1999-10-143914REPS1156101999-10-14Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Documents1156111561Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Members will be aware that last evening the member for Dobell responded to an order of the House for certain documents to be produced by indicating that he no longer had possession of the document. The member for Dobell went on to say that he did not acknowledge the right of the House to require him to produce the document. I have had the opportunity to examine the record of yesterday's events in the House. It appears to me that, while the last comments of the member for Dobell may have been contemptuous of the House, they do not constitute a prima facie case of contempt of the House.It does appear to me, however, that for a member to accept all the rights and privileges of being a member of the House he or she should also accept the obligations of membership, such as complying with its resolutions. In the circumstances, the House may be best advised to consult its own dignity and not to take any further action in the matter. It is of course open for any member to seek an alternative course of action.Bills11561s20611561Bill presented by Mrs Bronwyn Bishop, and read a first time.1156109:33:0011561Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.These amendments implement recommendations arising from several reviews which are part of a package of reforms which serve to strengthen and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the food regulatory system for Australia and New Zealand. These reviews are the National Competition Policy Review of the Australia New Zealand Food Authority Act 1991 (the act), the Review of the State and Territory Food Acts and the Food Regulation Review.This bill amends the act in four major ways:- it creates objectives for the act and clarifies the role, functions and regulatory objectives of the Australia New Zealand Food Authority (the authority);- it provides the authority with more flexibility and efficiency in its consultation and decision making processes;- it enables the authority to more effectively protect public health and safety and the prevention of misleading and deceptive behaviour; and- it allows the authority to charge for services in certain circumstances.I will deal with each of these aspects of the bill separately.Firstly, the bill includes an overall objective for the act in order to provide public transparency and accountability and a concise statement of the role of the authority. Both the new overall objective and the recast section 10 objectives ensure that public health and safety and the protection of consumers remain the highest priorities of the authority.Food standards should not impose undue costs on the food industry or the community. It will now be explicit that the authority must consider the impact of regulatory alternatives that are available when it assesses applications and proposals.The bill will also provide for greater consistency and cooperation within the Commonwealth and between the Commonwealth and states and territories in relation to food regulatory issues.The authority's need to undertake activities that support and improve the quality of food standards is also recognised in the bill. These activities include being an advocate for Australians in the international arena, facilitating industry guidelines and coordinating national work on auditing systems and training competencies.I now turn to the second major aspect of the bill. It allows the authority to be more responsive to community concerns about particular standards issues and develop tailored consultation arrangements for individual issues.Over the years, the authority has been locked into rigid and sometimes ineffective consultation processes. Regardless of the good intention behind some of these prescriptive requirements in the current act, it is clear that taxpayers' money has at times been wasted through ineffective consultation. These amendments will allow the authority to tailor consultation processes, allocate more resources where there are significant concerns and streamline processes for minor issues whilst still ensuring that stakeholders have maximum opportunity to provide input on issues that affect them.In having more flexibility to respond to consultation needs, the authority will be more accountable to its stakeholders. It will need to prepare, in advance, plans that clearly set out the proposed consultation processes for each standard it develops or amends. It will need to discuss these with key stakeholder groups and ensure that no affected parties are overlooked.Also included in the bill are amendments that will enable the authority to deal more efficiently with less significant standards issues. Where a draft standard raises issues of minor significance or complexity, and the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council has approved a general approach to be applied in such cases, the authority will have power to decide not to make a recommendation to ministers in relation to the approval of particular food standards. The council will have the power to overrule these decisions, which would then be dealt with by the council in the usual manner; otherwise, the decisions will stand as if they were decisions of the council.The act currently requires literally every detail of all proposed changes and additions to the food standards code to be considered by all 10 ministers, even where they have already set down clearly the approach they wish to apply. This delays the process of making necessary but minor changes and wastes the time of ministers when other more important food policy issues are waiting for their consideration. This amendment redresses that problem and should benefit both industry and consumers by significantly decreasing the time taken to make minor changes or additions to the food standards code.The third major amendment is to permit the authority to more effectively protect public health and safety and prevent misleading or deceptive behaviour by allowing effective implementation and enforceability of the new food safety standards and permitting the restriction of sale and advertising of foods where necessary to protect public health. The bill also permits the authority to require the approval of specific brand or patented products for certain classes of food so as to ensure the safety and appropriate labelling of such products before their release onto the market.I now turn to the final aspect of the bill. At present, the authority is obliged, by its legislation, to process all applications on a `first come—first served' basis, regardless of the degree of public health and safety and consumer protection involved. This can draw resources away from standards work that protects public health and safety and into minor matters of little significance to the community.One multinational company has lodged a total of 11 separate applications to achieve a succession of minor variations in the approval of a particular product for which it had patent rights. This imposed multiple processing costs on the public, at no extra cost to the company. In so doing it diverted the authority's resources away from more socially important work to ensure that those applications were resolved within the statutory 12 months.The authority will now be able to ensure that its resources are primarily directed towards the protection of public health and safety. These amendments, which were previously contained in the Australia New Zealand Food Authority Amendment Bill 1996 which lapsed during 1998 due to the election, will enable the authority to prioritise and direct resources to its agreed work program, which would include food standards applications and proposals that are of major public interest. Applications within the work program will be assessed at no charge to the applicant.The selection of applications for inclusion in the work program will be based primarily on the section 10 objectives and consultation undertaken with stakeholders. A limited number of other applications will be included in the work program on a `first come—first served' basis, to the extent that funding permits.The amendments will also enable the authority to charge for assessment of applications in two situations:where there is an exclusive capturable commercial benefit to the particular applicant inherent in the application; andwhere an applicant chooses to have an application considered by the authority prior to the time when the authority would have otherwise considered that application under the work program.In relation to charging for these applications, the authority will only recover its costs and will not be able to make a profit.Since the creation of the authority in 1991 considerable progress has been made to develop uniform food standards throughout Australia and improve the safety of the Australian food supply. This package of amendments will allow the authority to continue its reform of the food regulatory framework and develop a quality food standards code which will serve Australia and New Zealand well into the next millennium.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills11563r93911563Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.1156309:42:0011563Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill makes amendments to the income tax law and other laws to give effect to the following measures:Restructuring of certain managed investment schemesTaxation Laws Amendment Act (No. 7) 1999 provided taxation relief to a managed investment scheme and its members where it becomes a registered scheme in accordance with the Managed Investments Act 1998.The amendments in this bill will provide further taxation relief to a person who either becomes a member or ceases to be a member of a scheme that makes more than one qualifying change.The taxation relief will apply from 1 July 1998 to 30 June 2000—this is the same period that a managed investment scheme has to register under the Managed Investments Act 1998.Film licensed investment companiesThis bill will amend the Film Licensed Investment Company Act 1998, the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to allow a film licensed investment company, FLIC, to make returns of concessional capital as frankable dividends. This bill will also make a few technical amendments that will improve the clarity of the legislative structure governing FLICs.This measure will prevent there being double taxation on returns of concessional capital made by the film licensed investment companies. Income tax deductions for giftsThe bill will amend the income tax law to allow deductions for gifts made to the Linton Trust. The Linton Trust was established to provide assistance to the families of five firemen who died fighting bushfires in Victoria on 2 December 1998. Gifts made to the trust after 2 December 1998 and before 3 December 2000 will be deductible.The amendments will also be made to extend, for a period of four months, the time within which donations to the National Nurses Memorial Trust will be tax deductible. An extension of time has been granted to the trust so that it can raise additional funds for the construction of the memorial.In addition, the amendments will also give tax exempt status to non-profit organisations which promote the development of fishing and/or aquacultural resources. The income tax law grants income tax exempt status to non-profit organisations that promote the development of a number of primary and secondary industries. The government believes that fishing and/or aquacultural organisations should receive the same taxation concessions. The exemption will apply from the 1999-2000 and later years of income.Cyclones Elaine and Vance Trust AccountThis bill will ensure that business recovery grants paid by the Cyclones Elaine and Vance Trust Account to eligible businesses in the affected areas are exempt from income tax. The decision to make grants exempt from income tax in the hands of the recipient recognises the extraordinary hardship inflicted by the cyclones and the threat to the communities' recovery prospects of businesses being unable to re-establish. The exemption will apply for the 1998-99 and 1999-2000 income years.Mining and quarrying: balancing adjustmentsThis bill gives effect to the government's announcement in a press release of 3 December 1998 that the tax treatment on disposal of mining property is to continue to operate as it previously did prior to the decision of the full Federal Court in Esso Australia Resources Ltd v. FC of T.The effect of the Esso decision is that capital expenditure that was not previously deductible under the capital allowance provisions while a mine was operating can now become deductible under the balancing adjustment provisions in the income year in which the mine is disposed of.In accordance with the press release, the proposed amendment will apply to disposals of mining property which occur after 4.00 p.m. Australian Eastern Standard Time, 3 December 1998.Transfer of interest in petroleum projectsThis bill will amend the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act 1987 to ensure that the act operates as intended to permit taxpayers who abandon or walk away from a petroleum resource rent tax project, to take with them their share of any undeducted exploration expenditures.The amendment will apply to taxpayers who walk away or abandon a project from the date of royal assent.Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum, which I present to this House.I commend this bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Business11564Motion (by Mr Entsch) agreed to: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.Bills11564r85911564Bill presented by Mr Entsch, and read a first time.1156409:48:0011564Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill, along with the Tradex Duty Imposition (General) Bill 1999, the Tradex Duty Imposition (Customs) Bill 1999, the Tradex Duty Imposition (Excise) Bill 1999 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Tradex) Bill 1999 will implement the government's new Tradex scheme.The purpose of these bills is to implement a new Tariff Export Concession Scheme to be called Tradex. The Tradex scheme was a key initiative in the government's Investing for Growth industry statement.Investing for Growth highlighted that a key driving force behind the growth of world trade in manufactures is an increasing globalisation of corporate production strategies. As a result, various components of final goods tend to be traded several times, with value adding occurring in a number of different locations around the world. This phenomenon is fostering investment in `hub' activities. Our proximity to the Asia-Pacific region and other advantages such as low outbound cargo costs makes Australia well placed to attract this type of investment and to become a regional base for distribution and manufacturing operations.The government's industry statement recognised that the competitiveness of Australia's customs regime is an important factor in fostering hub activities. In relation to this, it is necessary to take account of the internationally recognised principle that goods should be taxed only in the country in which they are consumed. There is also a need to ensure that compliance costs incurred by companies in importing and exporting goods are minimised.The objective of Tradex is to streamline and improve those programs aimed at providing relief to businesses that currently pay customs duty and sales tax on imported products which are re-exported or incorporated into other goods that are exported. It will replace the previous Tariff Export Concession Scheme, Texco, and allow many duty drawback users to gain up-front exemption from import duties and sales tax.The Tradex initiative follows a review of the existing Texco and Duty Drawback schemes which showed that excessive access and compliance costs are denying businesses the chance to recover unnecessary duty and sales tax and impacting on their international competitiveness.In essence, the Tradex scheme is designed to address problems associated with the existing Texco and Duty Drawback schemes. In particular, the low utilisation rates and high compliance costs associated with these schemes. It has been estimated that the cur rent levels of utilisation of these schemes is approximately 50 per cent. This equates to over $100 million in customs duty and sales tax that is unclaimed by Australian exporters with the consequential detrimental impact on their international competitiveness.Under present arrangements, imported goods generally incur a duty liability when they are landed in Australia and before being used in a manufacturing process prior to export or re-exported in the same condition at a later time. In circumstances where the goods are re-exported the producer uses duty drawback provisions to claim the import duty and sales tax back. These arrangements for handling temporary imports represent a significant cost and burden for domestic manufacturers who use imports in their exported production.Exporters who undertake industrial processing of imports prior to export may currently be eligible for up-front exemption from import duties and wholesale sales tax under the Texco scheme. However, the Texco scheme makes no allowance for imports that are exported in the same condition or that do not fulfil the `industrial processing' requirement.Tradex will remove the requirement that goods must undergo an industrial process and enable exporters to gain up-front exemption from duty and sales tax for goods exported in the same condition.Tradex will improve the effectiveness of existing arrangements by:. moving primarily to an exemption based system, thereby reducing compliance costs for users. A drawback facility will still be available for instances where at the time of import it was not known that goods would be re-exported or used as inputs to exports;. adopting a more light-handed approach to access and compliance requirements and stronger reliance on self-assessment and periodic settlement; and. relaxing some regulatory arrangements relating to eligibility, registration and on-going compliance requirements.In particular, the legislation for Tradex will:. clearly spell out eligibility criteria so that potential applicants have a degree of certainty as to the conditions they must meet in order to participate in the scheme;. enable unsuccessful applicants to have a right of review of the relevant adverse decision; and. provide the administrators of the scheme with the appropriate audit and recovery powers and penalty provisions to help ensure compliance.SummaryThis bill and the three associated bills provide for the introduction of new, streamlined arrangements for Australian exporters who import goods for further processing prior to export or re-export of goods in the same condition.Tradex is an acknowledgment of the increasing globalisation of the world economy and will help to improve Australia's attractiveness as an investment destination.Tradex will provide real benefits to Australia's exporters and, together with the introduction of the goods and services tax, will improve our international competitiveness as a trading nation.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and the following three duty imposition bills.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills11566r93711566Bill presented by Mr Entsch, and read a first time.1156609:55:0011566Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This is the first of three Tradex duty imposition bills that accompany the Tradex Scheme Bill 1999.This bill gives the Department of Industry, Science and Resources the ability to recover Tradex duty where participants fail to export goods in accordance with their undertakings under the provisions of the Tradex scheme. In particular, Tradex duty becomes payable when goods imported under the Tradex scheme are:. consumed or used by the Tradex order holder in Australia;. disposed of by the holder to another person in Australia for the purposes of being consumed or used;. unable to meet the requirements of the drawback regulations under section 168 of the Customs Act 1901; or. not exported within one year after importation.The Tradex Scheme Bill 1999 sets out the circumstances in which Tradex duty becomes payable to the Commonwealth and the process for recovering the duty. This bill imposes the liability insofar as the tax is neither a duty of customs nor a duty of excise within the meaning of section 55 of the Constitution.I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills11566r93811566Bill presented by Mr Entsch, and read a first time.1156609:57:0011566Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This is the second of three Tradex duty imposition bills that accompany the Tradex Scheme Bill 1999.This bill mirrors the Tradex Duty Imposition (General) Bill 1999 and gives the Department of Industry, Science and Resources the ability to recover Tradex duty where participants fail to export goods in accordance with their undertakings under the provisions of the Tradex scheme. The Tradex Scheme Bill 1999 sets out the circumstances in which Tradex duty becomes payable to the Commonwealth and the process for recovering the duty.This bill imposes the liability in so far as the tax is a duty of customs within the meaning of section 55 of the Constitution.I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills11567r94011567Bill presented by Mr Entsch, and read a first time.1156709:59:0011567Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This is the third of three Tradex duty imposition bills that accompany the Tradex Scheme Bill 1999.This bill mirrors the Tradex Duty Imposition (General) Bill 1999 and the Tradex Duty Imposition (Customs) Bill 1999 and gives the Department of Industry, Science and Resources the ability to recover Tradex duty where participants fail to export goods in accordance with their undertakings under the provisions of the Tradex scheme. The Tradex Scheme Bill 1999 sets out the circumstances in which Tradex duty becomes payable to the Commonwealth and the process for recovering the duty.This bill imposes the liability in so far as the tax is a duty of excise within the meaning of section 55 of the Constitution.I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills11567r64611567Consideration resumed from 13 October.10:01:0011567Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—Last evening, on behalf of the opposi tion, I essentially made the point that, although the government has moved to some degree with regard to a wood and paper industry council, the government concessions are still totally inadequate. In the last discussion of the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 , we traced the degree to which the government makes no specification about membership of the council. It is essentially left to the minister to decide who will be on the committee, who will be represented and what industry interest will have some say in the process.Unfortunately, although we well appreciate and hear the rhetoric of the Minister for Forestry and Conservation regarding his concern with Australia's serious trade deficit in these matters—which deteriorated by a further $218 million in the last year while he was running around Australia getting into altercations with all the state governments, regardless of their political allegiances—the situation is that, despite those polemics, the current government has a very sad track record with regard to performance of an industry council. It abolished the Labor Party's initiative in this field, and its own alternative, as we stated yesterday, met on only two occasions.It is interesting to note that the coalition members of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee acknowledged the very serious need for a positive role by a wood and paper industry council. They indicated that the government should re-establish that Labor initiative and said that it formed a valuable part of the overall needs of the industry.The other point is that the minister comes here and basically claims that the reason he cannot do anything about his action agenda is that this bill is not through parliament. The sad fact of life is that, quite frankly, everyone in Australia has been sitting on their behinds waiting for the minister to come forward with some kind of action agenda. It has been promised for many months, but nothing is actually happening. The pretext that this legislation would in any way impede the establishment of a council in some activity to try to drive policy in this area is just prepos terous. As the minister said, there has been a very serious deterioration of the trade deficit in the period that he has been promising to do something. The matter cannot go on.The government alternative to Labor's very serious council proposal is a very lacklustre initiative. We have indicated that there is no real urgency in the degree to which the body meets. Labor's alternative puts forward the membership in a very real sense. It speaks about funding for the body and appointments. It speaks about the roles of the acting chairperson and the deputies for the sitting members, the publication of council reports and, more importantly, the functions of the council. The government's real lack of interest in this matter is indicated by the broad brush objectives that it gives to the body. It is a bit similar to its attitude towards putting objectives in the bill for the National Forest Policy Statement.Similarly, regarding the functions of the council, Labor puts forward that it should have specific aims:. . . to investigate market and import replacement opportunities . . . to develop, and to submit to the Minister, recommendations, guidelines and plans for measures consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development . . . to consult, and cooperate, with other persons and organisations in matters affecting the industry; andto periodically inquire into, and to report to the Minister on, policies and procedures governing the export of unprocessed wood;And so on. The committee that Labor puts forward—and that we shall be pursuing in the Senate very strongly on behalf of the membership of the unions and employees in the field—says that we want to do something. It is not just going through the motions and saying, as the minister said yesterday,`I'm really not in favour of the idea, but I might give this as a bit of a throwaway concession.'Labor is very determined to try to make sure industry policy is driven in this field. It believes that there must be a degree of government intervention and oversight to make sure something happens. There is a serious deficit. There are serious problems in the industry. Quite frankly, despite all the rhetoric from the government about their concern for employees, it is a bit similar to their attitude on structural adjustment. They come to this parliament and say, `We do not want to give any money for structural adjustment because we don't think anyone is going to be sacked.' The fact of life is that people's employment will be terminated. The government know that redundancy payments in this country are limited to enterprises of over 15 employees. The fact of life in this industry is that a significant number of employers have fewer than 15 employees. People will walk out of this industry without any redundancy payments whatsoever, and the government's excuse that they basically cover them is not good enough. (Time expired)10:06:0011568Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—All that we received in that five-minute debate was an admission of Labor's total misunderstanding of the industry and their failure to do anything about it. Let me remind the House that, whilst the trade deficit is admittedly a very worrying $2 billion per annum, one can only wonder what the figure might be and what employment might exist at the moment in the seat of Braddon if the Labor Party had not killed off Wesley Vale.The industry, at that stage at least, had the confidence to invest, and the Labor Party decided at the time—under Hawke and Richardson—that a few Green preferences were more valuable to the Labor Party's retention of government than the jobs of the people of Burnie, for instance. The real issue was that there is nothing in our action agenda to stop somebody building a new pulp mill, which was absolutely necessary. People cry about the loss of the Burnie pulp mill. It was known to be going to happen when North stood up and said, `We need to build a new one.'That is what the world is all about today. You needed to be taking decisions all those years ago just to stay in the game. You cannot go on sitting around waiting for an old plant to wear out and somehow rejuvenate itself. They do not. The proposal that I have put up was well publicised in Tasmania the other day in terms of the member for Reid's criticism that we are not doing anything in the action agenda. I laid out there to the journalist the people I have spoken to and the arrangements that I think might put together a consortium because, if you want to get back into the marketplace, you are talking about three million tonnes of woodchips.Your colleague in Western Australia says, `No woodchips,' your colleague in Queensland says, `No woodchips,' and yet that is the great growth market. The most efficient way is to use all of the tree which would require cutting down fewer trees to keep people in jobs. That is the market that is growing. It is not only growing in paper but growing in panel boards as structural members. If you want to build that sort of panel board, that is an investment of $300 million.Let me get down to the fundamentals of this. As I said yesterday, the member for Reid and his controllers in the Leader of the Opposition's office, I and anybody else from this House can start arguing about the pros and cons of this legislation, but the judge and jury are not in this place. They are out there in the real world and, at the moment, they have their chequebook zipped right up. They do not trust us, and they have every reason not to do so.I love it when the member for Reid says that I have been out fighting with a few state governments. On whose behalf? Workers in the industry. And I have not done it on a party political basis, as you would. I have taken both sides on, and if they are not prepared to deliver a reasonable outcome according to the rules they get my criticism. If you want to tell me that I am wrong for doing that, thank you very much. I have the integrity of what I am doing, and no-one can say I have played politics on the issue. If you think that is silly, tell me, tell the world, because I will stand on my principles.We are proposing an action agenda and this council in the most flexible way possible. The member for Reid is running around saying, `We've got to have everything written in legislation.' You know all about that. It is like a bill of rights. That does not give people rights; that just limits their rights. What you are putting up limits the opportunities for this committee to do good work. You talk about membership. Second reading speeches do have standing. And what did I say yesterday? I said:Membership 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.I will be picking them because I will pick those who I think can contribute as much as possible. (Extension of time granted) That is a flexible arrangement. Again, the member for Reid wants to make a big thing about the fact that I originally said that I did not think it was necessary. That is just the truth. I do not need to stand up in this place and sneak and slink around under the carpet and not make a bump. That was my original position. I admit it to the House, and then I say that I have been convinced—not, I might add, by the opposition but by the representations of people like Michael O'Connor and the representations of NAFI. I think that is great. That is my job. I wish them well. I believe the best advocate they have—and I think they might agree with me—is me as a minister because I am genuinely determined to do something.This uncertainty around what an RFA will achieve makes the next steps very difficult. It will make it difficult for this council. That is what has to be remembered. It is all about political posturing. In one breath the member for Reid is telling us, `A few disallowances won't matter. That'll just pass us by in 15 days,' but in his own party the backbenchers with direct representation of the people who get hurt, the forest workers, have been absolutely rolled. They were forced to come in here yesterday and vote down something they know is not in the interest of their own constituents. And that is what they did.8T4FERGUSONMr Laurie Ferguson—Like your West Australian backbenchers!SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—It is no good making comparisons with the Western Australian state parliament. Does that excuse you for what you did yesterday? Your people were forced. So what is the outcome of every disallowance motion up there? You have made up your mind. The numbers in your caucus say, `We will vote to disallow them.' One of your principal spokesmen on this, the member for Fremantle, stated that the RFA in WA had to go for a number of reasons, none of which she can substantiate. They are wrong. It is not a question of my view versus her view. Anytime someone wants to come to me with any proof of what she said yesterday, I will agree with it publicly, but I will bet you cannot.The fact is that the whole process over there was done properly, according to the National Forest Policy Statement, and she signed off on it. But look at what Court has done now—as I said, he is Australia's only living heart donor. He did not make that judgment on any point of science and I do not think he made it on any sensible point of politics. You can have that from me in black and white and you can send him the letter. That is why I want RFA legislation. His signature would never convince me of anything in the future. But this is the situation: you people have to decide whether or not we should have the legislation as everyone else wants it. They do not want it to be contestable. If we pass an amendment here that somebody wants to argue is unconstitutional, then the whole bill is at risk. All we got yesterday was proof positive that you can get two conflicting legal opinions on whether or not it is unconstitutional.8T4FERGUSONMr Laurie Ferguson—You know that yours is not serious.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—You want to bet with me that that is what a judge would do? You do not know. But the person who is being asked by me to invest $2 billion just does not want the hassles. They do not need them and they do not get them in other countries. That is the fact that you have to confront. That is the judgment that the jury are putting on this legislation, and they have given it to you and me in black and white. The reality is that the CFMEU, NAFI and the Tasmanian state government—and do not think that they have not had it tested by their own legal advisers—say that the Labor Party will damage this legislation with these amendments. So why are you doing it? Because you have got to try to hang on to some Green preferences, which they will never give to us anyway so I do not know what you are worried about. Why not just do the right thing? The amendments are before us and it is time to vote on them. (Time expired)Amendments agreed to.10:17:0011570Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I present the reasons for the House of Representatives disagreeing to the amendments of the Senate. I move:That the reasons be adopted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Motion (by Mr Tuckey) agreed to:In the message returning the bill to the Senate, the Senate be requested to reconsider the bill in respect of the amendments made by the House of Representatives to the bill.Bills11570r77211570Debate resumed from 30 June, on motion by Dr Wooldridge:That the bill be now read a second time.10:18:0011570Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—The Health Insurance Amendment (Diagnostic Imaging Services) Bill 1999 contains what on the surface appear to be relatively minor amendments to extend exemptions to the requirement that diagnostic services are provided only on referral from another doctor. However, as we shall see as I go through my remarks this morning, below the surface lies a tangle of problems with the administration of radiology services. These include: a refusal to accept proper consultation, dominance of sectional interests and acceptance of a two-tier system where rural residents are given second-best service.At this stage, there are several overlapping problems that are relevant to this bill. The first problem is a lack of proper accreditation arrangements for the different professionals providing services. There are inconsistencies in the new professional supervision rules, there is a need for proper consultative processes that involve all the different profes sionals providing services and there is a need to break down the barriers which are there just to protect turf so that access to and quality of patient care is improved. It is time that the use of exemptions which give rural Australia a second-class service was ended and that telemedicine be embraced as a means of maintaining the quality of health services in rural Australia.These issues underlie this bill, but I want to start by explaining what this bill sets out to do. Since 1991, a regime has been in place to control the use of radiology equipment to those trained to use it and to establish minimum quality standards. This was meant to be the first phase towards a proper regulatory framework. To ease its introduction, some exemptions were provided. These enabled doctors in rural areas and others who, prior to 1991, carried out their own diagnostic imaging to continue to charge Medicare for the diagnostic imaging work they carry out in their own surgeries. This enabled the continuation of established practice among those who had been undertaking this kind of work as part of their general practice up until 1991.A rural area was taken somewhat arbitrarily to be any area more than 30 kilometres from an established radiology practice. In these circumstances, a general practitioner is permitted to bill Medicare for diagnostic imaging work without a referral. This transitional arrangement, as I said, was meant to give time for the implementation of a proper accreditation scheme to improve the quality assurance processes and to ensure that all doctors using radiography and ultrasound equipment were suitably qualified. Unfortunately, the development of an accreditation scheme has been repeatedly deferred. I note that the current Minister for Health and Aged Care was critical of the former government when it first extended the period for the exemption arrangements. Speaking in the House on 23 August 1995, he said that there was `policy sclerosis' because the problem had not been fixed. This minister has now held the responsible job of being the Minister for Health and Aged Care for four years and has made absolutely no progress himself. His best effort is to come back here today with a further extension to continue the exemption for rural doctors and for those who have been allowed to continue to practice under the old rules. This is very unsatisfactory.At this late stage, however, there seems to be no alternative but to let this bill pass so that the radiology services can continue to be delivered in rural areas in the short term. However, it is vital that the present situation not become entrenched as the long-term outcome. Rural Australia should not have to accept second-class medicine where general practitioners without the relevant qualifications are permitted to continue delivering services for which they do not have training. There must be accreditation and training to ensure that non-metropolitan areas have doctors with the necessary skills and experience to use modern diagnostic tools safely and accurately.The bill contains at least one step forward because it requires doctors who wish to continue to enjoy the exemption to at least be enrolled in a course for accreditation in the skill that they purport to have acquired through past practice. Unfortunately, though, these courses are only just now being established and doctors will not start being accredited for another year or more. The cart is well and truly in front of the horse, but the minister's past delays have left us no alternative.Another reason that these amendments are controversial is that these exemptions are being extended at the same time as new professional supervision rules have been introduced for certain kinds of radiography and all ultrasound work. These new restrictions on the use of ultrasound equipment have also proven to be very controversial amongst doctors who will lose accreditation to use ultrasound as part of the general practice. The thrust of the professional supervision rule is to require a qualified radiologist—that is, a person capable of interpreting the medical significance of the images—to supervise the work of all radiographers, the people who operate the equipment and take the images.Radiographers are not medically qualified but they are professionals in the health system who have a high level of training. The radiog raphers resent the description of professional supervision because they view themselves as professional. They do, however, accept the role that they play as employees of radiologists and the critical quality assurance role that the radiologists are entrusted with.Radiographers see an inherent contradiction in the way the professional supervision rules have been drafted. In their view, the supervision requirement makes sense only if there is a degree of personal supervision of work and that the radiologist is essentially on the premises to contribute to ensuring work is carried out correctly. The department's view, as I understand it, is that provided the radiologist can arrive during the consultation—for example, within 10 to 15 minutes—then the professional supervision rules are met. This they argue allows the supervising radiologist to go to a nearby laboratory or to visit an adjacent hospital ward. That is fair enough, but what many radiographers report is that they rarely see a radiologist for days or weeks as a time.I recently had cause to look at the web site of one of Victoria's larger radiology practices—the Victoria Imaging Group. The VRG boasts no fewer than 28 sites run by 250 staff under the supervision of 12 radiologists. How can the department honestly believe that, with its professional supervision rules, these are being met when 12 radiologists are split between 28 sites? They would have to be in constant cruise control mode shuttling between their practices if they were to seriously meet the requirement of personal supervision of 250 staff. Just by way of addition, this is a practice that boasts three new MRI units to look after as well.The shortcomings in the rules probably reflect the fact that the process that has been followed for its development of these professional supervision rules has not allowed for a genuine opportunity for everyone to comment. There has been a high level of control exercised by the consultative committee on diagnostic imaging that is dominated by radiologists and excludes many other parties. The minister argues that, because it is the radiologists who get the Medicare rebate, they are the ones he needs to talk to. I have heard it said a number of times that, if the government does not pay particular professionals, they do not have any obligation to talk to them, whether they are nurses, physiotherapists or, in this case, radiographers.It is the case that the department, as well, has failed to properly consult the Institute of Radiographers, which represents those who carry out the diagnostic image taking. In the same way, there has been inadequate involvement of the Australian Sonagraphers Association whose members play a similar role with respect to the taking of ultrasound. There are a number of other people outside the process who feel that this bill will strengthen the position of the radiologists and continue the exclusion of other professionals working in the sectors such as obstetricians, vascular specialists and general practitioners.Coming back to the most important consequence of this bill: it is the case that it will continue the two-class system for health care that we see in Australia. That will be further entrenched by rural practitioners continuing to have the exemption to have proper training and accreditation. The professional supervision rules are being waived for rural areas on the grounds that it would cost too much to have a radiologist supervise a radiographer on every occasion in country areas. However, there is not an alternative system in place to ensure that quality assurance takes place in these rural areas. It is claimed—and this is being said around Victoria—that one radiologist has a truck with substandard equipment touring rural Victoria taking images which are then processed back in Melbourne. Although most doctors see such a practice as unacceptable, it can continue simply because the existing rules all provide rural exemptions.The department therefore cannot stop such practices where they occur in rural areas. There is no way to know whether the people relying on that particular radiology service are getting the correct treatment or obtaining an accurate diagnosis. This is a very serious matter, because a poorly taken image could result in a missed cancer or the failure to treat a preventable illness at an early time. The exemptions in this bill allow an untrained GP in a rural area to undertake radiology services for which they may have no training or expertise. There is no system for accreditation required at the outset and no alternative quality assurance program. Rural Australians should not be fobbed off with second-best medicine. This bill does not provide the first-class medicine that people deserve and many would argue that it entrenches the present position.Significantly, the government seems to be turning its back on a major opportunity to use new technology to overcome this problem. Increasingly the ability to transmit high definition images through phone lines and the Internet open up the possibility of radiographers, GPs and radiologists working in partnership at widely separated locations. The use of telemedicine would permit urban radiologists to supervise radiographers in other locations. It is already happening between urban practices, even though it is not accepted as meeting the professional supervision requirements. Of course, the real potential of telemedicine is to overcome the tyranny of distance to ensure that a fully qualified radiologist could supervise the image taking process and analyse the results in almost real time. This would offer rural Australians the equivalent level of service that urban residents take for granted. It would provide immediate backup for every local hospital and a means to support GPs working in remote locations. This bill should be setting up a framework for telemedicine, but the government has yet again let the opportunity slip by.The mess that exists with radiology is put in the shade by the complete confusion over the regulation of ultrasound. At present there are no accreditation standards whatsoever for sonagraphy. Any person can start operating an ultrasound machine and charge the public. Claims against Medicare can only be made by a medical practitioner or a specialist. There have been new professional supervision requirements introduced for ultrasound from 1 September, but there is still no clear commitment to introduce mandatory accreditation standards for the operators and the equipment involved. Many GPs and obstetricians have used ultrasound in the past as a basic part of their practices and see it as far more effective than referral of their patients to another specialist radiologist to have the scan done. Many other GPs who have not historically done this work do not enjoy the entitlement to bill Medicare for ultrasound work because the exemptions that this bill is extending do not apply to them. These GPs are angry at being excluded and point to the lack of any defined criteria on safety or accreditation grounds as to why they are not allowed to do this work. As the technology has become more accessible, the need for the specialisation of the past is diminishing.On the other side of the debate the use of ultrasound is expanding rapidly amid allegations that the extent of use has become medically inappropriate. Clearly there needs to be action to limit the extent to which Medicare is funding applications for ultrasound which do not meet a medical need. The government should also look at rules for ultrasound use that ensure that only those with appropriate qualifications can carry out the scans and use the ultrasound equipment.In order to sort out these various problems, I have put a number of proposals to the minister through an exchange of correspondence. Unfortunately, to date the minister has refused to reconsider his position, despite the fact that there is growing discontent on all sides on these issues. I want to put to the House the proposals that I have put to the minister and how he has responded.Firstly, to overcome the consultation problems I proposed that the existing Consultative Committee on Diagnostic Imaging be expanded to include all the relevant parties who have an interest in diagnostic imaging. There is a strong case to say that the radiographers should have a seat at the table to talk about quality assurance and the development of their sector. Similarly, there should be representation from medical specialists from other disciplines such as gynaecology, obstetrics and vascular specialists. General practitioners and rural doctors also lack a voice and merit closer involvement. Unfortunately, the minister has refused to consider any review of the make-up of that group. Once again I would ask the minister to reconsider, as a consultative committee can only be effective if all the voices can be heard at the table.Secondly, I proposed that a working party be established to re-examine the definition of professional supervision and the extent of compliance with the new rules in the industry. Everyone in the industry knows that the rules are ambiguous and impractical and are not being applied. I proposed that this working party should examine the degree of professional supervision that is realistically required, what accreditation standards should apply to the radiographers who do most of the actual image taking, and how supervision of remote and stand-alone sites should occur when a radiologist is not on the premises. It should also examine the exemption in rural areas, how supervision of rural radiographers can be provided so that the quality of work is of the same level as that in the city, and who is entitled to claim for work carried out by unsupervised radiographers. Unfortunately, in response I have only had a vague undertaking that arrangements to monitor the introduction of professional supervision arrangements are being put in place. I hope that that will extend to answering the questions that I have outlined.Thirdly, I proposed a working party to give further consideration of the accreditation that medical and non-medical staff need to operate ultrasound equipment and the circumstances in which a claim may be made on Medicare for sonagraphy. On this point the minister has responded that a working party would be established by the Consultative Committee on Diagnostic Imaging and that a representative of the professional sonagraphers would be invited to attend. I hope that this offer will extend to full membership of that committee for the sonagraphers so that the scope of discussion deals with the dispute over the professional supervision rules.The department has provided initial funding for the development of accreditation standards for sonagraphers, but it has not yet committed itself to making accreditation compulsory or to embracing the accreditation of premises and equipment. There has also been no response from the minister on how the blow-out in ultrasound costs can be controlled through the mechanisms available to deter inappropriate use. Instead of the government embracing new technology and new ways of delivering quality services more efficiently, all we have seen is a propping up of the existing structures. As a result of the bill before us, we have had the minister and the government turning their backs on the needs of those living in rural and regional areas. Instead of being offered better services, they have been told to be grateful for the continuation of the current arrangements.The opposition is of the view that this bill has to pass to avoid creating an even worse mass. But the minister is now on notice. He needs to act quickly and change direction to make sure that new solutions to improve the quality of care in rural areas are implemented. We have to have a properly regulated, open and accountable radiology sector, delivering services of demonstrable quality through accredited operators under proper professional supervision. There should not be a two-class system, with rural areas forced to accept standards that are rejected as unacceptable within urban areas.22:39:0011574Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—Before I begin my remarks, I would like to take up a couple of points made by the member for Jagajaga. She actually in just the past few minutes accused the government of turning its back on rural and regional communities in regard to the health sector. I remind the member for Jagajaga that this year the government has already spent $193 million—and next year is looking at spending $200 million—specifically on rural health. Many of the programs—for example, encouraging young people from rural areas into universities to do medical degrees and to go back into their own communities to deliver health services—have never been attempted before. We have to give credit where it is due and acknowledge right up front the tremendous effort and the shift in emphasis that has been made specifically on rural health issues.The purpose of the Health Insurance Amendment (Diagnostic Imaging Services) Bill 1999 before us this morning is to ensure that for general practitioners to be eligible for Medicare rebates for diagnostic imaging services which they provide, under either the remote area or the pre-existing diagnostic imaging practices exemptions of the act, they have to be enrolled and participating in an approved continuing medical education and quality assurance program.The benefits of this legislation are going to be welcomed throughout all of rural and regional Australia, but this morning I want to speak specifically about this legislation on behalf of the very large regional electorate—almost 15,000 square kilometres—that I represent. I note that the member for Jagajaga made reference in her speech to one particular diagnostic imaging practice, obviously in one of the capital cities because she referred to it as having 28 sites. My electorate is made up in the regional areas of very small towns. There are no radiological practices anywhere in the regional parts of my electorate. So it is absolutely vital for the general practitioners in the small towns of Mansfield, Warburton, Alexandra, Yea and Nagambie—to mention just a few—to be able to take an X-ray, to be able to use the modern science of diagnostic imaging at their disposal, to be able to diagnose what is wrong with their patients on site.Before I spoke on this legislation, my office contacted most of the doctors practising in the rural and regional parts of my electorate. There was not one who disagreed with this legislation. In fact, they all welcomed it. They gave numerous examples of what would happen if they were not able to take those X-rays within their own practices. Let me give you an example from Mansfield, one of the small towns up in the north-east of Victoria in my electorate. Let us say that someone falls off a horse and they have a suspected broken collarbone. If they were not able to have an X-ray taken in Mansfield itself they would be looking at a roughly 2½ hour round trip to the nearest hospital, in Wangaratta, in order to get that X-ray taken, to make a diagnosis and to start the treatment required. That is just one of the literally hundreds of examples that the doctors in my electorate gave me.It is also tremendously important—in fact, vital—that the patients who are able to access that service get the Medicare rebate. One of my doctors up in Warburton said to me that she has actually come across cases where people have initially refused to have the treatment because the Medicare rebate was not available to them. Once the importance of the test was pointed out to these people, they then had to find the money from somewhere. It is tremendously important for people in our regional and rural areas to have access to that Medicare rebate.It is also important—as I acknowledge the previous speaker said—that people living in our regional areas should have access to the very best medical attention available. That means that the GPs who are going to be giving these tests and making use of diagnostic imaging must be up to date and accredited in their training. There is a problem with this: we all know that it is difficult enough now to get doctors out into rural areas.All of the doctors that we spoke to are very keen—eager, in fact—to take part in updating their own credentials and making sure that they are up to date with the latest in technology: how to use it and how to interpret and analyse the images they receive. But, if they take a day or two off from their practices to go down to whatever capital city is closest to them in order to bring their skills up to the very latest and best level, there is no-one minding their practices. I want to put on record in this House that this would be an absolutely marvellous opportunity for young doctors working in some of our large metropolitan teaching hospitals to be able to get some experience of working in a rural community by making themselves available for those practices.When I was speaking to Dr Graham Slaney, who is from one of the Mansfield practices and is in fact the president-elect of the Rural Doctors Association, he pointed out to me that the Rural Doctors Association is very keen to have input into the sort of training and accreditation that is going to be developed for rural doctors. This might be one idea that the Rural Doctors Association might be able to pick up—that is, my suggestion that young doctors in large metropolitan teaching hospitals could become part of the program. I would like to see some response on that issue.The other benefits of this particular legislation are exactly what the previous speaker was talking about: making sure that people living in regional and rural communities have access to health services because, let me say, the greatest problem that those communities in my electorate have experienced were during the previous term of 13 years of Labor government. I would like to ask those opposition members present what they did to improve access to health services for people living in rural communities. Their record is not a pretty one. It stands in stark contrast to what this government is doing for people living in rural communities.Because of the neglect that went on for those 13 years of Labor government, the challenge in front of us is enormous, but we are actually meeting that challenge and getting on with it. This legislation is just a small part of what this government is doing to meet that challenge. With those words, I thoroughly support this legislation and encourage all those opposite to support it likewise.10:49:0011576Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—The debate on the Health Insurance Amendment (Diagnostic Imaging Services) Bill 1999 is very timely, as it follows very closely on the commencement of a very public discussion in Queensland about the use of ultrasound and illustrates many of the concerns raised by my colleague the shadow minister for health about the deficiencies of this bill. An article in the Courier-Mail on Saturday quotes Dr James King, a leading obstetrician and director of the Mater Hospital's Perinatal Epidemiology Unit.Dr King's concerns relate to two specific areas: the explosion in the availability of ultrasound services and the lack of any educational or accreditation standards for those who are carrying out these services. According to Dr King:Life threatening foetal deformities are not being identified because there are too many ultrasounds in use and not enough people who could diagnose the results. The sorts of things that are being missed, he says, are major malformations, such as anencephaly, where the foetus grows without a brain. In fact, a report by the Queensland Council on Obstetric and Paediatric Morbidity and Mortality has revealed that congenital abnormalities are the leading cause of perinatal death in the state. Of 553 child deaths, 19 per cent were due to birth defects, many of which could arguably have been picked up by the correct reading and timing of an ultrasound.These kinds of issues are hardly surprising when you consider the fact that any doctor who can afford the technology and stays 30 kilometres away from the nearest radiology clinic can set up shop. With ultrasound costs growing at 14 per cent per year, and with $39 million spent on ultrasound in Queensland alone in 1997-98, this could be a nice little earner. As Dr King says:There is no doubt that the quality of diagnosis by ultrasound has not been maintained at the rate of dissemination of the technology. It's an explosion fuelled by fee for service remuneration.There is a huge industry out there. More money is paid out for ultrasound than there is for all obstetric care now.And this is at the cost of both the unborn and the mothers who, having walked away from a scan thinking that everything was fine, discover at the time of birth that their child is deformed.On the other hand, there is also the issue of using ultrasounds for personal rather than clinical reasons. Currently, there is no restriction on how many ultrasounds a woman can have during her pregnancy, as long as she has a referral from her doctor. While the major aim of an ultrasound is to detect health problems in the foetus, it is commonly being used to discover the sex of a baby—which is appropriate if this information is used for the purpose of avoiding sex linked genetic disorders but not if it is about choosing the colour for a nursery.In addition, Dr King questioned the timing of first scans for women, calling for resistance to women who requested very early ultrasounds as a means of confirming their pregnancy. The current bill does nothing to address this issue of appropriate versus inappropriate use of Medicare funds. Even more outrageous is a statement in the Courier-Mail article from the Queensland Health director-general who said that radiologists, obstetricians, gynaecologists and GPs all used ultrasound scans but, because no radiation was involved, machines were not licensed and he did not know how many were operating.Basically. the whole area is a mess, and the fact that the minister has done nothing in the last four years to sort it out is disgraceful. Yes, the bill requires exempt general practitioners who wish to continue to conduct ultrasounds and claim on Medicare to enrol in an accreditation course, but such a course does not as yet exist. Why? It is because of squabbles between the professional groups charged with the responsibility for developing these standards. If these groups cannot sort this out, then it is up to the minister and his department to do it.The other area I would like to touch on is services to rural areas. As my colleague the shadow minister for health pointed out in detail, the bill does not adequately address the needs of rural communities. This group continues to be serviced by generalists, not specialists. And as we have already seen by the issues raised in Queensland, this can have appalling consequences. Providing accreditation and standards for these practitioners should be the very least that is expected of the government and should be seen as an interim measure only—as we had intended when rural exemptions were introduced. The real issue is how we provide the same access to quality specialist care to rural and remote communities.Over the last year, Telstra has been running a TV advertisement showing a woman having an ultrasound in a rural setting, with a radiologist receiving the images in real time on the other side of the country. We have the technology: why do we not use it? Until this is introduced, however, ensuring high quality standards amongst general practitioners is imperative.This issue highlights another anomaly in the current bill in relation to quality care. The introduction of professional supervision rules requires that radiographers must be supervised by radiologists. The actual form this supervision takes has not been clarified, as my colleague has already pointed out. In rural areas, however, if a general practitioner can send a patient to an equipped local hospital with a resident radiographer, this radiographer is exempt from the professional supervision rules. In practice, professional supervision rules do not seem to be applied with any great rigour so, in that sense, rural patients may well be receiving the same standard of care as their urban counterparts. However, the point is that the government believes that this supervision is essential to ensuring high standards of care. Why then are those standards not applicable in rural areas? No radiologists available in rural areas? Well, as I have already pointed out, Telstra has an answer for that, and it is worth considering it very seriously.So what do we have? We have ultrasound costs increasing at 14 per cent per year. When the PBS was doing that three years ago, the minister and his department spent a lot of time and energy finding ways to cap the increase. Perhaps he has run out of energy to address the ultrasound issue, or perhaps he is protecting the income of certain professional groups. We also have two very different standards of care for rural and urban communities. Embracing new technology may be the best way of addressing this. If ultrasound costs can be brought under control, the money saved could be used to find this new technology. Not only do professional jealousies and turf protection prevent the development of quality standards and accreditation; as has already been pointed out by the shadow minister, they also do not allow for all stakeholders to be involved in the process.We have the introduction of mandatory accreditation and training for medical practitioners. Under the current exemptions they are able to provide diagnostic services and claim Medicare but are unable to enrol in the required courses because they do not as yet exist. Why do they not exist? Well, that goes back to the professional jealousies, which I have already covered. We also have professional supervision rules that, from a logistical point of view, are essentially impossible to implement and also do not apply to rural practitioners.I would finally like to support my colleague's sentiments in relation to the bill. In the absence of anything better, and to at least try to address some of the anomalies in the area of radiology, we are going to have to live with this for now and let it pass. However, it is my sincere hope that people like Dr King continue to speak out when the quality of patient care is being compromised and when the Medicare system is being abused. Perhaps the public airing of these views will act as some sort of reminder to the minister that he and his department must regain control of this situation from professionals with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and put in place firm regulations and guidelines that ensure effective, efficient and quality care for the Australian public. I wish the bill a speedy passage, with the riders I have mentioned, and hope it will go some way towards improvements in the area of ultrasound for the community.10:57:0011578Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. Under this bill, it is proposed that general practitioners performing referred ultrasound services under existing rural and remote and pre-existing practice exemptions be registered on accreditation and continuing medical education programs. These programs are being developed cooperatively between the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists.This has provided an opportunity for these groups to work together for the first time to ensure better quality health care. The professional bodies will be responsible for advising the Health Insurance Commission of practitioners registered on the agreed accreditation and continuing medical education programs. Practitioners will be advised of the new requirements and will be given time to ensure that they enrol in the relevant programs. For some years, the government has been encour aging the development of a quality assurance program for non-specialists providing diagnostic imaging services to ensure that the services they provide are of the highest possible quality. These changes will contribute to ensuring that people in rural areas have access to quality imaging services and will mean that general practitioners performing referred ultrasound services maintain their skills in this rapidly expanding and developing field.I will just comment briefly on some of the comments made by the member for Jagajaga. Her saying that this legislation has the difficulties that she suggests is not something I can agree with. It maintains the status quo, but it adds a requirement for quality assurance and continuing education. This arrangement is the Labor Party's arrangement. They put it up in 1990. To talk about a second-class service is hypocritical because they are referring to their own service. The fact is that we are adding to what the Labor Party put up as a requirement for quality assurance and continuing medical education, something that they should have done, something that will help people in rural and remote areas and something that fixes their oversight.The disadvantage that people experience extends beyond the western suburbs of Sydney and western suburbs of Melbourne. The member for Jagajaga referred to a 12-person, 28-site radiology practice. Most rural people would dream of having this sort of access. We are continuing to make it easier for rural people to access these services. We are adding quality requirements. It is a good bill, and I commend it to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.11578Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Dr Wooldridge) read a third time.Bills11579r92411579Debate resumed from 23 September, on motion by Mr Slipper:That the bill be now read a second time.11:02:0011579Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill 1999 proposes to enact new double taxation agreements with South Africa, the Slovak Republic and Argentina. In addition, it also proposes to enact a protocol—that is, an amendment—to the existing double taxation agreement with Malaysia. These are generally consistent but do have some differing provisions because of the specific domestic tax arrangements of some jurisdictions.As most people would be aware, double taxation agreements exist to clarify taxing rights between jurisdictions for income derived in one jurisdiction by a resident of another jurisdiction. They attempt to ensure an equitable distribution of taxing rights between jurisdictions and to avoid double taxation. The purpose of that, of course, is to encourage trade and investment between entities of those different jurisdictions.Australia has a large network of double taxation agreements, mainly because Labor, in government, significantly expanded the network of the double taxation agreements that Australia is party to. We did this to create a better environment for Australian businesses to operate internationally and to encourage productive investment in Australia. This approach has been built upon by the current government, to its credit, and these latest agreements are the results of the continuation of Labor's successful policies.Australia's double taxation agreements are all broadly similar in their design, based generally on the OECD model convention, but they also reflect the particular economic circumstances of Australia—namely being a large capital importer—and the domestic tax rules of the other jurisdiction on some occasions. For example, the taxation of some annuities under the South African double taxation agreement differs from the normal agreements Australia is a party to because of the specific treatment of this income under South African tax law. Similarly, the withholding tax limits for interest, royalties and dividends under the Argentinean double taxation agreement vary from the normal practice, as does the inclusion of specific branch profits tax provisions.These variations reflect the reality of negotiations with differing tax jurisdictions, and Labor does not oppose them. However, Labor does oppose what we see as continuing sloth by the government on two fronts concerning our international agreements network. The first of these is putting Australian firms on a level playing field where they invest overseas compared to the generous deal that Australia gives foreign investors here. Secondly, we express concern about the disgraceful negligence concerning international tax avoidance through the use of these treaties, which the current government is simply acquiescing in.Let me turn to the first of these situations—the unfairness of the current dividend withholding tax arrangements. The recent Ralph committee final report covered this issue at pages 677 and 678. The recommendation is:That in negotiating Double Taxation Agreements, Australia endeavour to reduce dividend withholding tax rates on non-portfolio investment.Non-portfolio investments are those where the investment represents 10 per cent or more of a business. So Mr Ralph has recommended to the government that it undertake specific action concerning double taxation agreements to overcome situations where Australia is more generous to foreign investors than that foreign nation is to Australian shareholders, an entirely reasonable proposition in our view. As Mr Ralph notes at page 678:Since 1994 Australia has sought lower foreign DWT rates on non-portfolio dividends . . . So Labor started to address this problem back in 1994. The treaties before us today do deal with this issue because they are following the policy established by Labor. For example, proposed article 10(2)(A) of the South African agreement does get fair treatment for Australian shareholders with investments in South Africa. That is because the government is following Labor's policy lead. But the real issue, the important aspect of this anomaly, is that the nations with whom Australia has its largest investments—the United Kingdom and the United States—continue to be areas of difficulty.Although the United Kingdom have not fixed this problem through the double taxation agreement, they have addressed it through domestic law, so at least at the moment we do not have that problem occurring in Britain. But it is still happening in the United States. In the US, the current double taxation agreement arrangements allow what I think is an unfair situation whereby a 15 per cent dividend withholding tax is imposed on Australian businesses remitting dividends from taxed profits from America. By comparison, Australia does not levy such a withholding tax on US investors out of taxed profits from Australia.What is the government doing about this anomaly? Regrettably, it is completely silent on the matter. This is an example of where Australia's economic interests are being damaged by the poor international relations conducted by the Howard government. If we had a bit more clout in Washington, we would perhaps be making some progress in renegotiating this treaty. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister is held in such low regard by the President that this counts against us in these types of negotiations. Furthermore, the Treasurer's introduction to the United States—where he inappropriately blabbed about his meeting with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve—also diminished our credibility in the United States with key economic policy makers.Mr Martin interjecting—UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Indeed. The second problem I want to turn to is that the government has not legislated to close what is an enormous loophole under Australia's double taxation agreement arrangements which has arisen because of the decision in the Lamesa Holdings case in 1997. This decision means that foreigners can make tax-free capital gains on holdings of Australian land and mining ventures through utilising a simple chain of companies. There has been no legislation, despite the fact the Treasurer issued a press release promising to do something about the loophole on 27 April last year—that is, more than 18 months ago. I have with me the Treasurer's press release which pointed out that the government would amend the International Tax Agreements Act to address this loophole. In fact, we have seen no action whatsoever.The background to this is that the Lamesa decision was handed down by the full Federal Court on 20 August 1997. It dismissed an appeal by the tax office concerning a significant loophole in Australia's ability to tax gains arising from Australian real property, including mining rights. The court held that the existing double taxation agreements—which give Australia the exclusive right to tax profits arising from the alienation of real property situated in Australia, including shares in companies that hold interests in real property—did not apply in the situation where multiple layers of subsidiaries are interposed between the non-resident holding company and the Australian real property. The disposal of the interest in the Australian asset was accomplished indirectly through selling one of the interposed companies rather than the asset itself.The effect of that decision, if left unaddressed as the government has done, is to make the avoidance of tax on gains made by non-residents through holding Australian real property simple. All real property assets held by non-residents could be restructured into a multiple interposed structure, and a significant Australian tax base would then be at risk. This gives prospective capital gains benefits of an extraordinary character to non-residents compared to what is available to Australian residents.Somewhat belatedly, the Treasurer issued press release No. 39 on 27 April 1998, which announced that, from that time, indirect alienations of Australian real property, as occurred in Lamesa, would be subject to Australian tax. This was justified, quite correctly, as being a move to shore up Australia's existing taxation rights rather than a new tax base.The result was announced to be achieved by Australia unilaterally amending its internation al tax legislation in respect of all double taxation agreements rather than individually renegotiating each double taxation agreement. We consider this response is the only feasible one in order to protect the revenue, but the government have not done it. It has been over 18 months and they have not taken action to address the situation where non-residents have access to tax-free capital gains while Australian residents do not. In speaking to this legislation, we express our concern about the government's inaction in this area and call on them to address this loophole as soon as possible.As I indicated at the outset, the double taxation agreements we are dealing with here—the South African one, the Slovak Republic one and the Argentinean one, as well as the amendment to our existing double taxation agreement with Malaysia—are all propositions which we are happy to support. As a result, we are not opposing this legislation.11:12:0011581Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—It really is a pleasure to respond to the International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill 1999 today, because one of the issues of concern to me is those popular misconceptions that get about out there in the community. In recent times, a lot of those popular misconceptions have attached themselves under the banner of the One Nation grouping. They specialise in conspiracy theories. They like to hide their heads in the sand about very real problems that require us to make a reasonable effort at addressing a sensible answer. We cannot hide from the world.I think many in that organisation and many of their fellow travellers would prefer we were not part of the world. But it is our job—and it is the thing I find very important—for us to make sure that, when we find people hiding their heads in the sand, we have to dig down there, clean the sand out of their ears and talk to them about these issues. Every one of us will have to take steps to address these issues—to get out there in our electorate and talk about finding reasonable solutions to the problems that exist.Agreements such as these ensure that individuals trading with another country or undertaking employment in another country receive the maximum benefit from their work. This is something that benefits Australia and the trading partner concerned. The tax office in Australia recently completed a review of transfer pricing. In particular, that means dealing between Australian based companies and their offshore associates. A press release put out by the tax office following that review stated:The Tax Office will commence audits of 46 multi-national enterprises with significant international related party dealings and a further 60 will be subject to alternative compliance action.That is as a result of an inquiry that the tax office conducted investigating this kind of transfer pricing between Australian based companies and their overseas offshoots or their overseas parents.When I said before that there are people in Australia who had popular misconceptions, one of the popular misconceptions that they have is that there is some kind of massive dodge here. There certainly is the opportunity for that kind of thing but governing that in an effective way is very difficult. These kinds of double tax agreements are essential if we are to govern them effectively and ensure that the taxation flows to the relevant country but that the business activity is not needlessly burdened and is not needlessly held up in carrying out its activity. If it is dealt with correctly, then the Australian parties benefit just as surely as the overseas parties benefit, so we can create more opportunities for Australians. This is an export country. We do have to have these kinds of agreements. We do have to have arrangements that will work.The tax office went on to say in the press release that they will focus their audit activities on the highest risk cases. Around 56 per cent of companies that were examined were found to be in a medium to high risk category of transfer pricing audit. The tax office are certainly on their game in this regard. In letters notifying taxpayers of compliance action, the tax office will offer them the alternative of advance pricing arrangements. An advance pricing arrangement, APA, is an agreement between the tax office and a taxpayer concerning the transfer pricing treatment of the taxpayer's future international related party dealings. That is an example of bureaucracy, but it is the way government has to respond to specific issues out there. Sure, we could just throw stones at it from a distance, but the important responsibility of government is to get out there and take some action.The government certainly has taken action in relation to the business tax reform that is being undertaken. I hear a lot of criticism from the opposition spokesman, but the fact is that the government has done this: the government has produced the Ralph report, and it is endeavouring to address the issues that it has raised. It has raised a whole range of issues in relation to practically every activity that business undertakes in this country. One of the areas addressed by the Ralph report was that of international tax. The government will consider international tax measures as a result of the Ralph report.I will read some of the activities that we are going to be undertaking and that have been raised for us to consider. The review made recommendations aimed at improving Australia's international competitiveness in an increasingly globalised economy. The recommendations include: providing imputation credits for foreign dividend withholding tax paid by Australian entities; renegotiating these double tax agreements with the key objective of lowering foreign dividend withholding tax rates—I think that refers to a specific case that the opposition spokesman raised concerning the United States, for example—extending and improving the current foreign dividend account provisions to allow all foreign source income passing through an Australian entity to non-resident investors to be exempt from Australian dividend withholding tax.The review also recommended a range of measures to ensure that foreign investors pay their fair share of tax on Australian source income and that offshore investment is not used by Australian residents to avoid paying their fair share of tax. These measures include a wider application of thin capitalisation provisions to prevent multinational groups from allocating excessive debt to their Australian operations. These changes would raise significant revenue but can be justified as necessary to ensure that multinational groups pay tax in Australia rather than in other countries. The report recommended further review of Australia's foreign source income rules and double tax agreement policy and that Australia's international tax legislation be rewritten and redesigned.Agreements such as the ones we are debating today can have a negative impact on government revenue, but it is only minor. Of course what flows as a result is improved trade and improved employment opportunities. That kind of benefit, that kind of encouragement to Australian enterprise, will only in the long term generate improved revenue and a much more positive return to our country.Turning specifically to the International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill 1999 , its purpose is to incorporate into Australian law agreements, aimed at avoiding double taxation, made with the Republic of South Africa, the Slovak Republic and the Argentine Republic, and also to make a number of changes in relation to the existing agreement with Malaysia. Australia has double tax agreements with a number of countries aimed at preventing the double taxation of income where income is received by a resident of one of the parties to the agreement from activities in the other country that is party to the agreement. The agreement also aims to help minimise tax avoidance and evasion.The agreements provide for the taxation treatment which is to apply, particularly which country may tax various categories of income and limitations of the amount that may be taxed. The agreements that are specifically covered in this bill add to a network of agreements that we have. We currently have 36 comprehensive income tax treaties with countries that include Canada, China, the Czech Republic, Fiji, Finland, India, Japan, Kiribati, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Taipei, Thailand, the United Kingdom, the USA and Vietnam—that is just to name a few.We also have four of what are known as airline profits agreements. They exist with China, France, Greece and Italy. These are more limited types of agreements that deal only with the taxation of airline profits. When I get further down the track you will see that the Argentine agreement we are talking about today involves one of these airline profit agreements, in that we are agreeing with the Argentineans that Australia will collect tax from Qantas and that they will collect tax from Aerolineas Argentinas. This process removes any possibility that there could be double taxation of those very profitable and very important enterprises.Turning specifically to the countries involved in the agreements we are looking at today, Malaysia is Australia's 13th largest overall trading partner. In 1998 Australia exported goods worth $1.8 billion to Malaysia. We imported goods worth $2.7 billion from Malaysia. Australian investment in Malaysia totalled $908 million while Malaysian investment in Australia totalled $1.068 billion, so Malaysia is a very important trading partner for Australia. It is important that we make these agreements as effective as possible.South Africa is Australia's 21st largest trading partner. In June 1998 Australia exported goods to South Africa worth $1.097 billion and we imported goods worth $586 million from South Africa. South Africa is Australia's 24th largest investment destination. In June 1998 the level of our investment in South Africa totalled $203 million while South African investment in Australia totalled $472 million. South Africa was Australia's 18th largest source of investment income.In relation to Argentina, exports from Australia to Argentina totalled $167 million—mainly coal, motor vehicles and electric power machinery—while imports from Argentina totalled $77 million. In the case of the Slovak Republic, in 1998-99 Australia exported products totalling $4.2 million, mainly wool, meat and computers. In the same period, Australia's imports from the Slovak Republic totalled $8.2 million.That said, we should look now at what double taxation agreements generally mean. Generally they are not very controversial. Sometimes, as I said before, they are seen to only benefit multinationals. But in fact Australian companies such as MIM, Norths, Qantas and smaller traders—and this specifically applies in the case of the Malaysian agreement because we have people operating consultancies in Malaysia—can be the impetus for this kind of change just as readily as some of those larger companies can. These agreements also, as I said, help prevent double taxation for people receiving foreign pensions and Australians working abroad.I have covered the example of the United States in my earlier comments. There is criticism that some of the older treaties in particular are not as favourable as they should be. I think it is unfair for the spokesman opposite to criticise the government as strongly as he has in this matter. It is very easy for the opposition to throw rocks, but we can come back with the old saying that the kind of restructure you are seeking now was not undertaken by the Labor Party during 13 years in government. It is important that the agreements be undertaken correctly and be diplomatically negotiated to produce the best possible outcome.With new treaties, as opposed to the older type ones, the give and take of negotiations means that we do not always get everything we want. For example, the agreement with Argentina caps the interest withholding tax on interest paid from Argentina to Australia at 12 per cent rather than at 10 per cent, which is what Australian business would prefer. But this of course is an agreement, and we have had to agree to that.When it comes to looking at the four different agreements we are talking about today, we can categorise them into three overall groups. Firstly, there are standard double taxation agreements, and here I am referring to the ones with the Slovak Republic and South Africa. Secondly, there are non-standard type agreements, such as the one involving Argentina. Thirdly, there are ones that involve amendments to existing agreements, such as the agreement with Malaysia.A double tax agreement between Australia and Malaysia has been in force since 1980. The main feature of the agreement we are discussing today is the allowance for tax concessions available in Malaysia to encourage investment in that country. The agreement provides that where Malaysia allows concessional tax treatment an Australian investor will be deemed to have paid the full rate of tax for the calculation of any tax payable in Australia. In the absence of such provisions, the concessional Malaysian tax regime would be offset by higher Australian tax, thus removing the incentive to invest in Malaysia. A number of arrangements in this regard have been formally entered into between the two countries and the amendments to the 1980 agreement contained in this bill will give legislative effect to those arrangements.In the case of the Slovak Republic, the agreement, as I said, falls into the category of a standard double tax agreement in the matters subject to the agreement and the taxing arrangement between the countries. It was signed on 24 August this year and will enter into force after notice has been given that the parties have completed the necessary process to give effect to it in their domestic law. What we are doing today is carrying out that undertaking.In the case of the Argentine Republic, the agreement differs from the standard model to reflect certain aspects of Argentinean tax law and will reduce the rate of tax payable by Australian residents on income from technical assistance, dividends, interest and royalties. The agreement was signed on 27 August and generally will enter into force after notice has been given that the parties have completed the necessary processes to put the agreement into effect. Income related to airline profits will be subject to the agreement from 27 September 1988, which is the date on which an earlier agreement in relation to that matter came into force. In South Africa this agreement falls within the category of a standard double tax agreement. The agreement was signed on 1 July and, again, will enter into force after the various parties to the agreement have debated and given effect to it within their domestic law.By way of background to the negotiation of the Slovak agreement, the first round of negotiations held between Australia and the old Czechoslovakia began in October 1990. But when the Czech and Slovak republics became separate states in January 1993 negotiations with each republic became necessary, and Australia concluded a double tax agreement with the Czech Republic in 1995. Negotiations commenced with the Slovak Republic in 1994 and, as I said, the Slovak agreement was signed on 24 August this year.In relation to the Argentine agreement, which was signed on 27 August, two rounds of negotiations were held—the first in Canberra in November 1994 and the second in Buenos Aires in June 1995. At the end of the second round of negotiations, a draft agreement was initialled. While trade between the two countries remains modest, Australian investment in Argentina is significant. Australian investors have significantly targeted the mining sector, resulting in Australia being among the largest investors in the industry. Numerous companies are involved, working under exploration leases and evaluating projects. The most impressive operation is a $1 billion MIM-North joint venture to develop the Bajo de la Alumbrera copper and gold deposit in Argentina.In closing, to illustrate the practical impact of the Argentine agreement, I will read from a letter sent by the CEO of MIM Holdings Ltd, Nick Stump, to Senator Rod Kemp in relation to the agreement. He said:As you are aware, MIM has been engaged in the development of the Bajo de la Alumbrera copper/gold mine, Argentina's first major mining project, which has been in commercial production since February 1998. Having a double tax agreement between the two countries is very important to MIM and other Australian companies investing in Argentina, particularly now that a number of tax changes, including substantial increases to withholding taxes, have been enacted in Argentina.He went on:This means that if the legislative changes are made quickly the DTA could have effect from 1 January 2000 for Argentine withholding taxes. We therefore encourage you to ensure that the signing of the DTA and introduction of the relevant legislative changes occur as soon as possible.That is exactly what we are doing today. I encourage all the companies engaged in exploration or in other activities in those countries to take full benefit of the benefits conferred by this agreement and to go ahead to provide the kind of outcome in terms of employment and investment return to Australia that we all desire.11:32:0011585Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—The International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill 1999 proposes to enact new double taxation agreements with South Africa, the Slovak Republic and Argentina. In doing so, it builds on a large number of double taxation agreements that were negotiated successfully by Labor over its 13-year period in government that commenced in 1983. The reason such a large number of double taxation agreements were negotiated is that the Labor government initiated the progressive internationalisation of the Australian economy, starting with the floating of the dollar and financial deregulation and then a whole range of micro-economic reform policies and trade policies that saw our engagement and enmeshment with Asia in particular. Prior to the Hawke government's election in 1983, we did have double taxation agreements, but they were very limited in number, which reflected the limited nature of our trading arrangements and the limited number of trading partners.The primary purposes of double taxation agreements are twofold. The first purpose is to put some sort of limit on the total amount of tax that would be payable by an Australian company investing abroad and vice versa—that is why they are called double taxation agreements. The second is to avoid double taxation. The way that works is that the double taxation agreement is designed to achieve what is called creditability. So if an Australian company made a taxable profit of, say, $1.5 million overseas and was assessed for $1 million of tax overseas in the taxing jurisdiction, the $1 million would then be taken off the Australian tax liability of that company. If the Australian tax liability were, say, $1.5 million, the $1 million would be deducted and the Australian tax liability would then be only half a million dollars. If you did not achieve creditability, you would simply achieve a deduction for the tax that you paid overseas.In the example that I have just given, the $1 million in tax that you pay overseas becomes a deduction just like wages and operating expenses, and the value of that as an offset to your tax liabilities in Australia is the $1 million multiplied by the Australian tax rate—currently 36 per cent. That works out at $360,000. Instead of getting a $1 million offset against your Australian tax liabilities, you get only a $360,000 offset.You can see from that example that reaching double taxation agreements is very important for Australian investment abroad and vice versa—for overseas investment into Australia. Because this legislation builds on the double taxation agreements implemented through the 1980s and early 1990s under Labor governments, it goes without saying that we support this legislation.I want to spend some time, though, lamenting an opportunity that has been forgone here to tackle a major tax avoidance loophole created by a Federal Court decision. It displays an ongoing unwillingness on the part of this government to tackle seriously tax avoidance schemes when they arise. In what I have to say today, I will be presenting to the parliament a litany of examples of the unwillingness of this government and the present Prime Minister—when he was Leader of the Opposition and Treasurer—to take on the tax avoiders in this country.We, as the opposition, are very concerned about two issues in relation to this legislation that have not been dealt with and that could have been dealt with. The first is putting Australian firms investing in the United States on a level playing field. By that I mean that the United States imposes a 15 per cent withholding tax on dividends remitted by Australian companies back to Australia. That is a 15 per cent tax on the after-tax income of Australian firms investing overseas. That is quite punitive, because we do not do the same thing to American firms investing here. So it is a very uneven arrangement between the United States and Australia.There was a great opportunity for the Prime Minister to have this issue addressed when he met American President Bill Clinton a few months ago, but high on the agenda was lamb. East Timor did not really make the agenda in the discussions between the Australian Prime Minister and President Clinton. We are told that he did not request that American troops come into any peacekeeping arrangement because he knew what the answer would be. So no formal request was made. That was an opportunity forgone, but the other opportunity forgone was the opportunity to raise this inequity in terms of our investment in the United States where our firms have to pay a 15 per cent withholding tax on dividends. That is something that should be remedied if Australian firms are to continue to have strong incentives to invest in the United States. But this opportunity has, unfortunately, been squandered.The other tragedy and opportunity forgone in relation to this legislation relates to a decision of the Federal Court handed down on 20 August 1997, called the Lamesa decision. Essentially, in layman's terms, that Federal Court decision allows for an overseas investor to simply put some affiliates in between the beginning and the end point in an arrangement such that overseas investors can invest in Australian real property—by this I mean property and mining—and escape any capital gains tax liability.This is a contrived arrangement, as fully conceded by the Treasurer some considerable time ago. He put out a press release on 27 April 1998, following the Federal Court's decision on Lamesa, saying that we really had to do something about that. He announced on 27 April 1998 that the Australian government needed to do something about the tax avoidance opportunity confirmed by the Lamesa decision—an opportunity for foreign investors investing in Australian mining and Australian property to avoid capital gains tax.That was a long time ago. It is now October 1999, and nothing has been done. This legislation was an ideal opportunity to legislate against that tax avoidance. Why hasn't it happened? It reflects the government's priorities. The government obviously did not regard cracking down on the avoidance of capital gains tax by foreign investors in Australia as a high priority—certainly not as high a priority as slugging Australian families with the GST.This stack of papers is the new tax for a new century—the streamlined GST. That was the government's priority. The government was completely committed to introducing a GST and not only slugging Australian families but slugging Australian firms. The foreign firms can come into Australia and escape capital gains tax with the ongoing loophole created by the inaction of the government in relation to the Lamesa Holdings case, but the highest priority of the government is to slug Australian business with the enormous compliance obligations of this legislation.This stack of papers, the GST legislation, is supposed to be the streamlined new tax for the new century. I would say, conservatively, that this weighs about two kilograms and measures about 30 centimetres—and this does not include the regulations to that legislation. The government's priorities are to slug ordinary Australian families, to impose enormous paperwork burdens on Australian businesses and, at the same time, to leave to one side or put back in the queue the loophole created whereby foreign investors in Australian mining and Australian properties can avoid capital gains tax obligations simply by inserting a few contrived entities in between. The court case said that you can actually slip a few entities in there and avoid all obligations for capital gains tax.That is the disgrace of the government's priorities in its taxation policies. Priority No. 1 was to impose on ordinary Australian families and pensioners a GST, to impose on 1.6 million small businesses an enormous compliance burden and, on the other hand, to say that it is okay for foreign investors to come here and escape their capital gains tax obligations. On this matter the Prime Minister of Australia has form, because he was a staunch opponent of the capital gains tax. Back in 1985 he said:The Treasurer (Mr Keating) never spoke a truer word than a moment ago when he said that one has to have a good memory in politics.I do have a good memory. I was around in 1985 advising the Hawke government on tax matters. The Prime Minister said on 5 June 1986 about the government's tax reform package that included capital gains tax for first time, fringe benefits tax and a tax on the free lunches that were being enjoyed by the big end of town:This is the tax package which I warned then would represent a situation in which, at the end of the day, all we would end up with would be the nasties of option A. One of the worst nasties of option A is the Government's iniquitous capital gains tax.He went on—and how's this for political opportunism—to say:I look forward with relish to the opportunity of telling the Australian people, particularly those in the nine marginal seats, all about the details of the fringe benefits tax. The Government will get it day after day during the recess, and I will be there to talk to the people in Dunkley and the others.Here is the Prime Minister saying, `I will be campaigning against the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax.' He went on to describe the capital gains tax as `madness'. In that same period, he also said that as the Treasurer of Australia under the Fraser government he had crushed tax avoidance. Yet he opposed a capital gains tax. He certainly would not have introduced it and, when Labor introduced it, he opposed it. And they are still allowing people to avoid their obligations for capital gains tax through the Lamesa Holdings case. So he has no interest in taxing capital gains and every interest in allowing people to convert income into capital gains. His preference is to have no capital gains tax at all and therefore allow people to escape tax liabilities altogether.In a speech in the parliament on 29 May 1986, the present Prime Minister talked about the foreign tax credit system. That was an initiative brought in by the Labor government to again crack down on tax avoidance opportunities. The point here is that it was open to Australian companies investing abroad to have a tax assessment on their income earned abroad and, so long as there was an assessment, it did not matter that they paid little tax, or even no tax. That then removed all obligation to pay tax in Australia. So you can imagine, and it happened repeatedly, Australian companies investing in tax havens—or rather, not actually investing in those havens, but shunting their profits into them. They were then able to completely avoid any Australian tax liability. The Hawke government said that this had to stop—that this was a rampant tax avoidance device. What did the now Prime Minister, as opposition leader then, say about that? He said:I thought about having a foreign tax credit system when I was Treasurer. I announced it; I put it forward as a proposal and, as a result of the representations I received from the Australian business community, I did not go ahead with it. I am glad that I did not go ahead with it because it would have been a mistake. I think it is a great mistake that this Government is going ahead with it. I listened to what the Australian business community had to say on that occasion. I think it is a great shame for the future of this country's investment in South East Asia that the Government is going ahead with this stupid foreign tax credit system.`Stupid foreign tax credit system' is the phrase that he used. He thought it was stupid because it cracked down on tax avoidance by Australian companies. Around the same time, he said, `I beat tax avoidance. As Treasurer, I defeated tax avoidance.' Well, he did not. He was dragged kicking and screaming to do so.On one occasion, former Prime Minister Keating tabled the telephone book of the advice of the tax office begging and pleading with the Treasurer of the day to do something about bottom-of-the-harbour schemes. He was dragged kicking and screaming to the table to do something about bottom-of-the-harbour schemes, and finally he did something, but there were still enormous avoidance opportunities open by the time that he left the position of Treasurer and when the Fraser government lost office. Those avoidance opportunities are well encapsulated in the absence of a capital gains tax and in the absence of the foreign tax credit system that was implemented by the Hawke government.The Prime Minister has been in this place saying, `Look, the Labor Party is opposing our reforms.' We do oppose policy positions with which we fundamentally disagree, but he tried to make a virtue of it, and the Treasurer tried to say, `Look, it is up to the oppositions of the day to support the tax policies of the government of the day. They should just vote for them—they should not debate them but just go in and vote for them.' That is what the Treasurer said, and the Prime Minister said, `We were very good on this front; we were very clean. We supported all the Labor reforms.' But on no less than 12 occasions, for 12 major pieces of legislation that were designed essentially to make Australian business and high wealth individuals pay their fair share of tax, the opposition of the day—the Liberal-National opposition—opposed the legislation put forward by the Hawke government. That was just during the 1980s, from 1983 to 1990. That is a dozen times that they opposed fundamental reforms such as the foreign tax credit system, capital gains tax and fringe benefits tax. Yet he has the audacity to come in here and say, `You, as an opposition, must support all our tax policies.' This is unbelievable hypocrisy.An enormous opportunity has been forgone as a result of this legislation—the opportunity to deal with tax avoidance on the part of foreign investors that come into this country, into our property and into our mining projects, and contrive their corporate arrangements so that they do not have to pay capital gains tax. I see the member for Dawson here. I would think the member for Dawson would agree that that is a real problem. There is a moral problem in allowing foreign investors to come into our country, into our property—to Gold Coast property and other coastal property up and down the length of Queensland, including in the seat of Dawson—and into mining ventures in Queensland and the rest of Australia and avoid their obligations to pay capital gains tax.Why are they able to continue to avoid obligations to pay capital gains tax? There is one simple reason: the Prime Minister has never liked capital gains tax. He described it as `iniquitous' in 1985 and as `madness', and he promised to repeal it. Of course, he did not repeal it. He has not repealed it, but he is certainly intent on making sure that there are plenty of opportunities open to people to avoid paying capital gains tax. That is why we are seeing this continued reluctance and backsliding on the part of this government to do anything about the Lamesa case, about foreign investors coming in here and making tax-free capital gains through what is obviously and blatantly a contrivance—as was completely conceded by the Treasurer in April last year. But they have done absolutely nothing about it.The government has form on tax avoidance because it is always trying to make sure that there are opportunities for big businesses to be able to avoid their tax. It has no stomach for cracking down on tax avoidance. We support this legislation because it extends the double taxation arrangements to three more countries. We support that, but I urge the government to now move without any further delay, to get its priorities right—instead of slugging Australian families and businesses with 2½ kilos worth of legislation on the GST—and to do something proper and decent about cracking down on tax avoidance and avoidance through capital gains tax in this country.11:52:0011588Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I rise to speak on the International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill 1999 . The complex and often complicated matter of ensuring multinational companies which operate in Australian pay their fair share of tax has long been a concern of many Australians—and rightfully so until the election of the coalition government in 1996. But one certainly would not think so from listening to the rantings of the member for Rankin. I am surprised that he would say that the Prime Minister was perhaps wrong to direct his attention during his recent trip to the United States to the matter of lamb and the very unfair approach that the United States took to lamb exports from Australia. I am sure the member for Rankin's very rural and regional seat will be interested to hear the disdain that he has for rural and regional Australia and their concerns over lamb exports.I want to go on to show that the member for Rankin is simply incorrect in his assertion that the coalition is not directing all of its efforts to ensuring that multinational companies pay their fair share of tax in Australia. Let me first give a little history. In October 1996, Assistant Commissioner Jim Killaly of the Australian Taxation Office said:The figures show most multinationals pay little or no tax.In a brutally frank assessment of the recent past, Mr Killaly said that, in 1993-94, 60 per cent of multinationals claimed to be operating at a loss in Australia, and paid no tax, while the great bulk of the remaining 40 per cent claimed to be only marginally profitable, and paid only a small amount tax. Of course, it raises the question of why on earth they stayed here.Indicative of the scandalous behaviour was the disclosure in the Australian Financial Review of 25 October 1995 that Mitsubishi had a revenue of $5.1 billion, yet it managed to declare a profit of only $5 million for taxation purposes, while Toyota managed to declare a net loss after tax of $26.7 million, despite revenue of $2 billion. All of this was during the period of the previous Labor government. So, obviously, the member for Rankin has selective memory.Shortly after the election of the coalition government, a Taxation Office investigation into tax avoidance by multinationals was established. That investigation identified 200 major multinationals which had earned a total of $34.2 billion a year but had paid a minuscule $40 million or 0.12 per cent in tax. Of course, this utterly disgraceful situation was allowed to develop, as I have said before, under the Labor government—when the Leader of the Opposition was a senior minister, moreover. The Labor Party in government was either hopelessly inept or deliberately conniving in its clear failure to address this critical situation.During these years when Labor turned a blind eye to the devious manipulations of huge multinational companies, hundreds of millions of dollars—and very possibly billions of dollars—which should have rightfully been collected as tax were allowed to slip away to the foreign parent companies. This potential taxation income was lost at a time when Labor's reckless spending and appalling financial mismanagement was creating a truly awesome budget deficit. The contrast between what Labor didn't or couldn't do and what the coalition has done, and is continuing to do in this area, could not be starker.In the 1996-97 and 1997-98 budgets, the coalition demonstrated its strong commitment to ensuring that foreign owned companies paid their fair share of tax by introducing a number of significant measures. These included applying the general antiavoidance provisions of the tax act to counter withholding tax avoidance, enacting tighter residency laws to stop foreign companies claiming tax advantages as dual residents, instituting tighter thin capitalisation rules, which I will go into later, taking measures to stop tax avoidance through tax exempt entities distributing funds offshore and taking measures to prevent franking credit trading and dividend streaming.The Taxation Office was also instructed to take a strongly proactive stance on this issue and, to their credit, they responded with a comprehensive antiavoidance strategy to ensure that Australian companies—including foreign owned companies—dealt with the international related parties at arms-length. The measures will substantially diminish the opportunity for the companies to artificially reduce their exposure to Australian tax. Included in these measures was a systematic review of these companies with a view to better selection of companies for audit, the redrafting of tax return questions relating to international related party dealings to enable more detailed and effective compliance monitoring, an audit program which is reviewing more than 70 multinationals concerning their international dealings, an advanced pricing arrangement program to encourage companies to formalise an agreement with the Taxation Office on the prospective application of their pricing strategies, a series of taxation rulings and booklets to ensure that companies have appropriate documentation to support their transfer pricing decisions, and the significant contribution to OECD measures that determine international taxing rights.The Treasurer, Mr Costello, in reply to a question in parliament on 2 October 1997 admitted that there were probably some people who thought the government was too strict in relation to this matter, but he added:This government stands tall in relation to tax avoidance. The Treasurer gave a brief overview of what the government had achieved at that time, only 18 months after its election in March 1996. In relation to the measures, he said:One of them, of course, was the announcement in the recent budget of the changes in relation to foreign source income. We have changed the rules in relation to foreign source income so that, in relation to passive income, you are not treated as an equal country except New Zealand and the G7 countries with comparable taxation regimes. That was done to tighten up taxation in relation to international tax agreements.The Treasurer continued:We introduced changes in relation to withholding tax to cover royalty payments as well, because it was becoming clear that interest payments could be dressed up as royalty payments and would escape the scope of the interest withholding tax arrangements. We introduced those measures to make sure that corporations are paying a fair share of tax.`Hear, hear!' to that. The Treasurer also noted that Australia shortly after the government was elected in 1996 had taken the lead in holding a joint symposium with APEC and the OECD to discuss transfer pricing and that Australia was considered to be one of the leaders in addressing this area.On 5 July this year the Commissioner of Taxation, Mr Michael Carmody, issued a statement entitled `Tax office steps up action on transfer pricing'. In that statement Mr Carmody revealed that the ATO would commence audits of 46 multinational companies with significant international party dealings and a further 60 would be subject to alternative compliance action. That is 46 multinational companies that will have audits done. I understand that the Taxation Office is also moving to interviews with the executives of companies, a very welcome move, to ensure that a fair amount of tax is paid in Australia. Mr Carmody said:I am concerned in particular about the very poor level of documentation we found in the record reviews of 190 companies to evidence the arm's length nature of their transfer pricing policies. Only one company was assessed as having high-quality documentation to support its transfer pricing with offshore associates, while 84 per cent of companies examined had documentation that was inadequate in some way. Mr Carmody went on to say that the ATO had found that 56 per cent of companies examined were in the medium high to very high category of transfer pricing audit. I commend the Australian Taxation Office for this wide-ranging and proactive initiative which has the full support of the government and it should ensure that dubious taxation avoidance practices that flourished with indecent abandon under the Labor government are stamped out.Mr Carmody also announced that the tax office was launching a further round of record reviews this year and would write to an additional 160 companies about its concerns with the transfer pricing practices of those companies. According to Mr Carmody, the ATO has significantly increased the number of staff skilled in transfer pricing issues and has engaged a number of economists to assist in professionally handling these issues. The record of the coalition government in the whole area of company tax and the eradication of tax avoidance practices has been one of achievement and result.I want to refer to something raised by the member for Rankin concerning the Lamesa decision. It has been pointed out to the member for Rankin on many occasions that the Treasurer announced the government's intention to amend the international tax legislation. The government maintains that commitment to prevent the avoidance of Australia's taxing right over effective alienation of Australian assets. That is something that the government is committed to. The press release that the member for Rankin referred to announced that the change would apply from the date of the press release. The member for Rankin should also note—if he bothered to read—that the matter has been specifically dealt with in the four treaties covered by this bill.I turn now to the future and what the coalition government intends to do. Our record is one of which we can be rightfully proud, especially so when one compares the 13 years of ineptitude and inaction by the previous Labor government. Let us look at what is going to be done in the future to continue to address the matter of fair taxation in Australia. The Ralph review has recom mended a range of further measures to ensure that foreign investors pay their fair share of tax on Australian source income and that offshore income is not used by Australian residents to avoid paying their fair share of tax. Some of those measures include a wider application of thin capitalisation provisions to prevent multinational companies from allocating excessive debt to their Australian operations and hence, of course, minimising their income for taxation purposes. It is proposed that these rules would apply for the first time to Australian groups that have substantial foreign operations. According to the Ralph review, these changes, if accepted by the government, would raise significant revenue but could be more than justified as necessary to ensure that multinational groups pay tax in Australia rather than in other countries.Also proposed is a new withholding tax on non-residents without a permanent presence in Australia to ensure greater compliance in the payment of tax. The Ralph review goes on to recommend that the government conduct further reviews of Australia's foreign source income rules and double tax agreement policy and that Australia's international tax legislation be rewritten and redesigned. The government is yet to respond to these recommendations, but let me say that this government's record of a determined assault on tax avoiders points the way to an acceptance of recommendations that protect our tax base.This bill proposes inserting into the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 the text of new Australian double taxation agreements with South Africa, Slovakia and Argentina, and the text of an amending protocol to the Malaysian double tax agreement. These changes were gone into in great detail by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, of which I am proud to be a member. These measures will give these agreements the force of law in Australia and will allocate taxing rights along the same lines as Australia's existing double tax agreements. Once enacted, individuals and companies associated with tax avoidance activities involving these nations will have their activities severely curtailed. The coalition government's record of ensuring that multinationals and others pay their fair share of tax in Australia is one of which it can be justly proud. I support this bill.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—Before I call the minister to sum up, I would like to remind him of his obligation under standing order 57 not to move between the chair and the person speaking in the House.12:06:0011591Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I apologise for doing that. I did not think that I was actually moving between the two, but I appear to be wider than I thought. I would like to thank all of the participants in this debate. The International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill 1999 will provide legislative authority for three new comprehensive double taxation agreements—with South Africa, Slovakia and Argentina—and an amending protocol to our existing agreement with Malaysia. The agreement between Australia and South Africa was signed on 1 July 1999, whilst the Malaysian protocol, the Slovak agreement and the Argentine agreement were all signed during August of this year.The new agreements are consistent with agreements concluded by Australia in recent years. It is worth noting that the agreements with South Africa and Argentina are the first double tax agreements to be concluded by Australia with an African and a South American country respectively. The agreement with Argentina will, in particular, benefit Australian companies with mining interests in Argentina. As was highlighted by my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration, Mr Slipper, when this bill was introduced, the government believes the conclusion of these new agreements and protocol will go a long way to strengthening the trade, investment and wider relationships between Australia and each of these countries.The agreements and protocol will enter into force respectively when diplomatic notes are exchanged advising that all of the necessary domestic processes to give them the force of law in each country have been completed. The enactment of this bill and the satisfaction of the other procedures relating to the proposed treaty actions will complete the pro cesses followed in Australia for those purposes.I might add that these initiatives and international tax agreements are increasingly important in the global financial structure, because global markets mean that capital moves more freely through the international corridors and through international capital markets and, therefore, a globally competitive and consistent taxation regime is a necessity if people are expecting to continue to trade and export their goods and develop wealth for the nation.So I might just say to the House again that it remains disappointing that the opposition has not given us and the Australian people a response on the Ralph tax initiatives. It is disappointing, because we are under increasing international pressure to have a competitive taxation system, a system that is in the realms of OECD taxation rates. When the opposition does not take a position and if Australia does not have a competitive taxation regime, it significantly disadvantages us as a trading nation. Because, whether it is the export of goods or the export of services, as a trading nation we must have a competitive domestic industry. We must have a strong, vibrant, robust domestic industry to be able to compete with the strongest and most vibrant domestic industries of other countries around the world.So it would be very disappointing if the opposition during the course of the debate about business tax reform follows the path that it has taken on the taxation system, on the GST package, if it follows the path that it has taken on Telstra, if it follows the path that it has taken on industrial relations reform, if it follows the path that it has taken—to my great surprise, I might say—on corporate law reform. I have a reasonable political antenna, but I cannot for the life of me work out why Senator Conroy is opposing in the Senate corporate law reform. I cannot work out what the politics are. Because on issues like the mandatory bid rule, Senator Conroy is saying how the small shareholders are disadvantaged, and the Australian Shareholders Association is writing to everyone saying, `We want the mandatory bid rule. It advantages small shareholders.' Yet the opposition is opposing corporate law reform, which has been sitting around for 2½ years and is the sort of regulatory reform that Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve in the United States, lauds as Australia's great advantage during the Asian financial crisis.Why on earth would the Labor Party choose to oppose corporate law reform? Where are the votes with everyday Australians in everyday electorates in opposing the mandatory bid rule? If you are doing it for pure politics, where are the votes? If the Labor Party is opposing all of these initiatives to be cute, then they are being cute. They are very successful. They have become a permanent opposition. So it is no surprise that we go to the Democrats and the other parties, who are prepared to sit down and negotiate issues on a realistic and fair basis, to try to get our legislation through, the legislation that is lauded around the world as the reason Australia had the fastest growth rate in the OECD, the fastest and strongest developing economy in the world when seven out of our top 10 trading partners are in recession or depression. The rest of the world lauds us for that achievement, and these people—the Labor Party in opposition—are opposing every initiative that we come up with.Even in this debate we had the shadow Assistant Treasurer talking about the government's silence in relation to double taxation agreements of the United Kingdom and the United States and talking about the enormous loophole in Australia's double taxation laws. For 13 years the Labor Party was in government. What did they do about it? Yet they go into opposition, but in their 14th year they would have fixed it. It is the same old story. All wisdom descends on the Labor Party in opposition. All of a sudden the Labor Party goes into opposition and has the wisdom of Solomon and decides, `Oh yes, we will just oppose every single initiative.' What have you supported the government on?WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—Very clever of you!DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—What major economic initiatives have you supported the government on? PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Wind up! You are supposed to be winding up.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—Order! I remind the minister to address his remarks through the chair.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—Well, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will ask you: what major economic initiatives has the Labor Party supported us on? There is a deathly silence. It is a reasonable question, and I will tell you why there is silence: the Labor Party opposed every single initiative of tax reform, industrial relations reform, corporate law reform, regulatory reform, the sale of Telstra, privatisation, expansion of share ownership in Australia and, most importantly, fixing up your budget black hole. Do you know why? Because the Labor Party has become the party of professional opposition. Congratulations! You get a Purple Heart for that. One cannot find a constructive approach to good government in Australia in the Labor Party. And, ultimately, the people who are worse off are the Australian people.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.11593Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Hockey) read a third time.Bills11593r91211593Debate resumed from 22 September, on motion by Mr Reith:That the bill be now read a second time.12:16:0011593Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—The Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 seeks to weaken the Affirmative Action Agency. It is part of the agenda of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business to undermine every institution that exists to help women achieve equal opportunity in Australian workplaces. He has another piece of legislation before the parlia ment at the moment that targets the Industrial Relations Commission. The one we are debating today targets the Affirmative Action Agency. Make no mistake: the Howard government do not actually want this organisation to exist. They would really rather repeal this piece of legislation but they knew that they would never get away with that, and so today we are debating the weakening of the Affirmative Action Agency.The amendments before us today will weaken the power of the Affirmative Action Agency to promote equal opportunity for the millions of working women who are already struggling under the weight of the Howard government's anti-women and anti-family policies. This is a government that does not like the Affirmative Action Agency, because it is one of the achievements of the previous Labor government.When the agency was established in 1986, it was the first attempt by a government to encourage and monitor the progress made by larger private firms in promoting equality of opportunity in the workplace. It was not just aimed squarely at upholding and enhancing women's right to work—something that had never been contemplated, of course, by the conservatives—but also aimed at ensuring that women were treated fairly in the workplace, that women were not penalised in recruitment or in promotion, and that employers and firms were required to think about how women fared in their workplace and how to address any barriers that existed.The current act requires large employers—that is, firms with more than 100 employees—to have an affirmative action program for women and to report every year to the government, through the director of the Affirmative Action Agency, their progress in providing equal opportunities for women in the workplace. Senior management within companies must oversee the development of the plan, and there must be wide consultation in its development.Since 1994, employers have been rated on a scale of 1 to 5—5 being the best result. Failure to submit a report or failure to provide evidence of a program results in the employer being named when the annual report of the agency is tabled in the parliament. These firms can also be ineligible for Commonwealth government contracts and some forms of industry assistance. But firms which do the right thing by complying with the act for three years can get a waiver from supplying further reports.The agency has been very successful in helping to build fairer workplaces. Since 1986, we have seen the number of women in the workplace increase significantly. This has coincided with a rise in the number of organisations that have an equal opportunity policy in place. Drawing from the report of the Independent Review Committee—the committee which was set up to review the Affirmative Action Agency and the act—57 per cent of private sector workplaces had an equal opportunity policy in place in 1995, up from 45 per cent in 1990. But, as we would all acknowledge, there is still a very long way to go—something the agency itself has said. The checks and safeguards provided by the agency are needed now as much as ever.To give a few figures that illustrate the point, only 11 per cent of senior management positions in Australia are held by women. Women remain massively overrepresented in part-time and casual work, with 73 per cent of part-time jobs being held by women. Women still only earn 84 per cent of what men earn, on a comparable average weekly earnings basis. The proportion of women participating in the work force has remained stuck at just under 54 per cent since the Howard government came to power, and there are now signs that women are starting to leave the work force. The latest figures show a reduction in the number of married women with full-time jobs.On top of this, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business is, of course, continuing to rip away the supports that women have enjoyed in the industrial relations system. The undermining of awards—and the majority of women workers depend on awards for their wage rises—will mean that women will feel the brunt of the changes that are still before the parliament. The stripping of superannuation from awards will mean that many women will miss out on retirement savings. At a time when we need to strengthen the role of the Affirmative Action Agency, the government is doing exactly the opposite. It suits its purpose, of course: deregulation of the labour market requires the abolition of all the institutions that play some role in its regulation.The government commissioned a review of the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Act 1986 by an independent committee in order to examine the costs of the act to business, the community and the Australian economy as a whole. Interestingly enough, the terms of reference did not include whether the act needed strengthening to further improve women's opportunities in the workplace. This bill is the government's selective response to the recommendations of that committee. They have picked the bits they like and, not surprisingly, ignored what they do not.As is the minister's wont, he has dressed up this legislation as something it is not. He says it is aimed at `achieving genuine equality of opportunity for women in Australian workplaces'—much like he has dressed up stripping awards as providing greater choice and greater opportunity. As I have said in the past, when this minister starts talking about fair employment practices the alarm bells ring for Australian women. For Peter Reith, fairness is a euphemism for poorer pay and longer hours.That said, there are elements of this bill before us that the opposition will support. We believe that the name change for the agency is an appropriate one. Like the minister, I believe that the name will more accurately reflect the role that the agency has played. Further, we support the broadening of the definition of `employment matters' covered by the act to include the termination of employment, work organisation, and arrangements for dealing with harassment of women in the workplace, although we would like to see this definition of employment matters extended further—I will outline where shortly. We also believe that the establishment of an advisory board is an appropriate step.I particularly want to welcome the comments of the minister in his second reading speech in which he admits that the affirmative action act has delivered substantial gains to women. The only point I would make is that it makes me wonder why he would then pursue this legislation that may well see those gains undermined. I also welcome the indication by the minister that the agency should have an increased educative role. However, I cannot see how that role can be properly achieved while staffing has been reduced to 19 under this government and they have cut the agency's funding by $900,000.The rest of the legislation waters down the original act and, given we have a long way to travel before equal opportunity in the workplace is achieved for women, now is not the time to weaken this legislation. Labor will oppose those sections of this bill that reduce the capacity of the act to improve employment opportunities for women.This is not to say that we reject all of the report of the committee. The idea of workplace visits, which was recommendation 12 of the committee's report, was one that I thought would be an appropriate way forward to give the agency an enhanced educative role and to provide a supplement to reporting. This would have given greater information to the agency when it came to organisations seeking a waiver from the ongoing reporting requirements of the act. However, it is nowhere to be found in this bill. Recommendation 14 also advocated that self-identification by organisations that are subject to the conditions of the act be made a requirement. Again, this has not been incorporated into legislation.As I said, there are a number of areas of the bill that weaken the current act. The bill will weaken the requirement of employers to promote equal opportunity. Employers will now only have to contribute to the achievement of equal opportunity. The objects clause of the bill states that it is `to promote' merit based employment for women and the elimination of discrimination against women in the workplace. And yet there is no requirement for employers to promote, in their workplace, these objects as part of their equality for women in the workplace programs.The bill also removes the requirement that employers consult both with their employees and with the relevant trade union—not sur prising from this minister. For an equality of opportunity program to be genuinely effective, it must bring all members of the workplace together behind it; it cannot exclusively be the province of management to work out what is right and what is wrong. In larger workplaces where this act comes into play, unions represent many of the workers, and the unions are important players in the dissemination of information, providing advocacy, advice and representation to their workers, who in turn rely on them for support when they are vulnerable. The independent review of the agency recommended that the consultation arrangements continue—but the minister has chosen to selectively ignore this recommendation.The legislation also seeks to remove the requirement that a senior manager within a firm coordinate the development of the affirmative action plan. This means that the program can now be held in the hands of a junior officer of the company, without authority and without the skills and knowledge of the workplace to actually see results happen. Again, this downgrades the importance of compliance with the act within an organisation.The bill would also reduce the requirement to report from one year to every two years. This will reduce the scrutiny applied to the program in individual workplaces. The explanatory memorandum also makes reference to the abolition of the rating system, which measured the level of success in implementing affirmative action measures in a workplace, and replaces it with a simple pass or fail—complying or non-complying. This draws no distinction between those companies with very good and those with adequate programs. It is not an appropriate way in which to provide businesses with the incentive to improve. If a simple `complied' is all that is required, then why would a business strive to improve the situation in their workplace even more?The extension of the granting of waivers to firms is also a matter of concern to the opposition. The act as it stands provides for waivers to be granted to firms that have complied for three years. I count that as a fair amount of time in which to assess a firm's commitment to implementing real and appropriate programs. The bill as it stands would have waivers granted on the basis of the discretion of the Affirmative Action Agency. It relies on an assessment of every waiver request and, given that the agency has experienced significant budget cuts under this government, that assessment procedure in itself is going to be difficult. What it amounts to is the government, on the one hand, lowering the benchmark for compliance and, on the other, giving firms a greater chance to evade reporting. The submission by the agency to the committee of review stated:. . . there was anecdotal evidence that in a minority of waived organisations, resources have been directed away from the program following the Agency's decision to waive that organisation's reporting requirements.This would be of considerable concern under an expanded system of waivers. At the moment, an employer must submit a confidential report on top of the public report after the first year to establish and implement the employer's affirmative action program and then every year thereafter to spell out the development of the program. Under the bill before us, there is a requirement for employers to lodge only a confidential report every year if they do not cover matters of self-assessment in the public report. Again, this is a neutering of the previous reporting regime under which employers were required to attend to the details of their program at the start of the program and report confidentially by way of self-assessment every year thereafter.Labor will be moving a number of amendments to this legislation when it gets to the Senate, and I will outline them here. We will seek to extend the definition of employment matters further to include arrangements for dealing with pregnant, potentially pregnant and breastfeeding employees. A second amendment will seek to ensure that compliance with guidelines developed under the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Act is admissible as evidence in cases brought before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Another amendment will seek to clarify coverage of the Sex Discrimination Act for federal statutory authorities, judicial office holders and members of parliament. We will seek to remove the exemption of employment by an instrumentality of a state. We will also seek to remove the exemption for educational institutions established for religious purposes in relation to pregnancy and potential pregnancy.Labor will be seeking in the Senate also to move other significant amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act, which I will now go through, to implement the recommendations and the intent of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report Pregnant and productive. The government, as would come as no surprise to anyone on our side, is sitting on this report. We have already called for the government to introduce the recommended amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report outlined. We have informed the government that we will support those amendments. The evidence in the report of the treatment that some pregnant women have to endure in workplaces means that we must act quickly.Labor has said that we will support these amendments, but the government has done nothing. As a result of that inaction, Labor will now introduce these amendments in the Senate to make the changes, as recommended. These amendments will include: empowering the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to publish enforceable standards in relation to pregnancy and potential pregnancy; insertion of a specific provision that prohibits the asking of questions, whether orally or in writing, which might reasonably be understood as intended to elicit information about whether or when a woman intends to become pregnant and/or her intentions in relation to meeting her current or pending family responsibilities; clarification of the unlawfulness of discriminating in medical examinations of pregnant women during the recruitment process; allowing referrals by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner to the Industrial Relations Commission of discriminatory awards or agreements without the need for receipt of a written complaint; including breastfeeding as a ground of unlawful discrimination; enabling the award of punitive damages as well as compensatory damages; removing the exemption for educational institutions established for religious purposes in relation to pregnancy and potential pregnancy; ensuring coverage of unpaid workers; and, finally, removing the exemption of employment by an instrumentality of a state.Labor will keep its commitment and not allow this important report to languish on some shelf in Senator Newman's office, or maybe in some bottom drawer like the secret welfare report. We firmly believe that these are sensible amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act and that, coupled with a well-planned education campaign, they can make a concrete difference to the everyday lives of Australian women.I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate those who were involved in the previous Labor government and those who have come since on what was a very proud legislative achievement of the previous government: the Sex Discrimination Act, which prohibits discrimination against women. We celebrate the 15th anniversary of this act this week, and I can hear many a retired or mostly retired Tory gnashing their teeth as I stand here because it was a foundation piece of legislation for so much of what we achieved for women in government.As Michelle Gunn pointed out in the Australian earlier this week, many women in Australia now have the confidence to stand up against discrimination themselves, which is, in part, due to the act and the work of the commissioners, who have to be commended, and I am sure would be commended by many in this parliament, for their ongoing efforts. But, as Susan Halliday, the current Sex Discrimination Commissioner, has said, there is no room for complacency. We do need to be steadfast and, if ever there were a tonic to help women everywhere steel themselves in a fight for further equality, we need look no further than the men of the Peacock opposition in the debate on the Sex Discrimination Bill in 1984. I will quote a couple of them, Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, and I am sorry to say they come from your home state of Tasmania. I can see one of my counterparts opposite, and I am sure she supports what I say. Bruce Goodluck was perhaps the most ham-fisted. He said:I have looked at the four women on the Government side—that is, the Labor side—They are nice ladies.. . . . . . . . .But the majority of Liberal women are quiet and do not say very much. They support their husbands . . . They do not complain about having to look after their families or talk about those sorts of things.Michael Hodgman, I am sorry to say another Tasmanian, said:I have to say that this legislation as a whole is tainted with the pseudo intellectualism of selfish and unrepresentative feminism and doctrinaire marxist-socialist precepts of contrived equality-defying laws of nature.Can you believe it?Unfortunately, we cannot ignore the contribution of the Nationals in this debate. Peter McGauran may yet hold the answer to why we have seen no action on the Pregnant and productive report. He said during the debate that another area that caused him real concern is that of discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy. He said he considered provisions against discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy unworkable.But the last comment has to go to the spiritual leader of the National Party, Joh Bjelke-Petersen. I think he really encapsulated the Nationals' commitment to Australia's working women when he said, `In Queensland we already give people equal opportunity in areas where they qualify to be equally qualified.' Hopefully, the days of these outrageous comments are over and we will see the Sex Discrimination Act strengthened as a result of the amendments we will move in the Senate when this bill gets there.Returning to the affirmative action bill, the minister told us that the changes we are debating today are all about cutting red tape and streamlining procedures, but we on the Labor side see them as removing accountability. I think the second reading amendment has already been circulated in my name, and I now move: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 expresses its concern about the nature of the bill and its contribution to the stripping back of Government support for Australian women and the community organisations that represent them, in particular:(1) the weakening of industrial relations legislation and organisations that aim to improve women's employment prospects and workplace treatment, particularly through the Workplace Relations Act and reductions in the power of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission;(2) the weakening of organisations that exist to provide women with suitable avenues of redress for discrimination, including the Affirmative Action Agency and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission;(3) failure to respond to major reports, particularly the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Report, Pregnant and Productive ;(4) failure to send appropriate representation to international forums discussing women's policy, particularly to the recent International Labour Organisation's conference on maternity leave provisions;(5) the weakening of the role of government organisations that aim to improve the sensitivity of government policies to women, particularly the Office of the Status of Women;(6) the de-funding of community groups which represent women, including the Girl Guides, the Women's Electoral Lobby, the Older Women's Network and the Catholic Women's League;(7) failure to consult with a wide range of women's organisations, particularly through the reduction in the numbers now attending the national round table consultations;(8) cuts to child care, education and health-services which women depend upon to be able to work, to raise a family and to improve their living standards;(9) the development of taxation policies which do not deliver an equal benefit to women and which redistribute more of the burden of taxation onto women through the Goods and Services Tax; and(10) the de-funding of the social safety net by stealth which impacts significantly on women as women are more dependent upon social security and the Government's refusal to release a secret welfare discussion paper containing plans to cut payments to sole parents and people with disabilities."As I have set out in the second reading amendment, the government has already dramatically reduced opportunities for Australian women by attacking their rights in the workplace by introducing what have to be called draconian industrial relations changes, by weakening the ability of women to seek adequate redress for discrimination, by defunding women's organisations, by failing to involve and consult with women and by its economic policies that see women most disadvantaged. This bill does nothing to reverse any of those trends.At a time when Australian women have stopped making progress and must now face the full brunt of these very harsh economic and, particularly, industrial relations measures, it is important that we strengthen those institutions that advocate for a better deal for women so we can continue to move ahead, as the minister himself has said, to make significant gains for Australian women in the workplace. If this bill is weakened those significant gains will not be made.Labor will seek to strengthen this bill when it gets to the Senate. We will move the amendments that I have outlined to the Sex Discrimination Act in the Senate to implement the recommendations from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report, Pregnant and productive.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—Is the amendment seconded?5V5SMITHMr Stephen Smith—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.12:40:0011598Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—This government is committed to promoting equal employment opportunities for women in workplaces across Australia. One difference between our approach and that of the opposition is that we are concerned with real outcomes, not rhetoric. This government has a contemporary, progressive approach to women's issues. We are not stuck in some time warp bleating the same tired old lines. When the member for Jagajaga started speaking, I was taken back in time for a moment, back on university campus circa 1970. Time has marched on for women in this country, which Labor fails to recognise.The opposition whines that the amendments proposed in the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 in some way downgrade the status of women and that this is indicative of the government's attitude to women in our society. It is just nonsense. This government can be judged on its performance in terms of the environment it has provided for working women or for women who wish to work. We have reformed the labour market.The system we inherited from Labor paid little regard to the interests of women. That is perhaps not surprising, given that the old trade union hierarchy would have to be the remaining bastion of prejudice and discrimination against women in this country. The Workplace Relations Act 1996 has transformed the workplace and provided a framework for employers and employees to work together cooperatively to develop and implement innovative work practices that suit and benefit both. The act specifically assists women to enter and remain in the work force. There are provisions to prevent and eliminate discrimination and promote good workplace practice. We have encouraged the spread of flexible working arrangements to suit the individual needs of employees and employers. There is now scope for the development of innovative and flexible workplace based agreements on working patterns and leave entitlements.The government's workplace relations policy `More jobs, better pay' ensures we maintain a flexible and fair workplace relations system that protects and promotes women's entry and participation in the work force and enables women to make informed choices about their working arrangements.The statistics bear out the fact that this government is committed to promoting opportunities for women in the workplace. The member for Jagajaga ignores, for her convenience, that under this government women are enjoying a period of lower unemployment and higher employment opportunities. Women are benefiting in numerous ways from the government's management of the economy. Women have made significant gains in the labour force in the past couple of years. We are enjoying a labour market environment of steadily rising employment. Women are participating in the work force in high numbers.Since March 1996, 216,000 more women have entered the labour force, and the number of women in employment grew by 6.7 per cent between March 1996 and August 1999. Just in the last 12 months, we have had an increase of 60,300 women in employment. Overall, women's labour force participation reached an all-time high of 54.4 per cent in September. Women's unemployment fell to a nine-year low of seven per cent in July and August. It has risen slightly in the last month but women's unemployment has been in a constant downward trend since March 1997, when the rate was 8.5 per cent; it is now 7.4. Of course, in the longer term the increased percentages of women in the workplace will not increase at the same rate, as there will be an inevitable slowing as women approach equal labour force participation with men. These figures highlight the shrinking barriers for women seeking paid work under this government.The government recognises the role that equal opportunity legislation plays, and we acknowledge that the existing legislation, the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act, has played a useful role in the 13½ years since it was introduced. That does not mean that it cannot be improved upon. That does not mean that the existing legislation is without fault. That does not mean that we have stood still in a 1970s and 1980s time warp. Even the most strident supporters of affirmative action in its most radical manifestation have the honesty to admit that the act is not reflective of the times and can be improved upon to be at least relevant to the workplaces to which it is directed. To suggest that we are really trying to repeal the act is just plain silly. The act and the agency will have more relevance under these amendments.The particular amendments we propose to the affirmative action act ensure that the substance of the act is relevant, that it reflects the major changes for women in the labour market since it was introduced back in 1986, that it recognises that the key business drivers have changed since 1986, that it reflects contemporary management practice and theory, and that the aspects of the act that have proven to be inefficient, ineffective or inappropriate for the labour market of the 21st century are amended, updated and generally vastly improved upon.Essentially the key reforms are: one, renaming the act by removing reference to affirmative action in the title and renaming the agency established under the act the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency rather than the Affirmative Action Agency; two, introducing an objects clause for the act to clarify the objectives of the legislation; three, replacing the prescriptive eight-step affirmative action program with a new approach less concerned with process and more focused on outcomes; four, reducing the paperwork burden currently imposed on employers—effectively halving it by changing the reporting requirements to biennial rather than annual; five, amending the reporting framework to accurately reflect the focus on outcomes and achievements so that employers will report on the outcomes of their program; six, enabling an employer to be waived from reporting if the agency is satisfied that a particular employer has taken all reasonably practicable measures to address the issues relating to employment matters that affect equal employment opportunity for women in that workplace; and, seven, allowing the agency to seek information from employers on their workplace program, on the preparation of their report or on the report itself. This last measure in itself considerably strengthens the powers of the agency which until now could only seek information after it had deemed an employer to be non-compliant. So it is a nonsense to suggest that in some way we are weakening the powers of the agency.The legislative reforms the government proposes are directed at achieving genuine equality of opportunity in employment. We re-emphasise merit as the focus for equal opportunity. It is about individual talents and efforts and accomplishments. The new section 2A provides that the principal objects of this act are:to promote the principle that employment for women should be dealt with on the basis of merit; andto promote, amongst employers, the elimination of discrimination . . . and the provision of equal opportunity for women in relation to employment matters; andto foster workplace consultation between employers and employees on issues concerning equal opportunity for women . . .So they are laudable objectives. There is also a wider definition of what is covered by `employment matters'.When the affirmative action act was passed in February 1986, the government at the time considered it necessary to ensure that large organisations took seriously their obligations to their female employees. It was argued that affirmative action programs would ensure that any existing discrimination would be identified and removed. This was based on evidence at the time that women in the early 1980s experienced significant inequities. For example, they did not receive equal remuneration for work of equal value in a labour market characterised by occupational and industry segregation.While the act required the promotion of equal opportunity for women in employment and the elimination of discrimination by the employer against women in the workplace per se, it was controversial legislation. Some considered that the very title of the act, the affirmative action act, gave rise to the belief that it was really an attempt to introduce non-merit based quotas and preferential treatment in the employment of women. The confusion over its objectives and the ambiguity surrounding the term `affirmative action' remains to this day. This has not been very helpful, because there were inequities that the act was to address and it was very much a piece of legislation of its time, coming as it did less than two years after the introduction of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984.The fact is that the concept of affirmative action can have quite negative connotations. There is residual resistance—in some quarters quite strident resistance—to the notion and the misconceptions about the existing act and this should have been addressed, as we are seeking to do. The existing act required private sector employers to develop and implement what were specifically termed `affirmative action programs' to secure equal employment opportunities for women. They were obliged to lodge an annual report on their plan and their progress in implementing it. Concerns were expressed at the time that quotas would be imposed under the guise of forward estimates and objectives and that this would give rise to externally imposed or strict quotas.Once the concept of affirmative action is translated into quotas, real problems arise, as the opposition well knows. Not so long ago the ALP introduced a quota for the number of women preselected for parliamentary seats. The then minister for health, the member for Fremantle, trailblazed this quota idea, which was to give ALP women 35 per cent of winnable federal seats by 2002. While I would be among the first to acknowledge that women are underrepresented in Canberra, strict quota ideas such as this one were rightly rejected by the community at large because, like some forms of protection, it does more harm than good to the supposed beneficiaries. It was an idea that suffered from all the misconceptions about the change that quotas are meant to be able to bring about. And why 35 per cent? If that was meant to be a minimum, it is rather funny how quotas convert minima to maxima—a rather quaint and arbitrary figure. Conversely, how did they justify keeping 65 per cent of safe seats for ALP men because they were men? It just shows how ridiculous the notion was.But I expect that there is a need within the ALP to overcome the prejudice and discrimination inherent in that last bastion of male dominance—the trade union hierarchy. But elsewhere in the real world strict quotas for women are yesterday's thinking. What we seek to do in these amendments by changing the name of the act and by refining its objec tives is to make clear to the community that this legislation is not about forcing strict quotas or preferential treatment on employers but is focused on a merit based approach to equal opportunity. It will dispel once and for all the notion of quotas.One of the great improvements offered by these amendments will be to the reporting process. Under the old act there was an overemphasis on process. It was far too prescriptive in its reporting requirements. The eight-step approach prescribed in the act is not achieving the outcomes. For a start, you can comply with the process without necessarily improving the employment situation for women. It is a process that has been, in many instances, well and truly overtaken by far more sophisticated equal opportunity or diversity management plans, and it does not fit with contemporary management thinking involving corporate change, accountability and human resource management and consultation. It was a `one size fits all' notion that is no longer relevant in many workplace environments, particularly the large organisations to which this legislation is directed. All it sought in fact was an internally consistent, stand-alone affirmative action program. This is inconsistent with a business environment that is largely outcome oriented where managers determine the processes that are most effective in delivering at the workplace level those outcomes that are consistent with their wider corporate strategies.So much has changed since the inception of the act that the assumptions underpinning the reporting requirements are increasingly irrelevant to the day-to-day activities of organisations covered by the act. The government recognises that this template based approach to reporting arrangements under the act—which is weighted towards processes rather than outcomes—is inconsistent with broader organisational approaches to managerial accountability. This has led to considerable dissatisfaction with the act. I believe that it has had a negative effect on organisations' experience of being required to report in this way. I certainly know from personal experience, as the managing partner of a large law firm responsible for filing these reports, that the reporting requirements of the act were not well adapted to the realities of the workplace, nor were they effective in capturing the strategic planning or thinking that was going on at the time. It was becoming a mechanical exercise that did not reflect the realities of organisational activity. The government has taken this on board. It recognises that to address equity for women in the workplace the act must focus on real outcomes for women.Our approach as set out in these amendments will require employers to prepare a workplace profile based on actual information—facts about the particular work force—and use that work profile to develop a workplace program. The method of collecting the data is left to the employer to ensure that it reflects the characteristics of the actual workplace. Some may use internal or industry based classifications, but the important point is to ensure that the information allows for an adequate level of gender analysis.The employer will analyse the profile to identify issues that the employer would need to address to achieve equal opportunity and the action to be taken. This will allow employers to identify the priorities for action that are relevant to their workplace. The employers must then report, either publicly or in confidence, on the effectiveness of the actions taken. So the objective is for employers to take steps that are appropriate to address issues that have been identified as relevant to their particular workplace. It should promote ownership of the programs via the participating employers and employees and allow flexibility in the way employers achieve equal opportunity in their workplaces. This is a far more effective way to achieve real outcomes.We also take into account the reality of workplaces that have achieved a satisfactory level of compliance with best practice in the equal opportunity field by granting waivers from the reporting requirements. The member for Jagajaga seems to overlook the fact that these organisations have been filling in these template based reports for a decade or more—they have probably done 10 or 12 each—and a number of organisations have surpassed what the act ever contemplated. Hopefully, the availability of waivers will also encourage employers to produce good quality workplace programs and provide effective action plans to eliminate discrimination and achieve equal opportunity in the workplace.As to the reporting requirements, the amendments will be welcomed by all employers as they will streamline and simplify the reporting process, which has in fact been one of the most criticised areas of the current act. First, the reporting framework will focus on outcomes and achievements. The employer will report on the outcomes of the program, describe the analysis that was undertaken, including the workplace profile, describe the actions taken and report on the evaluation of the actions. The employer will also be required to present a forward action plan for the next reporting period. The really good news is that the reporting period will be every two years instead of the annual reporting that we currently require. It has been estimated conservatively by the committee reviewing this act for the government that the aggregate cost to employers of preparing annual reports in the form prescribed is of the order of $6.7 million. So biennial reporting will obviously halve that cost to business.This government has taken its review of the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act very seriously. The review was undertaken as one of a number of scheduled legislative reviews implementing the commitment to the competition principles agreement. The timing was also right for this review. It was conducted by an independent committee. While it was consistent with the principles developed for scheduled legislative reviews, the actual review was as broad and as comprehensive as possible. It was not confined to just the operation of the act; it also took into account the changes that have occurred in the labour market since the act was introduced. The committee consulted extensively with all sectors of the community, including business and women's organisations. There were over 180 submissions in all, and many roundtable meetings were held. The review analysed the business drivers that have changed since 1986 and it noted the inadequacies in the current act. It made a number of recommendations in its report, Unfinished business, and the bulk of them are contained in these amendments.The amendments proposed in this bill will ensure that our equal opportunity legislation is fair and contemporary and that it will serve the interests of both employers and employees. The government's workplace relations policy puts workers and businesses first, not institutions. It is relevant to modern Australia. It builds on the common interests which exist in the workplace and provides fair and productive outcomes, reflecting our national, social and economic goals. This bill will provide important, useful and relevant legislation to address market distortions, including the lingering attitudinal and institutional barriers, and it will promote the full recognition and utilisation of women in the Australian work force. It will be welcomed by business, by women, by all employees. I commend the bill to the House.12:59:0011603Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—The Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 is, perhaps, sadly titled. It is not quite as misleading as the other bill that has been recently before this parliament from this department which, of course, was the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 , otherwise known in the community as Minister Reith's second wave or, in his department, as his mojo bill. This bill is about anything but improving the equal opportunity chances for women in the workplace. It actually reduces in a number of ways the conditions, benefits, regulations and reporting procedures currently in place. Rather than enhance the prospect of women receiving equal opportunity in the workplace, this bill actually takes away from women in the workplace some of the protections and assistance that the present act provides.The government have sought to justify the removal of some of these clauses based on the review of the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986. That report was released in June of last year and the government then provided a response to that report. But in typical doublespeak, as with the titling of the bill, the government have been carefully selective in the way they have chosen to deal with that report. For example, one of the government's responses—a key response upon which a number of aspects of this bill are predicated—said this:The government agrees that the objects of the legislation should emphasise merit, replace the old union consultation requirement with a general statement of support for consultation, and emphasise a facilitative rather than a punitive approach to compliance.That may sound fair enough in the abstract. Interestingly, it evoked this response in the Bills Digest which, as members of parliament know, is an explanatory background advice to members of parliament about what legislation does. Immediately after that reference in the Bills Digest , the authors of the Bills Digest make this note:This response—that is, the government's response—would seem to have endorsed its own summary rather than the actual recommendations of the review.That is quite an extraordinary conclusion for the Parliamentary Library Bills Digest to draw. Effectively, they are saying that the government have looked at this report; they verballed the report; and they have put in place their own recommendations, claiming them to be the report's recommendations. They then said, `We agree with the report saying this . . . ' when, in fact, the report did not say it at all. That is a tidy piece of writing, no doubt, by somebody in the minister's office or the department charged with those responsibilities, but it did not escape the scrutiny, thankfully, of the staff of the Parliamentary Library preparing the Bills Digest .I want to make some comments about the circumstance of this government's wanting to remove a process of union consultation. I want to go back to the report which they claim they have based this on. In fact, far from recommending against union consultation, the review which this government want to rely upon had a main reference to unions that involved a discussion of workplace data. There is a range of workplace data upon which to draw. They were looking at the workplace data that was analysed by the Centre for Research in Employment and Work. It showed, and I quote:Unionised workplaces have better equity performance than non-unionised workplaces and the higher the level of union density, the more likely the workplace is to have high equity performance.If we are genuinely concerned with equal opportunity, as the title of this bill suggests we might be, if that title means anything and we want to promote equity, the statistics tell us that the greatest degree of gender equity exists in those places that are unionised. The higher the level of union membership, the greater the level of equity. That is not a value judgment from the Labor Party. It is actually the statistical analysis, and it was included in the report the government say they are now relying on. The government make no pretence at wanting to support that equity.One of the key aspects of what the government are doing in this bill is removing the process of union consultation—that is, they are seeking to limit the involvement of unions in promoting equal opportunity for women. Why, if you were serious—as the government would have us believe they are—about promoting equal opportunity, would you destroy what is the most successful example of obtaining that equal opportunity—that is, unionised workplaces? The answer to that is clear to all Australians. This government's zeal in pursuing a very biased and ideological industrial relations agenda cuts across all other areas of policy. Today, we see it cut across the objective of equal opportunity.We have debated in this parliament at other times the government's willingness, for example, to remove things like blood donor leave. So, last week, we had the Red Cross appearing before the Senate inquiry into the second wave saying, `The government took away blood donor leave and you know what has happened? There has been a drop of about 20 per cent of donors in some states and territories.' That is hardly surprising. One follows the other. It is a bit like day following night. If you do not give people leave from work in order to donate blood, then they are not going to be able to donate blood in the same numbers. So the Red Cross came along and said, `Please put that back into your industrial laws.' The government will not because their industrial agenda is more important to them than good public policy, even in a totally apolitical issue such as support for the blood bank.Another example is Defence Force leave. The government removed Defence Force leave from industrial laws. Why? Not because it was good public policy. In fact, as I have mentioned on the record in the past, the defence department wrote to the government saying, `Don't do this; it is important for the operation of Australia's defence reserves that they have access to Defence Force leave.' The government steamrolled over the top of that advice, ignored national security interests and abolished Defence Force leave. Today, we have the predicament where we have virtually every one of our full-time combat-ready troops in East Timor with no capacity to replace them, with no capacity to rotate the force and with a depleted reserve in no small measure due to the government's desire to roll industrial relations agendas across everything else.Today, we see it in relation to equal opportunity. No matter that the report they rely on says:The best way you can get equal opportunity statistically is to have a unionised work force.No matter that that is the best way of producing a result—and their own report says so. Because this government have an ideological commitment to removing unions from every aspect of society, they proceed with a bill, very wrongly named, that in fact will do the opposite.Let us look at the facts of the matter in relation to what women are actually paid in the work force, Madam Deputy Speaker. If you compare the earnings of all employees, women earn 66.3 per cent of male earnings. If you compare full-time adults, then you find that women earn 80.5 per cent of male earnings. If you compare full-time non-managerial adult ordinary time earnings, then women earn 89 per cent of male pay. If you compare the base award—our basic safety net award or a certified agreement—and you look at those wage rates, then you find that the full-time non-managerial women earn 90.6 per cent of what their male counterparts earn. So, with the best statistic you can find—that basic safety net, the basic award, the basic industrial agreement—even there, women earn only 90.6 per cent of what their male counterparts earn. That is a totally unsatisfactory situation. But it has to be said that one message is clear from this: women have a better chance of earning the same as their male counterparts doing the same job if they are working in an area that is covered by an award or an agreement—that is, the normal industrial relations vehicle for setting people's conditions of pay.However, it is not the industrial relations vehicle that Minister Reith and this government want. What we have seen of late is a push towards individual contracts—the Australian workplace agreements or AWAs. What happens when women are placed in that situation of individual bargaining? The facts show that they are severely disadvantaged. If you have a look at over-award payments—the money that people get over and above that minimum safety net—you discover that Australia wide, women earn only 43.7 per cent of those payments in excess of awards or agreements that are made to men.There is no justification anyone can point to for that enormous disparity and the fact that women should be so disadvantaged. But that is the result when you go to the overaward payment. This government is now forcing onto Australian workers a shift from the current system of awards and agreements where they can get about 90 per cent to one where they have to negotiate over award. What do the statistics tell us? If you place people in a situation where they have to bargain over an award, then women will get less than half of that extra money for doing the same job. How do you as a government justify that? How does any government justify doing that and then have the gall to actually promulgate further discrepancies under a bill entitled `Equal opportunity for women' when it is clearly nothing of the sort?I want to pursue the situation of overaward payments. Probably the best data for this is the old workplace survey from 1995. That survey found that workplaces that paid over awards tended to have a larger proportion of male employees than was the case generally in the work force. There were fewer women employed in workplaces that paid over awards, and there were more women in workplaces that were not paying them. In addition, in the workplaces that paid over awards, only 36 per cent of women received overaward payments at all.We now have a situation where the government is forcing all workers to rely on awards as a safety net and nothing more than a safety net. Awards for the normal operation of industrial relations have now become irrelevant. Since this government came into office, it has managed to effectively freeze awards in time. There has been little adjustment. Those awards are absolute minimum safety nets, and yet this government and this minister think that they are too generous.In December last year, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Mr Reith, wrote to the Prime Minister setting out his objectives for this government during its first term in office. In that letter he complained that the minimum wage increases—the increases in the national wage case for that safety net—had been `too generous'. Not content with saying that the minimum safety net that Australian workers had was too generous, he then proposed to the Prime Minister an alternative system for setting minimum wages. He proposed that the Industrial Relations Commission no longer have the power to do this because he did not want an independent umpire; he wanted a stacked house.In this letter to the Prime Minister, which was leaked, he proposed to set up a new tribunal which would have someone from Treasury, someone from the Reserve Bank and someone from the Productivity Commission. These would be the last people I would want to have deciding my income. They would be the last people I would entrust with the decision of what ordinary men and women in Australia should be paid. It would have been a stacked house, we can be sure of that, and we would have had a decision, no doubt, that met with Minister Reith's wishes. That is, they would have made increases that were not, in his words, `too generous'. In other words, workers would have got less money than they were getting.Let us put that into some perspective. In the last national wage case, workers got a $12 a week gross increase, that is, before all deductions are taken out. It was 50 per cent more than Peter Reith said they should get. The government appeared before the inquiry and said they should only get $8 a week. That gives you an idea of where the government pitches the mark. We are talking here about people on the lowest level of income in the Australian work force, people who rely upon that basic safety net. If we are talking about women in the work force, the statistics tell us that a very large proportion of women are in industries where that is the basis upon which they are paid.There are a couple of other things that I think are important that I want to address in the few remaining minutes. We have recently heard some public speculation about pregnancy tests and pregnancy discrimination in the workplace. It was one of the focuses at an International Labour Organisation convention in Geneva earlier this year. One of the two issues being looked at was maternity leave and things associated with it. The government circulated a questionnaire to employers in the lead-up to that, in which they invited employers' comment on whether or not they should be able to require women to undergo medical tests before deciding whether to employ them. Those medical tests would have determined whether they were pregnant or not. The government says they were just asking the question. There is no-one out there who believes that. This was a good case of push polling; this was a good case of planting the seed into people's minds and saying to employers out there, `Don't you reckon it'd be a good idea if you could ask any young woman who came in to have a medical test and just check if she's pregnant? You might not like to employ her if she is pregnant.'That is a matter that is actually being discussed at international conferences and international forums. It is a matter that is being discussed here in Australia. The Report of the National Pregnancy and Work Inquiry identified this problem. It referred to:. . . discrimination against potentially pregnant employees in the workplace.The only potentially pregnant employees are women. It went on to say:Potential pregnancy means discrimination against employees who may become pregnant or who are believed to be pregnant. Throughout the inquiry we have heard many stories of discrimination on the basis of potential pregnancy, mainly to do with recruitment and promotion. Women are still asked about their plans to start a family . . . A little while ago the government actually suggested to employers going one step further: `Don't ask the woman at the interview what her family plans are. The government have actually fostered the idea that you should have the power to require them to have a pregnancy test.' If the government wanted to be fair dinkum about promoting equal opportunity for women, they might have addressed that in this bill, but they have not.There was a meeting of the International Labour Organisation earlier this year that dealt with these broad questions of maternity leave and the role of women in the workplace—an issue one would have thought was of very major concern to women in Australia. The government managed to send a delegation to it that did not include one woman—not a single woman representing Australia. There was a woman there from Australia who sought to participate, a delegate from the ACTU. The government did everything they could to stop her participating. At the end of the day, under protest and objections from the ACTU and a number of other people, the government relented and found a way to allow that person to participate with some credentials. There was a fight with the government to allow the one Australian woman at the conference to participate in the ILO discussions about maternity leave for women.That demonstrates the level of real concern this government has. That demonstrates the understanding and sensitivity this government has. They sent an all-male delegation and then did everything they could to stop the only woman—the ACTU representative—from being able to participate properly in the forum. It was so bad that at the formal reception the embassy held for the minister and the delegation—of which I was fortunate, I suppose, to be a member—the Australian government were not even going to invite that woman to the official reception until there was a bit of an argument about that too. That is the level of concern this government has for this issue. It is sad but, unfortunately, the case.I want to quickly refer to a couple of other matters that are in the second reading amendment. The defunding of a range of community groups, many of which are involved in women's affairs, groups like the Girl Guides, the Women's Electoral Lobby, the Older Women's Network, the Catholic Women's League—these are people who have had their funding from the government cut—has been exposed quite fully over the last week. If the government were fair dinkum about wanting to support the role of women in our community, they would not have cut funds to those groups, and certainly not in retribution for these groups not supporting the GST.The final thing I will say is in relation to our amendment No. 8 dealing with child care and related matters. I am sorry I do not have time to talk more fully about child care, education and health issues, because they are fundamental to the question of women's participation in the work force and equality of opportunity. The record shows the simple fact that there have been serious cutbacks in those areas, and every member of this parliament who has dealt with childcare centres knows that to be so. I support the amendment moved by my colleague the member for Jagajaga.13:19:0011607Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I am very pleased today to speak to the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 . This bill will amend the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1996 and its title to the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999. It will ensure a much more effective approach for women and for business. At the moment there are 64 per cent of women aged 15 to 64 in the paid labour force and 44 per cent of the labour force are female; 47 per cent of female employees work full time and 44 per cent work part time. Federal certified agreements covering female dominated workplaces have much more family friendly provisions concerning leave, balancing work and family and permanent part-time work than those covered in male dominated workplaces—and the reference for that is the Workplace Relations Act report of October 1998. Forty two per cent of Australian workplace agreements—AWAs—are currently made with women.The member for Brisbane quoted some interesting statistics before and I would also like to quote some regarding women's full-time adult ordinary earnings. Up to the 12 months of November 1998, female ordinary earnings rose by 4.5 per cent to $661.40 weekly, compared with an increase of just 4.1 per cent for men to $788.30. Women's full-time total earnings, including overtime, also rose by 4.4 per cent compared with an increase of 4.1 per cent for men. One thing I do agree with the member for Brisbane about is that there is still some way to go on this, and I know that this government will actively work towards increasing equality for women. All Australian women deserve equality in the workplace. This bill will achieve equality of opportunity for Australian working women.It was not so long ago that women's entry into the work force was greeted with questions such as, `Are you married?' `Do you have children?' or, `Do you intend to start a family?' My own search for work in 1990, when I was left with two small children after a divorce, brought home this particular point. Countless numbers of employers would comment on the fact that I was a mother to a very young baby under the age of one year. I know that this prevented me from entering many workplaces, and it was a form of active discrimination. I am pleased that it no longer exists in the workplace, but I would like to see more work done, as all of us would. Asking women when they attended an interview if they were on birth control may seem far-fetched, but it was not so long ago—in the eighties—that women were asked about this when they went to a job interview. I am glad those particular practices have been outlawed with affirmative action.This government is committed to women and this year's budget contained a number of commitments which benefited women. I would like to just go through some of those. There is a $13 billion program of income tax cuts and $2.5 billion of additional family payments per annum. The reduction in marginal tax rates will have a great impact on families, particularly two-income families. There is a new and more generous system of family benefits for double and single earning households, and additional assistance with childcare for eligible families. I dispute the comment that the member for Brisbane made earlier about child-care cuts. We have actually increased funding in the child-care sector. There is help for families, couples and individuals to enhance their family relationships and a $24.2 million return to work program. This will be of particular benefit to women who have been absent from the work force for two years or more after their parenting or care responsibilities. It is part of the government's $24 million return to work program. Also, the increased support for carers will benefit a lot of women in the paid work force and in rural and regional Australia. The government is also very committed to women in small business, and a large number of women now are actively engaging in small business, and that is increasing every day.One of the proud achievements of this government has been the fact that we have been able to encourage women to take up more board positions, and we have been actively encouraging a national register for executive search pilot programs and early warning systems for Commonwealth boards. This government has also provided funding towards the National Women Leadership Project to promote women on private boards. At the moment, there are 30.9 per cent of women on Commonwealth boards, an increase of 30.3 per cent last year. The minister should be commended for the role that she has taken in ensuring that this representation increases. We still have a long way to go in the private sector and I, having worked in the private business sector for many years, would be the first one to admit that we need to work harder in this area. At the moment, women solely occupy 10.3 per cent of non-executive direc tor positions on private sector boards. That figure is up 9.7 per cent on the figure for 1998 and four per cent up on that for 1996. So there are improvements all the time, and I think we need to keep encouraging those improvements to take place.Today's bill is a very important one for women in providing and promoting women's entry and participation into all levels of the workplace—not just at the board level but all levels. It addresses a more efficient use of human resources and it reduces the unnecessary complex level of paperwork that businesses have had to provide in the past when complying with affirmative action.This bill is concerned about complementing a workplace relations framework based on cooperative workplace arrangements. Working women will have much more flexibility with this act, and it will give employers and employees choices that will allow them to make arrangements suitable to their particular needs. Consultation with employing organisations and flexibility in complying with the act are very important.I dispute some of the remarks of the previous speakers from the other side who said that this legislation is a watering down of the act. It is no such thing. We have had to move on. Times have changed and we have to have a more worker friendly and employer friendly act, not a punitive one. The word `affirmative' implies some sort of coercive type title, and it is important to bear that in mind when we consider the act's renaming. A much fairer and a much better way of promoting equal opportunity is to name it the `Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999'. That title reflects the true intention of this act and the importance and the emphasis in Australia of merit and giving women a fair go.The Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act has been in force for some 13 years, as previous speakers today have alluded to, and its role was reviewed by an independent committee. The committee found that many gains had been made over this time, and there are some very positive outcomes for businesses. The act still has a very valuable role. This legislation is not about watering that down in any shape or form. But time moves on, as I have said, and when time marches on some amendments need to be made that will make the legislation more suitable to today's working environment.No woman wants to be patronised in the workplace, and merit should always be the first priority. I know the previous speaker on our side spoke about the quota system that currently exists in politics. I am a member of the Liberal Party and I was very proud of our selection process and the fact that I was endorsed for what was a safe seat at the time, but I think that we have a long way to go. I do not think the quota system in politics is the way to go. I think we need to have more positive recruiting and training aspects in our organisational branches of the party. I think that quota systems can sometimes backfire on women and be very demeaning, and I am not an advocate of the quota system.This bill introduces an object clause, which clarifies the objectives of the legislation to relevant employers. That is a very good thing. The bill will make business much more friendly and flexible. It will ensure that organisations are not overburdened with outdated or overly complex paperwork and compliance costs. This bill is about reducing red tape and about streamlining procedures and processes. So I applaud the bill on that. As I have said, it eliminates discrimination and the provision of equal opportunity for women in relation to employment matters amongst employees. The legislation will encourage much more workplace consultation between employers and employees and will promote a dialogue between employers and employees. There is an eight-step affirmative action program that I would like to just briefly go through. The bill today reflects those particular procedures and processes. A blanket approach or the overall approach of the past in providing equal opportunity for women does not always work.Workplaces come in very different shapes and sizes. They are in different areas and they have different make-up—they may consist of a largely migrant work force or be made up of a whole range of different demographic features. I think we need to recognise that it is not in the interests of women to have just one blanket approach, a one size fits all approach to this. It does not benefit the business community or the economy in general.This is a much more modern approach than what has occurred in the past. It puts businesses and workers first, not institutions or symbolism. That is what this bill is all about. It is a modern bill and it is going to take us into the new millennium. It prepares a workplace profile which is actually based on factual information about the workplace. That can relate to standard ABS categories. It goes into the occupational side of the workplace and the gender characteristics. A number of organisations at the moment do that or they use widely recognised industry standards. This profile will be analysed and issues identified for equal opportunity in that particular workplace. Action will then be taken by the employer to prioritise these issues.That is very important because it will achieve equal opportunity for women. Employers will have the same obligations that they have had under an amended affirmative action act. The word `affirmative', as I said earlier, is quite punitive and sometimes results in a reverse type of discrimination. Equal opportunity is much more positive. It sends a much better message out there and it sends a better message to employers and employees. The bill will change the name of the act, the agency and the director's title, to clarify once and for all the goals of the legislation. Paperwork will be halved, as I said earlier.The reporting requirements will change from an annual to a biennial requirement. This is much more in keeping with human resource practices. Having worked in the industry, I welcome the fact that it will be reduced to a biennial requirement.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—You were very good at it.9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO—I thank the member for Fisher for his comments. One year is too short a period of time. Employers have enough compliance and paperwork to deal with. I think that this will allow employers to look more long term at their approach and will provide more long-term planning, rather than short-term fixes in this particular area.It will simplify the procedures based on actions and achievements, based on outcomes of employers' programs and achievements and will describe a particular analysis. Employers will be able to present a much more forward plan than they do at the moment. There is a waiving provision if employers have complied with all aspects and all practical measures have been taken in relating to employment matters and equal opportunity for women. That does not mean that employers will be dealt with more leniently; in fact it still puts a great emphasis on their compliance, and much more on outcomes, as I have said.The agency also has the power to seek information from employers. It can waive reporting procedures for a specific period. There is a test that will apply and this is very objective. Employers will need to satisfy the agency that they have taken all reasonable measures concerning an aspect of the workplace relations program.The financial impact is that $310,300 will be spent over three years for changes. There will be funding for marketing and promotion of the changes to the act. There will be the design and provision of revised guidelines and there will be an educative material program for industry in the development of new reporting form. An advisory body, as I mentioned previously, will be set up at the cost of $389,700. This particular board had its first meeting on 19 August. The board will provide a very valuable link between the agencies and organisations covered by the act. The act will be responsible to business and to women and will be much more efficient. The greatest benefit will be the flexibility, as I have mentioned. This will enhance the effectiveness of the particular outcomes to the affirmative action program.There have been some criticisms opposite about just what the bill means. The sanctions for employers who breach the act will remain the same, nothing has changed there. There will also be the capacity to name those employers in parliament. Nothing at all has been watered down. The target audience of the act will remain the same. Employers covered by the existing act will remain covered by the act after the proposed changes are made. Those employers who meet the criteria for having their reporting requirements waived will not cease to be covered by the act, as was previously mentioned by those opposite, nor is this particular waiving open-ended. It will be granted only for a specific period. Employers will still have to establish programs setting out their actions and the method by which they are going to achieve equal opportunity for women in the workplace. All of those reporting requirements will be less onerous in terms of paperwork.The need for employers to demonstrate the action they have taken is no less onerous. That will not change. That will still be the same and they still have to show those equal opportunities for women in the workplace. This will be a better bill and it is all about refining it and making it a bill that is much more suited to modern times. The bill, as I have said, will increase the likelihood of achieving equal opportunity for women. It will replace the existing complex and prescriptive approach. It will focus on more outcome specific programs. It will simplify the requirements for business and it will preserve and strengthen the power of the enforcing agency. I want to really emphasise that. The bill will broaden the agency's capacity to require information from employers. If employers fail to comply with the act at any stage of the process they will be dealt with as well. It will maintain and extend a range of matters at which an employer must target its equal opportunity action. It will add termination, work organisation and sex based harassment. This bill will introduce changes that will benefit both women and business. I commend the bill to the House.13:36:0011610Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—This Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 deals with changes to the Affirmative Action Agency that are essentially designed to weaken the role of the agency in promoting equal opportunity among employers. The changes have the effect of: renaming the Affirmative Action Agency the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency; broadening the definition of employment matters covered by the act to include the termination of employ ment, work organisation and arrangements for dealing with sex-based harassment of women in the workplace; weakening the requirement of employers to promote equal opportunity and rather have them contribute to the achievement of equal opportunity; removing the requirement for employers to consult with employees and trade unions on the development of affirmative action plans; removing the requirement for a senior manager within the firm to coordinate the development of the affirmative action plan; reducing the requirement to report from one year to every two years; abolishing the one to five reporting scale on the affirmative action progress of a company or organisation; removing the requirement to waive a firm, following three years' compliance; weakening the requirement to submit a confidential report; and establishing a new advisory board to oversee the new act. Labor opposes the changes that weaken the current act.The Affirmative Action Agency was established in 1986 to administer the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act of 1986. The act currently requires private sector companies, community organisations, non-government schools, unions, group training and higher education institutions with more than 100 employees to establish affirmative action programs.Employers must report each year to the Affirmative Action Agency on progress. Since 1994 employers have been rated on a scale of one to five, five being the best result. Failure to submit a report or failure to provide evidence of a program results in the employer being named when the annual report of the agency is tabled in parliament. These firms can also be ineligible for Commonwealth government contracts and some forms of industry assistance. Under the present legislation, firms that have complied for three years can in fact get a waiver from supplying further reports.Let us just turn for a moment and look at some of the current government policies regarding women. Since the Howard government came to power in 1996, Australian women have found it harder to get jobs, harder to get wage increases and harder to pay for child care. First of all, let us look at difficulty in finding jobs. The economy, under the current Prime Minister, has failed to deliver strong jobs growth for women and the proportion of women participating in the labour force has stagnated. Significantly, the ratio of married women participating in the work force has actually declined. Women simply do not have the same job opportunities under this government that they enjoyed under Labor.In the 1998-99 financial year, women secured just 86,000 new jobs. In the last 12 months of the Labor government, women actually took up 102,000 new jobs. Under Labor, record numbers of women moved into the paid work force, thereby boosting family living standards. Under Labor, the participation rate for women grew from 45 per cent to 53 per cent, with married women enjoying the greatest rise. Why the big difference? Labor supported women moving into the work force and helped families to balance work and family responsibilities. On the other hand, this Prime Minister has slashed the services that working women depended upon.Alarmingly, the number of women who have been out of work for more than two years has risen since the Howard government came to power. This is the legacy of deep cuts to job programs, which have left so many women without work. The 1999-2000 budget was an opportunity to redress these issues and to provide women with some light at the end of the tunnel. Instead, the government allocated $24.2 million to the Return to Work program, which provides, for each woman out of work, only $140 per year for no more than two years. I should imagine that that is just enough to get a resume prepared but hardly enough for good and proper training.Let us look at the issue of wage rises. Despite strong wages growth, women are earning around $250 a week less than men. Three years ago that figure was $230. Taking into account the wages of female part-time workers, figures reveal that women earn just 66 per cent of what men do. Increasingly, women are accepting part-time jobs when they would probably prefer to work full time. Between 1996 and 1998, the number of women working part-time who wanted more hours rose from 155,000 to 165,000, while the corresponding number of men fell.The government is failing to close the gap between men's and women's earnings. A quick glance at education participation will reveal why. There are now fewer women enrolled in higher education than there were when the Howard government came to power. After yesterday's news, there may be even fewer. If the government were serious about closing the gender wage gap, it would ensure that the proportion of women in higher education was rising and not falling.Let us talk about payment of child care. The recent Senate Community Affairs References Committee report on child-care funding found that the biggest problem facing working mothers was the cost of child care, which has driven them out of the work force and increased the pressure on families. Yet the government has provided nothing extra in the 1999-2000 budget. Families will have to wait until July 2000 for any relief from child-care fees, and then it will be part of the regressive GST tax package. There is no doubt that child care has become more expensive under this government. Since 1996 the government has cut $851 million from child-care funding while child-care fees have increased by around $20 per week. There are many examples in my electorate of women who try to balance work and family responsibilities but who find their wages significantly diminished after they deduct child-care fees and lose their social security payments. This is an area that must be addressed by government as a matter of urgency.It is Australian women who have paid the ultimate price for the Howard government's deep cuts to health, education and community services. The message from the Howard government to Australian women is clear: when it comes to balancing work and family responsibilities you are on your own. Labor believe that Australian women deserve better. We recognise that most Australian families rely on two incomes to make ends meet. When jobs cannot be found or child-care costs are simply too high, it is the family income that suffers. Labor believe in helping Austral ian families to increase their living standards. This means finding ways to take the pressure off women, to deliver jobs growth, to make child care affordable, to reduce the costs of schooling and to ensure that health and aged care do not strip the family of further income.Just for a moment I would like to talk about the women's organisations and their representative role for women at home, in the work force and generally within our community. For more than 20 years, Australians have relied on the Office of the Status of Women to advise the federal government—any federal government—about issues of concern to women. Until the election of the Howard government in 1996, the Office of the Status of Women, or OSW, was a world leader in setting agendas of reform. Sadly, the office has now virtually disappeared in its ability to be as effective as in the past. Following his election, the Prime Minister slashed the OSW's budget by some 40 per cent in that first year. Some of that money has been clawed back, but most of that has been in the form of grants for domestic violence programs. This is something I would not for a moment criticise, but there should have been a topping up of that budget and there probably needs still more to be spent.Within the OSW, staff numbers have been reduced from 50 in 1994 to 34 in 1999. The office, I understand, no longer produces an annual report and Aboriginal and migrant women are now basically ignored by the OSW. Grants administered by the OSW were halved—falling to just $500,000—as soon as Mr Howard took up his prime ministership. Peak women's organisations are now funded directly by departments, and I understand that this funding is not monitored by the OSW. It is getting harder and harder to find the Office of the Status of Women, a point which is reinforced by the almost impossible task of tracking it in the 1999-2000 budget. As the OSW slides into irrelevance under the Howard government, Australians are rightly asking who in government is looking after the interests of the nation's women.Last Friday we saw cuts to 10 major organisations. An amount of $50,000 was taken away from the Girl Guides; $50,000 from the National Council of Single Mothers and Their Children—although I must say that since that announcement funding has been restored to that group following quite an outcry; $50,000 from the Older Women's Network; $50,000 from the Women's Electoral Lobby; $25,000 from the Catholic Women's League, and so on. The cuts mean that only three women's groups are now assisted: the YWCA, the National Council of Women and the Business and Professional Women's Organisation, which each get $100,000 a year for three years. But it is not just those 10 organisations that have been affected. During the period of this government, 30 organisations in all have lost a sum totalling $12 million.Let us have a look at some of the other organisations that have been defunded. It is an interesting list, particularly for a government that says it believes in family values. The government has previously defunded Family Planning Australia, the Australian Pensioners and Superannuants Federation, the Australian Community Health Association, the Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission and the Association of Civilian War Widows. All of these organisations have one thing in common: they criticised this government, and publicly so.The Women's Roundtable is another area of huge concern when you are discussing and considering any area of policy that has an effect on the role of women in our community. The Labor government had a consultative council in place to advise and consult with government in a very proactive way. Whilst not always agreeing with all of the views put, we very strongly respected the right for those organisations to have their views heard by government and for those views to become part of the deliberative process. That has been changed under this government, and Senator Newman now has an annual Women's Roundtable, which this year has been delayed, postponed, abbreviated and curtailed. This year it will include only 20 or 21 groups, down from 60 groups last year.It is interesting to note that Senator Newman's new funding policy is the antithesis of her views on coming to power in 1996. In 1996 she said that the only women's voices heard were:. . . peak bodies only . . . It's convenient for government if they've only got a few voices to hear, but it's really not democratic.That is quite strange when we now see that there are only three major peak organisations receiving any money. She went on to say:There are small organisations out of the Sydney-Melbourne-Canberra axis that just aren't heard any more. I want to encourage and assist those voices to be heard.I seriously have to ask the question: how on earth can Senator Newman be expected to be taken seriously when she says something like that in 1996 and only three short years later we see cuts—to some of the most conservative groups, I might add, in the Australian community—to organisations that dared to criticise this government? We see a roundtable which is no longer a consultative process in the true sense of the words. It has gone from 60 groups last year to 20 groups this year. My understanding is that the 20 or 21 groups who have been invited have received letters of invitation from Senator Newman while the remaining groups who have traditionally been part of this national consultative process up until this year have received letters from the head of the Office of Status of Women telling them that they have been uninvited.I hold this action in severe contempt. No government can possibly hope to formulate views based on information from the community when they are so exclusively selective as to whose views they wish to hear. In government and in policy making it is absolutely essential that those seeking to form those policies and those views and those opinions hear it all—the good, the bad and the ugly—and that they give everybody an opportunity to participate. I am concerned by the defunding of these organisations, with all of the money going into only three organisations. I put on record that I have no objection whatsoever to the work of the three organisations receiving the money. They are all good organisations—one better than the others maybe—they do good work and they represent a relatively broad selection, but there is nowhere near the breadth of representation that has been received in the past.The Girl Guides were brave enough to consider vocally publicly criticising the effect the GST will have on their ability to carry out their work in the community. In a bit of a flip-around late last week the funding of the National Council of Single Mothers and Their Children has been reinstated, but what on earth did the Older Women's Network or the Catholic Women's League do to upset the government and lose money? It was probably their criticism of government, particularly in relation to the GST and policies affecting women.In closing, I implore people opposite—specifically the women opposite—to think carefully about where we are going and what we are doing in government policy in areas that affect women. It is a very important area. It is not an area that you can sit down and say pleasant words about, feel nice and warm and fuzzy about and walk away from. It needs due consideration. It is a pleasure to talk on this bill. We have serious concerns about the overwhelming majority of the recommendations that will affect new policy in this legislation. I hope that through the processes of this House and the other chamber we are able to come up with some amendments that will make a dramatic difference to the current intent of the bill.13:53:0011614Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I rise today to speak on the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 . The coalition announced as part of its 1998 More Jobs, Better Pay election policy an undertaking to retain the Affirmative Action Agency and to improve its operation with an incentive based, educative and conciliatory approach to compliance, a reduction in the paperwork reporting burden and stronger workplace links. This bill faithfully translates into legislation that undertaking by amending the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986. Under the provisions of the bill, the Affirmative Action Agency will become the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency. This is far more representative of the true aims of all of us in ensuring that women do have equal opportunity in the workplace. The agency becomes part of the methodology and the approach we want to take to seeing women given that equal opportunity in the workplace. It also ensures that current prescriptive affirmative action programs will be replaced with workplace programs which concentrate on workplace priorities and achievements.One very welcome outcome, and one which is wholly consistent with the government's proactive and sympathetic pro-business policy, will see the paperwork burden on employers halved, as reports will be required biannually rather than annually after 1 April 2000. The reporting framework has been simplified and streamlined in line with the focus on outcomes and achievements. A new provision allowing employers to be waived from reporting requirements for a specified period when they can demonstrate that they have taken all reasonable practical measures to eliminate discrimination and promote equal opportunity for women is very much welcomed.I am particularly pleased to note the objects clause which focuses on promoting the principle of women's employment being based on merit, assisting employers to eliminate discrimination and provide equal opportunity and fostering workplace consultation.When considering this bill it is appropriate to reflect upon the involvement of women in the work force and what patterns and trends have emerged over recent years. Undeniably there has been a significant growth in the number of women in the work force in recent years. This is most welcome. For instance, in 1964, 83.3 per cent of men aged 15 years and older and only 32.3 per cent of women in the same age group were working either full time or part time. By 1998 those figures had changed dramatically. The male ratio had fallen to 66.9 per cent, and the female ratio had risen to 49.5 per cent. In 1964 there was only one woman in full-time employment for every three men—one in three. In 1998 there was nearly one woman working full-time for every two men. Writing in the December 1998 issue of the Australian Bulletin of Labour, Peter Sheehan of the Victorian University of Technology noted:If these trends continue into the future, by about 2015 the proportionate involvement of men and women in the work force will be equal, at about 58 per cent of each population group, at which time the number of women at work will exceed the number of men.While women are making significant inroads into the employment market, it remains true that generally women still receive lower pay than men do. I might add for those on the other side of the House that the results under the Workplace Relations Act have shown that the gender pay gap has not changed to any great extent. Naturally these are figures which bounce around from quarter to quarter, but the trend data suggests that the ratio may have even risen slightly. In trend terms, the ratio of female to male full-time adult average weekly ordinary time earnings, which is less volatile than the seasonally adjusted ratio, was 84.2 per cent in May 1999 compared to 83.7 per cent in November 1996. The seasonally adjusted female to male average weekly ordinary time earnings ratio was 84.2 per cent in November 1996. It has since peaked at 84.8 per cent in February 1999, before dropping back to 83.7 per cent in May 1999. To have achieved such an outcome is a great credit to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. While it is a modest rise, it points to a very optimistic future for women in the work force.The Australian Bureau of Statistics in its May 1998 survey of employee earnings and hours reported that, for male full-time adult non-managerial employees, the median weekly total earnings was $724.02, while for women in the same category it was $613.90. That ABS survey also revealed that in the mining industry, which had the highest average weekly earnings of any sector, men earned an average weekly income of $1,313.10 while women earned $878. In the spring 1998 edition of the Journal of the Centre of Independent Studies, Professor Helen Hughes of the Economics Department of the Australian National University acknowledged that women did earn less on average and discussed the reasons why. She identified a number of reasons for this income differential, noting:The differences in male and female earnings are mainly accounted for by differences in men's and women's positions in the work force.In fact, it would be generally true to say that the relative average incomes earned by men and women are not caused by any active and deliberate discrimination against women. Professor Hughes noted that women with a good education were entering new occupations in areas such as tourism, human resource related activities and computing, where jobs were not subject to the arbitration framework.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Questions Without Notice116151161511615Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Will you now rule out the replacement of HECS with a universal student loan scheme with a real rate of interest?11615Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The opposition are obviously startled by the fact that they have been fortunate enough to see some policy options. It has thrown them into complete confusion. We know the last time they had a thinker and a writer on that side of the House: he is now sitting up on the back bench.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on a point of order on relevance. We all saw the 7.30 Report on the subject of confusion. The question was very specific: will you now rule out—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has asked his question. I must, however, observe that the minister has been on his feet for 30 seconds. In that sense, I hardly feel it appropriate to interrupt him.BT4Dr KEMP—The fact that they have seen some quality policy options put before the government is obviously disturbing them, because the last person who tried quality policy options is now on the back bench. They have the writers up there on the back bench and the photocopiers down here on the front bench. Could I just reiterate what I said yesterday: this government is all about improving access to universities. We are not about increasing debt for students or making debt a burden.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance: we are now a minute at least into this answer. It was a very specific question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I was very conscious of the point of relevance, it having been raised, and I thought that the minister was coming to that in his concluding statement.BT4Dr KEMP—Of course I was directly addressing that point. The opposition have been running around the country telling their friends in the student union movement that the government is all about $100,000 or $150,000 loans and debts, none of which is accurate or based on the paper that is now in their hands. All we see now is the Labor Party's mates in the student movement on campus out there protesting—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance: it is a very simple question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister has an obligation to come to the question, and I reassure the Leader of the Opposition that the only reason I did not act earlier is that I was in fact, as he would have been unaware, distracted by what was happening on his back bench.BT4Dr KEMP—The point that the Leader of the Opposition raises goes directly to the distortion that I am referring to of the prospect of large debt falling on students. The Prime Minister has made it completely clear today that the government stands by its commitments on the deregulation of fees. The government is all about presenting options, including the possible expansion of income contingent loans—which is one of the elements in this paper which has not been referred to at all by the opposition—to ensure that students have access to university. These options will allow the government to consider the best ways to improve access to Australian universities.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on a point of order, which goes to relevance: he has answered about five questions but not the one asked. Will he rule out the replacement of HECS with a universal student loan scheme?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition puts the chair in an untenable position. The minister was addressing the question of university fees, which seemed to me to be entirely relevant to the question of HECS or loans, as the case may be.1161611616Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, does the government stand by its commitments in the area of higher education made at the time of the release of the West report into higher education and at the last election?11616Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for Grey for that question. The short answer to the question is yes. The longer answer starts, of course, with an acknowledgment by me—and I know it is an acknowledgment that is shared right across the education sector—that the minister has done an outstanding job in the portfolio that he has had. The truth is that, at the time of the last election, a number of undertakings were made about education. The major undertaking was that we would continue to expand access into universities for young Australians.In 1999, there are 398,500 undergraduate student places for the first time—an increase of seven per cent on levels in 1996 under the previous government. Secondly, there is a record number of fully funded undergraduate places—364,400, which is 3.5 per cent more than in 1996. There is a record estimated total university revenue of $8.675 billion, which is 4.5 per cent more than in 1996. I might add, by way of passing comment, that what this minister has done in enforcing higher literacy and numeracy standards for Australian schoolchildren in the Australian states will contribute massively to the education resource of this country in the years ahead. He is the first federal education minister to take seriously the problem of literacy and numeracy in Australian schools—something that ought to have been the responsibility of the state governments but that state governments, I am sorry to say, of both political stripes over the years have abysmally neglected. Thanks to the minister, something has been done about it.In 1998, when the West report into higher education was presented to the government, a number of undertakings were given. Those undertakings included a commitment that the government had no intention of introducing vouchers for post-secondary education. That undertaking stands undiminished, and I repeat it today. We have no intention of deregulating university fees nor have we any intention of introducing HECS for TAFE courses. Those undertakings were repeated by the minister at the time of the election and they remain undiminished today. The government will not be introducing an American style higher education system.Dr Lawrence interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Fremantle!ZD4Mr HOWARD—There will be no $100,000 university fees under this government. That is a figment of the Labor Party's propaganda machine, and everyone knows that is what it is.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Fremantle is warned!ZD4Mr HOWARD—We will have a submission before us. The minister is canvassing a range of options in the submission, but I can assure the Australian people that the decisions to be taken by the government will fully reflect the undertakings previously made and reaffirmed by me just now.UU5HORNEMr Horne—Honest John!SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—The biggest liar in this place is you!UU5HORNEMr Horne—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask that the Minister withdraw that comment.Mrs Irwin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Fowler is warned! The chair is at something of a disadvantage in that it did not hear—nor does it wish to hear—the comment, but it will ask the minister whether he is prepared to withdrawal it.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—I am certainly prepared to withdraw that he is the biggest liar in the place.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That is all that is necessary. The minister will resume his seat.Mr Beazley interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition should not dignify the minister's recent performance.1161711617Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, will you rule out a universal student loan scheme with a real rate of interest?11617Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I have provided my answer to that question.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There seems to be a general feeling among members on my left that the chair can be pushed as far as they like. I will take immediate action against people who continue to defy the chair and disrupt the parliament.1161711617Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I understand the Prime Minister met Mr Xanana Gusmao this morning and I am sure that, like all honourable members, he would be delighted to see Mr Gusmao both free and on the floor of this place at this time. Prime Minister, would you inform the House of the contents of that meeting?11617Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for the question. As many honourable members are aware, Mr Gusmao and his party are in the Speaker's gallery. I know I speak for everybody in welcoming him. [Applause] I did have the privilege of meeting Mr Gusmao and others, including Mr Ramos Horta, this morning. I had the opportunity, along with the foreign minister, to extend to him and the other members of his party not only the good wishes of the Australian people but also the strong sense of sympathy felt across the whole spectrum of the Australian community for the cause of the East Timorese people in recent months. I told him that the depth of sympathy felt was quite spontaneous and that the level of violence and destruction which followed the independence vote had appalled the Australian community. He expressed his thanks to Australia for the part it had played in putting an end to that violence. They expressed very strong support for Australia's leadership role in the multinational force. He said that, in that process, Australia had also helped to give the people of East Timor a restored sense of self-confidence.We acknowledged in our discussion the difficult challenge of reconciliation and reconstruction that lies in front of the people of East Timor. I was encouraged by the fact that he and his colleagues are anxious to go about the task of establishing the infrastructure for a new community. I did indicate during the course of the discussion that it was difficult for somebody who is Prime Minister of a very stable, developed, cohesive and independent community to even begin to imagine the difficulties that lie ahead of the potential leaders of such a small and fragile community which has gone through the immense trauma that the people of East Timor have gone through in recent months.I have to say that I was impressed by the quiet sincerity and dignity of a man who understandably commands great affection from his people. That affection is readily apparent and it was easy to understand from what was my first meeting with Mr Gusmao. He was very conscious of the need for the East Timorese to prepare themselves, during the UN transitional period, for full independence. I said that Australia would provide very significant help, but we alone could not assist the building of the new East Timorese state. We needed the assistance of the international community. We discussed and agreed on the desirability of a future closer relationship not only East between Timor and Indonesia but also between our three nations. We will forever be together in this part of the world and it is important, notwithstanding the difficulties and the trauma of the past few months—indeed, years in the case of the people of East Timor—that we remember that. It is valuable for all of us to understand at this difficult time that the three us will need to build a relationship with each other in different ways in the years that lie ahead.Mr Gusmao spoke of his hope that qualified East Timorese in Indonesia would return to East Timor to help build his new country. I think all of us recognise the very long and difficult journey that lies ahead of the people of East Timor. We hope for a vote of separation by the Indonesian parliament and we wish the leaders of the new country well. They not only have our respect for the heroic fight for freedom and independence they have undertaken but I am sure that they will have the practical support of the Australian people. As the meeting concluded, we agreed that—whatever differences might exist in language, culture, religion or other background—when you share common democratic values and a common commitment to personal liberty and freedom, there is a natural chemistry between people in nations. I think that will be the case between Australia and the future nation of East Timor.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Just before I call the member for Dobell, I was prepared to extend to the Leader of the Opposition, if he wished, the opportunity to welcome our guests as well.14:17:0011618Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Xanana may not know that it is unprecedented for applause like that to break out in this chamber on the introduction of a person to the House. There have been times when that has happened at other points in a parliamentary proceeding, but to my recollection this is the first time that it has happened on the basis of an introduction during the course of question time. What that indicates is the very great affection and respect in which all members of this House hold you on all sides of politics. That actually makes you a unique politician because I doubt whether it is a courtesy that we extend to each other in this chamber.That respect stems from your long commitment to the freedom of your people and the role that you have designated for yourself and your colleagues as peacemakers and reconcilers in the creation of a new nation. That always induces in the rest of humanity, of which we are part, a profound respect. I agree entirely with the Prime Minister's remarks. His experience in meeting you was the same as mine. I also agree with the expressions of commitment that he gave to you in regard to the security and development of your people. It is a matter of the most profound pleasure for us all to see you here.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Distinguished Visitors1161911619Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Without duplicating what has already been said, can I indicate to our guests and to the parliament that not only do we have Mr Gusmao with us but we also have Mr Jose Ramos Horta, Mr Alkatiri and Mr Perreira. To all of you, we extend a welcome.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice116191161911619Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Will the minister now rule out both vouchers and a universal tuition subsidy which follows students to accredited higher education courses at both public and private providers?11619Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The Prime Minister has already made it clear that the government stands by the commitments it has made on vouchers. They are not part of the document that has been widely circulated. The document does not propose a voucher system. It is true that within the document there is an option which proposes government support for a wider range of students to receive the vouchers than currently receive them. I would have thought that would have been welcomed on all sides of the House as an option that the government ought to at least consider. I think we are facing here a sheer lack of comprehension by the member for Dobell of what is proposed within the paper.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Rankin will excuse himself from the House under the provisions of standing order 304A.The honourable member for Rankin thereupon withdrew from the chamber.BT4Dr KEMP—We have had the opposition and its acolytes going around telling the Australian public that this submission slashes hundreds of millions of dollars from university funding. Of course, this is absolutely incorrect. It does not do that.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order and it goes to relevance. The question asked whether the minister was ruling out a universal tuition subsidy which follows the students to accredited higher education courses. It was a very specific. We want to know whether he is going to rule that out.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has made his point of order and will resume his seat.BT4Dr KEMP—It is very obvious that, if one had a policy which provided a universal subsidy to all students—and of course all students do not presently receive a subsidy—that subsidy would be available to students at all institutions. This has nothing whatever to do with a voucher system.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order, and it goes to relevance. Is he going to rule out a universal tuition subsidy which follows the students to accredited higher education courses?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It is very difficult for the chair to determine that the minister has been in any way other than relevant in the way that he was responding, particularly following the first point of relevance. I will listen closely to the minister's response but I believe he was being relevant to the question asked.BT4Dr KEMP—I have answered that and I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that, if he is having difficulty understanding the answer, he read the transcript and follow closely what I have said because he will find that I have completely answered that. We see the political confusion on the part of the opposition at the moment because they are now asking me to rule out a policy which provides additional support to Australian students, but, of course, that is now where the Leader of the Opposition is. He has clearly completely lost touch with the sorts of proposals that come before cabinets and which serious governments will want to look at.1162011620Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House how the government's business tax reforms will deliver an internationally competitive business tax regime for Australia?11620Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Kalgoorlie for his question, and make the point that Australia now has the historic opportunity to reform its business taxation system and a historic opportunity to make Australia a competitive place in world terms for building investment, business and more jobs. What the government has announced as a policy is a proposal which would reduce company tax rates from 36 per cent to 30 per cent. That would make the Australian tax rate, which is currently higher than the US, New Zealand and the UK, lower than the US, lower than New Zealand, on a par with the UK and one of the lowest tax regimes in this region.In addition to that, changes to capital gains tax would also make Australia internationally competitive. From December 2000, the United States will have capital gains tax rates of around 18 per cent. They are at 20 per cent now and the US is reducing them. Australia's top rate is 48 per cent, and we have the potential to reduce that to 24, with a low rate of 10 per cent. Even in the United Kingdom, the Blair Labour government is reducing capital gains taxes. Up on the Labor Party backbench there are followers of the third way, and of Mr Blair and Mr Brown, and no doubt they will have noticed that the Labour Party in the United Kingdom has no qualms at all about being internationally competitive in relation to lower capital gains tax rates. Perhaps we could have a column in the Financial Review on the third way of Labor supporting capital gains tax cuts in this country. We are currently having a visit by the Secretary-General of the OECD to Australia. On PM last night he remarked:Australia's performance has been remarkably good.Peter Martin asked:What are we doing right?Answer:The reforms, the move to, if you like, budget fiscal consolidation.Martin:But did you really attribute Australia's economic success to those sort of government measures?Secretary-General:Well they are absolutely fundamental to it. You can't have this kind of economic performance without good governance.That is what the Secretary-General of the OECD said on PM last night. Needless to say, all of those changes were opposed by the Australian Labor Party. In today's Financial Review the OECD chief is quoted as supporting our tax changes. He said:Countries have to strike a balance between tax on capital, consumption and income. You have to strike a balance on how much the State will take without impinging on the economic paradigm . . . I think Australia's proposals are trying to achieve that balance.The OECD and the IMF have been urging Australia for years now to broaden our indirect tax base and introduce a GST—which, of course, was opposed by the Australian Labor Party hook, line and sinker. Australia will chair the OECD ministerial next year. That is recognition of our economic performance.Can you imagine a Labor minister going to the OECD and lecturing them on tax changes; telling the Blair government that they are wrong to have a value added tax; telling the French government that they are wrong to have a value added tax; telling the Swiss that they are wrong? Can you imagine a Labor minister at the OECD saying, `What you really need is a modern tax like a wholesale sales tax. We had a Mr Scullin in 1932 who thought one up'? Can you imagine a Beazley at the OECD saying, `Join us and Swaziland and Botswana with modern tax policy'? The Australian Labor Party is out of touch with all of the developed countries of the world, with the Clinton administration, with the Blair third way. The Australian Labor Party find its intellectual succour in the tax regimes of Swaziland and Botswana, with all of the modernity that they can muscle up. The Australian Labor Party stands for nothing: it only stands against things.1162111621Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Paul Keating used to do that too when we were in a bit of trouble, Prime Minister!Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The House will come to order.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I wonder what Australia thinks.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his statement of today that `the government will fully honour the promises made both at the time of the election and previously in relation to deregulation of university fees.' If you had always intended to honour that pledge, why did the cabinet consider Dr Kemp's proposal for `deregulating admissions and fees and vouchers' on 28 June 1999? Why wasn't Dr Kemp's plan rejected on the spot as a blatant breach of your election commitments? Why did the cabinet in fact ask Dr Kemp to further develop his plan for deregulating admissions and fees? Why did you mislead the Australian people?11621Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Of course I have not misled the Australian people. The position remains that the government will be honouring the commitments made. The government has honoured the commitments made. The government will honour the commitments made.1162111621Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—My question is to the minister with ideas, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Herbert will either come to his question or resume his seat. 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lalor will excuse herself from the House under the provisions of standing order 304A.The honourable member for Lalor thereupon withdrew from the chamber.HK6Mr LINDSAY—How will the government's decision to fund and support a new medical school through James Cook University in Townsville address the health and medical needs of regional and rural Australia?11621Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Herbert for his question. He is a member who is deeply committed to improving educational opportunities in his area and I am pleased to say he has been greatly assisted in his task by the decisions of the government. Australia has a lot of trouble attracting doctors to work in rural areas. One problem has been that many city resident doctors are not attracted to country practice. If people come from the country to train to be doctors, then frequently those students do not return to practise in the rural areas. The government therefore has decided to provide funding for the development of a medical school at James Cook University and will be providing recurrent funding for a six-year medical course at the new medical school at James Cook University in Townsville. The sum of $9.6 million will be provided over the years 1999, 2000, 2002 and 2003. The government is also providing $10 million from the health portfolio for capital works conditional on receiving matching funding from the Queensland government.This course will have an annual intake of some 60 students with the first students commencing next year following accreditation for the course from the Australian Medical Council. In each year's intake 15 places will be earmarked for students from rural and remote areas and five for indigenous students. This measure is particularly important in advancing the goals of the government's policy for rural health and improving the medical services available to indigenous Australians. 1162111621Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer him to his statement this morning, and I quote:I am honouring the commitment. I take one term at a time. Come back at the next election and ask me again.Prime Minister, why won't you today pledge not to introduce Dr Kemp's proposal for fees, loans and vouchers this term, next term or any other term, or is this just like your other never, ever promise on the GST?11622Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, by way of preliminary observation I must say that I am impressed with the view of my political longevity that the Leader of the Opposition ventures by the question that he has asked. While ever I am Prime Minister of this country, we will not be dishonouring the commitments to which I referred this morning.1162211622Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—My question without notice is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the minister aware of reports that the Timor Gap Treaty has been frozen by the Indonesians? Is the government concerned about the impact such claims have on business confidence?11622Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for his question and I recognise the interest that he has shown in this important issue and, indeed, in the broader issue of East Timor. It is true that there are some who have claimed that the Timor Gap Treaty has somehow been frozen by the Indonesians. I just want to let the House know that Indonesia has not suspended or frozen the Timor Gap Treaty. The allegation that it has somehow been frozen is an extrapolation from a report of the suspension by Indonesia of Navy patrols in the Timor Sea, as well as a joint naval exercise called New Horizon, which has absolutely no linkage whatever to the Timor Gap Treaty. In any case, we have had no official notification, I am told, of this reported decision.Mr Speaker, the fact is that the activities under the Timor Gap Treaty are exploration for and production of petroleum resources and those activities are still continuing and will continue, even when East Timor separates from Indonesia under the transitional arrange ments that we are putting in place. Despite what some people are trying to claim, it is worth letting the House know this, that Phillips, the company which is the operator of the upstream petroleum production activities for the Bayu-Undan project, has confirmed to the government their support for the government's strategy.The government has obviously been very conscious of the need to develop a transitional strategy and we have been implementing that for some time. We have been talking with the Indonesians, including the Minister for Mines and Energy, Mr Kuntoro, who said to us not just in February but also last month that Indonesia would have no claim over the treaty area if East Timor became independent. Similar discussions have been taking place with UN representatives. As I explained earlier this week, once East Timor separates from Indonesia it will be administered in the short term by the United Nations and, therefore, under the principle of successor states, the Timor Gap Treaty will apply to a relationship between Australia and the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor.So it is true, as some have said, that the stakes are high on this issue. The Bayu-Undan project involves an investment of about $2.1 billion, and that is why we on this side of the House are not running around trying to scare business or make unnecessary mischief between Australia and Indonesia. I would say this: the companies involved do not want anybody to do that; they want this matter to be managed in a responsible, calm and considered way. I do not think it advances the cause of our national interest for people like the member for Kingsford-Smith to try to make party political issues out of it, as he has done in the last 48 hours. It is the sort of issue that can get an opposition into trouble if they make party political issues out of it, as you know from your own experience now.1162211622Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, did you tell the parliament yesterday:The suggestion that there are regional university campuses at risk is absolutely absurd, and I completely reject that.Minister, doesn't your own cabinet submission say:Already, eight institutions appear to be operating at a deficit, and some regional campuses are at risk?Minister, who did you mislead: the parliament or cabinet?11623Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—Let me just take the member for Dobell through exactly what was said yesterday and what was said in the cabinet submission because, once again, we see an example of his complete incompetence. In the House yesterday the member for Dobell asked me whether—Opposition members interjecting—BT4Dr KEMP—You might be interested to hear just how he mucked it up. He asked me whether I accepted the fact that there are `regional campuses whose very existence is now at risk as a result of' the government's policies. The draft cabinet document that has been circulated has no words of that kind in it whatever, and those were not the words that were read to the House just now by the member for Dobell. I responded to the suggestion that there were regional campuses whose very existence is now at risk by saying that was absolutely absurd, and I completely rejected it. It was absolutely absurd then, and I completely reject it again.1162311623Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Are you scheduled to visit the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Scheme this weekend as part of the 50th anniversary celebrations of that wonderful scheme? What benefits have accrued to Australia flowing from that scheme and from the contributions of the thousands of Australians and new Australians who worked on its construction and maintenance? Is the Prime Minister also aware of real concerns of irrigators and others with regard to the immediate circumstance in respect of crop plantings for this year relying on irrigation water?11623Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I congratulate the honourable member on his close attention to local matters. I will, along with many other members from both sides of the House, be attending the celebrations this weekend in relation to the great Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Scheme. It is fair to say that that scheme stirred the imagination of the Australian community in its phase of postwar reconstruction in the late 1940s and early 1950s. It features 16 major dams, seven power stations, 145 kilometres of tunnels and 80 kilometres of aqueducts. It cost—and this seems in today's dollars a remarkably small amount—$1 billion. If built today, of course, the cost would be much greater.The Snowy scheme made a significant contribution to the reshaping of the image of Australia as a nation built on post World War II migration, because the work force came from over 30 countries, most of them people affected by displacement in Europe during World War II. When Australians think of the Snowy scheme, we think of the massive contribution made by migrants from so many parts of Europe to the building of the assets of that scheme and the way in which they made, through that and through their later lives, an enormous contribution to modern Australia.More than anything else, at the weekend we will celebrate the contribution of those people from so many backgrounds to the building initially of postwar Australia and subsequently, in different ways, of modern Australia, which is such a credit to all of us and such an example of what can be achieved through tolerance, hard work, commitment and equality of opportunity. Indeed, Australia is seen around the world as a shining example of that.I am aware—as is my colleague Senator Minchin and the Deputy Prime Minister, in particular—of the difficulties and uncertainties that face some irrigators, particularly in the Riverina. I thank the member for Riverina. She and the member for Farrer, who asked me the question, have drawn attention to the concerns of their constituents. The issue of balancing the needs for water around irrigation, energy and environmental flows is a perennial problem in a dry continent such as Australia.Although it has to be said that water management is in the remit of the governments of Victoria and New South Wales, the three governments concerned—because the federal government does have a role—have to work to try to find the right balance. Water is too important a resource for the Australian community to ever be the subject of partisan or interstate rivalry of a political kind. It is very important that I say that, whatever the outcome of other matters is, I do not want to see this issue get caught up in interstate rivalry between the governments of Victoria and New South Wales, whatever their political complexions may be.I understand that the Snowy Mountains Council has agreed to release an additional 300 gigalitres of water on commercial terms. Part of the commercial terms is the repayment of any volumes used by the recipients against their future allocations. I do ask that the New South Wales government is in future very sympathetic to possible impacts on regional communities from this water payback if water shortages persist in New South Wales. It is very important that that be said.The very livelihood of many of the rice growers of the Riverina depends upon the availability of water. I saw a group of these people yesterday afternoon, and they also saw the member for Farrer, the minister, the member for Riverina and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. This is an important issue and I ask the New South Wales government to treat these farmers fairly and decently. I ask the Victorian government and the New South Wales government—and, indeed, the Victorian opposition—not to allow this issue to be caught up in any kind of political crossfire. It is far too important for that. What matters is that the farmers of the Riverina get an adequate supply of water on fair terms. That is what matters, and that is what the federal government will pursue.1162411624Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is again addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and follows on from his last answer. Minister, did you tell the parliament yesterday:The suggestion that there are regional university campuses at risk is completely absurd, and I completely reject that'?Minister, in your cabinet submission didn't you say, `some regional campuses are at risk'? In the light of your last answer, didn't you mislead the House?3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under standing order 146, I am interested to know how that question differed in any way from the one that preceded it. If, as is my understanding, it was identical, I wonder if you would rule it out of order.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: with regard to standing order 146, first of all the question is significantly different but, most importantly, standing order 146 also requires that the question has to have been not only asked but fully answered. Whether or not it was asked, it certainly was not fully answered.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am familiar with standing order 146. The question is very similar to a question that was asked earlier, but I do not think there is any reason why the minister should not be able to further respond.11624Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—It is clear that some further explanation is needed to put the member for Dobell straight. Let us take you carefully through what the cabinet submission said. In my last answer I gave you the question that I had responded to yesterday and I stand entirely by that. The cabinet submission now says:Already eight institutions appear to be operating at a deficit, and some regional campuses are at risk . . .That is, at risk of operating at a deficit. That is very different from the proposition that regional campuses have their very existence now at risk. The whole point of the submission is to make it clear that there are risks for institutions to manage. All managements manage for financial risk, and that is what regional universities have to do. That has got nothing to do with whether their campuses are at risk, and I totally stand by the answer I gave yesterday.1162511625St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Minister, what work has the federal government undertaken to improve conditions for people living and working in rural and regional Australia, including in New England and Mallee? What are the trends and social conditions of rural and regional Australia which have been highlighted by this work?11625Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the honourable member for New England for the question. He and I were discussing only an hour or so ago what needs to be done to address the social change that is causing concern in many parts of rural and regional Australia. He and I share a commitment with other members of the government to ensure that people who live in rural and regional Australia receive a fair share of our country's national growth and prosperity. One of the important things that we need to do in developing policies to ensure that country people have their needs adequately met is to better map the social changes, the demography, of regional and rural areas and to assess what sorts of environments are actually leading to the social change in rural and regional Australia.This morning I was delighted to launch a Social Atlas of Rural and Regional Australia which has been compiled by the Bureau of Rural Sciences. It is an excellent compilation of close on 100 maps of the social and demographic issues that are important in rural and regional Australia. For the first time it puts in an easy-to-read form information that rural communities need to assess their own prospects and opportunities and also that governments at local, state and federal level need to look at the sorts of areas to be targeted in developing appropriate responses to the issues.A number of interesting things came out of the atlas. Firstly, it is clear that, whilst there are many areas in rural and regional Australia that are suffering difficulties, there are others that are doing quite well. It is of interest, I am sure, to all members of the House to know that the population in regional Australia has actually gone up at a faster rate than in metropolitan areas. However, most of that increase is in the coastal belt and not in the more remote parts. It is also interesting to note that unemployment has fallen substantially throughout rural and regional Australia during the term of this government. There are more women working in agriculture. Indeed, Australia is one of only three countries in the world where there has been an increase in employment in agriculture.Those sorts of things are very encouraging, but it is also true to say that a number of areas have been identified with particular difficulties. There are declines in income for farmers, particularly for those dealing with the broadacre crops, and in some of the traditional Australian agricultural industries; and we need to be addressing those sorts of issues. This atlas is a an excellent prelude to the rural summit which will be held next week, which will bring together people from around Australia to look at issues of significance to rural and regional Australia, address some of those social problems and find the answers to ensure that all Australians share in our national growth and prosperity. I am sure that the atlas will also help the new opposition spokesman on regional affairs to find where regional Australia actually is.1162511625Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. I refer the minister to his answer yesterday when he reaffirmed to the parliament the government's pledge not to deregulate university fees. Minister, didn't you give that reaffirmation knowing full well that your cabinet submission recommended the deregulation of university fees? Minister, didn't you mislead the parliament yesterday?11625Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer I gave to the House yesterday was completely accurate. The government has made absolutely clear again today that it stands behind its pledge not to deregulate university fees.1162511625Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Would the minister inform the House of the latest approach to the prevention and management of asthma, and what the government is doing to help those who are suffering from asthma in my electorate of Makin and in electorates across Australia?11626Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for her question. This is National Asthma Week. It is running under the slogan: `Be asthma aware. Care for my air'. Asthma affects two million Australians—about one in four children, one in seven teenagers, one in ten adults. It is the most common reason a school-age child goes to hospital and it costs the community directly about $700 million a year. It is an inflammatory disease of the airways that leads to narrowing of the airways and mucus production—and we do not know the cause. About 700 Australians a year die from asthma, and it is believed that 60 per cent of these deaths have factors that are avoidable associated with it. One of those factors is passive smoking, which is the reason for the campaign this particular week. It is an extraordinary figure, but over 46,000 children have their asthma exacerbated by passive smoking by the parents. It is not simply enough if the parents even smoke outside. The fact is we can measure increased by-products of tobacco in the urine of children with asthma—even if their parents never smoke inside the house.The honourable member asked what we are doing about asthma. It is something we have made a particular priority. The first thing is that a couple of months ago I was able to persuade my state and territory colleagues to make asthma Australia's sixth national health goal and target. Secondly, while the opposition likes to make much out of organisations that do not receive funding, we have funded Asthma Australia for the first time ever to be a peak national organisation. In this year's budget we committed $8 million over three years to specific asthma programs.I am pleased to say we have been able to find a bit more money than we promised we would, and we are going to cover three main areas. We are going to provide education resources for people with asthma, because there is a very great capacity to improve people's management of their asthma, and hopefully reduce the death rate from asthma. Secondly, we are going to get nationally consistent guidelines for general practitioners and hospitals so that we can get the best practice management of asthma. Finally, we are going to institute a national system for the collection and collation of data so that we can actually understand the burden of asthma better—we do not understand it all that well—and do something about it.Finally, I would like to congratulate Asthma Australia. They are doing a wonderful job. They have certainly made me proud that they are an organisation the government has been able to support and they are doing a great deal to help the burden of people with asthma.1162611626Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, does your cabinet submission identify problems in the higher education sector, including `higher student-staff ratios, less frequent lectures and tutorial contact, the persistence of outdated technology and gaps in key areas of professional preparation'? Does the submission also identify that eight institutions appear to be operating at a deficit and some regional campuses are at risk? Having cut $800 million from universities, what action are you going to take to resolve this crisis?11626Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—Far from university resources declining under this government, as a result of the actions of this government university revenues are now at an all-time high. In fact, universities today have some $700 million more in revenue than they had in 1995. This reflects the fact that the government has already taken action to assist the universities to address the pressures that all institutions are under these days—that is, pressures to adjust to growing demand, pressures to adjust to new technology. We have sought and continue to seek to put the university sector in the best possible position to respond to these pressures. We have provided funding for overenrolled students, which the Labor Party refused to do. We have provided $2,500 per overenrolled student, and this has encouraged the universities to open their doors to tens of thousands of students who were locked out by the Labor Party's refusal to take action. We have provided the opportunity for universities to offer undergraduate places above the fully funded load for fees. There are now almost 2,000 of these students within the system.This government is conscious of the enormous importance that Australia places on the university sector. It is an important sector in terms of giving opportunity to Australians to make the most of their talent and abilities. It is a sector which provides opportunities to skill up Australia to meet international competition. It is a sector which is crucial to keeping Australia abreast of the very rapid advance in knowledge which is taking place. Every policy of this government has been designed to increase the university sector's access to resources and to improve access to qualified students.1162711627Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Minister, would you inform the House of any further recent initiatives that may help Australia become a global financial centre?11627Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I would like to thank the member for Macquarie for his question, and I know how his and many of my other colleagues' constituents benefit significantly from this initiative. We have consistently said that, in the strategic approach to building a global financial centre, we would need to slowly build various initiatives, including regulatory reform, taxation reform and a stronger economy, and we would also need to develop a partnership between the private sector and the public sector and use the combined resources to help build a global financial centre in Australia.I am pleased to advise the House that we now have a chief executive for the financial centre task force, which is based in Sydney. The current Chief Executive Officer of the Sydney Futures Exchange, Mr Les Hosking, has agreed to take that position. It is quite a coup for us to get the services of Mr Hosking for our endeavours. For 15 years, Mr Hosking has been the chief executive of the largest financial futures exchange in the Asia-Pacific region. It has an annual turnover of 30 million contracts worth around $A10.5 trillion each year. The Sydney Futures Exchange, with its global partnerships, is certainly developing into a major derivatives hub of the Asia-Pacific region. It has served well the needs of the Australian business community, particularly Australian farmers, with its financial products, particularly with its derivative products relating to wool and wheat.This is yet another step in our development of the financial services centre. We are determined to continue to build international relationships and strategic relationships between Australian exchanges and global exchanges and, importantly, to increase the level of employment in the financial services industry directly linked to the development of a global financial centre.1162711627Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, have you seen the report in the Weekend Australian which says that, in New Zealand, where they have a crippling student loans scheme of the type you have not repudiated today, despite what the Prime Minister seemed to indicate this morning, around 60 per cent of the country's graduates leave the country every year in many cases to avoid paying their student loans? Is that what you want to achieve in this country? With that, how would we build a knowledge nation?11627Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—Of course, the Leader of the Opposition is not accurately representing in any way whatsoever, once again, the proposals in the policy document that he has from the government. This indicates the Labor Party's complete incapacity to address the serious policy issues that deal with the higher education sector. I notice that a doorstop interview of the Leader of the Opposition this morning included this statement:There is active discouragement in all of this for Australians to have children.We have here a policy proposal which contains options to expand financial support.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the question was very specific to the experience in New Zealand of the extraordinarily damaging effect the loans he proposes have had on the willingness of qualified young New Zealanders to stay in the country. We want to know his answer on that.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister has been asked a question about overseas experiences and the way it impacts on Australia. I ask him to be relevant to the question. Had I thought his earlier answer not relevant, I would have called his attention to it.BT4Dr KEMP—I was directly addressing the issue that was raised by the Leader of the Opposition because, firstly, the Leader of the Opposition is trying to totally distort what is in this policy paper. It either suggests his incompetence or his deceit, but he is out there trying to tell people that the paper contains options that it does not contain. In the long run, one would have to say that this is not going to do him any good at all because he is going to be exposed to everybody who reads that paper as having totally misrepresented what is in it.I was drawing attention to the absurdity and ludicrous scare talk that the Leader of the Opposition is now engaged in. Instead of engaging in a serious policy debate, all he can do is spread this information and utter scare talk, which he hopes, presumably, will arouse the Labor students on campus even more so they will get out in the streets. This country is looking for a sensible debate on where the university sector and higher education in this country are to go. You are now fortunate to have in your hands a first-class set of policy options, which the government will be considering, and all you can do is distort and misrepresent it. The only person you have managed to discredit in the course of this foolish attack of yours is yourself.Miscellaneous116281162815:07:0011628Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—by leave—I move:That this House censures the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs for misleading the Parliament, and the Australian people on the Government's intentions regarding higher education, and for advancing a policy which would create severe financial hardship for the vast majority of students and their families, and which would eliminate educational opportunities for many other Australians, particularly those in regional Australia.We determined tactically at the beginning of question time that, if we did not get satisfactory answers to yesterday's blatant misleading of this House and the Australian people by the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs as to the advice he was offering government, the intentions he had and the proposals he intended to place before his cabinet colleagues ultimately for revelation to the Australian people, this motion would be the gravamen of what we would be saying.As we looked at the reports of the Prime Minister's statement this morning, we assumed the Prime Minister was ruling out the preferred recommendation of the minister in that particular cabinet submission to do these things: firstly, introduce what is in effect a voucher arrangement; secondly, introduce uncapped fees; and, thirdly, introduce an arrangement of real interest charged loans into the higher education system universally based. We assumed the Prime Minister's words this morning actually constituted a repudiation of those matters. They do not apparently, based on the answers in question time today.For example, in the area of voucher, it appears that, if the word `voucher' does not appear in the government policy, then vouchers in effect do not exist. That appears to be the view of both the Prime Minister and the minister. However, if you describe your intentions as a `universal tuition subsidy which follows the students to accredited higher education courses', you are not talking about a voucher. Commonsense amongst the Australian people would assume that that is precisely what a voucher is. In the Oxford Dictionary, the definition of a `voucher' in higher education would be a `universal subsidy accompanying the student to any particular institution'. That would be an appropriate definition of the word `voucher'.On the issue of the cap on higher education fees, what we got was not a repudiation of that so much; rather it was leaving the wriggle room open to raise those fees universally as opposed to selectively. The wriggle room has been left there.When we asked whether or not HECS was about to be transformed into a universal loan scheme with a real rate of interest, we got evasion. We went down the road of specifically asking the question about a universal loan scheme a second time. We again got deliberate evasion from the minister. So whatever the Prime Minister's weasel words today, out there on the hustings, as he hopes to dampen the ardour of the Australian media to pursue what is a matter of genuinely very great interest to hundreds of thousands of families around this country, all this Prime Minister intends is that they should go quietly and allow this minister to develop those propositions in secret, ultimately for revelation before or, in the unlikely event of success, after the next election campaign.One of the things you do know about these Liberals is that, if it is circulating there, two things will happen: the first is that it will be denied and the second is that it will be done. Those are the two things that will happen. It will be denied in order to confuse community debate, because hope springs eternal in the breast of the average Australian elector. Though they distrust us in politics, at the end of the day, if we say something often enough, they believe it.So hope springs eternal. Counting on that, the minister thinks that if he denies that a universal subsidised place capable of being taken from institution to institution is in fact a voucher, there will be a mind-set amongst the Australian people that he will be allowed to proceed down that course of action, even if it is in blatant breach of promises, until they ultimately get hit with it. We saw that with the GST—the never, ever proposition. One of the reasons this has to be pursued is that you can no longer rely on the word of this government, but you can also no longer rely on any checks and balances in the Australian political system to keep a government honest.What you now know is that, ultimately, when a proposition is placed before the Senate, the principal crossbench party will vote for a variant of it no matter what is said. Therefore, the only way to prevent a voucher scheme coming into place, the only way to prevent a high rise in university fees coming into place, and the only way to prevent a real interest rated loan scheme replacing HECS in some form is to defeat this government at the next election. That is clear.The only way to elect a government that will restore public investment in higher education as the priority, the only way to elect a government with a long-term plan to restore direct government funding to create those essential underpinnings of the knowledge nation in the collapsing disciplines—that is, the sciences, the information technologies and the maths—and the only way to elect a government that will ensure that every single Australian can participate in it is to elect a Labor government, because they are our policies, and they are the policies that we will be pursuing in the next election campaign. We offer the only option to persist with higher education as a public investment in this country. We offer the only option that will ensure that ordinary Australian families will have an opportunity to participate in higher education. We offer the only option to treat higher education as a public investment to underpin research and development. We are the only party that will offer an option to ensure that the development of regional universities and the critical role they now perform in regional development are protected.Regional development used to be about roads and bridges—and the fraud that is there in that Telstra fund associated with providing those roads and bridges is pitched exactly to 50-year-old thinking about regions. But everybody in the regions knows this: they need communications infrastructure bandwidth, and they need institutions of higher education. Institutions of higher education are no longer just about teaching; they are about the underpinnings of industry in a region, in a city, in the nation. The only political party that will offer policies at the next election related to that will be us.What an extraordinary thing it was as this minister decided to try to defend himself in this chamber today by reference to the medical school at Townsville. I would have thought that, under the propositions you are putting forward, one of the universities most at risk would be James Cook. I would have thought that that would stick out in lights for the average Australian looking at the minister's own words in his cabinet paper. The Prime Minister's code of conduct says this:Ministers must be honest in their public dealings and should not intentionally mislead the parliament or the public. Any misconception caused inadvertently should be corrected at the earliest opportunity.I think this minister misread the code. He took it to read, `Any misconception caused should be compounded at its earliest opportunity.' And this is his record for misleading: in our first question yesterday we asked the minister if he stood by his statement that the government has no intention of introducing vouchers for post-secondary education. After the West report was released last year the minister said, `The government has no intention of introducing vouchers for post-secondary education.' The Prime Minister supported him in the election campaign: `As far as West is concerned, David Kemp had something to say about our attitude to vouchers and things like that, ruling them out absolutely.' But what we find in this document is a plan for vouchers—that universal tuition subsidy. Even after he was caught out on that, he said last night on the 7.30 Report :I was asked in the House today—are we going to introduce vouchers? We have ruled out vouchers. I have made that quite clear. We have put that on the public record.Then yesterday he was asked if he accepted that there are regional campuses whose existence was at risk. He denied it. He denied it absolutely.BT4KEMPDr Kemp—What was the question? Sorry, I did not hear the question.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Here is your answer.BT4KEMPDr Kemp—Tell us the question. Come on, read the question.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Here is your submission: `Eight institutions appear to be operating at deficit, and some regional campuses are at risk.'BT4KEMPDr Kemp—That was not the question. That was the paper, not the question.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Indeed your answer, my friend, is what misleads this parliament, old son. Your answer is what misleads this parliament. This was your answer of yesterday—BT4KEMPDr Kemp—What was the question?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—The question does not mislead; the answer misleads.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am reluctant to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition, but the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to be heard without interruption and I would expect the same courtesy to be extended to the minister. PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—This is the answer—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—While I have not recognised the Leader of the Opposition, I do so now and invite him to continue.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—This is the answer, not the question:The suggestion that there are regional university campuses at risk—these are the words—is absolutely absurd, and I completely reject that.I repeat:The suggestion that there are regional university campuses at risk—that is all—`campuses at risk'—is absolutely absurd, and I completely reject that.The cabinet submission says: `Already, eight institutions appear to be operating at a deficit, and some regional campuses are at risk.'BT4KEMPDr Kemp—Of the deficit.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—No—`some regional campuses are at risk'.BT4KEMPDr Kemp—Yes, of the deficit.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—No, no: `Already, eight institutions appear to be operating at a deficit, and some regional campuses are at risk.'BT4KEMPDr Kemp—Read it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will have an opportunity to respond.BT4KEMPDr Kemp—We will offer you literacy classes. Take it word by word.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister is rapidly losing the opportunity to respond.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—What we have here is absolutely the ultimate in misleading this chamber. Our third question was whether the minister stands by his pledge of 17 April 1998 that the government had no intention of deregulating university fees. The answer: `The government has no intention of deregulating university fees.' The cabinet submission: `My preferred reform option is a demand driven system characterised by fee and admissions deregulation.' These were the three questions we asked him and the three clear cases of misleading. They were compounded by the minister's woeful performance on the 7.30 Report . Hasn't the 7.30 Report been happy hunting ground for the brothers Kemp?In addition, the minister is here today, as he is day in and day out, telling us that he has been the saviour of the education system in this country. Regarding the higher education funding bill earlier this year he was saying, `We're out there. We have introduced a quality system. There are no problems in the higher education system. We have great quality assurance. There is nothing for you to worry about.' And then we come to his own report, which states:. . . higher student staff ratios, less frequent lecture and tutorial contact, the persistence of outdated technology and gaps in key areas of professional preparation.This is entirely a product of slicing $800 million out of the higher education system. He has produced this situation of an unutterable disaster. He has produced this situation of massive overcrowding in facilities which cannot carry them. He has produced this situation where there are not enough teachers to go around to provide a quality education. He has produced this situation where there are not enough resources available for decent research activities in universities and aids to keep people in touch with contemporary ways of doing information technology. He has produced that situation.Yesterday the minister was kind enough to comment that my 10 months as minister for education were unmemorable. In the 10 months that I held the portion of the education portfolio responsible for higher education, I apparently was unable to produce a revolutionary change in the higher education system. Well, perhaps we did not exactly rivet the people in the course of that 10 months, but I will tell you what we did do. We had, in terms of percentage of GDP, a rising commitment to public investment in education and in research and development in the private and public sectors of which universities are a part. We had a rising contribution both in absolute dollar terms and in terms of percentage of GDP.And we had students who were fully funded at university and therefore were not spilling out of tutorial rooms, were not experiencing the collapse of tutorials, were not unable to get access to lecturers but who were at least experiencing universities and taking advantage of the new technologies for teaching research available to them. We had all that in the 10 months I was minister for higher education. And we had a government which in each budget was increasing in real terms the Commonwealth's contribution to higher education. And we had the development of regional universities in Australia of real quality and character that were providing rural and regional Australians with opportunities to get themselves into higher education.And we had the situation in those very same regional institutions of relationships being developed with their communities, and with the business sections of their communities which were providing important new job opportunities. We were introducing to the higher education system groups of young Australians who had never had those opportunities before. You could go to a graduation ceremony at the University of Western Sydney and see the enormous pride of the ordinary working people of that area for their first university graduate.Let me tell you what the intention of this government is. Because they cannot be believed, you might as well believe me. The intention of this government is this: they intend to starve the universities; they intend to overcrowd the universities; they intend to force the universities into ever-increasing cycles of failure, particularly those universities in regional Australia or in the outer working-class suburbs of Australia. They intend to force those institutions into penury until the very crisis that confronts the vice-chancellors and the planning development officers of the universities compels them to go on bended knee to this government and say, `In the absence of anything else, let us slug the students. Even if it means no kids from working-class families or, for that matter, from middle-income families get into universities, let us at least loot the people who are wealthy. Let us at least loot them to make absolutely certain that our very institutions survive.'This is not the formula for a knowledge nation. This is the formula for ideological prejudice and collapse of opportunity. This is a product of arrogance and insanity—a product of utter stupidity. This is not an option for growth in our higher education; it is an option for failure. Unfortunately, the opportunity to utterly reject this option has not been pursued by the Prime Minister. He has merely covered it up. We will not permit it to be covered up because we are on to you and we are after you. (Time expired)MG4LEEMr Lee—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:27:0011632Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—It is interesting that in the second debate on this subject in a couple of days we have just heard from the Leader of the Opposition rather than the shadow minister at the table, the member for Dobell. Of course, the shadow minister has nothing to say. They would not give him an issue like this to try to run because they know he would make a complete mess of it. He mucked up his question in question time yesterday. He knows that he is about to be replaced by the member for Fremantle. They do not give him any really interesting jobs. They just let him sit there and come along at the end. That is all they think of the shadow minister. You would think they would give him some responsibility.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The minister has the call. I will take action as appropriate, and I would have thought that the shadow minister would be very anxious that I not apply the same rules to him as I applied to two other backbenchers earlier today.MG4LEEMr Lee—Excuse me, Mr Speaker, but I have made no interjection whatsoever.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I was not talking about interjections, and neither were the other two who have left the House.MG4LEEMr Lee—What are you referring to?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am not going to debate with the shadow minister. I call the minister.BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—We heard the former minister for education, the now Leader of the Opposition, trying desperately to remember what it was that he did during his time in the portfolio. We heard the same tired old rhetoric that he used at the time being brought back. There has been no new thinking on that side of the House. The thinkers have been driven to the back bench and there is no policy on the front bench.The Leader of the Opposition lifted our eyes to the horizons on behalf of the long-term plan for higher education that the Labor Party is putting forward. But there is no long-term plan. This long-term plan is a figment of the imagination of the Leader of the Opposition. Presumably, we are going to hear of something one day, but no long-term plan for the future of education is coming from the Labor Party. No policies are coming from the Labor Party. The last time it tried it, the member for Werriwa, the then shadow minister, said that it was so poor and of such low quality that he resigned as shadow minister and went to the back bench.The record of this government in supporting research and access to universities is absolutely unparalleled. When the Leader of the Opposition—the former minister for education—was in office, there were, if my memory serves me correctly, tens of thousands of qualified young people locked out of universities. The Leader of the Opposition talks about classrooms with plenty of space. There is plenty of space there because qualified stu dents were not allowed in, and those students would prefer to be there. There are now tens of thousands more students on campus than there were when Labor was in office.In 1999, there are a record number of undergraduate student places and fully funded undergraduate places, and there is record revenue for universities. This year, there are some 398,500 undergraduate student places. This is a record number and a seven per cent increase from 1996, when Labor was in office. There are a record number of fully funded undergraduate places—364,400. That is 12,665 or 3.5 per cent more than in 1996. There is record university revenue—$8.675 billion, which is $376 million more than in 1996 in constant dollar terms. Universities have been given flexibilities to admit students, flexibilities they never had when Labor was in office. That is why so many tens of thousands of young Australians now have the opportunity to pursue a university education. They did not have this opportunity when Labor was in office.The Leader of the Opposition talks about the spending of the Labor government. I think all Australians are aware of the fact that this Leader of the Opposition left the Australian people a $10.5 billion deficit, a deficit that was the last in a whole series of accumulated deficits of some $17 billion over a period of five years. This was unsustainable even by the Labor government itself, and yet the Labor Party under this leader still thinks of nothing more constructive in policy terms than saying, `We will spend more money than you.' But where is it? Where is the funding for that money? Where are the commitments? Where is the plan? Where are the promises? Absolutely nothing is being put forward by the opposition. All it can do when it is presented with a first-class set of policy options is seek to distort them and use extreme, exaggerated language to tell people that options are damaging when in fact they are likely to be very positive for young people and for universities.For example, to show how confused the opposition is, the Leader of the Opposition asked me in question time today to rule out a policy option that would provide subsidies for all students. As we know, not all students receive subsidies. The Leader of the Opposition is saying, `Let's not extend any further financial assistance to any students. Let's rule that out because I, the Leader of the Opposition, say that this constitutes a voucher. We are so much against this that we do not want to see it even considered by the government.'I am not saying the government will accept these options. The government has been provided with a whole range of options. The Leader of the Opposition says, `Let's rule out any consideration that we might extend financial assistance to students.' He says, `Let's rule out any suggestion whatever that we might extend the loan scheme that exists under the HECS scheme to more students.' Most students would consider that that was beneficial to them. The government has long said that the HECS loan scheme provides the best loan scheme in the world. It is a great feature of the Australian system and a feature which other countries are now looking at. It is a feature which does not exist in the United States, which is one reason why this cabinet submission does not in any way propose that we introduce into Australia an American-style system of student and university funding. That is yet another distortion from the opposition.I believe the extreme language that has been used by the Leader of the Opposition discredits him, because people in the higher education sector and in the community want a sound debate. We are hearing people today saying just what their views are, and many of those views are of course supportive of one or other of the options, as one would expect, because there are people out there who want a sound public debate. There are people out there who want a debate on these issues and are prepared to debate them sensibly, but the Leader of the Opposition is not. He goes through the government's policies and says that the options in this paper will actively discourage Australians from having children. How extreme can you get! It is becoming laughable. He simply does not even seem to grasp the positive quality of what the government is putting forward. This is from the man who says that he supports family friendly policies, but he is the man who produced one million unemployed. He is the man who had record interest rates in this country. He is the man who loaded the next generation of Australians with the largest national debt that this country has had, and it has been up to this government to try to clear it off.The family friendly and education friendly Leader of the Opposition left 30 per cent of young Australians unable to read and write properly. He enthroned the unions in charge of the apprenticeship system and virtually destroyed it. Even the policies of someone on that side who had much longer experience in education, John Dawkins, had I am afraid quite a damaging effect in many ways on higher education. He referred, in Neal Blewett's book, to the abysmal impact of Labor's policies on vocational education on young Australians. Peter Baldwin, who was before he left the parliament a shadow minister, was the Minister for Higher Education and Employment Services. He made exactly the same point—that we did not do enough for the 70 per cent of young people who do not go on to university.This government has. We have addressed the education agenda which was completely unaddressed in 13 years of Labor government. They have nothing to offer. They have no policy. They cannot produce a policy. They do not seem to even acknowledge the goals that this country needs to have. We need to provide expanded access to universities. We need to help young people who are coming from financially disadvantaged backgrounds to pursue their education in universities. We have to strengthen the quality of the offerings that they receive in higher education. We need to make universities more responsive to them so they can pursue their careers in the areas of the economy where we are seeing rapid job growth.The options that the government is considering, has considered in the past and will undoubtedly consider in the future are all options designed to increase educational access and opportunity in this country. Regional Australia has been a particularly significant beneficiary of the decisions of this government. A very substantial proportion of the capital investment of this government in university campuses has gone to regional Australia. The number of students classified by the universities as rural students has gone up by seven per cent since 1996, and the number of students from isolated areas has increased by 5.6 per cent since this government came to office.We believe these statistics probably understate the level of access that has been given to regional students because the university statistics are based on postcode. When a rural student moves to an urban postcode, they are not registered as rural. So these are absolutely minimal, conservative figures about the increased access to universities for students from regional and rural Australia. The proportion of students coming from regional and rural Australia has increased. After adjusting for population share, there are approximately seven students from rural and isolated areas for every 10 from metropolitan areas—still not good enough but better than when Labor was in office, when there were six such students for every 10 from metropolitan areas.Everything this government has done and everything this government will do is to make sure people in Australia have access to high quality education opportunities. Those disadvantaged students who are not and were not able to even consider the possibility of apprenticeships or university education because they had low literacy and numeracy levels are now going to have the doors opened for them. The government is putting in place the educational foundation for Australian democracy. The great promise of a democratic country like Australia is that there will be opportunities for all.It was the Labor Party's ideology in office which shut the doors of the universities. They may say that they spent more taxpayers' money. We have allowed Australia to invest in higher education. That is why this community as a whole is now funding its universities better than ever before. It is why there are now more students on university campuses than ever before. We are not interested in ideological solutions. The government are not going to introduce vouchers for higher education. We have made it quite clear we are not going to deregulate university fees. We are all about expanding opportunity. The government have the opportunity to consider a range of options, which is what we always do. That is what governments do. The government think about policy. This is a government that can conceive policy, and that is what distinguishes us from those on the other side of the House.15:42:0011635Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Haven't we come some way since yesterday? Yesterday we asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs whether he would walk away from his unfair, unconscionable and un-Australian plan to massively increase the cost of higher education for Australian students and their families. Today the minister says that they are just considering a range of options. We can believe that as much as we can believe everything else this minister has been saying in this House for the last few days. But it is not just the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs who needs to be held accountable.The Prime Minister himself said today that the minister had done an outstanding job. John Winston Howard says David Kemp, Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, has done an outstanding job. The difficulty for the Prime Minister is that the Prime Minister has said a few other things over the years. Let me remind him of an old favourite that my colleagues on the Labor Party back benches love to hear:We want to assert the very simple principle that truth is absolute, truth is supreme, truth is never disposable in national political life.Who said that?4T4MELHAMMr Melham—John Winston Howard!MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The member for Banks wins the prize again. It was John Winston Howard who said that truth is supreme and that truth is never disposable in national political life. As far as this minister is concerned, truth is not supreme, truth is very disposable in his political life, and truth is never absolute. For this minister, truth and words are for hairsplitting and for turning completely on their heads so that black is white. George Orwell would be proud of some of this minister's attempts to mislead this House. The problem for the Prime Minister is that he knows this minister has misled the House. But the minister is not the only person who has done the wrong thing. The Prime Minister said in this House this afternoon that the government had honoured the commitments it made in the last election campaign, one of which was that the government would not support the deregulation of university fees.That was the commitment that the Prime Minister made during the election campaign last year and that is the commitment that the Prime Minister said in the parliament today he had kept. If that is the case, we say to the Prime Minister: if you have kept the commitment not to deregulate university fees, what happened at that cabinet meeting on 28 June this year? We will tell you what happened at that cabinet meeting: there was a proposal from Dr Kemp for `deregulating admissions and fees'. If this Prime Minister were a man of his word, we would be entitled to ask: Prime Minister, how could you say in the House this afternoon that you have kept the commitment when back in June you were giving the green light to the minister to go ahead with a proposal to deregulate the fees, to break the commitment of the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and your commitment at the last election? That is a proven case. In that cabinet meeting on 28 June, the Prime Minister deliberately misled the Australian people and broke that pledge, that commitment he made, during the last election campaign.The other thing to say is that in question time today the minister said that he still has a first-class set of proposals. So we are entitled to ask: what is still on the table after the Prime Minister's statement today? What is this first-class set of proposals, this first-class set of policy options, that is left after the developments of the last 24 hours? Yesterday, the cabinet submission that we released showed that there were three aspects to the minister's secret plan for deregulating higher education in Australia: the deregulation of fees, the introduction of vouchers and the introduction of a universal loan scheme with a real rate of interest. Let me quote from the Prime Minister in his doorstop interview earlier today:Any decisions that the government takes will fully honour the promises made both at the time of the election and previously in relation to vouchers, in relation to the deregulation of university fees and the commitments we made not to introduce HECS charges for TAFE courses.So the Prime Minister is saying that he will keep his commitment in relation to the deregulation of university fees and vouchers. The problem is that, when we asked the education minister what that gobbledegook meant, we got from the Prime Minister the statement that, cross his heart and hope to die, there would not be a deregulation of fees.I am sure that my colleagues on the back bench remember that it was this government that massively increased HECS charges by up to 125 per cent in its first budget. The Prime Minister could impose another 100 per cent increase in HECS charges tomorrow and he would not be breaching that commitment—that is, the commitment that he was going to deregulate the charges. Every year, for the rest of his hopefully short time as Prime Minister of Australia, he could double the fees, double them again and double them the year after and he would not be breaking his commitment that he would not deregulate university fees. So the point I make to my colleagues is that there is not much difference when the Prime Minister takes off the table the word `deregulate'.If the Prime Minister had said here this afternoon, `I give a commitment'—and it was a believable commitment—`that university fees will increase only by the CPI,' we might have had a bit more confidence that Dr Kemp is still not working away on massively increasing the cost of higher education for Australian students. But the only word that the Prime Minister has taken off the table is `deregulate'. It is still open to this Prime Minister to massively increase the fees for Australian students and Australian higher institutions. That is the first point.An incident having occurred in the gallery—MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—It is even disturbing for children in the gallery. We can understand their distress at the massive bills they are expecting. Second, yesterday, we said that there were three proposals on the table: deregulating fees, vouchers and the loan scheme. So `deregulate' has gone, but higher fees and vouchers are still on the table.The minister goes through this little hairsplitting exercise: `We rule out vouchers; we promised that there would be no vouchers at the last election.' But what about this thing that he calls in his submission `a universal tuition subsidy', which follows the student to accredited higher education courses offered by quality assured public and private providers? That is the definition of a `voucher'. That is a voucher. I am sure that my colleagues know that, if there is a bird out there in the courtyard, if there is a bird out there down by Lake Burley Griffin, and it swims like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, there is a high probability that it is a duck. This universal tuition subsidy walks like a voucher from public to private providers and it quacks like a voucher—it is a voucher. That is why it is meaningless for this minister to say that, cross his heart and hope to die, there will not be vouchers when we know that that promise means nothing to the Australian students out there.The third point to make, which was made so clearly at question time today, is that the government has not taken off the table the universal loan scheme with a real rate of interest. So we are entitled to ask: where does the $100,000 fee stand after the Prime Minister's intervention today? Yesterday, we did that calculation on the following basis. If you do physiotherapy for four years, the fee at the moment for international and Australian students who are not HECS funded is between $16,000 and $18,500 a year. In our calculation, we have assumed that $17,000 is a fair average—which is a pretty conservative estimate—and that is before any increase. If you subtract the $7,000 subsidy, the so-called voucher, and study for four years, then it is $10,000 a year multiplied by four years. So a total of $40,000 is the debt that you would have at the end of your course. We asked ourselves: what would be the real rate of interest on your universal loan? We said: let's be fair and reasonable; at the moment HECS is at CPI, so let's pick the bond rate. That is now at six per cent—a lot less than a private loan you could take out with a bank—and, again, we say that that is a conservative estimate.If you have a $40,000 debt at the end of your four-year physiotherapy course and you repay that using the schedule that now applies for HECS, you will pay $60,000 in interest on top of the initial debt of $40,000. That is where the $100,000 fee comes from. None of what the Prime Minister has said today means that that figure will be reduced in any way whatsoever.This minister still has the plan out there for the $100,000 fee for Australian students or their families. The reason the Labor Party is going to fight so hard to stop this plan is that it will do enormous damage to Australian society. There are so many young people out there who have many talents and much ability to offer our country. They and their parents know that they will get the chance to make that contribution if they study hard at school and work hard to get into university. If they work hard during their time at university they will graduate and get some of the high value, high wage jobs. This is the man who is trying to put a $100,000 debt between those young people and that degree and the high value, high wage jobs that they deserve. That is the reason the minister should be censured today.Many families will face a choice. Our young kids will not be able to afford to go to university if they have to wear that $100,000 debt. Their parents will try to take over the debt. Many parents will have to choose between paying off the mortgage on their home or paying off the mortgage for their child's education. Some battling families with more than one child will be placed in the position of deciding which of their children they can afford to send to university. That is why, Minister, we will do everything we can to oppose this proposal.We understand why this minister is sitting there as the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. He is the member for Bennelong's man in education. We have seen how well he has advanced John Howard's agenda in education. There have been $800 million cuts to higher education. We have had the abolition of growth funding for TAFE, we have had massive increases in private school funding, while our public schools are losing money through the inequitable enrolment benchmark adjustment. We have had his obsession with imposing VSU.The problem for the Prime Minister is that the member for Goldstein does not know when to stop. On higher education, he is like Frankenstein. I have not had the privilege of going to the minister's office yet. I bet that if you go down to MG61 you will find a dimly lit laboratory. The walls will be damp and the walls will be imitation stone. Like Dr Frankenstein, there on the surgical table will be the grey, lifeless body of higher education in Australia—it is lifeless because of the cuts he has made and the denial of adequate resources that they deserve.He has been working away on that lifeless body. He has sewn on to the body the head of a deregulated fees system. He has sewn on to the body the left arm of a loans scheme with a real rate of interest. He has sewn on to the body the right arm of an AWA system for the staff at universities. He gets the brain of a voucher scheme and puts it into the body. To top it off, he screws the bolts of VSU into the neck of the lifeless body. Having assembled this creature for cabinet, he closes the electric arc switches, the lightning flashes and then there is nothing. Like Dr Frankenstein, this minister for education will not give up. John Howard might say that deregulation is out, but back in MG61, back in the laboratory, Dr Frankenstein will be trying to put life into this creature, trying to put life into a proposal that will make it impossible for ordinary Australian families to send their children to university.We know that this minister got a green light for this proposal in June this year. We know that this minister will not give up until he gets his way, until he gets those $100,000 fees for higher education in Australia. We know that this minister is determined to maintain his attacks on public education. We know that he will do all he can to undermine our public schools, our TAFE colleges and our public universities.Labor will not rest until we kill this off. Labor knows that it owes it to those young people who are out there studying for their HSC next week to do this. We know that they have a lot of worries on their minds. We know that they have brothers and sisters in year 10 who will be hit by this plan. Labor owes it to those young people to stop this plan. Labor is going to make sure that, whatever this minister does, whatever the Prime Minister does, we stick up for those young people. We will make sure David Kemp's $100,000 fee never gets life breathed into it.15:57:0011638Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—There has been a lot of bluster and a lot of noise today, but not very much sensible debate. One would have to ask why this is happening. I suspect that it probably has a great deal to do with the plunging popularity polls for the Leader of the Opposition, which follow closely his weakness when he failed to distance himself and his party from the views of the previous Prime Minister, Mr Keating, who gave a tirade of abuse to the government for its support of the East Timorese people and the troops we have there and for the action that it has taken, and tirade of support for his friends in Indonesia.Mr Horne interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson, I expected the shadow minister to be heard in silence, and so will the parliamentary secretary.8V5Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH—Having seen his popularity go down and the need for a bit of skirmish, we saw a paper flashed around in this place yesterday which purported to be a cabinet submission. We do not really know whether it was a cabinet submission. I have not seen it, because the member for Dobell failed to table it, despite the resolution of this chamber that he should do so.Now that Labor is in opposition it thinks that it can talk about the credibility of the government. What was Labor's record. Just to mention a few, how about those l-a-w law tax cuts—the ones that could not possibly be reneged on because, after all, they were l-a-w law? Then there was the sale of the Commonwealth Bank, which was never going to take place, but of course it did.DH4HOLLISMr Hollis—What has this got to do with education?8V5Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH—It has everything to do with education. So has the $10 billion deficit that we were left with when we came to government. We are still trying to find the money to spend on the types of education and health programs that Australians would want us to spend money on. That $10 billion deficit was no way to help the young people of this country get a good education.Labor today is trying to judge us on its own principles. When the Leader of the Opposition was education minister there were 40,000 young Australians who were qualified to get into a university and there was no place for them. Yet he comes here today full of bluster, noise and cover-up and will not face up to Labor's own record. Did Labor ever in policy announcements before an election announce that it would introduce HECS fees? Of course it did not; it just did it. We do not condemn that now because there must be good ways of paying for an adequate education, but Labor was not up-front then and has not been since.Where is Labor's policy? The member for Dobell must really come in here with a policy. The member for Werriwa had a policy, but it got tampered with and changed before the last election. Of course he is now up there on the back bench. The member for Dobell, either on his own initiative or with the help of the Leader of the Opposition or his office, still has no policy and yet thinks he can come in here and condemn the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, who is doing such a fine job.Of course there is a growing demand for education and university education. There are increasing demands and changes in technology. Quite rightly, academics in universities are asking for salary increases. So there should be debate about these policies. Options should be put forward to a government to look at. Options should be put forward for the wider community to consider. Options should be put forward and ideas should be examined. They should not be condemned and waved around. No decision has been taken on this, but to condemn the fact that ideas and options should be put forward is really to reduce your own reputations.There are some facts about education that I would like to put on the record. There are now more places and more revenue in universities than ever before. In 1999 there was a record number of undergraduate student places, a record number of fully funded undergraduate places and record revenue for universities. In 1999 there were 398,500 undergraduate student places—a record number—and a seven per cent increase from 1996 under the previous government. There was a record number of fully funded undergraduate places, 364,400, and this is a 3.5 per cent increase from 1996. There is record university revenue, $8.675 billion, and this is a 4.5 per cent increase from 1996 in constant dollar terms. Universities can now offer fee paying places to undergraduates so that capable Australian students, who would otherwise miss out, can now enrol in the course of their first choice. The previous Labor government denied Australians this right but allowed foreign students the opportunity to pay for university degrees.Then we look at research. The total research funding for higher education is up from $396 million in the last year of Labor to $451 million in 1998-99. The higher education research infrastructure will receive a $93.3 million increase above the previous forward estimates, bringing the total funding to $288 million over three years. Strategic partnerships with industry research and training grants will be allocated $59.8 million in extra funding, bringing the total funding to $162 million over three years. Of course, importantly, health and medical research funding is being doubled over the next five years. Yet Labor come in here and want us to take their criticism seriously. Under Labor's record there were tens of thousands of qualified students who were not getting a place in a university.We are proud too to have achieved the highest level of access to education and training for Australian teenagers. Today they have an estimated lifetime probability of entering post-secondary education training which approaches 90 per cent. We also have a high proportion of mature age students in tertiary education and training. Twenty-eight per cent of Australian undergraduates and 62 per cent of students in vocational programs are aged 25 and over, and this may increase as Australia's population ages. But again Labor would not know about these things and has done nothing to achieve those types of figures of which the government is proud.Despite the assurances the Prime Minister has given this very day, Labor did not face up to those assurances in their debate, because it might have spoilt the tactics that they had already agreed to. The paper being waved around by the member for Dobell yesterday did not propose any cuts at all to university funding. The figure of $150,000 for courses was just sheer fantasy, because the average fee at the moment paid by overseas students who are full fee paying students without subsidy is $11,500. The government provides a subsidy to domestic students of something like $7,000 and every student is getting that.UNKNOWNA government memberA government member—What a beat-up.8V5Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH—What a beat-up, as the member so wisely interjects. We are talking about a situation which is nowhere in the range of the sorts of figures that Labor has tried to put forward as just a bit of a bushfire. They are trying to fan that bushfire to take attention away from themselves when they have no policy in any area at all, where they have had such a disastrous showing recently in their foreign policy and where their leader has failed to distance himself from former Prime Minister Keating. Professor Gilbert said on radio this morning:I haven't seen . . . He was referring to the document. He goes on:I'm not commenting on the plan because I haven't seen it; it would be unfair to do it. What I'm commenting on is . . . the implicit notion that the status quo is fine and that attempts to have a debate about it is reprehensible.So the people that Labor might be attempting to impress whom they might hope would influence some policy in the future are condemning them already.The opposition has come in here and sought to denigrate a very fine Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, a minister who has given a lot of attention not only to the 30 per cent of students who will go to a university but to the other 70 per cent who will not and who do not necessarily aspire to university, but who need to be trained, to feel good about themselves and to be given good opportunities during their lives.The Prime Minister has ruled out entirely that there would be American style fee paying at universities—absolutely ruled it out. That is not what this paper was all about. It is just another beat-up from the opposition, another cover-up for their failure to have any policies. No doubt, the member for Dobell thought that he was pretty smart saying that he had not been into MG61 and trying to paint some draconian picture of what that office might look like. I have been into MG61 at least once a week over the last year, while I have been parliamentary secretary to the minister, and I can say that it bears no resemblance to the picture painted by the member for Dobell. We have lots of ongoing discussion about policy. We have lots of ongoing discussion about what is good for the youth of Australia—for all of them, 100 per cent of them, and not just a few of them.I would like to just put on the record a number of the real achievements of the minister, whom the opposition would choose to denigrate today. There are achievements in literacy and numeracy. He achieved the agreement of all the state and territory governments to a national literacy and numeracy goal—and that was not any easy thing to do—that all young people should be numerate and be able to read, write and spell to an appropriate level by the end of primary school. A key element has been the establishment and adoption of a national literacy standard against which all children will be assessed in years 3 and 5. He has developed and concluded the historic national literacy plan with the states and territories to provide early intervention so that all students can gain literacy and numeracy.He designed the Work for the Dole scheme, based on the principle of mutual obligation. He abolished Labor's new schools policy and expanded the choice and availability to low income parents to send their children to low fee schools. He advocated and re-established the Job Placement, Employment and Training Program, JPET, which was abolished under the former government. I have very vivid memories of the then shadow minister sitting down in my electorate office in Adelaide in the lead-up to the 1996 election to write the press release promising the Australian people that that is what we would do. I was very proud of that initiative then, and I am even more proud of it now, having responsibility in that area and seeing the initiatives of the minister coming to fruition for those less privileged young people in our community—those who are homeless or at risk of being homeless, wards of the state, former wards of the state or refugees.The minister designed and implemented the policy to establish the new national apprenticeship scheme—the New Apprenticeships—which offers nationally recognised qualifications, New Apprenticeship Centres and a major simplification of regulations through national training packages. The number of new apprentices in training is at absolutely record levels. Of course, that was something that Labor never, ever did very much about.The minister has reformed the national training system, based on user choice, with $500 million of public funding—an enterprise friendly system of training with a strengthened private sector focus and nationally recognised providers and qualifications. He has initiated the school based apprenticeships scheme, which is being piloted in many schools, including schools in South Australia. He has initiated policies leading to an expansion of vocational education and training programs in schools to—as I keep emphasising—assist that 70 per cent of school leavers who do not go on to university. They get the training to help them to have fulfilling careers and take their own place in the world. Then he introduced a number of mutual obligation programs—in literacy and numeracy, training, career counselling, JPET, education or training, part-time work, voluntary work and job search training.The minister has overseen the introduction of the Green Corps program, a $42 million youth environment initiative for young Aus tralians aged between 17 and 20. Some 3,500 Green Corps participants over three years have received six months of full-time accredited training on community based environmental programs, which are mainly in rural and remote Australia. I have met many of those young Australians, and I have heard that described as a life changing experience—thanks to the minister that the Labor opposition would denigrate today.He established the Job Network scheme, which has proven to be one of the government's most radical—but also most successful—reforms. He established the Youth Roundtable, which has been so enormously successful, where 50 young Australians from diverse backgrounds and personal experience have come here to Canberra to tell the government up front what they think about things, rather than have it filtered through other peak bodies. He has negotiated with the states and territories the second ANTA agreement, based on growth through efficiency, producing over 70,000 new place at TAFE. But, of course, the opposition would denigrate him.He has introduced Discovering Democracy, which is a new national civics curriculum to give students an understanding of Australia's proud democratic heritage and institutions. He has designed and introduced a radical new and fairer school funding policy for non-government schools—very popular throughout Australia. This is based on the socioeconomic status of the parents and their ability to pay. (Time expired) Question put: That the motion (Mr Beazley's ) be agreed to.16:16:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew)61Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr AndrenMr BeazleyMr 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 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 SnowdonMr SwanMr TannerDr TheophanousMr K. J. ThomsonMr WilkieMr WiltonMr Zahra73Mr 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 GambaroMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HardgraveMr HawkerMr HockeyMr HowardMrs 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 WorthMrs CrosioMr BarresiMs O'ByrneMrs GallusMs BurkeMr ProsserMr McLeayMr Somlyay* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper . In so doing, I invite the House to join me in wishing a happy birthday to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs.Auditor-General's Reports116421164211642Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I present the Auditor-General's audit report No. 12 of 1999-2000 entitled Financial control and administration audit—Management of contracted business support processes .Ordered that the report be printed.Documents1164211642Reith, 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:Comcare—Annual Report 1998-1999Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission—Annual Report 1998-1999National Occupational Health and Safety Commission—Annual Report 1998-99Operation of the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act 1998—Annual ReportDebate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.11642Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I present a paper on the following subject, being a petition which is not in accordance with the standing and sessional orders of the House:Calls on the Australian Government to negotiate a treaty to be signed between the Australian Government and the Aboriginal Peoples and Torres Strait Islander Peoples by 26 January 2001—from the member for Grayndler—478 petitioners.Personal Explanations1164216:24:0011642Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?83MPlibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.83MPlibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK—In today's Sydney Morning Herald on page 24 is an article which is excellent in almost every respect except one. The article is entitled `No news is hardly news to Rabbitohs' and it refers to a press conference that was held by the member for Kingsford-Smith, the member for Grayndler, Senator Ridgeway and me. In this article—which is, as I said, excellent in almost every respect—I am quoted as saying that we are the `respectable face of support for the Rabbitohs'. Of course, this would imply that there is a group of supporters of the South Sydney Rugby League Football Club who are not respectable, but I would say that the 50,000 Rabbitohs supporters who marched last Sunday to reclaim their game are all respectable as far as I am concerned, and I admire their commitment to their community and to their code.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Sydney will resume her seat. She has in fact made her point, which is somewhat outside the provisions of the matter of misrepresentation.Matters of Public Importance116421164210000SPEAKERMr 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 urgent need for the government to address problems in universities such as high student:staff ratios, outdated technology and gaps in key areas of professional preparation.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—16:26:0011643Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Mr Speaker—Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:That the business of the day be called on.Committees11643116431164310000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip that he wishes to resign his membership of the Committee of Privileges.Motion (by Miss Jackie Kelly)—by leave—agreed to:That Mr McLeay be discharged from the Committee of Privileges.Bills11643The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request: Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Border Interception) Bill 1999 Customs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 Bills11643r79711643Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration at the next sitting.Bills11643r79311643Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration at the next sitting.Bills11643r79211643Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration at the next sitting.Bills11643s22011643Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Committees11643116431164316:31:0011643Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I 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.The ABC proposes to consolidate its television accommodation in Sydney in a way that meets its organisational and strategic objectives. At one level, the needs of the ABC for this project relate to particular problems with the current television accommodation at Gore Hill. At another level, the project is part of the ABC's response to the changing media environment.This proposal involves development of the vacant southern portion of the ABC's Ultimo site, adjacent to its current building in Harris Street, together with adaption of the existing building and disposal of the majority of the Gore Hill site. It would then be proposed that the Lanceley Place portion of the Gore Hill site be retained and redeveloped through a sequence of minor works.Much of the existing television accommodation at the Gore Hill site is inadequate. It is in need of significant refurbishment and maintenance as it does not meet basic requirements of television accommodation of being safe, functional and economical and providing a satisfactory environment for creative work. Ad hoc development over the past 45 years has resulted in 24 separate buildings. This has disadvantages in terms of efficiencies related to communications, space and functional relationships within the ABC. The proposed development will replace inadequate Gore Hill buildings and facilities with accommodation at Ultimo that is up to date, functional, safe, compliant and designed to maximise efficiency, output and creativity.The broadcasting industry is currently undergoing a major transformation with the advent of digital broadcasting. This project will provide the ABC with the facilities required for digital production and transmission, including studios suitable for both wide-screen SDTV—standard definition television—and HDTV—high definition television—production. The Ultimo building will house current television, radio and online staff and facilities and will enable cross-media production.The estimated outturn cost of this project is $109.5 million. With three-quarters of the Gore Hill site available for sale, revenue potential for application of the ABC's digital conversion program will be maximised. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction will commence in the year 2000, with completion and occupancy two years later. I commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills11644r91211644Debate resumed.16:35:0011644Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—In resuming my speech on the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 , I will quote Professor Hughes, who noted that women with a good education were entering new occupations in areas such as tourism, human resource related activities and computing, where jobs were not subject to the arbitration framework. She wrote:Relatively higher remuneration packages have replaced award earnings. Such recent trends contribute to the convergence of earnings by women and men under 30 and augur well for future female to male earning ratios. Escaping from arbitration intervention has been highly beneficial to these women.One traditional reason for the disparity between incomes is because women make different choices from men in the trade-offs between work and family responsibilities. Women tend to break or reduce their work participation during their child nurturing years, and women also tend to leave the work force at an earlier age than men. Again, Professor Hughes states:Many older women prefer to care for their grandchildren, making it easy for their daughters and daughters-in-law to pursue careers, than working outside of the home. The Australian Institute of Family Studies has recently found that 50 per cent of work related care for children aged 5 and under is undertaken by family members.Thus, Professor Hughes concludes:Whatever the reasons, when many men are enjoying peak earnings, many women are likely to have retired from the work force.Another factor contributing to the income disparity is the fact that there is a higher proportion of women than men working part time. In 1997, the Australian Bureau of Statistics found that a considerable proportion of women who work part time do so by deliberate choice. The ABS discovered that the proportion of married women part-time workers wishing to work longer hours was only 16 per cent, while only 33 per cent of unmarried women part-time workers wished to work longer hours.Professor Hughes saw a close relationship between workplace and employment laws and the choices women make about employment. She wrote:The Australian industrial relations system's imposition of labour market rigidities accelerated the trend towards part-time and casual work. Businesses are prepared to pay higher hourly `bundled' rates for part-time and casual workers to reduce the considerable compliance costs of `unbundled' wages. Earnings are not affected, but labour costs are reduced, leading to improved competitiveness. Women can fit work into their lifestyle preferences better with part-time than full-time work. They do not regard such choices as marginal or second rate.Another reason for the income disparity is the occupations in which women are concentrated and in which men are concentrated. Of the estimated 112,000 skilled tradespeople in Australia in August 1997, only 11 per cent were women. If trades such as hairdressing and dressmaking are excluded, the participation rate for women fell to a nearly non-existent one per cent. Skilled tradespeople are the most highly paid non-managerial, non-professional occupations. Professor Hughes concludes:A significant cause of unequal earnings does not lie in wage and discretionary payment setting, but in the absence of women from highly skilled trades.Thus it can be seen that the disparity between the average incomes of men and women can be attributed to a variety of factors or even a convergence of factors. According to Professor Hughes, by the end of the 1980s—a decade ago—the average award rate for women was 94 per cent of the male award rate, while average female earnings were as little as 80 per cent of average male weekly earnings. We were ranked second behind Sweden in all of the industrialised nations in the narrowness of these ratios.Narrowing this gap even further may be difficult or even impossible given the number of factors that contribute towards it. One useful initiative might be to try to find out why hardly any women at all seek careers in the trades since these are relatively well-paid jobs. There is really little reason why women cannot be tradespeople, and young women need to be given positive encouragement to consider this option.There are encouraging signs that the disparity gap is continuing to close. The Australian Bureau of Statistics in its May 1998 survey found that, in the two years between May 1996 and May 1998, median weekly total earnings for all males rose to $665.70, a rise of 5.7 per cent—and, I might add, a very welcome rise. In the same period, the rise for women was 7.1 per cent, to a median of $465.10.The ABS labour force figures released last month provided a snapshot of women in the work force. In August there was a total of 3,818,300 women in full or part-time employment—a rise of 82,600 since June 1998. Thus, over the 15 months, an average of just over 5,500 women per month entered the work force. By comparison, the male work force increased over those 15 months by almost 8,500 a month to a new high of 4,983,000. Considering that women are expanding their involvement from a lower base, the monthly average growth over that relatively short period is extremely encouraging. The ABS figures again highlighted the disproportionately high number of women in part-time employment. In August there were 1,671,800 women in part-time work compared with only 627,000 men—an enormous difference. In the September quarter, the unemployment rate for women remained steady at seven per cent, but rose marginally for men to 7.3 per cent. Over the 15 months since June 1998 there has been a steady decline in the number of women looking for work, from 315,100 to 287,800. Reflecting the trends I spoke about earlier and which were the subject of analysis by Professor Hughes, the number of women in those 15 months seeking full-time work fell sharply from 211,500 to 175,800, while the numbers seeking part-time work rose from 103,500 to 112,000.I would like to digress for one moment because there is an important point I would like to pick up that was made by the member for Brisbane. The reason I digress is that time is drawing to a close, and it would be a great pity if the incorrect statements the member for Brisbane made were not corrected.The member for Brisbane made yet another attack on the government, and this one related to the recent questionnaire of the International Labour Organisation dealing with pregnancy testing for women in the workplace. The member for Brisbane, I am afraid, made a rather pathetic attempt to suggest that the government had somehow attempted to exclude ACTU representatives from a reception, hosted at the relevant time in Geneva by the Australian government ambassador in Geneva, in honour of Mr Reith. I presume from his poor attack that he was attempting to imply that the government simply attempted to exclude ACTU representatives from having any possibility of influencing this issue of pregnancy testing. Nothing could be further from the truth.The original invitation list drawn up for the reception by the Australian ambassador was drawn from the original delegation list. A representative from the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business in fact took action to have invitations given to both the ACTU non-accredited delegate plus one other Australian observer attending the relevant ILO conference. So it was the minister's department that ensured non-accredited delegates did receive invitations.In relation to the accusations about pregnancy testing for women going to work, there would be nothing that women in this parliament would deplore more than having their personal situation pried into by a prospective employer; it is simply unacceptable. But there may be instances where a general medical test is performed with the consent of the prospective employee—perhaps for reasons related to the particular work to be undertaken—which could be skewed or misleading if it were not known that the woman applying for the position was pregnant. Obviously, there are great physical changes during pregnancy and, if it was not known that the woman was pregnant, some of the results from her medical test could give quite a different view of her overall general health.The government is unequivocally of the view—and made it clear in its response to the question—that pregnancy testing should not be used in any discriminatory way. Hear, hear! In addition, this position was reinforced at the ILO conference in Geneva in June 1999 where the government was a co-sponsor of the inclusion in the proposed ILO convention of such a prohibition of pregnancy testing for prospective employees—and so it should. The government is strongly supportive of the rights of women in employment to have children and raise families free from discrimination. It is time that the opposition understood and accepted this fact.I would like to close now by saying that I am very pleased with the results that the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has achieved, not only for the changes in this particular bill but also for the overall results for unemployment rates in my area of Dawson. I think this bill is a welcome relief from burdens of compliance for small business. I think it reflects the changes and the perception of equal opportunities for women in the workplace. I commend the bill to the House.16:46:0011646Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—The Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 might lessen paperwork for business but it certainly will not achieve anything for women. The government argues that the bill will achieve equality of opportunity for women in the work force by making the provision of equal opportunities and reporting requirements more `business friendly and flexible'. What it will really accomplish is making it harder to know whether businesses are complying with the law and making it harder for punitive measures to be levelled in cases where employers are not acting in the interests of equal opportunity. `Flexibility' has become code for `lack of accountability'.Australian women are not yet in a position where protective legislation can be watered down. The deregulation of the labour market, the downsizing of many businesses and the globalisation of the economy are new issues that have arisen on top of the old issues of wage disparity and horizontal and vertical employment segregation that have contributed to inequality in the work force for women. Labor has consequently moved a number of amendments to this bill. This is because, while the government espouses pro-family rhetoric, its policies and actions clearly make women's lives harder.The government has stripped back support for women by weakening the industrial relations legislation and organisations that aim to improve women's employment prospects and workplace treatment, particularly through the Workplace Relations Act and reductions in the power of the Industrial Relations Commission. The government's response to the 1998 review of the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986 was released in December 1998. That review stated:The labour market system we inherited from Labor was formulated by men, for men, with little regard to the interests of women.That part of it may be true. However, the review stated further:The Coalition's Workplace Relations Act 1996 introduced an extensive array of provisions to assist women to enter and remain in the workforce.That is one of the most monumental pieces of hypocrisy I have heard since I have been in this place. This government is doing everything it can to undermine the position of women in the work force. Women are disproportionately affected by the industrial relations legislation that the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has introduced because women are concentrated in casual and part-time employment and in lower paid work—in areas where they have less bargaining power and often less union representation.The Western Australian model has shown the way. The changes introduced in Western Australia are a litmus test for what will happen federally when similar changes are introduced here. Crockett and Preston show in their 1999 article entitled The future is bleak: enterprise bargaining and gender wage equity that in Western Australian workplace agreements the disparity between women's and men's earnings increased by 5.5 per cent between 1991 and 1998. That means that the gap in men's and women's pay is actually increasing due to the changes that the workplace relations minister is proposing to mirror federally.The government has limited conciliation in the Industrial Relations Commission to certain `allowable matters'. The result is that the Industrial Relations Commission cannot be called upon to assist women workers to negotiate equal opportunity and sexual harassment conditions. In the past the IRC has been able to help women achieve better working conditions, including maternity leave and equal pay for work of equal value.The government has also demonstrated no support for Australian women by weakening organisations which exist to provide women with suitable avenues of redress for discrimination, including the Affirmative Action Agency and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Cuts to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's budget have been consistent and extreme. The commission was funded to the tune of $21.6 million in 1995-96. This was reduced to $12.3 million in 1998-99 and to an average of only $10.6 million over each of the three outyears. Once implemented, these cuts will mean a cut to the budget of the commission of 55 per cent.The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is being restructured and renamed, and we can expect the abolition of the six specialist commissioners in favour of three deputy presidents. This has drawn the attention of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which has expressed its concern about the abolition of special commissioners and called upon the government to `address as a matter of the utmost urgency' the committee's concerns in this regard.The government has also failed to respond to major reports, most recently the Pregnant and productive report. This report contains 46 recommendations which Labor has committed to supporting. The shadow minister for the status of women has said, `If the government introduces changes to the act as recommended by the HREOC report, Labor will support those changes. There is no reason to delay action.' That is very unequivocal. We have committed our support to the recommendations of this report. The government has failed to respond to the report's recommendations and failed to assist women by, for example, clarifying the unlawfulness of discriminating against women in the recruitment process by asking questions which go to whether they intend to have children or when and what arrangements for child care they would have. The report also contains educational ideas which the government has similarly failed to act upon.The member for Dawson spoke about the recent delegation to the International Labour Organisation conference. This government has failed Australian women by failing to send appropriate representation to such international fora, which are designed to discuss women's policy, and particularly to this recent ILO conference held in Geneva. The conference was held to discuss maternity protection conventions and included a debate on the definition of `women at work' and whether or not employers should allow breaks for feeding and lactation. But not one woman represented Australia on the official delegation. The government sent a 12-member, all-male delegation, including the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business.Lisa Heap from the Australian Education Union tried, but failed, to join the official Australian delegation and instead had to attach herself to another union delegation. A spokesman for the minister for workplace relations is quoted as saying:You don't have to be pregnant to present a policy position.Sarah Maddison, the convenor of the New South Wales Women's Electoral Lobby, wrote in the Australian , and I think she is right:No. You just have to be a bloke apparently.The member for Dawson referred to the fact that Lisa Heap did not receive an invitation to the cocktail party that was held in honour of the minister for workplace relations. I am sure Lisa Heap could not care less whether she went to the cocktail reception for the minister for workplace relations. That is not the issue. We are talking about official representation on the Australian delegation to this ILO conference.The government have also not supported women and, indeed, have worked against the sensitivity of government policies to women by weakening the role of government organisations that aim to assist women, particularly the Office of the Status of Women. Since 1996, staff members have been reduced from 50 to 34—34 is the last number I heard, and possibly there have been further sackings since those figures were made public—and there have been extreme cuts to its budget.In a recent article entitled `Women slip from the picture' in the Australian, Anne Summers looks at how Canberra is losing interest in women's issues. Ms Summers draws attention to the declining budget and influence of the Office of the Status of Women. She notes that Pru Goward is about to leave to look after the Prime Minister's interests in relation to making sure he gets lots of credit for the Commonwealth's involvement in the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. No doubt that is an important and valuable job, but the government are now faced with the position of looking for, as the article states, `a conservative, pro-business woman with a good image'. I wonder whether that is going to take a whole year, as it did when the Sex Discrimination Commissioner was replaced.Just today we find that, due to extreme community pressure and pressure from the shadow minister for the status of women and the shadow minister for family and community services, the government has re-funded a number of women's organisations. Thankfully those organisations have been re-funded, but what a shocking situation it is when those organisations that criticise the government face losing their funding. Unless there is a massive public outcry, those organisations remain unfunded. The organisations which initially lost their funding included Guides Australia, the National Council for Single Mothers and Their Children, the Older Women's Network, the Women's Electoral Lobby, the Catholic Women's League Australia, the Muslim Women's National Network, the National Council of Jewish Women, the National Women's Justice Coalition, the National Women's Media Centre and the Women's Action Alliance. All of them—they are very worthwhile organisations—initially lost their funding probably because they criticised the government.I know that the Girl Guides certainly criticised the government. They called the GST a tax on six-year-olds. The price that they were facing was the loss of their $50,000 a year funding. They have been re-funded in part—they are now going to receive $25,000—and it is certainly not what they are used to. It is a partial re-funding, but only because there has been massive community outcry at the way this government punishes any organisation that speaks out against it. We saw that punishment against the Association of Non-English Speaking Background Women of Australia, which lost its funding in 1996. We have seen it with the Australian Youth Policy Action Coalition, which lost its funding after criticising the government's cuts to tertiary education and other education and its attacks on the Common Youth Allowance and Work for the Dole. We have also seen it with the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Federation. They lost their funding because they were critical of the government's proposal to introduce the GST. It is a very effective way of silencing criticism I guess, but in this case, fortunately, many of these organisations have been re-funded due to public outcry.I should note, however, that when the Minister for Community Services was asked this week about these organisations losing their funding his reply was:The government is always reviewing how to best spend government allocations to many groups. I might add that just recently we funded the Lone Fathers Association.Well, that is just terrific. Remember that this is the group that refuses to believe that women experience domestic violence more often than men, despite the fact that police and court records, women's refuges, domestic violence units and hospital records in Australia and the US, along with the United Nations, the World Health Organisation, the Red Cross and UNICEF have consistently documented that 95 per cent to 98 per cent of domestic violence is perpetrated by men against women. Certainly, it is incontrovertible that four times the number of women are murdered in Australia by their husbands as men murdered by their female partners.There is a study produced in the United States called `Behind closed doors' that is frequently used by people who claim that domestic violence is as common from women towards men as it is from men towards women. This study is completely discredited by US statistical agencies and by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. At a recent Canberra conference, however, the Northern Territory branch of the Lone Fathers Association claimed that, as reported in the Canberra Times on 10 October this year:In the family environment, women, by a few per cent, are the most aggressive and violent gender.The founder and president of the Lone Fathers Association is reported as saying that his own view is:. . . that men and women are equally violent in relationships, and . . . lesbian relationships are the most violent of all . . . you've just got to look sideways at your partner and you have a DVO on . . . A further report states that in 1995:. . . Lone Fathers channelled its resources into supporting a 40-year-old Brisbane man, Keith Shew, who took the Brisbane Domestic Violence Resource Centre (DVRC) to the HREOC, alleging the centre had discriminated against him after his wife had beaten him with a vacuum cleaner.Shew, who arrived at a Brisbane court seeking a restraining order against his wife, was denied access last year to a safe room occupied by women seeking restraining orders—one of whom was Mrs Shew—by DVRC staff suspicious of his motives. "Mr Shew was not allowed into the safe room because his wife was sheltering from him inside", explained the centre's chair, Betty Taylor.In January, HREOC dismissed Shew's charges.Shew and Lone Fathers were incensed. Shew blitzed radio, TV and the newspapers, threatening to take his case to the United Nations. "I feel someone has to make a stand and tell government that men are the silent victims of domestic violence", Shew declared outside the commission in January.Shew and Lone Fathers' ardour was somewhat dampened when an investigative journalist from Brisbane's Courier-Mail unearthed police records which revealed that Shew had a long criminal record, including eight convictions for assault, receiving stolen goods and weapons offences.The Lone Fathers' Association pulled out. "We stopped giving our support when we heard everything wasn't as we thought", says Williams. "But there's no doubt women's issues have taken over the political agenda", he says.That is from a 1996 issue of Green Left Weekly . Further, the minister's office has described the Lone Fathers Association as a moderate voice. Yes, they are so moderate that One Nation was able to borrow their family policy in the last election. Kathleen Swinbourne from the Sole Parents Union says:If the government thinks a reasonable contribution to family law reform is calling for the abolition of the family court, I'm loath to ask what they think is extreme.Maybe they reserve the title of `extremist' for the men who murdered a Family Court judge and the wife of another Family Court judge. Maybe they think that, to be called an extremist, you have to have bombed the Parramatta Registry in the 1980s or made death threats to other registrars. Perhaps they think that the only people who can be called extreme are those who murder their wives and families and then commit suicide. I do not think you have to be violent or threaten violence to be considered extreme. In 1997, when a mother was granted leave to move from Queensland to Victoria with her daughters, the Lone Fathers Association spokesperson responded by saying:. . . violence would result, and judges would have blood on their hands.That is hardly a rational contribution to the debate.I wonder whether there is a trend in this government to listen to the voices of what Michelle Gunn—in an article in the Australian on 18 September 1998—calls the `angry white male'. There is a growth in parties such as the Abolish Child Support/Family Court Party. Indeed, the article says that Queensland Independent candidate Tony Smith, who resigned as a Liberal Party member of parliament after revelations he had been caught in a brothel, has also been campaigning hard for changes to the Child Support Agency. The article in the Australian goes on to say:The president of the Lone Fathers Association of Australia and a spokesperson for Parents Without Partners, Barry Williams, has been at the forefront of the men's movement for 25 years and concedes that he receives a much warmer reception in Canberra these days. "I tried for years and years to get an appointment with a Labor prime minister and was never successful. [Paul] Keating was never in favour of men's issues and neither was [Bob] Hawke," he says.Malcolm Fraser, on the other hand, was far more obliging, and Howard spent about an hour with Williams last February.It makes me proud to be a member of the Labor Party when I hear that Bob Hawke and Paul Keating are not listening to extreme voices in this debate.The government has shown its lack of sensitivity to and interest in women's issues by failing to consult a wide range of women's organisations, particularly through its reduction in the numbers now attending the women's roundtable consultations. The minister is inviting a much smaller number of groups this year. She is leaving the uninviting of the groups that were previously attending the roundtable to Pru Goward. I guess it is Pru's last job before she leaves as head of the Office of the Status of Women.This government has slashed every social service: child care, education and health funding. It has crippled services on which women depend to be able to work, raise a family and improve their living standards. Cuts to child care have totalled $851 million since 1996. The increased cost of child care has meant that many child-care centres have closed—280 child-care centres have closed since 1996. The centres that are opening are in wealthier areas. Ninety per cent of the new centres are in the private sector and in areas where the average income is $51 per week higher than the national average.There have also been cuts to university operating grants. The plan of the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs that has been revealed in this parliament yesterday and today shows that the cuts to the higher education sector and the proposed new methods of collecting revenue to fill the shortfall will disproportionately affect women. The taxation policies of the government do not deliver an equal benefit to women and they redistribute more of the burden of taxation onto women through the GST. Women are generally poorer than men. Their average income is just $21,000 and only about five per cent of women earn more than $50,000. Women earn on average $243 a week less than men, or about 66 per cent of what men earn—that is, if you calculate including part-time workers—and will thus of course be hit harder by the GST. They will certainly not have the same benefit from cuts to the capital gains tax that higher income earners will. Job losses predicted as a result of the GST are also in industries which have a high concentration of women workers, including personal services, communications, public services, retail, entertainment and hospitality. (Time expired)17:06:0011651Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—The Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 represents an opportunity for some of us to debate who gets what jobs and who gets what grants. As important as those issues are, I think it more importantly enables the House to debate one of the most difficult issues we confront as a nation—that is, how we give sharper definition to the notion of equality of opportunity. The bill directly raises the issue of gender inequality, but we should remember that gender inequality can also be seen in a broader context of equality of opportunity.In addressing the bill, I want to make one point in particular. An understated feature of the labour market of recent decades is that, while women from wealthier backgrounds have made great leaps forward, those at the bottom have not been so fortunate. For example, a study undertaken by Bob Gregory showed that, between 1976 and 1991, the employment of women from the wealthiest half of neighbourhoods increased by 10 per cent whilst the employment of women from the poorest half of neighbourhoods fell by 40 per cent. It is clearly a bigger debate than who gets which appointments and who gets which grants. For that very reason, I believe we must link the debate surrounding gender inequality to the broader debate surrounding inequality.The economic evidence makes it very clear that the glass ceiling has not been smashed for all in the Australian community. Perhaps it has been smashed for some—a minority from the better heeled suburbs, as Dr Gregory's evidence would support—and that is part of the reason we must continue to push for active initiatives to promote gender equity not just in workplaces but in all spheres in life. We must see this issue as an issue for all workers and all employers; an issue for the whole community, not just women; an issue for all regions, not just some regions; and an issue for all suburbs, not just some suburbs.I contend that a just society is one that places equality of opportunity at the centre of sociopolitical life. A just society is one that is conscious of not only the needs of individuals but the needs of families and communities. There has been much debate in recent times about whether we focus attention on individuals, families or communities. The reality is that they all matter, because we live our lives as individuals in a social context. Specifically, increasingly diverse family arrangements imply a need to make greater use of small-scale community networks to assist where other support mechanisms have broken down. In some instances, unfortunately, those mechanisms have broken down because of a withdrawal of fundamental government services.Too often, it is those women who lack education, support and opportunity who are left on the scrap heap. What annoys me is that, all too often, those in the Australian community—male or female—who have made it often forget to speak up, loud and clear, about those who have not had the same opportunities as them. It is therefore not a debate about the male breadwinner model of the family. I believe we must move beyond that type of debate. It is not about slogans; it is a fundamental debate about equality of opportunity in life, irrespective of gender.In that context, I vividly remember the development of the Affirmative Action Agency in its original form. As the general secretary of one of Australia's largest unions, I had the responsibility of making sure the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act was put in place. As a major employer, we were covered by the act. So, unlike many who have spoken on this bill, I have had first-hand experience of trying to make it work in difficult circumstances not only within the union of which I was general secretary but more importantly in a host of workplaces around Australia represented by that major union.The establishment of the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986 was very important, and we have made progress. The act itself requires private sector companies, community organisations, non-government schools, unions, group training and higher education institutions with more than 100 employees to establish affirmative action programs. Clearly, people have differing views on affirmative action and the degree to which companies should be compelled to promote the equal opportunity. For Labor, discrimination on the basis of gender is unacceptable. Where there is substantive discrimination, as there clearly is—and most would acknowledge that—there is a clearly a case for positive measures to attempt to rectify it. We should also be sensitive to the compliance costs associated with such measures, but we do not discard our principles on this basis.Cultural change takes time, particularly when it relates to traditional views about gender roles in society. It is fair to say that we have seen significant change in more recent decades—that is very much reflected in the participation of women in the Australian work force—but, while strides have been made, there is indeed a long way to go before discrimination is eliminated. While this bill is about discrimination in the workplace, you will rightly hear many of my colleagues talk about the broader difficulties facing both men and women in balancing work and non-work lives.Some issues here relate directly to women—for example, the conclusions of the recent work and pregnancy report by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commissioner, entitled Pregnant and productive: it's a right not a privilege to work while pregnant. This report, which I studied in detail in my former role as shadow minister for employment, clearly highlighted the difficulties faced by pregnant women in the workplace. People are still awaiting the government's response. I believe it ought to be brought in sooner rather than later. Moreover, an increasing number of such reports are suggesting a critical industrial relations angle is the need to balance work and family. This is not only a suggestion of the work and pregnancy report but a theme developing momentum more broadly in the Australian community and also in the international community. It is a theme that the shadow minister for industrial relations has noted repeatedly in debates in this House on workplace issues.The approach of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business to industrial relations sits well with the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 , as this government does not believe in independent standards. From the government's point of view, employers should not have to consult any standards, be they internal, involving workers and unions, or external, involving an independent commission or through legislation. The Howard government is not about cutting red tape; it is about absolving its mates of their social responsibilities.The reality is that women are still paid less than men and that economists cannot explain all gender inequity in the workplace with factors other than discrimination. A lot of it is to do with the industry and working hour splits between men and women. Some of it is due to different levels of educational attainment among older workers, and some of it is explained by the reality that many more women have careers interrupted by caring responsibilities.These factors contribute to the phenomenon of deregulated labour markets, leading to increased earnings inequality generally and between men and women. Lower than average levels of both education and workplace experience make many women particularly vulnerable in a deregulated labour market. No protection from unions and no protection from an independent umpire make life more difficult for those people in a weak bargaining position. That is why we need to be vigilant through legislation in ensuring that interests are protected.But the industrial relations debate is about more than this. It is also about asking how we might rebuild our industrial relations institu tions—not just to restore some fairness to workplaces but to forge a positive agenda that promotes best practice in balancing work and family and achieving equal opportunity. Unfortunately, I believe this government has no strategy to promote a better balance between the competing demands of work, study, caring and leisure, because the Howard government does not look at such issues affecting quality of life. When an economic imperative dominates social reality and when it undermines basic standards of equality of opportunity, we should be saying so and, more importantly, we should be saying that Australia deserves better—and there is a responsibility on government to deliver better.This is an issue that continues to become more complex: for example, as we witness the economic and social changes that shift us towards more study, more diverse family arrangements and a greater reliance on part-time employment—issues not really thought about 20 or 30 years ago. Our education and training system, the incentives implicit in our tax and transfer system and our system of family and community support still fail to adequately account for these trends. The task of balancing work, study and family is not an easy one, as we all know. One of the most important areas that we need to examine is whether the choice of work is attractive. The Howard government has failed to appreciate the possibilities in this important area.In other countries, there is a lively debate not just about how we can encourage genuine choice between work and family at critical stages of our lives but also about how we can effectively combine work and family. For many women, family is not regarded—whether we like it or not—as a realistic option or, among those women for whom it is, it is sometimes regarded as an option that comes at too high a price: choose the career, sacrifice the family; choose the family, sacrifice the career. I contend that that is neither efficient nor fair. If we are about genuine choice as a community, as Labor believes we must be, then we have to effect that reality, and that is not an easy task. A learning society is one that never leaves people behind. Policy responses must be specific in dealing with those people who are falling behind—that is government's responsibility.Unfortunately, among women in the labour market, the most disadvantaged are clearly those with a low level of education attainment. We are now observing girls outperforming boys in the secondary education system and the focus must therefore be on improving the position of boys. Similarly, we see higher levels of adult education among men than among women. Again, the focus must be on lifting up those women who have been left behind. Doctors, lawyers and accountants have a strong bargaining voice, but those women who are left behind have little voice in the trade union movement and most of their workplaces are not unionised. They are among the most vulnerable in the labour market, and we all know it.In slashing education, health, child care and labour market assistance, the government has made life even more difficult for those at the bottom end. The evidence is clear: women at the bottom were most affected by this government's budget cuts and are the most adversely affected by the inequitable approach to tax reform. The answer for these women does not lie with increasing casualisation, increasing working hours and increasing work intensity. It seems that this is recognised everywhere other than in Australia. These issues, among the most pressing in the labour market, are ignored by the minister, yet they are among the most critical concerns of Australians.In the past three decades, there has been a fourfold increase in the proportion of our work force that is casual. Until recently, the growth has been concentrated in the part-time labour market. However, in the past three years we have also seen a marked rise in casual employment arrangements for full-time workers. More than one in four Australian workers are now employed on a casual basis and Australia has one of the highest instances of casualisation in the developed world. The data suggests that this is a continuing trend. In the past decade, 70 per cent of the net growth in employment has been in casual jobs. There is a desperate need to improve the security of Australian women in the work place, but it will not happen by simply increasing this or that social security payment or increasing employment protection in this or that way.Economic security is now about having the skills needed to adapt to change. It is about employability, and that means assistance to women throughout the life cycle to meet that end. In the long run, staying at home in a caring role is a matter of choice, but it is decreasingly a lifelong choice. We need to be thinking about how we can accommodate both choice and opportunity for skill development over the life cycle. It is therefore worth remembering that Australians value time with their family more highly than they value their income. That makes you wonder why the industrial relations debate has quarantined family life. For example, it remains rare for productivity gains to take the form of fewer hours rather than higher wages and it remains rare for family friendly practices that benefit employees to feature in awards and agreements.There are a few innovative examples, but there is a lack of imagination in sharing information. Tuesday's editorial in the Melbourne Age also raised the important issue of population policy. Fertility issues are as important as immigration matters in the long run in determining the response to an ageing population. This is a point that has been made in a number of forums by both the Leader of the Opposition and me. Unfortunately, the government has decided to disagree on this important issue. I do not think there is a need to dwell on that because we all know it.The choice between family and work is indeed a complex one—and it is certainly based on more than financial incentives. In comparing the world of full-time work with full-time caring, both men and women must consider quality of life aspects as well. The quality of working life is certainly improved if workers feel like they have a voice in the workplace. It is improved if they have access to flexible working hours that suit them, not just their employers. It is improved if workplaces are safe and cooperative environments.Women are disproportionately affected by an industrial relations agenda that is based solely on the notion of flexibility. The continuing growth in non-standard working hours has suited some people but made life more difficult for many others. Both men and women have been affected by the growth in the number of people working very long hours. Directly, it is males that bear the biggest burden, as they are more likely to be working very long hours. However, even in these cases, women are paying a price. Despite some major improvements, women are still carrying a disproportionate burden of the underpaid work undertaken. Of those who work very long hours, research suggests that they are often happy in their jobs but less happy about their lives broadly. We know that there is a price being paid somewhere—by individuals and their partners, and by families.I also want to raise my concern for women who are now being told that they grew up with the wrong expectations. I am talking about a generation of women who receive very little attention in popular debates about glass ceilings. We could hear more about those with low education levels who need extra assistance—to ensure that they see their lives as offering genuine choices. Many women do not feel like they have real choices if they are not academically inclined or, if they miss out on an early opportunity, it can be hard to convince them to keep going with their education or with their careers.It is very easy to characterise those that believe that there has been an underemphasis on poor women as a backlash against feminists. It is harder to face up to the debate because that requires an honest assessment of where we are at. It is not at all difficult to see who are the most vulnerable in the modern labour market. The institutions that stood up for workers in the past are not picking up this group of women. It is critical that, while the union movement strives to make up lost ground, we do not undermine the ability of the Industrial Relations Commission, through relevant legislation, to protect those who may otherwise be exploited.Equal opportunity is something we must take seriously. When it relates to gender issues we must all accept that we have a lot of ground to make up. We must accept that debates are not a threat to just outcomes; they are a necessity. Those who are genuinely interested in the welfare of women in the work force must be particularly alarmed at the plight of the poorest and most vulnerable women in our society—not the lawyers and accountants but those who come to accept the life that locks them in. They struggle and they deserve more attention. They deserve to be the focus of public attention because they are the ones that miss out. They should not be denigrated by some who should know better.Loyalty, devotion and dedication to family is not something that should be derided by anyone in this House. It is a conscious choice many Australian women have made, and they actually pride themselves on what they have achieved in that sphere of life. There are some people who believe that such a choice is a mistake—that all women should see a career as the top priority and that those women who think differently have a problem.Until such time comes as that barrier is broken down, we cannot be seriously contemplating breaking down the measures that are designed to facilitate equal opportunity for women in the workplace. All indications thus far suggest that the government is simply not interested in this broader debate. (Time expired)Debate (on motion by Dr Stone) adjourned.Adjournment11655Motion (by Dr Stone) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.1165517:26:0011655McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—I recently had the pleasure of meeting seven very special people and presenting them with certificates of recognition as part of the Commonwealth Seniors Recognition Awards to celebrate the International Year of Older Persons. I am in awe of the work carried out by these people individually, and collectively their commitment and contribution to the community is almost beyond comprehension. During the presentation of the certificates, it became very obvious to me that we owe a great debt to our active seniors, not just for the traditionally espoused reasons, like for defending our shores, et cetera, but because they, as a significant part of our volunteer network, are holding together the fraying fabric of our community care systems. Today, I do not want to debate this. Instead, I want to introduce to the House the very special seven, as I call them.Albert Verrier was a Western Australian candidate for Senior Australian of the Year last month and is one of those humble, quiet people who is always there behind the scenes working away. He has lived in the Scarborough district for 46 years. For many years he ran a small engineering business with his brothers—Verrier Engineering. Bert has been with the Scarborough Lions Club since 1966 and they tell me he has a perfect attendance record. He is a life member now, having held almost every office available in the club. His community work has included transporting dialysis patients, supervising blue-light discos, assisting with the running of glaucoma screenings at clinics across the metropolitan area and the wider state, tree planting at the Brighton Beach Reserve, parking attendant at charity festivals; and collecting newspapers for recycling.For many years Beryl Boardman has been one of the genuinely active members of the Friends of East Timor. In addition, Beryl has been involved in local activities in this area for years, including the Scarborough Districts Progress Association, local conservation campaigns and working with children with learning difficulties at the Scarborough High School. She has been the secretary of the Toastmistresses Club and is renowned for her compassion, commitment and kindness.John Pizey is well known in my electorate for running a very successful engineering workshop. John was one of the key motivational forces behind the founding of the Scarborough Rotary Club and went on to become District Governor in 1977-78. As part of his Rotary service, John was responsible for building an eye clinic in Bali, initiating Rotaract which encourages young people to work in community services and was Chairman of the World Community Service organising volunteers to assist people across the world. Recently he has been working with at-risk young men as part of the Father Ollie Picket Project.Betty Green has been the backbone of Tuart Hill Primary School for years. It all began when she volunteered her services when her sons attended the school. Later she became a paid assistant at the school and ended up as a Registrar Level 2 by retirement. During this time Betty held every office possible in the Parents and Citizens Association. Betty officially retired about seven years ago but has continued her association with the school, attending P&C meetings, assisting with fundraising and reading stories to children.The Reverend Valerie Bock has spent a good deal of her working life overseas nursing. She spent nine years in Papua New Guinea working with people suffering with leprosy where she taught literacy and worked alongside a surgeon operating on leprosy patients. Later she spent 13 years in Thailand at a leprosy rehabilitation centre. Val returned to Australia and was ordained by the Uniting Church in 1989. She spent nearly nine years as a minister of the East Kimberley parish and has been on community committees such as the Domestic Violence Task Group and the Home and Community Care Advisory Committee.Eva Lewis was pretty busy earlier on in her life working and raising two sons. When she retired she decided to finish the education the war had interrupted. The study bug caught her and she went on to study at Edith Cowan University while continuing volunteer work for Meals on Wheels. She attained her Bachelor of Arts in social sciences in 1993. She continues to be actively involved in the community, currently through the Seniors Recreation Council of WA, of which she is the general manager.Thomas O'Rourke has been involved in the local community for many years. He has been an active member of the North Beach Our Lady of Grace Parish for much of his life and is currently Acting President of the Legion of Mary Society in the parish. For 21 years he has been active in the North Beach Autumn Centre, and his efforts have been recognised by a recent awarding of a life membership.These are seven very special people who have now been recognised by their friends, family, peers, community and the federal government for the wonderful people they are and their tremendous contribution to the community.1165617:31:0011656Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—Tomorrow is Cystic Fibrosis National Day. The day is set aside to increase the general awareness of cystic fibrosis and raise funds for further research. Mr Speaker, as you would know, cystic fibrosis is a genetically transmitted, incurable condition which affects primarily the lungs and the digestive system. CF is the most common serious genetic condition in Australian children today. In fact, more than half a million Australians carry the CF gene. There are approximately 2,500 people with cystic fibrosis in Australia, 800 of these in New South Wales.Many children with cystic fibrosis look fit and healthy and for some time lead normal lives—go to school, play sport, plan careers, et cetera—but they have to have constant treatment, every day, to prevent progression of their condition. This can involve chest percussion two to three times a day to clear mucus from the lungs and taking up to 40 enzyme tablets a day to help digest their food. It is only in recent years that children born with cystic fibrosis have survived to adulthood, and this is as a result of improved treatments. There is now a small group who have completed tertiary studies and are developing careers, yet life expectancy is still very limited as this is a progressive condition. As people with cystic fibrosis get older, their condition deteriorates and their lifestyle becomes increasingly restricted. For some young people, as their condition worsens their only option is a double lung transplant, and over 100 people with cystic fibrosis in Australia have undergone this operation. However, with the low level of donors in this country many people sadly die on the waiting list. There is still no cure for cystic fibrosis, but treatments are improving and the average life expectancy has increased to the mid-30s. Sadly, this year 19 young people with cystic fibrosis have died in New South Wales. Their ages ranged from eight to 34 years.The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation's aim is to promote the best possible quality of life for people with CF, and they provide a range of support and information services—support groups, counselling, recreation, social activities—and try to raise money for research to improve the quality of life for these people. Several weeks ago I opened an art show in the Blue Mountains that was organised by Century 21 real estate offices in the Blue Mountains, aimed at raising money for the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation for research. I would like to commend those people who put so much effort into that fundraising exhibition. They raised between them on that one weekend $7,000 which went to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.Cystic Fibrosis National Day tomorrow will raise further money for the foundation, money that will be used for research: research into improving the quality of life of these young people and, hopefully, research that will ultimately lead to a cure for this tragic and debilitating disease. I would encourage anyone who can to assist by giving generously to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. I wish the foundation well on their national day in their fundraising endeavours and for the work they do for these young sufferers.1165717:35:0011657Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—Today the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs sought to ridicule the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that the $100,000 fees for university degrees would be a disincentive for people to have children. The minister's claim is perfectly consistent with the view of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs that policy cannot influence birthrates. Unfortunately for the minister for education and the minister for immigration, they are both wrong. It is as simple as that—they are wrong.This raises the broader issue of the role of birthrates in determining Australia's future population and its composition. This is particularly pertinent as we face up to the challenges presented by an ageing population. We are actually fortunate in Australia because we do not face the same barriers as other nations do, but we must look at this issue seriously nonetheless. The answer to the issue of population—as you would know, Mr Speaker, representing a regional seat—do not just lie in higher levels of immigration; it has as much to do with the policy mix that creates a family friendly society. This is a clear message from the academic world, and we need only examine the literature in this area, but it is one the government simply does not understand. A family friendly society is one that facilitates genuine choice for men and women. That means people should not be penalised for the choices they make. The current fertility ratio in Australia is 1.8 children per female and falling. As the fertility ratio falls, higher levels of immigration are necessary. Academics agree that the best way to ensure steady population growth and to counter an ageing population is to ensure a balance between immigration measures and policies that influence birthrates. This necessitates family friendly policies across a range of portfolios.The government argues that fertility rates cannot be affected by public policy, that they are a given. I reject that proposition. It is simply not borne out by the evidence. In particular, policies that enable both men and women to better balance the responsibilities of work and family are those that facilitate genuine choice. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has recently claimed that there is no need for a national population policy. He sees population issues as solely concerning immigration issues. He and those who support him on this should be regarded in the Australian community as not only wrong but undermining Australia's future when it comes to a proper meaningful debate about population.Population policy crosses many portfolios—education and training, family and community services, industrial relations and immigration. The one on which I want to clearly focus in conclusion this evening is industrial relations. I note that today we have had the opportunity to debate the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 . But the issue is broader than that bill. This government's industrial relations agenda is simple. It refers, for example, to the need to remove the requirement for employers to consult internally with workers and unions or externally with tribunals and legislation about standards. The problem is that this most disadvantages those—both men and women—at the bottom end, those with low levels of educational attainment and low levels of work force experience.These problems are also reflected in the long-term unemployment rates released today—which have, unfortunately, just last week jumped again. I therefore believe that, if we are actually to do something about the ageing of the Australian population, we have to convince the current government to force all ministers to actually front up to their responsibilities. In the end the issue of fertility will have a bigger impact on the issue of the Australian population than immigration.This reflects the need for this government to develop a whole host of family friendly policies—be it access to child care, the nature of the taxation system, the industrial relations agenda, support for regional Australia or access to education. It all comes down to equality of opportunity and the question of genuine choice. Genuine choice for families does not exist under the Howard government. That is because the current policies that exist are not family friendly, be it on the industrial relations, tax or child-care fronts, to name a few. So, in a week in which there has finally been a debate on population, the government stands condemned. (Time expired)1165817:40:0011658Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—I would just like to start by reminding the member for Batman that we did not have a family friendly government until the Howard government was elected in 1996. I would like to say I am dismayed and disappointed at comments that have been widely reported in the media today in relation to the speech made in this place by the member for Throsby. All of this unpleasantness seems to have been sparked by an important and very reasonable motion from the member for Bradfield—a doctor, former President of the Australian Medical Association and current member of the government's health and aged care committee—a person who, I would imagine, is well-placed to comment on population growth and its likely future trends and consequences.The member for Bradfield's motion was to take note of Six Billion People Day on 12 October and to call for a realistic approach to family planning, including access to information about family planning. Significantly, his motion also stressed that the issues of population and development are interconnected.The member for Throsby responded with an intemperate attack upon the Catholic Church, describing priests as `elderly men in dresses' and suggesting that the church was responsible for everything from sexually transmitted diseases to gender based violence and female illiteracy. He also pointed to the fact that 70,000 women die each year from unsafe abortions, and laid this at the door of the Catholic Church. However, it is not the Catholic Church's policy that women should be subject to unsafe medical practices of any description. In fact, the church has saved countless lives through making medical treatment available to poorer people in developing countries.The member for Throsby has got it wrong in two important respects. Firstly, he completely ignores the good work that the Catholic Church and other churches have done in developing countries. These churches work hard to alleviate poverty, improve education and—through missions and other organisations—improve basic sanitation and infrastructure. Secondly, he makes the mistake of thinking that attitudes to birth control which may be different from the opinions of others are somehow responsible for the exponential rate of population growth experienced this century. This analysis ignores the straightforward empirical fact that predominantly Catholic countries do not have the fastest growing populations. The member for Bradfield has already made the point that Italy, an overwhelmingly Catholic country, has a rate of population growth so slow that its population would take over 1,000 years to double.However, there is evidence of a very definite link between high population growth on the one hand and poverty and high infant mortality rates on the other. There are a few possible reasons for these linkages. One is that in poorer countries where a welfare system—which we take for granted—is not available the perception is that more children are essential if one is to be properly cared for in old age. Even before that, children may be needed as a source of labour without which the family could not survive. Where infant mortality rates are high, families tend to have more children to ensure that at least some of them will survive into adulthood. While such an equation probably seems difficult for people in Western countries to understand these days, it is an outcome of the poverty that the people in developing countries are living in. It is not so many generations ago—within the living memory of some among us—that Western families thought the same way and for the same reasons.Clearly, if we are to address the problem of population growth, we must encourage developing countries to adopt policies which will lead to growth and prosperity. We must make every effort to support them when they do so, and we must support efforts to educate people, especially women. On that last point, we need to look very broadly at the need to educate men and women in developing countries.Listening to the member for Throsby, you could be forgiven for thinking that the answer lay simply in giving women some information about birth control. People with experience of working in developing countries understand very well that this approach is very limited in what it can achieve. If a woman is given information about birth control but remains in poverty, she remains a second class citizen by virtue of her gender. If she remains poorly educated in other respects, then you are not likely to effect any change in her role as a producer of offspring. She may well understand the dangers to her own body of continuing to produce children, but this will be of little use to her if she is constrained by her economic circumstances to continue in that role. It will be of little use to her if her husband does not understand—or even if he does understand but is still facing the set of economic circumstances. It will be of little use or relevance to either one of them if their country remains steeped in poverty. (Time expired)1165917:45:0011659Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—As we all know, this year, 1999, is the International Year of Older Persons. It is a specific time when all of us can honour older Australians for the love, care, time, generosity and hard work they have given selflessly to us over their lifetimes. Although there will be a great majority of older Australians who will not be publicly recognised during this year, there are many who will be. This year is a time to recognise all of them, both formally and informally, whether through public awards or by all of us saying a sincere and heartfelt thank you to an older person who has made an invaluable contribution to our own lives.As part of the formal recognition for a few of older Australians, the Charlton Selection Committee met to nominate a Charlton resident for the Senior Australian of the Year. Although the committee was given very short notice for this process, they were able to go through the nominations—all of which were of the highest standard—and objectively, comprehensively and with great diligence and consideration select one outstanding Australian to be nominated from my electorate. That outstanding Australian was also nominated for the Senior Australian of the Year award and, I am afraid to say, she was unsuccessful; but she will be travelling to Canberra for the 18 and 19 November national celebrations attended by the Governor-General, Sir William Deane. I will speak more about her shortly. At the moment, I would like to say that the selection was a very difficult task, and all the committee members would agree with that. I thank those selection committee members for agreeing to participate in this worthwhile exercise and for taking the time out of their own busy schedules to participate so productively. They are Ms Marjorie Gissane-Clark, Professor Leith Morton, Mr Peter Clough, Mr Dudley Hollingsworth and Ms Kathy Picken. All of these people are respected members of their communities, and I want take this opportunity to say thank you to them.The recipients of the Commonwealth Recognition Awards for Senior Australians in my electorate comprise a wonderful group of people. They are the kind of people that we all know in our electorates: wherever we go and whatever functions we attend and whatever community events we participate in, these are the people who are always there and who are forever giving selflessly.Bob Hopkins is a member of the Newcastle Combined Pensioners Area Council and, together with Barry Hoare, he organises each year on the International Day of Older Persons, 1 October, a seniors concert at the Newcastle Workers Club. For the past few years they have also been arranging local certificates for older Australians in the community to be recognised on this particular day. Bob Hopkins received a Commonwealth Recognition Award for his service to the aged, the frail aged and individuals with heart conditions.Gwen Johnston of the Toronto Senior Citizens group received an award for the tireless work that she has done in executive positions that she has held in that organisation and for the commitment that she has made towards building the Toronto Senior Citizens Centre. Cec Donaldson is a tireless worker with the RSL in our local area and also has a great commitment to young people. Arthur Day is a selfless worker who assists older people, people from non-English-speaking backgrounds and Aboriginal people with their tax returns each year.Les Norris is a tireless worker for the Morisset community, at the southern end of my electorate, and is very well known and well respected. Noel Dunne is also involved in the Toronto Senior Citizens Association and has held various positions in that association over the years. Betty Evans is a member of the Holmesville community who always opens up her home to assist people who are less fortunate than herself. Col Nowlan is very involved in the Ex-Servicemen's Association. Jack Marshall is a long-time member of the Toronto-Blackalls Park community. In his 70s now, he is just about single-handedly building the Toronto Senior Citizens Centre. Dorothy Cottier received an award for her contribution to the Cooranbong community. Another recipient was Jim Priest, another tireless worker with pensioners and involved in the Retired Mineworkers Village. (Time expired)1166017:50:0011660Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—Tonight I would like to speak about an initiative called School Aid, which was founded by Sean Gordon, the principal of St Patrick's Primary School at Bega in my electorate. This was something that Sean came up with only a matter of weeks ago, after seeing some of the devastation in East Timor. His aim was to use the networks through schools and to allow the children to be involved in raising money for humanitarian purposes in East Timor. It is quite staggering that in a few short weeks he has been able to get the agreement of the principals associations of government, Catholic and independent schools right throughout the nation. He raised the idea a couple of weeks ago at the Australian Primary Principals Association conference in Hobart, and the president, Mr Tony Misich, certainly commended the initiative and gave support to the program.He then looked for the support of the other groups. Consequently, he has had support from Mr Terry Woolley, the President of the Australian Secondary Principals Association, Mr Pat Rodrigues from the Association of Principals of Catholic Secondary Schools of Australia, and Father Chris Gleeson from the Association of Heads of Independent Schools of Australia. All of those associations have given an undertaking to be part of School Aid: Children Helping People in Need. He proposes to run that program in the week commencing 14 November. Between now and then he wants to contact every principal in Australia with an invitation to involve their community in this initiative that will generate funds to aid the people of East Timor.The specific goals of School Aid: Children Helping People in Need are, firstly, to outreach to the people of East Timor who are in such obvious need; secondly, to affirm and empower the youth of Australia through their service efforts so that they feel a sense of responsibility and hope in the face of the world's tragedies so vividly witnessed through the media; and, thirdly, to link all schools for a significant outcome.The aims of School Aid are to generate funds for the assistance of people in need using the school network that reaches into almost all communities. The initial target is $1 million per annum, to be achieved by requesting a $100 donation from each of Australia's 10,000 schools. For 1999, East Timor will be the focus. Other aims of School Aid are to help school communities feel a sense of ownership and responsibility in terms of community need in the world; to utilise the trouble and tragedy in the world as a positive teaching aspect and learning opportunity for children, to empower them and to engender a real sense of hope for the future; and to provide an additional rapid response avenue to quickly raise funds to assist communities in need in a way not dissimilar to passing round the hat.The amount involved will provide the leverage necessary to ensure the funds are not eroded unnecessarily through administration and other costs. In that respect, it is expected that far better than 98 per cent of the funds raised will be delivered in the form of aid to those in need on behalf of the children of Australia. Funds raised will be administered through the Australian Primary Principals Association and will be audited in accordance with their rules of incorporation.I congratulate Sean on this great initiative which has really taken off in a matter of weeks. Today I passed on information in relation to this issue to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, David Kemp, for him to have a look at. I think it is something that we can all promote right around Australia in every way that we can. Sean is a man who really feels for people in trouble. He was one of the team leaders of a state emergency services team at the Thredbo tragedy. He was there when they found Stuart Diver. He was quoted in the paper as saying recently: The recent humanitarian tragedies in East Timor and the devastating earthquake in Turkey have given added impetus to this project. The stuff we are seeing on the news begs a response. Every teacher, every parent, every principal I know wants to do something. School Aid will provide a structure in which to mount a significant response.(Time expired)1166117:55:0011661Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—I am pleased to be able to continue my comments in applauding older Australians. I do not think there will ever be enough time in this place for all of us to be able to give the recognition to older Australians which they ultimately deserve. Out of all the senior Australians who received Commonwealth recognition awards, one person was nominated to come to Canberra for the national celebrations. Her name is Ros Elias. Ros Elias has had 13 years association as a volunteer with Westlakes Carers. She volunteers time to educate herself about other groups by attending workshops and lectures. Nine years ago she became the President of the Westlakes Carers, during which time she moulded and shaped the organisation to what it is today. She is responsible for the group's move from a small cottage to a multipurpose-built centre. She is always available to take those in need shopping, to transport them to medical appointments, to prepare food for centre based activities, to visit people when they are sick and to sit with families in their time of need after the loss of a loved one.Every Friday fortnight Ros accompanies a group of frail aged people on shopping excursions to the local shopping centre where she assists with their parcels and helping them on and off the bus. She is highly supportive of the Westlakes Carers staff, and she fundraises tirelessly for the Westlakes Carers. Mr Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to table a statement from Angelique Shorten, the coordinator of neighbour aids services in Westlakes community care. She wrote a statement in support of Ros's nomination for these awards. It is a very personal, very emotive statement, and I seek leave to table it. 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Charlton has sought leave to table a statement from a constituent. She is seeking leave to table rather than incorporate it in Hansard .83YHoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE—Or incorporate.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—An incorporation is difficult. The procedure of the House would have been facilitated, for the information of the member for Charlton, if she had first shown the table to the parliamentary secretary. I think we could agree that, subject to the parliamentary secretary's assent, the House will table the statement.83YHoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE—Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I have indicated, the calibre of people who receive these awards throughout our electorates are people we all know well. We all have them in our electorates. They are all deserving of much, much more. I was very pleased to be able to be involved in the presentation of the certificates. It was unfortunate that the many hundreds of other people, probably thousands in my electorate, did not have the opportunity to receive an award. I would like to take this moment to acknowledge and applaud all the older Australians for all their selfless work, and to thank them all for the contribution they have made to the lives of following generations.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The parliamentary secretary has assented to the request of the member for Charlton to table the document.Question resolved in the affirmative.House adjourned at 5.59 p.m.Miscellaneous116621166211662Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00asked the Speaker, upon notice, on 14 October 1999:(1) What were the staffing levels for the Parliamentary Library in (a) 1995, (b) 1996, (c) 1997, (d) 1998 and (e) 1999.(2) What changes have been made to standard working hours in each year referred to in part (1).(3) What changes or restrictions have been placed on overtime claims by Parliamentary Library staff since 1995.(4) What internal policy arrangements are in place to ensure adequate staffing levels are being maintained to assist Members and Senators, especially after normal hours during sitting weeks.Notices11662The following notices were given:Ms Gambaro to move:That this House:(1) welcomes the Government's commitment to provide $9.2 million to fund education and increase awareness to consumers about asthma;(2) notes the development of best practice in asthma management plans and integrating care for people with asthma;(3) recognises the increased funding to research to improve our understanding of asthma; and(4) welcomes the promotion of improving the understanding of the effects of asthma on 2 million Australians.Mr Albanese to present a bill for an act to remove discrimination against same sex couples in respect of superannuation benefits.1999-10-1410000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members116631166311663Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—In the past few weeks, residents busily building new homes on the Gowanbrae Estate in Tullamarine have received a rude shock indeed, many of them learning for the first time that the electricity distribution company, AGL, intends to build a new electricity terminal station on land adjacent to their new homes. This has stung into action the director of Land Use Advisory Service Pty Ltd, Mr Basil Elms, who has been involved with the Gowanbrae development right from the start.On 15 July he wrote to Victorian planning minister MacLellan claiming that the SECV had advised him that it was doubtful whether the site would be required for a substation within 20 years, if ever. I would like Mr Elms to show us that advice. I believe it is a fabrication, a lie. Indeed, I have the minutes of a meeting which I personally attended in October 1991 where Mr Jim Chew of the SECV said, `It is expected that the transmission station would be erected around about the year 2000.' The minutes record, `BE said that it was intended that the plan for subdivision would be drawn up as if the station was already constructed.' `BE' stands for Basil Elms. He was there and he knew all about it, so for him to now say, `We are shocked' to learn of this proposal, just does not wash.I have attended a meeting of local residents where claims were made that representatives of developers told them this land was not going to be the site for an electricity station and that it was going to be a residential development. So, if this station proceeds, these residents may well have a legal action against the developers for misrepresentation and deceit, leading to loss of their property values.Mr Elms's letter to Minister MacLellan describes the terminal station proposal as disastrous. He may well be right, but the fact is that he knew all about it but has kept this proposal covered up in the hope that it would go away, with a view to maximising land prices and profits for his Gowanbrae Estate development project. Unfortunately, he has been aided and abetted in this cover-up by Kennett's privatised electricity agency, GPU Powernet, which has been asleep at the wheel, doing nothing to let residents know of their intentions for the land, and allowing Moreland Council to rezone it residential with the barest whimper of protest.As a result of this monumental incompetence on the part of Kennett's privatised electricity authorities, and deceit on the part of the developer, this community is now faced with a Hobson's choice: either we do not build an apparently essential piece of electricity infrastructure in the preferred location for it, or Gowanbrae residents have to cop a major terminal substation backing onto their houses with, in some cases, 66kV powerlines only one or two metres from their properties. This is yet another Kennett government planning disaster.When Moreland Council's planning scheme was exhibited in 1997, the proposed rezoning was residential on the advice of the state Department of Infrastructure, and an advisory panel appointed by the minister agreed with the council's assessment. (Time expired)1166411664Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—Anyone close to rural and regional Australia is well aware that our traditional rural industries are undergoing great change due to the very different marketplace they now find themselves in. Add to that other pressures such as drought and you can easily find many communities at enormous risk. Also, many businesses are still carrying huge debt left over from the high interest rates regime of the late 1980s and early 1990s.Understanding these pressures, the federal government introduced a program called the Rural Plan. The Rural Plan is about supporting grassroots efforts to deal with changing economic and industry circumstances and to put in place plans which provide for more diverse and sustainable rural industries. Ultimately, this helps bring rural communities, industries and businesses together to examine strategic, economic, environmental and social development for their regions.Two regions in my electorate of Eden-Monaro are prime examples of change occurring. The coastal region covering the Eurobodalla and Bega Valley shires and extending up to the Bombala region have experienced a dramatic restructuring of the timber industry, massive change within the fishing industry—which included the recent closure of the Heinz Eden tuna cannery—and now deregulation of the dairy industry. The Monaro region has also been affected by the restructuring of the timber industry, it has experienced large reductions in wool and beef prices, and it has been in almost continuous drought for five years.I was therefore very pleased that funding applications were successful for the development of rural plans for both these regions. In the case of the first region, and also including East Gippsland which joins these areas just across the border in Victoria, a grant of $184,000 has been provided for `New horizons for south-east primary industries'. This application was submitted by the Bega Valley Shire Council and it will also involve the South East Regional Strategic Planning Forum.The plan will identify opportunities for value adding in primary resource industries through the development of improved, sustainable and balanced rural land uses within the south-east corner of New South Wales and the north-east corner of Victoria. I congratulate people like Kerry Pfeiffer, Garret Barry, Andrew Kenny, Gordon Barclay and many others who are deeply committed to the development of this region and who helped to put this proposal together.On the Monaro, two projects have been funded under rural plan. The first project is an action plan for long-term prosperity on the Monaro, which will be run by Monaro Rural Financial Counselling Service. The second project will be run by the Snowy-Monaro Agricultural Specialties Producers Association, and it will provide a process to build shared purpose among individuals and organisations of the Monaro. These two organisations have been allocated $200,000 to work together on a rural plan.Congratulations to Bruce Bashford, Charlie Litchfield, Wouter Vochteloo and Roger Norton who represent the two groups. I look forward to working very closely with all the people involved in the development of these rural plans. They will form crucial blueprints for the future of large parts of my electorate.1166511665Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—I rise today to applaud the action of the 50,000 fans of the South Sydney Rugby League Football Club who marched in the streets of Sydney on the weekend. The march was very successful and there was an excellent spirit on the day. They marched because the future of the South Sydney Rugby League Football Club is under threat at the moment, despite the fact that it is financially sound, has excellent grounds and facilities, has an unsurpassed junior development program and, most importantly, has community sport. We saw 50,000 fans of the club out on the streets of Sydney on Sunday, in the heat, protesting against the threat to this club.It is a club with a fine tradition and history. It is almost 100 years old and, in that time, it has won 20 premierships. It is a club that is intimately bound with the local area. The players are well known in the local area and they often visit schools and old people in institutions to bring a bit of cheer into their lives. They play a very important role as positive role models within the local area as well. It is not easy growing up as a kid in the inner city, so to have positive sporting role models in the local area has been very important.More importantly, I think that the move of the NRL to threaten South Sydney suggests that local institutions do not matter; I think local institutions do matter. This is a club that has a long history in the area. I would like to see the National Rugby League tell us what the criteria are for judging the teams and whether teams such as the five Murdoch-backed teams would meet these criteria if they were not being propped up by the millions of dollars flooding in from Rupert Murdoch. Melbourne Storm is a case in point. It certainly would not be financially sound without $13 million propping it up.I would like to say in the last few seconds available to me that this weekend will also mark the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the building of the Snowy River Hydro-Electric Scheme. I am a child of parents who immigrated to Australia in the 1950s and, indeed, my father worked on the Snowy Mountains hydro scheme. I will be going to Cooma this weekend to support not only him and my mother in these celebrations but also the many thousands of people expected there on the weekend to support the greatest engineering feat that Australia has ever undertaken. I will be particularly proud because the Slovenian flag will be raised for the first time this weekend, along with the flags of five other nations that have not flown before. These are countries that have since the 1950s gained independence. (Time expired)1166511665Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—My congratulations go to the member for Sydney. It would be appreciated if you could pass on all our best wishes to the team that made such an enormous contribution to our nation. I was quite taken by an article published in the 7 October edition of the Financial Review under the heading `The true test of leadership'. It stated:Following its recent support for John Howard's business tax reforms, the Asian Wall Street Journal yesterday editorialised overwhelmingly in favour of his East Timor policy.The editorial quoted in the Financial Review said:With its peacekeeping operation in East Timor, Australia has [shown] a degree of leadership on a par with anything the US has done in recent years. And it shoulders responsibilities that no other country could or would take on. Australia is facing all the perverse consequences of leadership Americans have grown accustomed to, including criticism even for a job well done . . . Whatever mistakes past and present governments may have made, when the moment for decisive action came, Australia alone rose to the challenge.Besides, while Mr Keating never stopped spouting slogans about Australia being part of Asia, only with the intervention in East Timor has Australia actually met and passed a real test of being a good Asian neighbour. Talk is cheap. It took guts and a generous commitment of money and prestige to lead other Asian democracies in helping to protect helpless people elsewhere in the home region.That editorial from the Asian Wall Street Journal captured so much of what I feel about what has gone on in East Timor and the nation's role and many of the views that have been conveyed to me through my electorate office in Frankston. It talked about leadership, but I would also mention diplomacy, the deft and continuing efforts of our Minister for Foreign Affairs and the whole diplomatic team that looks after Australia's interest to give effect to that leadership. What really touches me most is the implementation. Seeing images of General Cosgrove and our young service men and women on the media makes me feel so proud.I know many people in my electorate are very much behind those people and wish that we could do more to support their effort because it is a difficult task they face and one motivated by a very honourable mission. I think the character of those young men and women representing our country is just what that region needs right now. They need that sense of being unflappable, that sense of fun, that respect and honour for human life, that patience and that willingness to engage individuals that you see in those episodes that are on television, talked about on radio and written about in the press. That is the Australian character that is making a real difference to the leadership that is spoken of by the Asian Wall Street Journal. There is that sense of fun you saw in the service men and women cheering the Melbourne Storm when they picked up the NRL flag. It is terrific to see. I think that is what makes the difference there and I support them entirely. (Time expired)1166611666Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—As I speak, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Ruddock, is winging his way to Tasmania to bluntly tell the Kosovars to go home. It will be a case of, `That is it. You have had your haven in Australia; we have more serious things to worry about; go home.' This is to a group of people who have faced seeing their relatives killed and desperately fled in terrible conditions with few belongings, trying to find a safe spot across some other border. These are families with young children who have very little. Many have nothing to go back to. They have no home, no relatives, no economy, nothing. The only thing they might be lucky enough to get is tent accommodation—along with thousands of others still there—primitive health conditions and probably very little in the way of fresh food and water.The few reports from Kosovo are still showing clashes and retribution. They are still showing many displaced persons and people living in temporary conditions in bombed out houses with no sanitation, no light and no water, as winter approaches. Winter is no joke in this area. They have some of the same sorts of conditions as parts of Russia—heavy snow, freezing rain. With very little shelter that can be very damaging. Even those who managed to stay and find their relatives are now desperately trying to get their houses in some sort of condition to live in, so what hope is there for those who have nothing and not even the family to help?I have an appointment to see the minister this afternoon to plead their case. Before I am able to even do that, he has gone down to evict them from Tasmania. It is a disgrace. I do not believe that he is giving people a safe haven when he is sending them back without knowing what they are going back to.Australia seems to be only a fair weather friend to refugees. This government has compassion only when the media spotlight is on them. Why can't these people apply for permanent status, like so many others have in the past, while they are still in the country? What is wrong with Australia having a few more people, particularly if they want to live in Tasmania? We need their skills and their ability to help our economy, and they want to make a home there. It seems a good arrangement and, provided that they pass all the normal entry requirements, they should be able to stay. Shame, Mr Ruddock. Have some sympathy; have some compassion. Give these people a chance to find homes and recover from their terrible, terrible ordeals.1166711667Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—I would like to speak today about a press release put out by Labor's Senator George Campbell, the duty senator for the federal electorate of Gilmore. I quote:Senator George Campbell . . . has today hit out at the Federal Government for its cutting of funding to the South Coast Institute of TAFE, calling it an "absolute travesty for local young people".First of all, I know of only one visit in four years by Senator Campbell to the electorate of Gilmore on the South Coast. I also say to him that it is not the South Coast TAFE; it is actually the Illawarra Institute of TAFE. He goes on to say:The South Coast Institute of TAFE, which comprises of TAFE colleges and annexes at Berry, Culburra, Erowal Bay, Gerringong, Huskisson, Kangaroo Valley, Kiama, Milton/Ulladulla, Moss Vale, Nowra, Robertson, Shoalhaven Heads, St Georges Basin, Sussex Inlet, Vincentia and Wingello, has seen a decrease in recurrent funding from the Commonwealth since the Howard Government came to office.Mr Deputy Speaker, I say to you that we have only one TAFE college at Berry, we have one TAFE college at Nowra and one at Ulladulla. The rest of those places are little villages and hamlets with about 300 to 800 people. So he has not even got his facts right. He goes on to say:One of the major factors in any business decision to locate in a region is whether there are workers with skills available. Cuts to TAFE by the Howard Government will mean less skills and that will ultimately discourage business investment and cost jobs.The coalition federal government have given an extra 15,000 places to the Illawarra region, which includes the South Coast and Gilmore. He also goes on to say:Stage Four of the capital works project at the Nowra college, which was to cost $5,000,000 has been delayed for two years because of reduced funding by the Commonwealth.As I stand here today, the building is almost completed and the first entrants will be there in March next year. I invite Senator Campbell to come and have a really good look around the electorate of Gilmore. I will be more than happy to take him around myself. I think it is an absolute disgrace that a senator can scaremonger people in my electorate of Gilmore on a matter like this when there are more things he could be doing to improve the performance in the parliament of the Labor opposition. I also say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that what he said was absolutely untrue; it was not right. He should not even be a senator, let alone a duty senator for the seat of Gilmore.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Committees116681166811668Consideration resumed from 20 September, on motion by Mr Lloyd:That the House take note of the paper.09:58:0011668Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—I think we all acknowledge that research and development is vital to the future of Australia's economic growth. The reality is, though, that under this government R&D is under threat. It follows automatically from that, I suspect, that the real rate of growth which Australia can expect in its economic performance in the future is also very much under threat, along with that R&D itself.The basis for my comments is not only the published statistics in recent years but now, of course, the very well reasoned argument of the House's own committee, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Resources, in its recent report entitled The effect of certain public policy changes on Australia's R&D. I am pleased to say that I was a member of the committee in the previous parliament when this matter was first raised, and this report was carried over. The majority of the work—in fact, almost all of the work—on this report has been done in the parliament since I left the committee. So I give credit to the current members of the committee.The initial emphasis for the topic came about because we were concerned that the sale of certain public enterprises—electricity, water and many other areas of government enterprise which are now being privatised—under governments of both political persuasion, I might say, would have an impact on R&D. Obviously, when these major public enterprises are converted to a private enterprise, the new management will look very closely at costs. They often have paid too much for these enterprises and they start to look at ways to reduce their ongoing revenue costs. One of the easiest ways of doing this is to reduce their R&D expenditure. Of course, they no longer feel the same commitment towards public good R&D expenditure as, perhaps, some of the publicly owned enterprises did in the past.For the sake of this argument, I think it is important to put aside issues about whether or not these enterprises should or should not be sold. That is a very fair debate to have, and we have had that debate in this parliament and in the parliaments of the states on many occasions. What is important today, in examining the consequences of this for R&D, is to look at that aspect of it only, rather than the basic question itself. Let us just examine some of the effects which this policy change—which we might take as a given in this context—is actually having, and we need to then examine what can be done to rectify some of these changes.When you look at the fall in business investment in R&D, you cannot go past the Howard government's startling decision to reduce the tax concession for R&D from 150 per cent to 125 per cent. It was one of its very first major decisions on coming to office, along with the abolition of syndication in R&D. Ostensibly, syndication was eliminated because the Treasurer described it as a tax rort. It may be. I am sure that, in all aspects of tax, business and individuals will look to ways to minimise their tax, and that will have occurred in the area of syndication, as it does in almost every other area of taxation administration. However, the reality is that syndication served a very valuable purpose in ensuring that those who are cash rich, but perhaps ideas poor, were able to transfer some of their resources to those who were very much cash poor but perhaps ideas rich. That is the case with many start-up companies these days which are desperately in need of venture capital and sponsorship of larger companies which perhaps have substantial tax liabilities and cash resources which go with them and are able to assist them.A whole area of cooperation in R&D was wiped out there, and the cut from 150 per cent to 125 per cent has also had a very dramatic effect. Why do I say that? Obviously because, since the concessions were first introduced well over a decade ago, business investment in research and development has increased steadily. Under all of the 13 years of Labor—if I can use the Treasurer's phrase in this context—business investment in R&D continued to rise and rose steadily throughout the decade.Surprise, surprise! When we send a very strong market signal to business from a government that believes in market signals by slashing the concession in R&D and by eliminating a whole area of the tax concession, what does business do? It responds appropriately. It reduces its investment in research and development. Recent ABS statistics have shown very dramatically that there have been consistent falls in research and development expenditure by business since the tax concession was reduced. Those falls have been very substantial and are well documented in the report before us and in ABS statistics as well. I think that is very significant when you combine that with the effects which this report documents on public sector withdrawal from R&D. You need only look at the way Telstra has responded. I do not single out Telstra because I wish to complain about their activities. I simply say this because they are a major company and obviously we can focus on their activities. They have a very substantial world-class research lab and research initiative, and their engineers are highly focused on research benefits. I have been to the lab many times and cannot speak too highly of their efforts in research and development.But, since Telstra have been partially privatised—no doubt they will be further privatised under this government—the reality will be that they will focus their investment in research exclusively on areas of competitive gain to that company. That may not necessarily be in fostering domestic Australian technology or in ensuring that the public good in Australian research is fostered as well because, of course, that does not necessarily add value to Telstra shareholders. Under the Corporations Law, that is what those directors are required to do, and it is perfectly understandable that that is how they focus their activities.When we look at the many other areas of public investment—for example, the electricity corporations and the water corporations—obviously, as they are progressively privatised around this country, they will reduce their effective public good investment in research. They will also reduce the amount of cooperation they have between each agency. Clearly, because they are now in competition with each other, it no longer makes sense for them to cooperate. It now makes sense for them to compete and to hide information from each other because research is a competitive advantage. For that reason, it is much less likely they will share information, and public good R&D in this country will decline as a result.Clearly, if the government is going to continue with privatisation in some of these areas—and that is an argument which we will have at another time—it must do other things to foster business investment in R&D, just as these public sector corporations in fact become businesses.The recent cut from 150 per cent to 125 per cent is a serious problem in that regard. The projected cut in the business corporate tax rate which the Treasurer is advancing at the moment, while it may well be commendable for its own reasons, will have a further dramatic effect on the value of the deduction in R&D. Obviously, if the corporate tax rate is less, then clearly the advantage of a 125 per cent deduction declines even further. So we will have seen a fall from 150 per cent to 125 per cent, and now, if the business tax rate is reduced to 30 per cent, the value of that concession will decline even further and we might expect that business investment in R&D will again decline.That is important because, while Australia has always enjoyed a reasonably high level of public sector investment in R&D through our universities, through CSIRO and through the CRC movement—although that is under threat for other reasons from this government—the reality is that those areas of investment have always been relatively high. We probably rank third or fourth in the OECD in those stakes.But when you factor in business investment in R&D, we drop dramatically. A whole range of countries now do much better than we do. In fact, it is probably worth noting only those countries that do worse, because that is a much shorter list. The countries that are worse than Australia in business investment on R&D are Italy, Spain, New Zealand, India and China. All of the others are much higher rated, and some of them are much more highly rated. Sweden, for example, is at 2.67 per cent business investment as a percentage of their GDP—that is, 2.67 per cent as a percentage of GDP as against Australia's 0.8 per cent. What does that tell you about Sweden and Australia and their relative potential for economic growth in the future?Other countries at the top of the list—and Sweden is obviously on top—are South Korea, Japan, the United States, Switzerland and Finland. I will not continue, but there are many other countries that exceed Australia in their level of investment. And they do not exceed it by a bit; they exceed it by a great deal. The effect of that will be translated through into economic growth in those countries and into opportunities for innovative investments which will employ skilled knowledge workers, clearly the workers we want in the 21st century.Australia needs to address the combined problems of its reduction in the business investment and the attacks which have recently occurred on some of our public sector instrumentalities—for example, CSIRO. I recently visited the forestry and forests products section of CSIRO at Clayton in Melbourne. CSIRO, unfortunately, has found itself in a position, because of the overall budget it is provided with and because of internal reviews within CSIRO—and I acknowledge that this is an internal management review rather than one imposed by the government—of having to slash its expenditure in its forestry and forest products section.CSIRO is actually having to go to redundancies in that section. It is pushing scientists of considerable experience out of employment, a very serious thing to do. There will be some voluntary redundancies, of course, but other CSIRO redundancies will actually be forced. While the management may well have taken an internal decision to reallocate priorities, I would suggest that if the government more adequately funded CSIRO, it would not be under such pressure to make these changes.This is an area of CSIRO activity, if ever there was one—given our recent controversies about regional forest agreements, the use of old-growth forests, the need for plantation timbers and the need for better utilisation of our wood and forest products—which I would have thought this government would have been very keen to support. CSIRO is squeezed for funds because it must allocate existing resources into new areas—and that is an understandable internal decision for CSIRO. Why is CSIRO forced to strip older areas of investment for new areas like biotechnology? Because the government is failing to match increases in funds with the increases in demand for scientific research in this country.Ultimately, it comes down to government decisions about the overall allocation of resources. Unless this government starts to see investment in research and development as an investment in Australia's future and not just a cost, another line of expenditure on the budget which must be trimmed and trimmed, then unfortunately Australia will not enter the 21st century as a knowledge nation, as a nation focused on education, as a nation focused on innovation rather than on looking backwards.I appeal to this government to review its R&D policies. It must immediately take steps to ensure that our business investment increases significantly. It must review the impact on public policy of those competitive changes in many of our great public institutions—in the electricity, water and other areas of public endeavour in the past which are now being privatised—but it must also review the amount of funding available to organisations like CSIRO who have done tremendous work in the past, and the CRCs which are obviously the way to the future. The government must make sure that those organisations are adequately funded so that they do not have to resort to things like compulsory redundancies in areas that are vitally important to Australia's future economic growth but, instead, can invest in new areas and continue to support their existing areas of activity.10:10:0011671Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—by leave—It is with great pleasure that I rise today to make further comment on the government's report on The effect of certain public policy changes on Australia's R&D . As chairman of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Resources, it has been quite a challenge to put forward this report. It has been made somewhat more difficult by the fact that much of the inquiry was undertaken by the previous parliament, and in fact only one member of that committee transferred from one parliament to the next so most of the inquiry was undertaken by members in the previous parliament. Added to that, the previous chairman of the committee, Mr Prosser, is now in the UN as a delegate for the Australian government, so I have taken over to table this report.This report does show that the government is concerned about the level of R&D in this country. The report was initiated because we wanted to establish where we, as a government, could assist R&D in this country because it is important. There have been certain claims made that policy changes by governments have seen a decline in the level of research and development in this country.There has been a lot of discussion about the reduction in the tax concession from 150 per cent to 125 per cent but, reading through the submissions that were put forward to this committee, I see there was never any company that could establish where actual research and development programs had been curtailed or wound back because of the changes in this tax concession.The reason the tax concessions were changed was that they were being used as a tax minimisation scheme by many companies and, in fact, there was very little money going into research and development as such. It is important that we ensure that the money that is being directed into those sorts of programs does end up in genuine research and development.The decline in business expenditure in R&D since 1996 and 1997 from an already low base is an area of concern and the committee welcomes, and I certainly welcome, the National Innovation Summit which will be hosted in February 2000 by the government and the Business Council of Australia.I really see that our report sets a direction for the innovation summit and in many cases is a blueprint for that innovation summit. It will enable many areas of business and government to put forward some constructive ideas on how to further enhance research and development in Australia.One of the potential negative effects of competition policy has been the loss of critical mass of R&D in some of the affected sectors—for example, where former public sector utilities have been broken up into smaller units. The committee recommended that a system of R&D brokers be considered at the National Innovation Summit. The committee also recommended that the funding for the very successful CRCs—the Cooperative Research Centre programs—be maintained at least at the current levels. I am very pleased to see that in a media release by Senator Nick Minchin the minister welcomed our report and made comment on the CRCs. In his release he said:The report called for the continued support of the Co-operative Research Centre (CRC) program, and I am pleased to say that, last month, I announced that the Government would make a formal call for applications for a new round of funding for CRCs in November 1999.CRCs are highly effective at capturing the benefits of research by establishing long-term strategic relationships between researchers and industries.You can see that the government is committed to continuing support to the CRCs; they are a very important part of research and development in Australia.There were a number of recommendations relating to tax reform, particularly with regard to business tax and the Ralph report. At the time that we tabled this report, the government's response to the Ralph report had not been brought down. I was very pleased to see that many of the concerns that were raised about capital gains tax and venture capital in Australia have been addressed in that Ralph report.The government will promote investment in innovative Australian firms by providing certain capital gains tax exemptions for Australian superannuation funds and non-resident tax exempt pension funds. Widely held superannuation funds in Australia will be provided with an exemption where they receive income from a pool development fund representing gains on the disposal of eligible venture capital investment. Non-resident tax exemption pension funds from certain countries will be exempt from income tax, including capital gains tax on gains derived from the disposal of investment in new equity in eligible venture capital investments.This is particularly important because it will enable large amounts of venture capital to flow into the continued development of research and development in this country. Australia is the smart country. It is a country that leads the world in many fields. There is a great deal of research and development happening in this country, but in many ways it is changing. There is more of a commercial focus, a competition focus on that research and development, and whilst that provides greater incentive in many cases for innovative research, there have been concerns expressed that there is a decline in long-term basic research in some areas, and it is important that is maintained.The proposal for a continued link with the universities and industry is an area that I would like to see promoted to a great extent. In my own electorate, the Ourimba campus of the Newcastle University is a great example of the links between industry and university. In our area, we have many large companies involved in food processing, such as Sara Lee, Sanitarium and Master Foods. Many of those companies have contributed significant funds to the Ourimba campus for further research and development into their products, and there is a great expansion on that campus. It is a very good example of how the links between the industry and university and higher education facilities could be expanded to allow further research and development in this country.There were 20 recommendations in the report. It was an inquiry that lasted over two years, and a change of parliament. I believe the report will generate a great deal of interest and discussion. It already has generated quite a deal of media interest, which is, after all, what is important. It is important that the community discusses how we can further improve research and development in this country. It is also important to note that it was a unanimous report: members of the government and the opposition did agree on the report. It made many important recommendations which, I believe, will assist the Innovation Summit in February next year, and those recommendations will be a blueprint for that summit.I would like to thank the members of the committee who were involved, both in the 38th Parliament and the 39th Parliament, in putting forward this report. I would like to thank my predecessor as chairman, Geoff Prosser, and also the Deputy Chair, Mr Allan Morris, who was the only member that transferred from one parliament to the other on this particular committee. His experience, advice and expertise have been very useful to the committee. I would also like to thank particularly the secretariat: Mr Paul McMahon; Mr Russell Chafer, who was the inquiry secretary; Ms Lexia Bain, Research Officer; and Ms Gaye Milner and Ms Lisa Kaida, who were both administrative officers in the preparation of this report.I believe it is an important report. It is one that has examined ways of going forward and being positive in the development of research and development in this country. It is a report that I guess in many ways the opposition can jump on; they can be negative about research and development in this country. But what we have done as a government is provide the economy and the financial environment for companies to expand, to be positive and successful. If you create that environment, then you have the ability to spend money on research and development. If we go back through the 13 years of the Labor government, and the recession that we had to have, there was a battle by companies just to survive. There was no money for research and development or for innovative ideas.We have seen a great step forward under the four years of the coalition government in the way companies have been able to develop, increase and be prosperous, enabling them to be competitive and to ensure that money does go into research and development. That is not to say that it is not a difficult area. There are many rapid changes in industry throughout the world and it is difficult for companies to keep pace with that change. That is why we must ensure that, as a government, we allow the opportunities for businesses to put money, ideas and expertise into research and development and that we also continue to support long-term basic research for the development of ideas that can eventually be expanded into commercially viable ideas that will, in the long run, bring prosperity, jobs and employment to this country.10:22:0011673Washer, Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Resources, it is very satisfying to speak on the tabling today of this report on the effect of certain public policy changes on Australia's R&D. I was not part of the 38th Parliament that conducted most of the public hearings and research that evolved into these findings, but I have more than just a little passing interest in the development of R&D in Australia as a key contributor to our future economic success. It is in the best interests for all members to support the recommendations in this report. A number of factors have combined in this country over the past decade to present our burgeoning R&D sector with some pretty tough challenges. They have been accurately highlighted through this inquiry by the various stakeholders, namely, R&D companies, tertiary institutions, research organisations such as CSIRO, and various government departments.A by-product of micro-economic reform and competition policy has seen many of the traditional users of R&D, like the former public utilities, lose their strength in these areas as they now work in smaller units and are often reluctant to pool resources for R&D projects. One of the recommendations that came out of the inquiry was to support and recognise through continued funding the importance of the bodies that overcome this hurdle. The Cooperative Research Centre program received some glowing endorsements during this inquiry and it is an obvious benchmark to resolve the problems of the loss of critical mass. The CRC Review Steering Committee described the CRCs as being:Demonstrably the most successful and visionary industry/university collaborative process that has as yet been devised for Australia, and one that is admired internationally as a model for bringing research institutions and industry together.There are now 67 CRCs, and industry is increasingly funding more of the program than the government. It was noted in the inquiry that current levels of government funding should be maintained in recognition of the success of the program.In their report into greater commercialisation and self-funding in the CRC program, Mr Don Mercer and Professor John Stocker found that CRC funding was regarded as `business assistance' rather than funding of universities and the CSIRO. Universities play a special role in the application of R&D in Australia, given that they are responsible for 82 per cent of the pure basic research undertaken in this country as opposed to outcome driven or strategic research.The report noted the exceptionally high failure rate of applications that are submitted to the Australian Research Council, with less than 20 per cent successfully obtaining funding in 1996 alone. I am pleased to see the recommendation in this report to discuss these matters both at the national summit and also with the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs.Understandably, the reduction of the R&D tax concession from 150 per cent to 125 per cent was the most controversial issue in this inquiry. I have said on the public record that I support the reintroduction of the 150 per cent as the 125 per cent concession in real terms is hardly worth having. As outlined in the report, in 1985 the 150 per cent concession provided a nominal subsidy of 23 cents for every dollar spent on eligible R&D whereas the 125 per cent concession, in tandem with the company tax rate of 36 per cent, has reduced the subsidy to nine cents for every dollar spent on eligible R&D. Dr Mark Sceats of the Australian Photonics CRC reasoned:If the nominal benefit is less than, say, 10 per cent, the effort of going through and doing the paperwork and all of that becomes less attractive. The real benefit to people like myself of having 150 per cent up there was that it was very easy for our champions in those companies to argue with their accountants that this investment in R&D was a good thing.It is still unclear if the levels of R&D in Australia have been dramatically affected by the reduction to 125 per cent. The inquiry could only look at the 1994-95 figures, which were the most recent figures available. But the ABS has recently reported that in 1996-97 our business expenditure on R&D decreased for the first time since the ABS started measuring R&D in the mid-1970s. Although this can be partly attributed to the end of the `syndication' component of the R&D tax concession, I welcome the report recommendation that the 125 per cent be reviewed in the context of the recent announcements of business taxation reform at the National Innovation Summit.Research and development and its encouragement and nurturing deserve to be a major policy focus for the federal government. A monumental step has occurred through the reforms recently announced to foster venture capital through a radical overhaul of Australia's capital gains tax laws. It was fantastic news for the smaller innovative firms entering into the R&D arena, and I wish it speedy passage through both houses of parliament.Indeed, the effect of the rate of capital gains tax in Australia is highlighted in this report. One submission on the consultation paper on the review of business taxation from the Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering makes a pertinent point, and I wholeheartedly support it. It says:What makes the current GST regime even more nonsensical is the relatively high investment the Australian government makes in R&D in organisations such as CSIRO and the RIRDCs and through programs such as the CRCs and START. To encourage research yet discourage the commercialisation of the outcomes of this research through a penal taxation system is mystifying.Finally, in the context of speaking on this report I would like to read a letter from a business in my electorate that highlights the real benefits in supporting R&D, namely, the ability to create new and lasting jobs for young Australians. Sometimes the focus on the big picture makes us forget the human face of policy making, and therein lies the danger that you can forget what you started out to achieve.This letter came across my desk just a week ago. It is from a company that is developing an electronic pad for waiters to take orders and it says:You will recall about four months ago you used your good offices to support our company's application for a R&D grant to complete the development and commercialisation of our product called WaiterPad.You probably know that after much detailed negotiation (it's good to know the Government doesn't just give the taxpayers' money away) we have been given a grant of $250,000 and of course we are delighted by the assistance.Already it has borne fruit and we have now been able to employ three local young men, two of whom are recent computer graduates from ECU in Joondalup, a local tertiary institution, and an electronics graduate from ECU.With the grant we are now able to fast track the project and we hope to have full production versions by the end of the first quarter in 2000. The first beta site is performing well but there is still a lot of R&D to be done to move the product from its present early beta to a robust, commercially viable system.Once again many thanks for your support—you may be assured that we are working very hard to exploit the opportunity this grant gives us and, hopefully, we will become a large consumer of local ECU and TAFE graduates.Australia produces only two per cent of the world's R&D. I am confident that, if we follow up the recommendations of this inquiry and focus on the outcomes of the National Innovation Summit in February next year, we will have the potential to put Australia's proportion of global R&D well into the double figures.Debate (on motion by Mr Sercombe) adjourned.1167511675Debate resumed from 30 August, on motion by Mr Lieberman:That the House take note of the report. 10:32:0011676Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—I welcome this opportunity to take note of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs report entitled Unlocking the future , which I have with me. At the outset I wish to pay tribute to the leadership of the chairman, Lou Lieberman, the member for Indi, who, along with the other members of the committee—one of whom is sitting opposite me and waiting for his turn—worked tirelessly to produce a remarkable report. This report will, I trust, be the catalyst for ensuring that relations between the indigenous people, the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth government will reach a new level of understanding, respect and cooperation.The committee's task was not an easy one, having to report on the recommendations of the Reeves report. John Reeves's 1,000-page report, with his many recommendations, caused considerable angst throughout indigenous communities in the Northern Territory and resulted in a real distrust between governments and the Aboriginal community. I found it very strange that John Reeves QC was asked to conduct a review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 and not the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Not only would the government have saved a huge amount of money—Reeves cost $1.3 million—but it would have resulted in far more constructive dialogue between the Territory, the Commonwealth government and the Northern Territory Aboriginal communities if we had been given the chance to review the act.At the behest of the chair, the committee focused its deliberations by agreeing at the outset to several core principles and these were: firstly, there should be no diminution of the Aboriginal rights under the land rights act. Title should remain inalienable and held by traditional Aboriginal owners through land trusts for estates in fee simple. Land use decisions should be made with the informed consent of traditional Aboriginal owners in accordance with Aboriginal tradition. Aboriginal people should have the rights to manage their land in accordance with Aboriginal tradition and should be able to participate in all levels of decision making. Secondly, Aboriginal people should have the same rights and opportunities to make decisions about their lives as non-Aboriginal Australians. They should have equal rights and responsibilities as citizens.Thirdly, it is desirable for all parties concerned to establish constructive partnerships between Aboriginal people and governments and between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. There should be a balance between individual rights and community obligations. All Australians should have the same rights and opportunities. People should also respect the rights of others, including the rights of Aboriginal people to land granted under the land rights act. Fourthly, amendments to the land rights act should allow it to remain sufficiently flexible to meet changing circumstances. Finally, it is important that Aboriginal people are involved in any decisions to change the land rights act.The committee spent from early March of this year through to the end of June visiting a large number of Aboriginal communities across the Northern Territory. It was very obvious from the outset that, if the committee was to address its terms of reference, we had to spend a considerable time listening to the views of each and every one throughout the Territory—not an easy task.As those who have visited this wonderful part of Australia realise, it is not all that easy to access many of the Aboriginal communities. Here I would like to pay my tribute to the wonderful officers and crew of 34 and 35 Squadrons of the Royal Australian Air Force who flew us in Caribous into some pretty amazing places.Being able to sit down with Aboriginal communities and discuss the Reeves report proved a very daunting task. The committee work of gathering information through the normal Hansard process is fine if you are taking evidence here in Canberra or in any of the other capital cities. Out in the remote Aboriginal communities, it is another story. Here I would like to pay tribute to three wonderful people—Karin Oldfield, Brian Lindell and Alan Savage from Hansard and the Sound and Vision Office. Without their expertise and ingenuity, it would have been impossible to record and accurately reflect the views of Aboriginal people throughout the Territory. The report being noted today enabled all committee members to gain a wonderful insight into Aboriginal life in all its many facets.I would like to place on record and thank publicly all the traditional owners and elders for allowing us to traverse their country and for their willingness to give us a brief insight into their amazing cultural traditions. I truly believe that our recommendations which form the basis of this excellent report were the result of all members immersing themselves in the issue at hand: Aboriginal land rights and what it really means for indigenous Australians.Each of the committee came to this task with a certain amount of baggage. To our communal credit, all of us left it outside our meetings as we sat under trees and shelters and listened to what indigenous people saw as the ways to correct the Reeves recommendations. I have worked on many reports in this House and I can honestly and sincerely say that this report has given me the greatest satisfaction. Not only have we come up with a unanimous report on a very contentious issue, but, in recommendations 32, 34 and 45, I know that we have set in place an innovative and exciting way of strengthening the means of communication between all parties in the Northern Territory.I am sure you would be pleased and excited to note that the committee report comes in two parts. One forms a first for this federal parliament. We have a written report and a video to complement this excellent report. It is interesting to note that the production of this video is a first for the federal parliament. I would like to think that it will not be long before members of committees will be in a position to have the opportunity, under obviously changed standing orders, to be part of an audiovisual presentation of their committee's deliberations. In this day of technological change, I would like to think that we might start in this chamber, the Main Committee, and have the opportunity to do an audiovisual presentation and then perhaps take a quantum leap to the House of Representatives main chamber—to dim the lights, to have the screen come down and to show to the people of Australia in the galleries and members within the chamber itself the hard work that goes on not only in our committee, the ATSIA committee, but in the many and varied committees.It is pleasing to note that, within such a short time of the tabling of this report and video, there has been an amazing interest in Unlocking the future—the written word and the video. Finally, I would like to express my appreciation to James Catchpole, Clarissa Surtees, Sara Cousins, Frances Wilson, Katrina Gillogly and Jennifer Cochran from the secretariat. You were all wonderful and each and every member of the committee wishes to thank you most sincerely for your wonderful support.Like all members of this committee, I look forward to the government's response. I highly recommend the report and its associated video to all members of this House. As I said previously, this was a very contentious issue. There was an opportunity for members on both sides to make this a political bunfight. At the outset at our first meeting in Darwin, we had such a bonfire. But, to everyone's credit, we sat down with those core principles and we realised that we were not there to point score against each other; we were there to address a very complex issue. The unanimous report with its innovative recommendations Nos 32, 34 and 45, were, to my mind, the basis upon which understanding and cooperation between the Northern Territory government, the Commonwealth government and the Aboriginal community can move forward.As I said at the outset, this is a wonderful report. It is the best that I have ever been involved in. I even got everyone's autographs in the front of it because I want to treasure this long after I leave this place. I thank the House for the opportunity to take note of this and I look forward to the contributions of other members of this committee who are here lined up after me. Thank you for the opportunity, Mr Deputy Speaker.10:42:0011678Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—It is with great pleasure that I stand here today to make comment on this report and to follow my friend and colleague Mr Quick. Unlocking the future: The report of the inquiry into theReeves Review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 is a very important document because of the work that went into this inquiry and the way that it was conducted. I also want to pay tribute to the leadership of our chairman, Lou Lieberman.This inquiry was not an easy inquiry by any means. If you have a look at the members who were on that committee, you will see that there are some interesting and sometimes volatile characters, all of whom are very dedicated to the area of Aboriginal concerns not only in their own electorates but throughout Australia. They have put forward their views very forcefully and very constructively in most cases. The committee consists of the chairman, Mr Lou Lieberman, and the deputy chair, Mr Harry Quick. The members were Trish Draper; Barry Haase; Kelly Hoare, who is in the chamber today; Bob Katter; Daryl Melham, the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs; Warren Snowdon, the member for the Northern Territory; Barry Wakelin and me. You can see that there is a very diverse range of views amongst those members.The fact that the report is unanimous and the fact that we were able to travel widely throughout Australia, discuss these issues and put forward our views in a friendly and frank way, I think is a great achievement for our chairman, Lou Lieberman, and for the members of the committee. I am very proud to be part of this report.As Mr Quick mentioned, we did set out with a range of core principles, which he has gone through. They were very important because we found as we travelled widely throughout the Northern Territory that there was a great deal of concern and mistrust amongst the Aboriginal communities about the recommendations of the Reeves report. There was concern that somehow these recommendations would enable the Aboriginal communities to lose their land, to lose the right to their land—something that they have fought long and hard for. I wish to assure the communities that that is not the case, and that is what the recommendations show in our report.The committee really made an effort to travel to as many communities as possible. I would like to list some of the areas where we were and some of the public hearings, because one of the complaints we had throughout this inquiry was that Mr Reeves did not consult widely enough, did not listen to some of the communities and was there for only a short period of time. Obviously, when you are doing inquiries your time is limited, but we did make a very concerted effort. We had public hearings in Darwin, Bathurst Island, Canberra, Alice Springs, Kalkarindji, Tennant Creek, Ti Tree, Yuendumu, Mutitjulu—I am still getting around some of the pronunciations, but I am doing my best—Katherine, Yirrkala, Groote Eylandt, Daly River, Maningrida, back to Darwin and Canberra. So you can see that in a fairly short period of time we travelled widely.To me, it was a great privilege to speak to these people in the communities. They are wonderful people. They are genuine people. They are people who have suffered a great deal through the history of Australia, and yet there is still a strong spirit, a strong determination there. Above all, what came across to me is that they are proudly Australian. It is their land. They are very closely linked to that land. And they want to work with the white community very closely to bring benefits to their people. That is what the committee tried to do in their recommendations.The very first recommendation that was brought down was that:The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 . . . not be amended without:. traditional Aboriginal owners in the Northern Territory first understanding the nature and purpose of any amendments and as a group giving their consent; and. any Aboriginal communities or groups that may be affected having been consulted and given adequate opportunity to express their views.That is what reconciliation, that is what consultation is all about. Recommendation No. 1 is the most important recommendation.Recommendation No. 2 was to set up a project team to go out into the communities and consult with those communities. Again, that is what reconciliation is all about: it is about understanding, it is about talking, it is about consultation. It is a great report. It is one that needs to be put out to the Aboriginal communities, but it needs to be put out to all communities in Australia to read as a blueprint on how committees should work to take this country forward.One of the interesting parts of this report is the fact that we have actually put it on video, which I have brought into the chamber here. I understand this is the first, maybe the second, time that any committee has developed a video to take out into the communities to explain the report. It is a very well-produced video. The whole purpose of the video is to explain the findings of the committee, particularly to Aboriginal communities.Many Australians—and my electorate is probably typical of the urban side of Australia—do not understand that in most cases in these communities English is not their first language, and in some cases they have no English. So it is important that we explain our report in basic language, in simple language that these people can understand. I guess the old adage that a picture tells a thousand words is very true in this case. We have tried to use symbols and pictures and videos of what the committee has done and what the recommendations mean so that the recommendations of the committee can be very clearly explained to those communities.Often the comment we heard about Mr Reeves's report was, `We cannot read it'—a 1,000-page report costing $1.3 million. I am sure we could have done that report ourselves as a parliamentary committee. It would have been a lot cheaper and, hopefully, there would have been more consultation. We would have been able to explain to people what we were looking at and what we were trying to do. There was some significant footage on the TV of Aboriginal communities burning the Reeves report. To me, that was quite distressing because it meant that there was a lack of communication and a lack of discussion with those people.The one area that I was concerned about in particular was the ABR, the Aboriginal Benefits Reserve, and the way that money was distributed to communities that received mining royalty equivalents. I went to a number of communities where I was aware that large amounts of money were available to those communities through the mining royalty equivalents, and yet I could see no visible signs of increased quality of life in many of those communities. The theme that came through in our report was that everyone in Australia should be equal, that everyone should have the same opportunities, but they should also have the same obligations of accountability.I am determined to see that money that is available to these communities through the mining royalty equivalents is distributed fairly and evenly, and that there is accountability. At the moment it is very difficult to establish a clear pattern of accountability for this money. Again, I saw no benefit in many of these communities. They were living in very poor conditions and yet I was told a significant amount of money came into those communities through the mining royalty equivalents.There is often a perception in the community that Aboriginal communities are against mining, or against development. In many of the communities that we visited I found that this was not true, that in fact they were very keen on development and mining, provided it was done with their consent, with their understanding, and with their advice. They want to work in partnership with companies so that mining companies could understand the Aboriginal link with the land and understand how to manage that land in a way that is compatible with Aboriginal traditions and beliefs. The communities wanted to get benefits from developments flowing back to their communities. Whilst there are a couple of notable examples of where communities do not wish to have mining and wealth brought into their communities, for differing reasons, there are many other communities that are very keen to work with mining companies to enable developments to occur which will benefit all Australians.As I said at the outset, this certainly is the most significant report and inquiry that I have been involved in. It has been, to me, a great privilege to visit many of the Aboriginal people and many of their lands. I would like to thank those communities that did allow us to come onto their lands, and welcomed us onto their land. That enabled us to have a very rare insight into their communities. It was a great privilege to me.I hope that we will be able to go back to many of those communities with this report and this video so that we can sit down with our friends in those communities and talk to them about the report and about how we can assist their communities to go forward. Often the comment was made, `You fellas from Canberra fly in here, talk to us for a few minutes, fly out again, and we never see you again until you want to change something.' It is very important that our committee goes back to those communities after we have tabled this report so that we can discuss with them very clearly what we are trying to achieve. We do not want to tell those communities anything; we want to listen to them and understand what they want and what their needs are.I think we have taken some steps forward on the question of reconciliation. We have a long way to go, but I believe that this document represents one small step towards reconciliation and a great step towards members on all sides of politics working together to enable us to reach a common goal for the good of all Australians, not just for one section of Australia. That is the message that came through: we are all Australians; we are all equal; we all have the same ambitions for our families, although I guess in different ways. We have the same concerns for our families, our children, whether we live in an urbanised area or in an isolated part of Australia. I hope that the government in their response to this report will look very closely at what we have done and that it is accepted by the government. Hopefully, it will represent another step forward towards reconciliation in this country.10:56:0011681Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in the debate on the motion to take note of the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs entitled Unlocking the future . Since 10 December 1998, the committee has been holding an inquiry into the recommendations of the Reeves review into the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. On 30 August 1999, the committee presented the Unlocking the future report to the federal parliament. I was pleased and honoured to be involved in that inquiry. The committee was able to present a unanimous report to the parliament, even though the committee consisted of members of the Labor, National and Liberal parties.The Reeves report into the Northern Territory land rights act was commissioned by the Howard government following the 1996 election. John Reeves QC was paid between $280,000 and $300,000 by the government to recommend changes to the land rights act. After many months and more than $1.3 million later, the report of the Reeves review was released in 1998.John Reeves in his recommendations advocated dramatic changes to the land rights act which would have seen the basic principles and tenets of Aboriginal land rights stripped from indigenous people and a whole range of white bureaucratic processes and organisations implemented which would severely impede any steps towards self-determination.The implementation of the Northern Territory land rights act was the cornerstone of land rights throughout the country. It committed the Commonwealth government to recognising land rights, to recognising Aboriginal people as the first occupants, owners and custodians of the land. Since 1976, Aboriginal people have had to fight in the courts to continue to have their rights enshrined in law. We saw the Mabo High Court case and the native title legislation which followed that. Then we had the Wik decision, which was followed by this government watering down the original Native Title Act. Then we had the Reeves review.As the chair of the committee reiterated time and time again during our hearings, now is the time to look forward and not to dwell on the mistakes of the past. Hence the title of the report: Unlocking the future. However, we must never forget the mistakes of previous governments if we do want to continue to move forward on reconciliation and on increasing the quality of life of Australia's indigenous people. We, as legislators, must ensure that the same mistakes are not made and that we continue to learn and benefit from the knowledge of previous policies in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs.This report, Unlocking the future, is the culmination of 10 months work by the committee. From December 1998, following my election to the committee and the minister's request for the committee to conduct the inquiry, it was an intense period. I had to come to grips with, understand and comprehend the committee system. I then had to very quickly gain a comprehensive understanding of all that had preceded my short time here. With respect to the original land rights act and the Reeves report, what were they and what did they mean?On 2 March this year, I attended my first ever public hearing as a member of the committee, in Darwin. We were treated to a historic welcome from the Larrakia people in the Northern Territory Parliament House. This was the first time they had welcomed anyone onto their land within the confines of that new building since it was first opened in 1994. At that first hearing we also had a performance by members of the Northern Land Council, telling the committee in song, dance and traditional language what they thought of the Reeves review and what they wanted us as a committee to do about it.John Reeves, in his report, recommended some far-reaching proposals to change the way land rights work in the Northern Territory. As I have mentioned before, the report cost $1.3 million plus and the review took place over nine months from November 1997 to July 1998. The final report of the review was published in August 1998 and ran to 617 pages without the appendices.The most far-reaching and outrageous proposals from Reeves were rejected unanimously by our committee. These included, first, the abolition of the four land councils in the Northern Territory and the establishment of 18 small regional land councils. Second, Reeves called for the establishment of a new central bureaucratic unelected and unrepresentative body titled the Northern Territory Aboriginal Council to oversee the running of the land councils and to determine the distribution of Aboriginal moneys for mining royalties, investments and other income streams.Third, Reeves outlined radical changes to the Aboriginal Benefits Reserve and the way again in which Aboriginal moneys were distributed. He did this while under the—I believe incorrect—assumption that Aboriginal money is public money. It is not. The majority of it is money received for activity being allowed to be carried out by mining interests on Aboriginal land or as compensation to Aboriginal people for losing the right to carry out traditional activities on their land.Fourth, Reeves proposed that the system of obtaining a permit to enter Aboriginal territory be abolished and that Aboriginal people must apply the interpretation and use of the Northern Territory trespass laws if someone or a group of people is illegally on their land. This was to apply to vast tracts of Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. What Reeves was saying, in effect, to traditional Aboriginal owners was that if you happen to find someone is illegally trespassing on your land you then must apply to have the trespass laws interpreted and implemented and the Northern Territory penalties would then apply.The system which currently stands and works is that any person must apply to the relevant land council for a permit to enter Aboriginal territory or to go onto Aboriginal land. This system allows for the protection of traditional values and of sacred sites. It also allows for the protection of the natural environment and various ceremonial procedures. As the chairman quite correctly pointed out to the groups we spoke to in the course of the inquiry, the committee members as Australian landowners do not allow anyone to walk onto our property without permission and why should Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory expect anything different.The report I am pleased to be speaking in support of here today and the recommendations proposed in it from our committee revolve around four core principles, which all the committee members agreed to. First, that Aboriginal land rights under the land rights act should and must be preserved. Aboriginal land rights must not be diminished in any way and Aboriginal people must have the inalienable right to make their own decisions about their own land: the way it is to be managed and the uses and purposes to which the land may be put.Second, that Aboriginal people have the same rights and opportunities as non-Aboriginal people and must be allowed to make decisions affecting their own lives without hindrance—the way all citizens have that right. I have quoted the powerful words of Jeannie Herbert in this parliament before, and I will again. She was quoted in our report as saying, `Let us manage our lives, our destinies, our aspirations and our future. It is our future.'Third, that constructive partnerships be formed between Aboriginal people and governments and Aboriginal people and non-Aboriginal people to enable the progression and allow the facilitation of true reconciliation in the Territory. Fourth, that all Australians have mutual rights, opportunities and obligations and Aboriginal right to land must be respected by all territorians and by all governments. Fifth, that there be flexibility incorporated into the land rights act to allow for future amendments and changes in interpretation as the circumstances of Aboriginal people affected by the act change. Sixth, that any changes to the land rights act or indeed any other legislation affecting Aboriginal people can only be changed or amended or introduced or scrapped with the fully informed consent of those affected.These core principles stood us in good stead in the course of our inquiries and during our deliberation over the evidence which had been presented to us. With these core principles in mind, we as a committee within the framework of the inquiry made recommendations regarding the Reeves recommendations.I am also extremely pleased that we were able to produce a unanimous report. Although members of the committee did not always agree on everything because of different ideologies and backgrounds, we found at the end of the day that a couple of sticking points were best left to the Aboriginal people themselves to decide within the framework of the project teams suggested within the report.The Reeves recommendations regarding the breaking down of the land councils and the establishment of the umbrella organisation NTAC were rejected by the committee. It was clear that Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory wanted to maintain the established land councils, but they also wanted a bit more autonomy. The committee agreed that the land councils be able to devolve more functions to the regions and that the land rights act make it less obstructive for new land councils to be created if the Aboriginal people want that.The committee did not agree with the Reeves recommendations that there be major changes to the distribution of Aboriginal monies via the ABR, but we agreed that a proposal for change or the maintenance of the status quo go to a project team for consideration. I am also very pleased to say that the committee rejected outright the abolition of the permit system. We did not believe the proposal from Reeves to subject Aboriginal people to the Northern Territory trespass laws was at all appropriate. We did recommend, though, that avenues be explored to cut down on some of the bureaucratic red tape that is sometimes required to obtain a permit.Over the past 10 months the committee held many public hearings and listened to thousands of people who had an interest in the act, who were affected by the Northern Territory land rights act or who would be affected if any changes were made to that act. As a committee, as well as holding public hearings at Parliament House in Canberra, we travelled to many remote communities in the Northern Territory and to Darwin and Alice Springs. In March we went to Darwin and Bathurst Island. In April we travelled to, met with and listened to traditional owners and community members from Alice Springs, Kalkarindji, Tennant Creek, Ti Tree, Yuendumu and Mutitjulu. In May we travelled to Katherine, Ngukurr, Yirrkala and Groote Eylandt. In June, the committee travelled again to Darwin and then on to Daly River and Maningrida. I was pleased to attend all hearings in Canberra and the Northern Territory, except those in June.While in the Northern Territory, we travelled mainly by Caribou aircraft. I must say that, while it is not the most comfortable way to travel, it is certainly one of the most adventurous and exciting ways. I take this opportunity to echo the words of my committee colleagues in thanking the officers and crew of 34 Squadron and 35 Squadron of the RAAF, who flew us throughout the Northern Territory and who also provided good humour and friendship. If our friends have found themselves in East Timor, I also take this opportunity to wish them well and a safe return.The communities to which we travelled also provided huge challenges to the Hansard reporting staff who travelled with us. However, with great expertise, good humour and wonderful efficiency, Karin Oldfield, Brian Lindell and Alan Savage were always able to find a long enough extension cord and set up their equipment in these remote areas. They listened to and taped the hearings, ensuring that all evidence gathered and submitted was correctly and accurately recorded. Another challenging task for these reporters is that the majority of indigenous Australians providing evidence and information spoke very little English or none at all. So I applaud Karin, Brian and Alan for their work and thank them for their good humour and their friendship.Once again as a new member, I could not have hoped for a more efficient and friendly committee secretariat. They always knew what had to be done and they just did it. They were able to cope with all our personal idiosyncrasies with sincere friendliness and goodwill. They supported me in my position as one of the two new committee members. For their friendship, dedication, diligence and goodwill, I would like to thank James Catchpole—and I wish him well in his new position—Sara Cousins, Katrina Gillogly, Claressa Surtees, Jennifer Cochran and Fran Wilson. I appreciated being able to work with them during this inquiry.Finally, I would like to thank and commend my colleagues on the committee: the chairman, the Hon. Lou Lieberman; the deputy chairman, Harry Quick; my Labor colleagues, Daryl Melham, the shadow minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs, and Warren Snowdon, the member for the Northern Territory; my Liberal colleagues, Barry Haase, the member for Kalgoorlie, Barry Wakelin, the member for Grey, Trish Draper, the member for Makin—and my only other female colleague on that committee—and Jim Lloyd, the member for Robertson; and my National colleague, Bob Katter, the member for Kennedy.I applaud this report and I hope the minister acts on the recommendations in it. I hope it will continue to further the steps towards true reconciliation in our country.11:10:0011684Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—I rise today to bring the attention of the Main Committee to Unlocking the Future: The report of the inquiry into the Reeves Review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 , produced by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. John Reeves QC was appointed by the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Senator John Herron, in October 1997 to conduct a review of the act. On 20 August 1998, Reeves presented his report. Having read the report and, as a member of the committee, hearing evidence from Mr Reeves, I was impressed by the degree of goodwill, depth of understanding, sound reasoning and rational recommendations demonstrated. I was surprised, therefore, by the general lack of backing for the report exhibited by the many witnesses and written submissions before the committee.Reeves's review was the first carried out since 1983 and, given that much had changed since 1976, a review was necessary. About 42 per cent of the Northern Territory has now been granted to Aboriginal land trusts for the benefit of Aboriginal people. So a great deal of the purpose for which the act was drafted has been achieved. In short, a fresh view was justified.Many will say, `If it ain't broke, don't fix it', and we are all reluctant to change. However, there exists in the Northern Territory, and in communities across Australia, ample evidence to suggest that existing legislation is not working. Far too many legislators, and their city based constituents, are of the opinion that the much publicised funding being directed to our Aboriginal communities is now solving the problem. A general and pathetic misguided view is, in fact, that Aboriginal people receive too much.The truth is that most remote Aboriginal populations endure substandard housing, suffer a higher level of illness, die younger, achieve a lower level of literacy and numeracy, have a higher per capita involvement in substance abuse, have a greater incidence of domestic violence and enjoy almost no opportunity for real employment by comparison with city based mainstream populations. And, in most practical terms, they have no choice. You may well ask, `Why?' And that may, for many of my city based colleagues, be the first step to finding a solution, because the first step to finding a solution is to accept that there is a problem.Quite clearly, in the process of collecting evidence for his report, Mr Reeves heard many complaints against the existing act and his attention was directed to aspects that needed change. Amongst the evidence he heard, Mr Robert Lee of the Jawoyn Association said:We want to plan wisely to ensure the maximum benefit for all for the land for the people, both black and white. Careful planning is the key to it all. We don't want to rush into anything because we know that unplanned development has a habit of costing money and wasting our time. We are just not interested in quick and easy ways of making money. We have addressed above changes in the Act that would improve the ability for Aboriginal people in achieving economic development objectives.Further, Mr John Liddle of the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress said:However, more and more, we would hope and expect to see their focus move towards supporting economic independence and community development of our people. Specifically we would hope to see the Land Councils foster an appropriate range of approaches to local self-government, assist communities in planning development, advise and support Aboriginal groups who want to establish small scale local businesses. Again, an experimental approach is necessary, as there is no established simple solution to developing their economic self-reliance of their communities.The Northern Territory Labor Party said:The need for Aboriginal traditional owners to have opportunities for economic development is of critical importance so that they may be able to break away from welfare dependency and enjoy the standards of living that others are able to. Many Aboriginal Territorians are keen to utilise their land as a means of economic development—though we recognise and support those who do not wish to do so.As a result, amongst other points, Reeves recommended that the act be amended:. to encourage the formation of a partnership between Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory and the Government and people of the Northern Territory;. to provide Aboriginal people with effective control over decisions in relation to their lands, their communities and their lives; and. to provide opportunities for the social and economic advancement of Aboriginal peoples in the Northern Territory.This cameo of evidence and rational recommendation is typical of the Reeves report, and yet when the committee, of which I am a part, travelled extensively and heard many hours of evidence, very little support for Reeves was forthcoming.My point is the great difficulty in containing consensus of opinion. Over a period of time, that opinion is dynamic, and perception of problems and solutions will be tempered by personal status and circumstances. I suggest the Reeves report was not well understood by the very people it was designed to assist, that those most affected by the proposed changes were in a position to most alter people's perception of the changes and that, even though evidence was invited from many and diverse parties, the witnesses we heard were well informed of only the contentious recommendations of the report.Of the 45 recommendations made by the committee in our report Unlocking the Future, many are at odds with the Reeves report. The most notable example is perhaps the issue of regional land councils. Reeves proposed 18 councils instead of the existing four. Even though much criticism was made of the lack of autonomy, poor communications, infrequent contact, selective funding and insufficient representation, support for the creation of 18 smaller, more representative councils was minimal. This apparent contradiction was, for me, the main motivation to readily agree with our recommendation No. 2 regarding the establishment of project teams to consult and advise on issues where our recommendation has proposed more than one option. We recommended that such a team be put together as a representative group at the discretion of the minister to communicate widely on a particular topic, a final decision being made only with the informed consent of traditional owners.The establishment of new, more representative land councils is already accommodated under section 21 of the act. However, we have made recommendations detailing a process that will facilitate such action, including a plebiscite and informed consent of traditional owners.When the act was first mooted, many Aboriginal people saw such legislation as the ultimate goal—the panacea for all ills. With the passage of the act and the subsequent establishment of ATSIC, some people have had their expectations realised, but in the main they are individuals and family who have used position, popularity or education to secure a power base excluding the grassroots population. This results in the majority feeling cheated and, in some cases, worse off because their expectations were so great.To appreciate the opportunities advanced by this report, attention should be paid to the core principles. The committee agreed that Aboriginal people should have the right to manage their land in any way they see fit, with the administration system most appropriate. Further support and encouragement should facilitate lease arrangements to individuals to provide employment opportunities and a diversity of land use.The greatest opportunities and future choice will come not from land rights but from education. This is the single most empowering factor for all people. According to Dr Quentin Beresford, Senior Lecturer in Government and Politics at Enid Cowan University, in an address to the Social Education of Australia Conference in September in Perth, the Northern Territory has the lowest rate of Aboriginal year 12 student participation in Australia. I do not believe this reflects the standard of educational opportunities available; rather, the degree to which Aboriginal populations pursue their cultural ties. The percentage of Aboriginal students completing year 12 in Western Australia was slightly better, at 19 per cent; and the Queensland percentage was much better, at 45 per cent.To understand the correlation between adherence to cultural law and low secondary school graduation requires an appreciation of Aboriginal culture and the realisation that, when male students become men, coeducational classroom participation is most often seen as inappropriate. More consideration of adult education at secondary level is required, with necessary inducements for greater participation and more productive outcomes. It is only with universal education standards that Aboriginal communities will truly be empowered to compete in mainstream Australia and enjoy the choices we all take for granted.If our recommendations for changes to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 can facilitate a foundation on which secure communities can avail themselves of appropriately facilitated education services then, in keeping with the aspirations of Jon Altman of the Centre of Aboriginal Policy Research, we will have made recommendations for law reform that constitute good public policy.My thanks to the committee chairman, the Hon. Lou Lieberman; to my committee colleagues; and to the incredibly resilient secretariat of James Catchpole, Claressa Surtees and Sara Cousins. I recommend this report to the chamber.11:22:0011687Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I, too, welcome the recent report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs titled Unlocking the future: the report of the inquiry into the Reeves review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 . I commend to the House the work of the standing committee and the staff who assisted them in conducting this inquiry. I also commend all the members of this committee who were committed to a bipartisan approach to the issue of Aboriginal land rights.The history of indigenous land rights in Australia is one that is fraught with tension. It is an issue that has caused much debate. Over 72 submissions were made to the committee by indigenous groups—land councils, individuals, legal experts, the Northern Territory government and others. The committee also travelled widely across Australia to make contact with indigenous groups, land councils and individuals who are affected by the act. Unlocking the future is important because the recommendations set a precedent in that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are to give their consent on any land rights issues. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders will have the right to make the hard decisions on how their land is to be used.The recommendations in the committee's report are positive because they take into account the need to alter the relationship between government and indigenous Australians to make it more consultative and open. As my colleague the member for the Northern Territory, Warren Snowdon, said in the House on 30 August of this year:The message to the parliament and government from the report is clear. The way ahead requires dialogue, consultation and negotiation between governments and indigenous Australians. There must be a new attempt at building a partnership between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. This report and its recommendations challenge the government to adopt a new and radically different approach to dealing with indigenous Australians.The member for the Northern Territory is right. This report is a step in the right direction because it involves indigenous Australians in decision making. It is a welcome change from non-indigenous Australians deciding, in essence, what is best for indigenous Australians. What is also important to note about the report is that the committee makes recommendations that reject changes advocated by John Reeves QC in his report, Building on land rights for the next generation: the review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 .The changes advocated in the Reeves review include: the recommendation to replace existing land councils with 18 regional land councils; the recommendation to replace the current permit system to enter Aboriginal land with an amended Northern Territory Trespass Act 1987; and the repeal of section 74 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976.The Reeves recommendations fundamentally deny indigenous Australians the right to make choices about their land and its uses. This denial of their rights is completely inappropriate. The Reeves review is a complete joke. It has been said in this House—and I will say it again—that the Reeves review is a disgraceful waste of $1.3 million of the long-suffering taxpayers' money. The Reeves review was a political stunt fanned by Shane Stone and the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs in an attempt to remove land councils and weaken the land rights act. If implemented, the Reeves review would, of course, have caused the further social, economic and cultural degradation of indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. It would have broken the spirit of Aboriginal people across Australia. The committee has done a tremendous job in undoing much of the damage done by the Reeves review, and it must be commended for that.I now wish to turn to the other recommendations in the committee's report which I believe are important in improving that part of the act dealing with the rights of the traditional landowners. Firstly, I refer to the recommendations pertaining to land councils. Several of the recommendations explicitly set down the correct process in which land councils requiring formation are given explicit instructions on formation to ensure that a 60 per cent majority of Aboriginal people support the formation. In particular, I support recommendation 10 which ensures that land use agreements cover such matters as: resource development, service delivery arrangements, access to housing, and leasing of land for infrastructure. Recommendation 10 also empowers traditional Aboriginal landowners to accomplish this without the requirement of consent by the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs.The committee also recognised that traditional Aboriginal owners do have the right to represent their own interests in land without land council involvement. Indigenous people have been allowed the right to make autonomous decisions within the recommendations in the committee's report.I now refer to the recommendations regarding the mining provisions of the act. Of great importance is the recommendation that traditional Aboriginal owners, through their land councils, should have the right to withhold consent for any exploration or mining proposal, subject to current provisions of the act. These provisions are, firstly, that the Governor-General may override a refusal only if it is seen to be in the national interest; and, secondly, if mineral exploration has already been consented to, traditional owners are not able to withhold consent for mining. The rights of traditional owners are further protected if the Northern Territory minister for mining believes that the company is not negotiating in good faith.I also commend recommendation 35 that calls for land councils to initiate public awareness campaigns about the operation of the permit system, including its role in natural and cultural resource management. On 9 August 1999 I spoke in the House about the issue of indigenous employment. I mentioned the realisation of government that indigenous Australians must be involved at all levels in consultation and negotiation with governments. The committee has recognised this crucial issue to indigenous people in its report. If we as a nation are to achieve the goal of reconciliation, indigenous people must have their right to autonomous decisions as a community, especially where land rights are concerned. Again, I congratulate the committee on a first-class job in the interests of our indigenous brethren.Debate (on motion by Dr Stone) adjourned.Adjournment11688Motion (by Dr Stone) proposed:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.1168911:31:0011689Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—I rise today to speak about the impact of the Howard government on education and in particular on education in regional Victoria. What a sad example we have of a government that could not do more to retard the progress of a country like Australia. Just as a brief example, since the Howard government came to office there has been some $800 million cut from education in total. University grants have been reduced by almost a billion dollars—that represents almost six per cent, and some 21,000 student places.There has been $500 million slashed from student income support. I do not have to tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the difficulty that is going to place on students from poor Australian backgrounds. There has been $240 million cut from TAFE at a time when 35,000 extra students are missing out on TAFE positions every year. There has been $130 million cut from government schools, with $400 million slashed indirectly by reduced state grants.In April 1997 the government announced $200 million for schools as part of the new Job Network. Not one dollar has been received by any schools in Australia since that announcement. In November 1997 the government claimed that its up-front fees policy would create some 90,000 new university places, but by the end of 1998 less than 800 students had enrolled in the full undergraduate places scheme. On top of all of that, in July next year we are going to have the impost of the GST on the education system.The Howard government will increase the cost of education dramatically through the introduction of a GST. The only parts of the education sector free from this new 10 per cent tax are tuition fees and some boarding school fees. This is a major blow to the prospects of lifelong learning in Australia. It means that for the first time in this country's history the purchase of books will be taxed. The education of all Australian students, whether in school, TAFE or university, will be more expensive as the GST increases the price of books, newspapers, computer software, Internet use, clothes, uniforms and public transport. The GST represents a government schools tax as it will apply to many of the so-called voluntary contributions now levied in government schools. Non-tuition fees are not GST free.For the average family with two children at a government school, the GST is likely to add $360 per annum to the cost of that schooling. Under the Howard government, schools, TAFEs and universities will have to pay a GST on all purchases and then claim back these expenses from the tax office. This will hurt the cash flow of each educational institution, plus add significantly to their administrative costs, leaving fewer resources available for education itself. A GST will apply to all adult community education courses. GST on community based education will dissuade many adult Australians from re-engaging in the benefits of education. The Howard government could not possibly inflict more damage on Australian institutions and education institutions if they tried. They are dealing with education with all of the compassion of the Third Reich.I would like to highlight some of the problems we have experienced in Bendigo. For example, in Bendigo we have La Trobe University, a fine facility and ably led by Professor Les Kilmartin. It is an integral part of Bendigo's economy, but since the Howard government came to office there have been 150 jobs gone from that institution. That resulted in about $5 million being ripped out of Bendigo's economy. As I said, it is an integral part of Bendigo's economy and it just cannot survive with the sort of scheme that is being planned.Deregulating fees will place education out of the reach of most regional Australians, especially those in Bendigo, the area that I represent. If you are battler, if you are on a single income of $35,000 or maybe $40,000 a year, you just will not able to afford to educate your families. The compounding problem is that there will be no limits on fees charged by universities. That means it is an open market. Universities will have to charge exorbitant fees to survive. We will see big differences between city and regional universities. The big universities in the metropolitan areas will survive but the regional universities will be starved of funds.Compound interest rates applying to accumulated debt will ensure that the debt just keeps growing. Families that want to have higher education for their kids will experience extreme difficulties by having to pay compound interest rates for 25 or 30 years. As my colleague, the shadow minister for education has pointed out, the choice will be that you either buy a house or you buy an education for your kids. It is an appalling proposal, and the government should be condemned for even thinking about it.1169011:36:0011690Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—I take this opportunity to relate to the House a situation that occupied my time for five days during the last parliamentary break. After a great deal of planning and coordination I was able to tour the communities of the Western Desert in the far eastern portion of Western Australia, in the main, above the 26th parallel. It is an area that is populated by approximately 3,000 Aboriginal people and a handful of Europeans.The planning that went into it was spread over a very long time. It was meant to take place back in March, but a good friend of mine and a close relative, who was to accompany me, was unable to make it then. His grandmother and my grandfather were brother and sister. He was to accompany me back in March, but he went and had a triple bypass instead, just to get out of the trip!This gentleman's name is Noel Blythe. I recognise and pay tribute to him as being one of the most compassionate and understanding persons, and least critical of people, that I have probably ever met. He accompanied me on this five-day tour of some seven communities of the Ngaanyatjarra area of Western Australia. The communities we visited were Cosmo Newbery, Tjirrkarli, Patjar, Warburton, Jamieson, Blackstone and Warrakurna, which is adjacent to the Giles weather station.During those five days I witnessed some tragic situations. In two of the communities I visited there were recent deaths, and in the communities there was a very populous sorry camp in progress. I visited those sorry camps and commiserated with the bereaved. It was a tragic experience. These people are extremely traditional in their ways. Many of them will spend three weeks living in dreadful conditions with no regular water or food or sanitation, living more in the earth than on the earth during their mourning process.It is an experience that certainly leaves one moved. Even though I would like all Australians to be well aware of the experience and the conditions, it is not one that I would wish upon them. I would wish, however, that hard-working people like Damien McLean, assisted by Keith Noble, both from the Warburton community, continue to find the strength of character and the time and dedication to continue good works amongst these Aboriginal people and their communities. They are there to assist where possible, to direct, and to come up with the visions spanning that great gulf between mainstream civilisation, as we call it, and what is a traditional way of life.It is only with people like that, and the very knowledgeable and well experienced people like Noel Blythe of the Christian Alliance Church, with his 40 years experience, that we will see a future for Aboriginal people and a true reconciliation with mainstream Australia.1169111:40:0011691Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—It is with a great deal of concern that I raise in this chamber the quite atrocious behaviour of G. and K. O'Connor Abattoirs of Pakenham in my electorate. In particular, I raise concern about the role that the federal government have played in a disgusting, sickening lockout which some 160 workers at that abattoir have just endured for the last eight months.G. and K. O'Connor are a large employer in Pakenham. They have been involved in this aggressive lockout for getting on to seven or eight months now. There has just been a development of sorts in that around 30 of the workers at G. and K. O'Connor, having been bludgeoned by the company over the last six or seven months, have gone back under an Australian workplace agreement. They are going back having to put up with salary cuts ranging from around $60 a week to $300 a week. They are going back having to work probably an extra 45 minutes or an hour a day. They are going back having given up RDOs. They are going back having forgone quite an amount of sick leave.Security disappears in this sort of environment. These people no longer have the security of employment which they need around which to build a good and decent life and to raise a family and make a contribution in our community. This is the type of environment that Peter Reith's legislation promotes and encourages. This is the type of situation where Peter Reith moves from being a minister acting on behalf of all Australians to being a minister who is acting in a partisan nature on behalf of the company and against the workers and the people of Pakenham and district.I think it is useful to draw on the comments of the presiding Federal Court judge who was hearing this matter last week on 4 October. I will read out some of the transcript in the Federal Court. In relation to the lockout, acting on behalf of G. and K. O'Connor, Dr Jessup says:This is a fairly unsophisticated one; it's an all or nothing . . . Judge Spender says:Yes. This is a baseball bat lockout.Dr Jessup says:It is sort of, your Honour, yes.Judge Spender says:Pinkertons Incorporated.I do not know whether everyone in this chamber understands the significance of what Judge Spender has just said. Those of you with a bit of knowledge of labour history, and in particular American labour movement history, would understand the significance of Judge Spender's comments referring to the behaviour of G. and K. O'Connor, which has taken place under Peter Reith's legislation, by referring to it as being similar to the actions taken in the past by Pinkertons Inc.Pinkertons Inc. was a notorious US detective company which acted as an anti-union operation in that country for a number of years. They used to infiltrate US labour movement activities. They used to be involved in kidnapping, violence towards union members, extortion, vandalism, and a battery of other illegal and improper activities. So a judge of the Federal Court in Victoria is referring to action being taken by a company, G. and K. O'Connor, as being similar to the illegal and immoral actions which were taken by Pinkertons Inc. in the United States.I mention again that this action is being taken under the legislation of Peter Reith, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. I think people opposite should be ashamed that this sort of legislation promotes and encourages Pinkertons Inc. type of behaviour—the type of behaviour which is illegal and immoral and destroys communities such as those that exist in my electorate: in this case the Pakenham district. I stand by the workers at G. and K. O'Connor Abattoirs, as does everyone in the labour movement and everyone in the Labor Party. G. and K. O'Connor Abattoirs should be ashamed of themselves. (Time expired)1169211:46:0011692Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—I would like to make a few comments about the recently tabled report of the inquiry into the Reeves review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 entitled Unlocking the future . Firstly, may I—not out of simple courtesy, but out of actual genuine heartfelt belief—recognise the contributions made by the chairman Lou Lieberman, deputy chairman Harry Quick, the committee staff, Hansard people and members of the RAAF, who could not be left out. I must say that I thought the commitment made by all members to this report was outstanding. When you consider that we had to cover a vast area like the Northern Territory, I thought the rollcall was absolutely outstanding and highlighted the interest and commitment of the committee to the task at hand.We were confronted with a fairly complex series of issues, which no doubt other members have covered in their contributions. For me the leading issue was the balance of rights between traditional owners and all other people, including those who might have an interest in the land in whatever form. It is that absolute—`clash' I think is too strong a word—competition between the cultures which was foremost in my mind, and you saw it on the ground every time you visited the various communities.Whilst respecting very much the traditional owners, I felt particularly strongly for those Aboriginal people who were not regarded as traditional owners and for a whole range of people of the Territory—the European settlers—in relation to how their land rights were to be protected. I also felt for the Northern Territory government, which has had great difficulties and unique issues compared with the rest of Australia because land rights cover 50 per cent of the land mass in the Northern Territory. It is not an issue that dominates the rest of Australia; it is not an issue that most Australians would be familiar with. So I have some empathy with the Northern Territory parliament and how it endeavours to deal with these issues.The balance of rights issue which Mr Reeves QC grappled with on behalf of the minister was very interesting and challenging. I would really like to acknowledge the work of John Reeves. In the evidence that he gave to the committee in the last few days that the committee took public evidence in Darwin, I thought he summed up as well as any of the public evidence that Hansard recorded the focus that we need to have on the post land rights period—that is, the whole issue of land rights fought for and won over the last 30 years or more was drawing to a close. The Hawke government had made it quite clear in the sunset legislation that this period was drawing to a close in a practical way, and the role of the land commissioner in allocating the final areas has only a year or two to run.This whole period of how we move from the fight for land rights into a more stable period, if you like, where perhaps the welfare dependency issue could be tackled more and where the bureaucracy of the land councils needed to be addressed was a very useful part of the whole exercise. In conclusion, the equity between taxpayer and the Aboriginal benefit trust reserve was an issue that I thought the committee did offer positive leadership on.1169311:51:0011693Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month and it gives me a great opportunity today to talk about a wonderful and inspiring group here in the ACT called Bosom Buddies. I am sure you would agree that is a great name for a group of women who support each other through their experiences with breast cancer.The group commenced in 1995 with four women meeting over coffee, and membership has grown steadily now to over 200. Women who have survived breast cancer will tell you that the journey begins with the diagnosis and on the journey they have to confront themselves physically, psychologically, emotionally and spiritually. Information is needed to demystify the strange and fearful world that women with breast cancer face. When a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer, her life changes fast—facing surgery and treatment also means facing fears on many levels.Bosom Buddies are just what their name says—they are there for women to be able to discuss what is going to happen, to reassure them and to give them hope afterwards. It is also a social and friendly support group and offers a range of activities to suit most interests. Some of the more fun groups that they involve themselves with include craft groups, dinner outings, a breakfast group, fun runs, a young mothers group and so on. They have also held workshops and seminars on many topics, including nutrition, skin care, aromatherapy, prosthesis and so on. In the past, a group of around 20 women entered the Canberra Times fun run. There is also a mobile phone and roster system of Bosom Buddies members who are available to listen to people at night when their fears are greatest. After being trained as volunteers, they speak to students in years 11 and 12 about breast self-examination and breast cancer generally, and the talks are personalised from the women's own experiences.One of the biggest events each year is a fashion event. I have been to the last three or four of them and I had the pleasure of going to this year's fashion event last night. It is an amazing thing to attend. There were 850 or more people in the audience. It was an enormous function. The highlight, of course, is the fact that the models are women who have survived breast cancer. They model garments from nightwear and swimwear through to the most wonderful evening glamour gowns: nothing can be more inspiring than to see these women strutting the catwalk.Last night, the youngest in the parade was in her 30s; she is a mother of twins still under a year old. The eldest was a 78-year-old; she appeared for the fourth year in a row and is the star of the show. The parade is put together under the coordination of Norma Bradley. I would like to read the names of the people who participated last night. They have all had a dramatic experience with breast cancer and can now stand proudly in front of the community: Aine Austin, Libby Ciuffetelli, Margaret Dando, Marie Devlin, Dot Feeney—the 78-year-old, Kerry Glover, Marie Higgs, Dee Knott, Jan Murphy, Maggie Sharp, Jackie Stuart and Marilyn Ward. All of these people were supported in the background by Joyce Gore, Michelle Heine and Rachel Kavanagh, amongst many others.I understand that the President of Bosom Buddies in Canberra, Valerie Lee, and one of her colleagues, Anna Wellings-Booth, have a presence on the National Breast Council of Australia and represent the ACT views of these women at that level. I cannot stress the work of this group enough. One of the other wonderful projects that they have undertaken which has become quite famous is a photographic exhibition by Heide Smith, a very well-known photographer in these parts. The first exhibition was held two years ago and contained some of the most stunning photos of women—in some cases with their families and children—all of whom were survivors of breast cancer. I understand that, if it has not already been done, a book is going to be published in order to raise more funds.I can only commend very heartily the work of these people. They have had enough to contend with without having to support the rest of the community, yet they do. But with no reflection on men, women are so good at doing these sorts of things. I want to thank Jill Haidon, a personal friend of mine, who in fact introduced me, through her experience, to Bosom Buddies a few years ago. I can only stand and applaud, and actually be in awe of, her example, and the example of others.1169411:56:0011694Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—This week, as I am sure most members are aware, is Asthma Week. Members may also be aware that I am working with the National Asthma Campaign, as secretary of the health and aged care government policy committee, to form a National Asthma Campaign parliamentary group to support the work being done in this very important area. I am also proud to be part of a government which has accorded a very high priority to asthma, its treatment and its prevention.In fact, I will be competing in a five-kilometre race in support of the national awareness of asthma, against the member for Banks, Daryl Melham, the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs, who will be running in support of the National Heart Foundation. I have a fact sheet here which I would like to read into Hansard, which talks about the problems, what asthma is and how we can have effective intervention.Asthma is a major health problem for Australians, particularly our children. The personal, social and economic costs associated with the disease are high. The prevalence of asthma has increased in recent years and there are signs that asthma is becoming more severe. More than two million, or 11 per cent, of Australians have asthma, including one in four primary school children, one in seven teenagers and one in 10 adults. Asthma places a considerable burden on the health system, with the total health system costs for 1993-94 estimated at $477 million.In 1995-96 asthma was the most common reason for hospital admission among those of school age and younger, while across all ages it ranked seventh. Asthma is also one of the 10 most common reasons for seeing a general practitioner. Deaths from asthma have been steadily decreasing from a peak of 964 deaths in 1989 to 715 deaths in 1997. This reflects the ongoing effectiveness of public education campaigns and asthma education efforts. However, there is evidence that suggests that up to 60 per cent of asthma deaths may be associated with avoidable factors.Asthma is an inflammatory disease of the air passages, making them prone to narrowing and increased mucus production. It becomes difficult to move air in and out of the lungs. Symptoms include wheeze, shortness of breath, chest tightness and cough. Asthma is also a chronic condition with attacks occurring at varying intervals and with varying degrees of severity. Over many years, persistent asthma may cause permanent narrowing of the airways, resulting in reduced response to available treatments. Severe acute attacks can result in death. The underlying causes of asthma are not known. However, asthma may be triggered by exercise, house dust mite, pollens, cold weather, throat and chest infections, tobacco smoke and other factors.Asthma is more common among those with other allergic symptoms such as hay fever and eczema; those with an asthmatic parent; those who have had a severe chest illness in infancy; and those infants whose mothers smoked during pregnancy. The exact causes of asthma are not yet known, and there is no cure. However, for most people with asthma, the condition can be successfully managed. Effective asthma management is aimed at achieving the best quality of life for the person with asthma, reducing ill health and deaths, and preventing the development of permanent abnormal lung function.The National Asthma Campaign's six step asthma management plan, which is developed with a doctor, is aimed at helping keep people as free from asthma symptoms as possible. The main criteria are to know how severe your asthma is, achieve your best lung function, avoid asthma triggers, stay at your best with medication, have a written asthma action plan and check your asthma regularly. A written asthma plan helps many people with asthma and is developed in consultation with a medical practitioner. It sets out the correct doses of medications, what to do when asthma worsens, when to increase medication and when to get help. Progress needs to be checked regularly by a medical practitioner.Not only is this National Asthma Week, but as the honourable member for Canberra stated earlier, it is also Breast Cancer Awareness Month. I would also like to note that tomorrow, Friday 15 October 1999, is Cystic Fibrosis National Day. I have received a letter from Mr Terry Stewart, the CEO, asking if I could wear a red rose ribbon in support of cystic fibrosis, and I am delighted to note, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you also have on a red rose ribbon today in support of Cystic Fibrosis National Day tomorrow.Main Committee adjourned at 12.02 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing11696The following answers to questions were circulated:11696(Question No. 850)85011696Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 12 August 1999:(1) What are the circumstances under which a retired individual or couple can access an approved long-dated or lifetime annuity and still claim the age pension.(2) Is it possible for an individual with $100,000 in assets, apart from the family home, to invest in a complying income stream and still claim the full age pension.(3) Is it possible for a couple who retire with $500,000 in superannuation to invest $200,000 in a qualifying annuity and still qualify for a part age pension.(4) If sums invested in qualifying annuities have been excluded from the means test is there a limit on the amount that can be invested.(5) If there is no limit on the amount that can be invested in a complying annuity, can a couple invest (a) $300,000, (b) $500,000, (c) $700,000 or (d) $1m and still qualify for a part pension.(6) Are tests carried out before approving companies or individuals to provide long-dated annuities; if so, what.(7) Are large income earners who pay little or no tax in Australia able to be major equity holders in companies that provide long-dated annuities.(8) What impact will the new rules have on the number of persons receiving the age pension.(9) Did the Minister state that she does not want to see $1,000,000 retirees on the age pension; if so, what assurances can the Minister give that this is not occurring.11696Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Retired individuals who hold an approved lifetime or long dated annuity, can successfully claim the age pension providing they meet the residency, age and means test requirements. These requirements can be found on the Centrelink Internet site at http://www.Centrelink.gov.au/(2) Yes.(3) Yes.(4) No.(5) (a) (b) (c) and (d). Yes, providing they are otherwise qualified to receive payments under the income and assets test. The income and asset test limits can be found in the Centrelink Internet site at http://www.Centrelink.gov.au/(6) The Treasurer has advised that paragraph 9(1)(d) of the Life Insurance Act 1995 (the Act) provides that a contract that provides for the payment of an annuity for a term not dependent on the continuance of human life but exceeding the term prescribed by the regulations constitutes a life insurance policy. The Life Insurance Regulations state that the prescribed term is ten years.A consequence of the above provisions is that only registered life companies may issue annuities with a term greater than ten years. Further, registration of companies is undertaken by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority in accordance with the Act. Subsection 21(3) of the Act provides the grounds on which APRA may refuse to register a company as a life company.(7) The Treasurer has advised that the Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act 1998 restricts a person's (or company's) shareholding in a life insurance companies to 15 per cent of the voting capital. The Treasurer may approve a higher percentage limit on national interest grounds. Approval under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 may also be required.(8) It is not possible to accurately estimate the impact of the new rules on the number of customers who will receive age pension. The behavioural responses to the 20 September 1998 changes are complex and varied and cannot be modelled with any degree of accuracy. For that reason, no allowance has been built into the age pension forward estimates for changes in customer numbers arising from the 20 September 1998 initiative, beyond the estimated initial impact on existing customers.(9) No. However, the Minister did express concern that financial planners were advertising that you could be a millionaire and still get a social security pension.