasions when there is legitimate dispute on these matters and that is why the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement will be an especially powerful tool.This legislation increases deterrence by providing greater certainty that an offending vessel will be forfeited, that higher fines will be imposed and that there will be greater expediency in dealing with apprehended foreign fishing vessels. These measures were developed particularly as a result of the experience in apprehending a vessel poaching Patagonian toothfish in the sub-Antarctic Heard and McDonald Islands areas and also from the apprehension of significant numbers of boats to Australia's north.The case in the Antarctic waters was again a well publicised example and demonstrates how difficult effective policing can be. When you have to travel a very long way, over several days, to actually apprehend the vessel it has to be done with equipment that is capable of making such a journey. It needs to be done obviously in secrecy to make sure that the vessels do not abscond in the time that is available for us to reach those sorts of destinations. In the Antarctic Heard and McDonald Islands area our success in that regard was somewhat mitigated when the law proved to be not adequate to enable us to in fact impose the maximum possible penalty, including forfeiture. These amendments will certainly be an aid in that regard.The measures in schedule 1 enable action against illegal operators who would otherwise undermine our efforts to substantially manage fish stocks in our fishing zone. Schedule 2 on the other hand provides for the cooperative management with other countries that are fishing possibly the same stocks on the high seas. They are consistent with international law and reflect Australia's strong commitment to using all possible avenues to safeguard the sustainability of fisheries.I would also like to draw attention to the recent success that we have had in the international tribunal on the laws of the sea as I think this particular judgment highlights that there is a capacity to use the international processes to achieve worthwhile outcomes. I know there are some—and this was almost implied on the Four Corners program as well—that suggest that Australia should mount a naval operation out into international seas and basically act like pirates. Even if the cause may be noble, the morality and the legal jurisdiction for that is certainly questionable. I think it is more important for us to achieve satisfactory international agreements which enable us to achieve the desired results in an appropriately cooperative way.Those of course are not the only initiatives that the government is taking in relation to ensuring better management of our fish stocks. We are members of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission and we are working with a number of nations involved in the fisheries in the southern and western Pacific to better manage fish stocks, which, of course, in that area are largely migratory in nature.There is currently another officer in Rome at the FAO working on a project looking at the scope and nature of illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing as the basis for the development of an international strategy to combat this sort of activity. We are also working in a number of other fora to endeavour to achieve a more satisfactory outcome and better manage fishing stocks.Our ocean policy covers the work that we are doing through the commission for the conservation of marine living resources to develop a trade certification scheme to better identify legally traded toothfish product; the work that we are doing through the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna to develop a product certification scheme for the trade of FBT; our ongoing action in the Tribunal for the Law of the Sea; a $16.3 million commitment to surveillance and an enforcement program in subAntarctic waters; and our work with other countries to ensure that the issues of fishery subsidies are discussed in the new round of world trade negotiations. I think these will all help to lead to a fairer and better managed system of international fisheries.I thank members for their contributions to the debate. I acknowledge the cooperation and the support of the opposition and that of the minor parties in the other chamber for this legislation. I commend the bill to the House. It will advance foreign fishing enforcement measures and enable Australia to ratify the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. I think that will provide real benefits to the conservation of marine resources in Australia and also the future viability of Australia's very important fishing industry.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Main Committee adjourned at 11.43 a.m.Answers to Questions in Writing11558The following answers to questions were circulated:11558(Question No. 872)87211558Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 24 August 1999:(1) Further to the Minister's answer to question No. 579 (Hansard , 10 August 1999, page 6421), what names were raised and discussed with the then Minister for Social Security and the departmental Secretary, other than Dame Margaret Guilfoyle DBE.(2) What contribution was made by the SOG B, SOG C, and ASO4 to the development of the report drafted by Dame Margaret Guilfoyle DBE.11558Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) A range of names was raised and discussed with the departmental Secretary. I am unable to recall precise details from these discussions which were held in 1996. In any event, all names raised and discussed with the departmental Secretary in this context are regarded as confidential.(2) The identified officers provided research and secretarial assistance only. The Honourable Dame Margaret Guilfoyle DBE drafted and finalised the report herself.11558(Question No. 935)93511558Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KerrRH4DenisonALP00 asked the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:(1) What was the staff establishment of the National Museum, grouped by classification at 1 June 1999(2) What will be the expected staff allocation grouped by classification, at 13 December 1999.11558McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The staffing establishment at 1 June 1999 was:ClassificationSenior Executive Service Band 20Senior Executive Band 12Executive Level 214Executive Level 112APS Level 6 16APS Level 517APS Level 45APS Level 320APS Level 216Total102 ** This table does not include office of Director, National Museum of Australia, who is a Full-Time Holder of Public Office with remuneration and allowances set by the Remuneration Tribunal.The staffing allocation at 13 December 1999 is expected to be:ClassificationSenior Executive Service Band 21Senior Executive Band 12Executive Level 222Executive Level 113APS Level 6 16APS Level 517APS Level 411APS Level 316APS Level 2 8 Total106 ** This table does not include office of Director, National Museum of Australia, who is a Full-Time Holder of Public Office with remuneration and allowances set by the Remuneration Tribunal.11559(Question No. 936)93611559Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KerrRH4DenisonALP00 asked the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:(1) Will the National Museum run at an operational deficit of approximately $4m in its first year of opening; if not, what is the expected operational deficit or surplus.(2) In the event the expected outcome is an operational deficit, how will the Government fund the deficit.11560McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The National Museum of Australia is planning all its activities in its first year of opening to stay within its budget, which includes the appropriations allocated by the Government and any revenue raised in the course of its activities.(2) Not applicable.