1999-10-183914REPS1169701999-10-18Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Delegation Reports116971169712:31:0011697Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the third round Australia-China bilateral human rights dialogue. The Australia-China human rights dialogue grew out of a search for a more effective mechanism for advancing human rights in China than the annual cycle of disputation in the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva over the China resolution. A premise of the government's approach is that it is better to engage China directly on the range of human rights issues of concern to Australia. Another premise is that China is a nation in transition—economically, socially and even politically—and that various elements in the Chinese system are grappling with issues relating to the extension of the rule of law.The Australian delegation, headed by a deputy secretary of DFAT, Mr Miles Kupa, included for the first time the President of HREOC, Professor Alice Tay, and me in my capacity as chairman of the parliamentary human rights committee. There were a number of DFAT officials with the delegation as well, and I would like to thank DFAT and the parliamentary staff as well as my own office for the logistical arrangements.The dialogue this year encompassed three phases. There were separate meetings with eight Chinese ministries, agencies and organisations, the formal dialogue meeting at the foreign ministry and, for the first time, a provincial visit to the province of Qinghai, some 1,400 kilometres west of Beijing, a region with many ethnic and religious minorities. The influential ministry of public security was involved in the dialogue for the first time. An important part of the dialogue was the Human Rights Technical Assistance Program. This is integral to the process, seeking to make a practical difference on the ground. There are a wide range of projects and activities and an extension of this program was signed during the dialogue. I would commend to members annex 2 of the report, which goes to some great lengths to explain what this is all about, and I think members will be surprised at how extensive it is.In my view, the discussions this year were substantive. Many issues were addressed thoroughly, with each side's perspectives getting a full airing. They were wide-ranging and there were no no-go areas. Australian concerns raised included restrictions on the freedom of assembly, association, expression and religion—for example, the detention of leaders of the China Democracy Party, the `reform through labour' system, the treatment of adherence of the Falun Gong, independent trade unionists, and members of the non-official Catholic Church and Protestant house churches. We also raised the human rights situation in Tibet and that affecting other ethnic and religious minorities in China; the welfare of the new Panchen Lama; the use of the death penalty; reports of the use of torture and other degrading practices; problems in law enforcement, including the execution of judgments; women's rights and reports of coercion in the implementation of China's family planning policies. Many of these issues had been suggested by Australian NGOs as being of particular concern to them.The delegation also urged China to ratify as soon as possible, and with the minimum of reservations, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, signed in 1997 and 1998 respectively. Many of the exchanges were lively and animated, generating interesting exploration of the issues involved. In other areas, it was evident the positions and perspectives remain significantly different. Interestingly, the Chinese acknowledged deficiencies in various areas that we raised.The delegation also handed to the Chinese authorities a list of names of Chinese citizens about whom Australian parliamentarians, NGOs and citizens have recently made representations to the Australian government. A request was made of the Chinese government for information about the individuals' current circumstances.My view is that there is no doubt that the dialogue, based on this experience and from the embassy's continuing dialogue with the Chinese authorities on human rights issues throughout the year, is of value and worth persisting with. In an effort to quantify the value of the dialogue and to measure results, the delegation—with assistance from the embassy in Beijing—put together a listing of recent developments in legal reform in China. That is at appendix 3 of the report.It was evident that there is a growing constituency in China which is interested in human rights issues and dialogue about them. We need to be realistic; we need to realise that we have embarked on a long process through which the benefits will be incremental. Whilst it is difficult to directly attribute specific improvements in human rights in China, it would seem to me that from the dialogue some tentative conclusions can be drawn. By whatever yardstick, China is a freer society than it was five years ago. There are people within the Chinese government working towards establishing the rule of law, and the dialogue with Australia and other countries, combined with technical assistance programs, forms an important building block towards creating a more humane society in China. There is a long way to go by our standards but you have to start somewhere.Bills11698r93211698Bill presented by Mr Beazley.12:36:0011698Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I present the Defence (Re-establishment) Amendment Bill 1999 . The purpose of this private member's bill is to enhance the civilian employment protection available to members of the ADF reserves, under the Defence (Re-establishment) Act 1965. The bill extends employment protection coverage to ADF reserves engaged in overseas peace enforcement, peacekeeping and humanitarian relief operations. The present act is silent on these matters. It increases the penalties under the act, clarifies the procedures to be followed by both a member and a member's employer, prohibits an employer from taking adverse action against the person who acts to enforce a protection afforded to them under the act, and establishes an office of reserve forces with a range of specified functions.This bill follows a private member's bill I introduced last Monday to ensure that leave for participation in service and training as a member of the ADF reserves be one of the basic conditions which can be taken to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission for conciliation or arbitration. I have moved these two bills to address failings in the area of defence reserves. It was bad enough to ignore the defence reserves at the best of times. Now we are in the middle of the most serious military deployment our nation has made in the last 30 years.The problem this bill seeks to address is the lack of clarity over the extent to which civilian employment of defence reserves is protected under current legislation. Unfortunately, this was not improved—indeed, it was made worse—by the performances of Minister Scott and Minister Reith last week. Each of them put out pre-emptive press releases last week claiming that the legislation I present today is unnecessary. In so doing, they claimed the existing legislation covers the current situation. Minister Reith said, for example:It is prohibited for an employer to penalise or prejudice an employee who serves with the Defence Force.This protection extends to volunteers who serve with Forces like the current East Timor deployment.Minister Scott said:. . . the existing provisions of the Defence (Re-establishment) Act 1965 . . . prevent employers from penalising or prejudicing employees because of their Service . . . . . . . . . . . .Sections 8 and 9 of that Act can be invoked where an employer refuses to release an individual Reservist who has volunteered to serve and who Defence requires. The trouble was that the defence department did not actually agree with what the ministers were asserting in their press releases. This made for a revealing interlude last week, and I will detail what occurred for the record.Until midnight last Tuesday, the official ADF reserve site on the Internet had a question and answer page on questions of interest to defence reserves. In response to the question, `Is there a law in Australia protecting my civilian employment?' this appeared:Overseas Peacekeeping/Humanitarian Relief Operations: "No—Reserve participation in these operations is on a voluntary basis. Reservists wishing to volunteer for this type of duty should contact their employer to arrange for leave of absence before doing so."Call Out: "Yes—however existing legislation does not go far enough towards protecting the civilian interests of Reservists.I am quoting directly here. This is not Labor Party propaganda. It continues:Currently the Federal Government is considering changes to this legislation and it is hoped that these changes will be enacted soon.In other words, the employment protection for reservists in times of call-out and in relation to overseas peacekeeping were either non-existent or in need of attention. That was the defence department's official advice.Ministers Reith and Scott were clearly embarrassed by the fact that the official web site contradicted their political argument on the issue. Instead of swallowing their pride and joining us to fix these problems, they had the facts rewritten to fit the PR spin. In the dead of night, the web site was changed last Wednesday to reflect their mutual press releases. The official advice on the Internet now indicates that, in respect of overseas peacekeeping relief operations:The Defence (Re-establishment) Act 1965 prevents employers from penalising or prejudicing employees because of their service.In respect of call-out, the answer now is:"Yes—that is, there is employment protection—however, a review of current legislation is included in a paper being prepared by Defence that will present a range of options to Government aimed at improving the Reserve contribution to the ADF capability." I note that the web site rewrite could not conceal the fact that a review of legislation in relation to call-out is under way in any event. This late night web site rewrite might have remedied some of the ministers' embarrassment, but that is not the issue. The issue is meant to be the protection of reservists' employment. If the government believes that the legal situation of defence force reserves somehow changed last Tuesday night, it should release immediately the relevant legal advice.Our troops in East Timor deserve the very best support we can give them. One of the important elements of support for them is a viable reserve force. This is going to be a long deployment where the sustainability of our ADF commitment is going to be tested in terms of relief and specialist troops. Our bill, taken with the one I presented a week ago, is designed to support that commitment in a very practical way. I see both these bills as an important part of the opposition's work in ensuring that government is kept up to the mark in this, the most serious military commitment this country has made in 30 years. I call on the government to cease the antics of last week and support both these bills, which do the job that they clearly want to be done by our legislation in relation to our reserve forces. I seek leave of the House to present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Leave granted.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I present the explanatory memorandum, Mr SpeakerBill read a first time.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 104A, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Private Members' Business116991169912:42:0011699Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—I move:That the House:(1) recognises the widespread community support for the Government's "Work for the dole" program; (2) acknowledges the vital role played by the hundreds of community groups and local organisations throughout the nation that conduct local work for the dole projects;(3) recognises the social value and community contribution of the work carried out by participants; and(4) welcomes the Government's commitment to expanding Work for the dole, as outlined in the 1999-2000 Budget initiative to double the number of Work for the dole places to 50 000 next year—providing hope, experience and opportunity for more young Australian jobseekers.I was prompted to move this motion by the incredible positive feedback I have received, and continue to receive, from my constituents about the Howard government's Work for the Dole program. It is not surprising that, after 13 years of Labor's mismanagement, Australians had lost confidence in the government to truly reflect their views and ideals. There was a distinct cynicism when the coalition was elected to office in 1996, but I believe that Work for the Dole and the Howard government's belief in the concept of mutual obligation have gone a long way to restoring the public's faith that the Liberal Party is working with local communities in Australia's best interest.This government and our policies are a reflection of the ideals we all believe in—a fair go for all and everyone pitching in together. That is the Australian way. It is about giving a hand up, not just giving a handout. It is about everyone doing their fair share. It is about restoring ties within local communities and giving our young unemployed people, many of whom have felt alone and disillusioned, a chance to make a real and valuable contribution to our communities.In moving this motion, I want to pay tribute to and thank the many local community organisations who participate in Work for the Dole, providing the projects, supervision and management at a local level which is required for the success of this program. There can be no doubt at all about the success of the Work for the Dole program. By any measure, it has been a resounding success. The evaluation of the Work for the Dole pilot program found that 34 per cent of participants had found paid employment within three months of completing work for the dole—that is, one in three—and a further 11 per cent went on to further education and training. This result is staggering when you consider that Labor's employment programs, which cost up to more than 10 times what Work for the Dole does, could not even match it in terms of outcomes.Labor's revolving door job training programs had success rates of 30 per cent and 31 per cent respectively, with costs nearly double those of the Work for the Dole program. The New Work Opportunities Program, under Labor's failed Working Nation, had a success rate of just 21 per cent at a massive cost of $52,000 per participant, compared with Work for the Dole at just $3,900. Labor's programs were another massive waste of taxpayers' money and these were programs specifically aimed at job placement.Work for the Dole is not a job placement program, it is not a training program and it is not a quick fix. It is a program aimed at providing unemployed people with valuable work experience and an opportunity to give something back to their community in return for the support they receive. It is based on the fair and reasonable concept of mutual obligation. That Work for the Dole has achieved such positive outcomes in terms of employment for participants is a measure of how well it is received in the community, especially the business community. A Morgan and Banks study earlier this year found that nearly 83 per cent of employers believed working for the dole improved a young person's chance of getting a job. That is certainly the feedback I have had from the local small businesses within my electorate of Forde.I have had really positive reports of this same sentiment from a local Work for the Dole project as well. In the early days of one of the local projects—and I am pleased to say that we had one of the largest pilot projects in the nation in Forde—there was an instance when a man approached the local team and asked what they were doing. He was very interested to find out that it was a Work for the Dole project. He spoke to the project manager expressing his support, wished the young participants well and then left. The same man returned two hours later with his business partner and offered three of the young participants a job on the spot.It is this sort of community and business reaction which makes the program such a positive one for the young people involved. As any member of this House who has visited a Work for the Dole team would know, the biggest supporters are our young people themselves—those who are involved in the real practical projects. I regularly visit the teams operating in my electorate and it is amazing to see the positive difference it makes to the lives of those who participate in this program. This is what the critics of Work for the Dole just do not get, especially those in the Labor Party. Work for the Dole gives young unemployed people a real sense of worth. It makes them feel productive and it boosts their confidence. It gives them a reason to get up in the morning and it makes them feel part of their local community. In fact, in the pilot evaluation 83 per cent of participants said their experience had increased their determination to find work and 75 per cent reported that it had increased their self-esteem. As I said at the beginning, by any measure the Work for the Dole program has been a huge success. A recent study by the University of New South Wales Social Policy Research Centre found 80 per cent support for the proposition that unemployed people under 25 should be required to participate in Work for the Dole. This is another thing that the critics of the program do not understand. The Australian public believe very strongly in a fair go and helping a mate, but they expect that person will also do what they can to help themselves. This is what underpins the concept of mutual obligation.The Howard government believes that it is a perfectly reasonable expectation that people in receipt of income support paid for by the Australian taxpayer should meet certain requirements, whether it be working for the dole whilst looking for work, studying to improve literacy and numeracy or undertaking some other form of training to improve their chances of finding work. I do not believe that that is an unreasonable expectation. In fact, many of my constituents have expressed the view that mutual obligation should have been in place years ago. Many have said that, if Labor had had the courage and leadership to introduce it during their 13 years, the culture of welfare and government dependency that we now have would be lessened.It is really little wonder that the loudest voices against the Work for the Dole program have been the Labor Party and their mates in the union movement. If the Australian public want it, and if it is in Australia's best interests, then there is an expectation that Labor will definitely oppose it. But, with typical Labor dishonesty, despite voting against Work for the Dole Labor now reckons they support it. Their then shadow employment minister, Martin Ferguson, described Work for the Dole as evil. Then he had the barefaced audacity earlier this year to claim that it was brought in by a Labor government. Can you really believe that statement? The only reason Labor are pretending to support Work for the Dole now is because they think there is a vote in it for them. Despite their blinkered view of the world, even the Labor Party recognise that there is a massive level of community support for Work for the Dole and they want to try to capitalise on it.But, let there be no mistake about it, Labor are opposed to Work for the Dole and will scrap it should they ever get elected. The simple reason why Labor will scrap Work for the Dole is because their political masters in the union movement are opposed to it. The truth is that, if Labor and Kim Beazley were genuine about supporting Work for the Dole, they would get their union mates to stop actively opposing Work for the Dole and putting many valuable local projects at risk.For example, the Australian Workers Union has vetoed projects involving New South Wales national parks, crushing five projects and 500 places across regional New South Wales. That is 500 young people who will not have the opportunity, hope and experience that working for the dole provides. This is just one example. The union movement is hell-bent on destroying Work for the Dole and the Labor Party is happy to stand by and let it do it. Today I am calling on Kim Beazley to finally show a bit of leadership and tell Labor's special interest groups to back off and help out our young unemployed. But I will not be holding my breath.I do not want to spend any more time talking about Labor's negative stance on this issue. Work for the Dole is such a positive program and I receive so many favourable comments from local residents in Forde that I would much rather focus on the positive aspects than on Labor's negative carping. The Howard government's 1999-2000 budget provides for a doubling of Work for the Dole places and a further extension of the concept of mutual obligation. These are measures that are welcomed and supported by the overwhelming majority of Australians.I am very proud to support the many local Work for the Dole projects in Forde, and there are currently seven operating. I thank the various local community organisations who run these programs, including Meals on Wheels, the Salvation Army, BTC, and especially the Beenleigh based Phantast, which has been with the program since the pilot. Calvin and June do a great job and I know the young people they work for appreciate their tireless efforts.I have been involved in many worthwhile projects throughout the 25 years I have lived and worked in my local area. After that long you tend to know a good thing when you see it. I have to say that the look in the eyes of the young people on the Work for the Dole programs and the determination in their voices is the greatest testament to the value and worth of this program. The Howard government recognises the enormous value of the Work for the Dole program and we will continue to expand it in order to give even more young Australians hope, experience and opportunities for the future.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! Is the motion seconded?84CTHOMPSONMr Cameron Thompson—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.12:52:0011702Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—If I were a member of the government benches, I would not congratulate myself too hard or too prematurely on this program. It was born originally—and I think it pays to remember this—from a very cynical exploitation of the young unemployed who do want a go. It was for the political advancement of members opposite, not for the wellbeing either of the community organisations or the young unemployed. If we cast our minds back a little, we will remember that the Work for the Dole program, so named, was introduced after a period of beating up on the unemployed. It was unprecedented in Australia's history to blame the unemployed for their own plight at a time when unemployment rates for the young unemployed were into the 20s, and in some regions even higher than that. What we saw was a very systematic and cynical denigration of those people who were out of work rather than a look at the problems. There was a lot of publicity about dole bludgers—we were encouraged to dob in a dole bludger. There was the use of celebrated cases, including the Paxtons, to make everybody think that the young unemployed did not want to get a job, and there were allegations about fraud by those on benefits, most of which were not subsequently substantiated at all.We have heard the member for Forde, who moved this motion, speak about mutual obligation, and she did present it as if it were a novel idea. It is not a novel idea; it is a very old-fashioned idea. In fact people have always been asked to do something if they were in receipt of benefits. Ever heard of the work test, for example, which goes back to the 1940s and 1950s? It has always been part of any agreement when benefits are paid that there should be some obligations on the part of the recipient. But in the past we saw recipients as citizens with certain rights and responsibilities, not as clients contracted to the state. So that is the shift we have seen and not the notion that there is some obligation on the part of the recipient.This was also introduced at a time when there were massive cuts to labour market programs. This was the one little bit that was left. What replaced those labour market programs was a very modest program with an inflated rhetoric, and we are seeing that again. It was based and still is based on an opportu nistic assessment of community reaction, not on possible benefits. You will hear more talk about the community's opinion of Work for the Dole than you will about the effectiveness of the program. It always struck me that obtaining employment—the employment success rate—is explicitly not one of the outcomes, and it is not mentioned in this motion either. Apparently Work for the Dole is not designed to assist young people get jobs; the government do not measure it. I think the community would be very shocked to hear that, as the department evaluation summary says, `employment is not an objective of Work for the Dole'. I think most people would be really horrified to hear that.If we look at this program objectively, rather than listen to the rhetoric we have heard from the member opposite, we find that the name `Work for the Dole' is a really insulting return to outdated and punishing labels. It really is beyond the pale. The government's own limited assessment that I have just referred to found that it was the source of many negative comments both by participants and community organisations. I commend the government to drop this title. Work for the Dole also undervalues the enthusiasm that young people have for their communities and their keenness to find a job. That is why they want to take part. They do not have to be forced to take part; they want to take part and they always have. What this was about for the government was pressing so-called community `hot buttons', not about helping the unemployed—getting a reaction, getting a positive political outcome, not worrying about the unemployed.The project was always too small to make any serious difference to the employment chances for young people in our community. I think we have to look at the motivation the government has talked about in introducing this. There is a view, particularly on the government benches—and one encouraged by the current government—that people on pensions and benefits generally do not want to work and will not make the transition to work without the threat and imposition of penalties by the government. It is assumed that welfare recipients have a negative attitude to employment generated by the so-called cultural dependency. They say this flourishes when people require financial assistance from the government to survive.This is actually a perversion of the policy stance which flowed from a very careful review between 1986 and 1989 by Bettina Cass of the social security system which stressed the positive. Yes, it is important to aid and encourage young unemployed people to maintain their links with the labour force and to prevent them slipping into permanent welfare dependency, but you do not need to punish and harass them to do it; you need to assist them. Young people's enthusiasm for the benefits they receive from the program and their role in the evaluation that we have heard about is not necessarily an indication of real benefits they are obtaining—and I will come to that in a minute. Rather, it reflects their enthusiasm to make a contribution and improve their skills, and they do not need to be punished to do it.We have already had an announcement, which is referred to in this motion, of a very substantial expansion of Work for the Dole. You would expect that if you were going to expand a program from these very modest beginnings that you would first evaluate it and have some community discussion about it. But, no, we get the announcement of the expansion before the evaluation is complete—upside down. We have come to expect that in social policy development from this government. We are to see an extra $200 million over four years but, unfortunately, that is to be partly funded by diverting funds from the Intensive Assistance Program for the most disadvantaged job seekers, particularly the long-term unemployed whose numbers are growing again. There will be a total of 50,000 participants per annum, we are told, and the program will be expanded into the 25 to 34 age group from the existing younger unemployed.I think most people in Australia would have expected a complete and careful assessment of the existing program before any expansion and, as I said, some public discussion. No, rather we are expected to expand it without looking at the results. But what happens when you do look at the results that were belatedly released? Firstly, there are only very limited data available—it was, after all, a very small program. It was not a public and open process, so we do not know precisely what questions were asked. It basically asked participants and providers their opinions of the program—it did not look at hard outcomes or at community benefits.There is some unemployment data, even though it is not a goal of the program. We are told that 34 per cent in paid work when surveyed three months later indicates a high level of success. We do not know that for sure. It is not a very high figure when you think about it. These are people entering the work force after six months unemployment. So 34 per cent are in paid work when they are surveyed three months later. What about six months, nine months or 12 months later? Eleven per cent are in education and training. The question is: would they have been there anyway? Twenty-three per cent had some paid work in the follow-up period. This is a very short follow-up period for one thing.We need to have a longer term assessment, but most importantly of all is that it is impossible to assess these results because there is no control group. This group is not assessed against a comparable group of young people who did not participate in this program or who took part in other programs. We simply do not know whether this is better than doing nothing, better than doing something else or, indeed, whether it is any good at all. Of significance is the fact that the outcomes were poorer for the most disadvantaged in this group—that is, only 22 per cent for the long-term unemployed, 11 per cent for indigenous people, 19 per cent for those leaving school before year 10 and 25 per cent for those with a disability. These are the things that need to be examined before you extend the program.We are yet to see an objective evaluation of other labour market programs, many of which have disappeared, I must say. The Senate committee was recently given evidence that the new Job Network providers may be focusing on commercial returns rather than spending funds on appropriate training. This is a serious problem at the moment. For instance, in Rockhampton a representative of the Capricornia Training Company told the committee:With respect to funding regional job creation . . . the new Job Network has drastically reduced the availability and priority of training as the vehicle for that to occur. The New Work Opportunities program, as an example, was extremely effective in terms of skills development.But no more. I think we really do need to look very carefully at the effectiveness of this program before endorsing the sentiments in this motion. First of all, there are no comparisons with programs which were replaced and cut. We already know that young job seekers have a higher probability of employment to begin with, but they are employed for very much shorter periods of time and often have periods of part-time and casual work.What is happening to the group of people who did not take part in this program? My guess is that at least the same number are ending up in work and education. Only 56 per cent—and this is critical—of those taking part in the program thought that it had actually improved their chance of finding a job. They were not all that optimistic. The member opposite suggests that they thought there was a big increase in their self-esteem, but in fact when it was measured objectively as opposed to their own opinions there were no increases in self-esteem, although participants thought there had been. What they did say was that the income supplements—the miserable $20—was not actually sufficient to cover the real additional costs of working. Regional areas have had to modify programs and add resources of their own to make some of these work. I commend those community groups for doing so. They are the ones who deserve commendation. The government deserves to be criticised. (Time expired)13:02:0011704Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—Well, what a bunch of comedians they are on the other side with that kind of commentary on Work for the Dole, and yet they maintain that they would not get rid of it. I gather that from the interjections over there. The fact that they would leave the question to dangle in the air as to whether they would support Work for the Dole is an insult to all those people out there who are still unemployed. The government has made magnificent strides in its efforts to come to grips with the problems of unemployment, but the issue of unemployment is just not going to go away that easily. The member for Fremantle can click her red shoes and she can say what she likes, but you cannot just wish away the problem of unemployment.Giving it another name is an even bigger insult. What would we call it, for example—`Positive past times and encouragement for people with less to do'? I think that is really just a ridiculous situation. People who are unemployed know that they are unemployed. They want to get into employment as quickly as possible and they want a government program that is going to assist them to do it. That is precisely what we get from the Work for the Dole scheme. It is pointless giving it a fancy name. You can call it what you like. Call it whatever you like, but it is not going to assist by tarting it up through some kind of PR spin.What we are doing here is providing people with the basic skills to get out there and get a job, to have the self-confidence to achieve in the way that we all know they can. We are in a situation where our economy can deliver a heck of a lot more than we in our current circumstances are fortunate enough to have. There is tremendous potential in our economy, but we have to give people the flexibility and the skills to be able to benefit from it. That is something that the Work for the Dole scheme does.I am frankly disappointed and cannot understand what it is that the Labor Party hope to get by continuing to pretend that they do not support Work for the Dole while all the time saying that they have some kind of positive alternative. The other day I attended a very interesting debate with the member for Oxley at the Ipswich Workers' Club where we were debating the government's second wave of industrial reform. It was a very interesting night. One of the things I found out from that was that there is within the union movement willingness to discuss these issues. There is not the kind of blinkered ideological madness that we are getting from people like the member for Fremantle. The fact is that, under the current union leadership and hierarchy and the kind of ideology they have been promoting in recent times, between 1990 and 1998 we saw something like 620,000 people leave the union movement—a more than 20 per cent drop in union membership. They have a lot of difficulty. I suspect that one of the great difficulties they have is facing up to reality about things like Work for the Dole.I want to take some of the time remaining to applaud some of the magnificent Work for the Dole programs that are going on in my electorate. A total of 215 people have undergone Work for the Dole schemes in my electorate. Some I would like to highlight include the efforts of Envirocare Ipswich where 55 participants are involved in restoring some of the most significant areas of the city landscape. I am talking about the banks of the Bremer River. They are doing very good work there to improve the potential and the attractiveness of our city centre. Secondly, the Rosewood Scrub Historical Society Inc. are formulating a database on the local environment around that area. You might not have heard of the rosewood scrub, but many years ago it was a significant type of land form. in its own regard. The type of foliage and the state of that area was unique. There is a considerable effort at present to make sure that that is documented so that we can rebuild some of the lost areas of that beautiful area.I think there is tremendous potential for us to achieve a lot more through the Work for the Dole schemes. In particular, I would like to draw the House's attention to the work of show societies. I think they could get a lot more out of the Work for the Dole scheme. These are groups that serve our community very well and they can harness the tremendous potential of these young people to their own advantage and to the advantage of the participants themselves. I would like to commend this motion to the House and urge members to support it because Work for Dole, as it is most realistically called, deserves our ongoing support and participation.13:07:0011705Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—There are a number of issues that the government needs to understand pertaining to Work for the Dole. These issues need to be realised and finally put into perspective. Firstly, above all, the Work for the Dole scheme is no panacea for the structural and technological changes that are affecting society. The government abrogated its responsibilities on this matter by slashing labour market programs such as Skillshare, Jobstart and others which were highly accountable and, given their client base, extremely successful and cost efficient.Secondly, Work for the Dole is in reality not the employment generating scheme it is purported to be. In fact, the government were so concerned about its possible lack of placement rates that they did not even promote it as a labour market program—that is, its purpose is not to actually see people obtain employment or training. This can be illustrated by the way that the minister reports the benefits of the scheme to the House when he informs us that this or that percentage of participants actually believes that their prospects for obtaining work have improved—that is, not that they have been successful in obtaining work but that they believe their prospects have improved.If Labor had tried to get away with that while it was in government, with its Working Nation programs, the then opposition would have created a storm. Their primary argument would have been: where are the placements? What are the outcomes? Where are the real jobs? By creating a scheme that is totally unaccountable and by not having jobs as a primary focus, the government have been able to avoid the level of scrutiny that they would have demanded of us. Also, in comparison, if the `Do we believe our prospects have improved?' criterion had applied, a significantly higher percentage of clients would have responded positively to Working Nation programs.We need to consider what information has been forthcoming from the department about the outcomes of Work for the Dole. For all the nonsense spread by the minister, there appears to be absolutely no conclusive evidence that Work for the Dole is succeeding. I would be interested in a study comparing Work for the Dole job outcomes with the level of placements in work obtained by a comparison group who had only received normal Job Search assistance. I am concerned that the figures would be very similar and that the money spent on this program would therefore be better spent elsewhere. It is interesting that the recently released review of the Work for the Dole program made no such comparisons. This is as opposed to the Labor Party's labour market programs which were exhaustively tested for outcomes. It must also be remembered that Work for the Dole is a part-time activity providing limited training opportunities, but the government needs to give young people full-time activity and realistic expectations.What is the government now proposing for Work for the Dole? They are suggesting that the scheme should be expanded into other areas. One such example is the area of child care. Those of us who have children know the importance of having fully trained and competent people looking after them in child-care facilities and acknowledge the raft of courses available to cater for this need, including full-time TAFE courses, traineeships and even university qualifications. However, this government believes that part-time Work for the Dole participants should fulfil this role. Maybe we could have Work for the Dole for nursing, bank managers and the teaching profession—or, given the increase in efficiency likely to occur, a part-time Work for the Dole minister.Let us look at Labor's philosophy. Labor believes in a system based on an active approach to try to get people back to work. This means government identifying and meeting its obligation to the unemployed by offering programs tailored to the special needs of particular individuals. This is an approach based on what is known as reciprocal obligation—that is, that there should be compulsion but, in return for that compulsory requirement, there needs to be an investment by government to try to get those people job ready and back to work.Since coming to power, this government has progressively dismantled the comprehensive labour market programs of the former Labor administration, but is the mover of the motion, the member for Forde, aware of a de partmental review of the Work for the Dole scheme which shows that this scheme is less effective in funding work for the unemployed than the job clubs and the Jobstart programs that her government slashed? If so, will she insist that the minister reinstate Jobstart, which provided real wage subsidies, not wage cuts, as a more effective way of getting the unemployed into real jobs? Will the member for Forde also insist that training programs such as Skillshare be reinstated?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.1170713:12:0011707Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I move:That this House:(1) recognises that there needs to be a greater recognition by all adults of the needs of younger people;(2) recognises that there needs to be a nation-wide recognition that young people can gather together without being regarded as potential law-breakers;(3) recognises that security personnel need to be far better trained to deal with young people in shopping centres and other public places and that such training enable the security personnel to better determine the correct method of handling young people in public places and shopping centres;(4) recognises that adults need to be more publicly exposed to young people and listen uncritically to the views they express and respect young people for the views they hold even if they are not agreed with;(5) recognises that Parliament supports the provision of an increase in technical high schools where young people can expand their practical talents where they are not necessarily academically inclined;(6) recognises that Parliament recognises the need for increasing dramatically the number of careers advisers available to young people for assistance prior to their leaving school and seeking full time employment; and(7) conduct a Parliamentary inquiry into the foregoing in order that proper national policies can be recommended to Government that will assist the advancement of young people of the future.The points raised in this private member's motion cover issues raised with me during a program of consultation that I conducted with youth groups in my electorate. The particular group that prompted this private member's motion, the Anglican Christ Church at Blacktown, will be delighted to know that the points they raised with their local member of parliament a few weeks ago are now being debated in the federal parliament of Australia. The question this youth group left me with was: what happens now? They expected action. In discussions with this group, it was made clear that all adults, particularly those involved in the education and structured political process at local, state and federal levels, should recognise that the vast majority of our young people are community minded, law-abiding citizens who desire as a group of people to have an input into the community they live in and the regulations that govern their lives.Many school students become involved in such organisations as Amnesty International. I recall, just after I was elected to parliament, receiving a petition to parliament from local school children opposing the manufacturing of land mines. Other students became involved in a `service week' program where young people had a designated week where they went and worked in the community looking after older people, including working in nursing homes where they became aware of issues affecting these people. It is quite common to see school students in shopping centres selling badges for Legacy, Red Cross and the Salvation Army. They are very responsible people.Most year 10 to year 12 students and young school leavers are nevertheless not ready to join a political party. They are more interested in completing their education, sport, social activities and planning a career. But they do want the opportunity of expressing in a non-party political way a view on the major issues concerning them, such as the environment, education and employment. They also want the opportunity of having an input into lifestyle issues that affect their lives—issues of crime prevention and the need for passive recreational facilities, such as drop-in centres for young people.The group asked me my view on the proposed Badgerys Creek airport. They indicated that they also opposed the airport on environmental grounds. They were aware of the problems being experienced by the inner city residents and indicated that those noise and pollution problems should not be inflicted on Western Sydney residents. On the republican question there was a wide disagreement of views similar to that being expressed by the general public. The group split three ways between republicans, monarchists and those favouring a directly elected President, with a majority favouring a republic of some form. The group also suggested that there should be opportunities to turn activities that may be considered antisocial into creative activities, such as having a competition for graffiti to encourage potential artists. They stated that graffiti was simply an act of rebellion and boredom and not an act of vandalism.Another issue raised was that there needs to be professionally trained security people in shopping centres so that staff can determine the difference between a gang of three and a group of law-abiding young people. There was anecdotal evidence of fairly abrupt behaviour adopted by shopping centre security staff involving a school student, her mother and a couple of friends being asked to move on. The concern was expressed that young people felt they were welcome in shopping centres only if they were buying something. Public space, both at railway stations and major shopping centres, is a big issue for young people.Some of these issues are now being addressed at a local government level in New South Wales. In a project being sponsored by the New South Wales Local Government and Shires Association, a new set of guidelines will encourage councils to think about their population of young people when designing private and public spaces. Research by the Urban Design Advisory Service found that there was a lack of free space and activities for youth and that retailers and security guards perceived young people who gathered in public spaces as a problem. Suggestions for planning included providing skateboard facilities in visible locations and designing areas for entertainment. Young people enjoy the liveliness of busy places, and these should not be seen as antisocial activities.The view was also expressed that some TAFE and school courses in schools were not broad enough. This was a major issue for these young people, who believe there is too much emphasis placed on academic achievement. They all spoke highly of some experimental schools that included a much more technical basis for the school curriculum. These young people were somewhat surprised to discover that, some time ago, there were such technical high schools where young people could attend to achieve a highly technical education that would prepare them for a working life but not necessarily an academic or other professional career.With more and more young people being required to stay at school due to government policies, we are sitting on a time bomb if we do not bend our views on, and become more flexible in our approach to, the skills we want to impart to these young people. There needs to be more assistance for students seeking employment. The purpose of senior secondary years has been to prepare young people for higher education. This has meant that some schools have provided courses in subjects considered necessary for young people to proceed to further studies. There also needs to be a better structured workplace learning program that requires schools to develop links with local industry. The major benefits of these programs are that they prepare young people for the world of work. We cannot be hijacked any longer by the academic curriculum for our young people.Another issue raised in my discussions was the lack of career advising in schools. This was a significant point for me personally as I was a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training during the term of the previous parliament. A hearing was held in my electorate during the committee's inquiry into youth employment. At that hearing, at which students from five local schools— Blacktown Boys High School, Blacktown Girls High School, Evans High School, John Paul II Senior High School and Quakers Hill High School—appeared, the issue of the lack of career advisers was raised. The fact that this issue was raised again would appear to indicate that it is still seen as a major issue by young people.On the issue of the lack of career advisers in our schools, the committee's report, entitled Youth employment: a working solution, stated:The first major problem with career guidance for young people is that many teachers are ill-equipped for the career guidance role. Teachers, career guidance officers and students who the committee spoke with all agreed it is a systemic problem and not the fault of individual teachers who may without specific training find themselves career teachers simply because their teaching load allows time for it. Most are left to draw on their own life experience, which in many cases is school to university and back to school, when advising students. Typically, there will be one career teacher, who may or may not be fulltime, for as many as 1000 to 1200 students.In all the debate over university funding, literacy and numeracy skills, the issue of career advisers in our schools seem to have fallen through the cracks in the floor.In summarising, the motion that I have been pleased to move today has enabled me to prove to young people in my electorate that, when they raise an issue with their member of parliament, they can have a reasonable expectation that their views will be aired. Young people need to be encouraged to see that—in a democracy such as ours—there is a way to overcome cynicism, that politicians really do listen to them and that politicians really do respect their views. By debating this private members' motion today, we begin the task of winning back the respect of our young people for our parliamentary system and also encouraging young people to raise with their local members issues they think should be debated in this parliament.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?84HZAHRAMr Zahra—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.13:22:0011709Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—I commend the member for Greenway for bringing on this motion. It has all the hallmarks of an important motion in the sense that it is being debated in private members business to a near empty chamber and is likely to be ignored by everybody that is in a position of influence, but nonetheless we will persist. It is important because the extent to which we nurture the idealism of young people and protect their vulnerable transition to adulthood are critical measures of a caring society. In the 1998 spring edition of Family Matters published by the Australian Institute of Family Studies last year, Dr Richard Eckersley published a provocative article entitled `Redefining progress—shaping the future to human needs'. This article was a decade after Eckersley's seminal groundbreaking work, Casualties of change: the predicament of youth in Australia . He cited in his report last year some important research. This included a 1998 study of undergraduates in Queensland that found almost two-thirds admitted to suicidal ideation in the preceding 12 months; 21 per cent said that they felt that `life just isn't worth living'; a further 19 per cent said they had wished for `my life to end'; another 15 per cent showed suicide related behaviour, claiming to have told someone that they had wanted to kill themselves; and seven per cent had made a suicidal attempt. One report that I was able to release for the government in 1997 to the International Conference on Adolescent Health and Suicide Prevention was on a survey conducted by Keys Young and which surveyed 1,400 young Australians between the ages of 12 and 24. It reported amongst other things that anxiety, depression and despair were seen as normal features of contemporary adolescence, and seven per cent of the young people surveyed had also attempted to take their own lives. In fact, one 16-year-old female respondent to the survey said, `Teenage is suicide. Isn't it?'Eckersley also reported in the article last year on a 1998 study of year 8 students—13 or 14 years of age—by the Victorian Centre for Adolescent Health. I ask members and those who are listening to this broadcast to reflect on this: they found that more than 40 per cent of these young people 13 or 14 years of age did not have anyone who knew them very well. That is someone who understood how they thought or how they felt. Almost a quarter said that they had no-one to whom they could talk if they had problems. Not one single person could they name whom they could trust.There are two questions that must be put and they must be put repeatedly. The first is not so much why are young people taking drugs, not so much why are young people despairing in a growing and significant number, but what builds resilience into the lives of young Australians? What is it that keeps them alive, keeps them off drugs and keeps them happy and stable?The second question, which is related but is a bigger picture issue perhaps, and I direct this to all members of this chamber, is: towards what do we strive as a society to make progress? What are the real struggles for our generation? The real struggles for our generation are not against high interest rates, are not confined to the current account deficit, nor confined to concerns about low levels of share ownership—as critically important as those things might be. But the real struggles for our generation are instead related to the sort of people that we are, our values and our beliefs, the way we relate to one another and see our place in the world. At 2 o'clock today when we start question time, there will be an argument about rates of economic growth. That is critically important, and no-one in this chamber should underestimate the importance of it, but the question that is not put and certainly is not answered is: towards what are we striving to make progress? What kind of Australia are we trying to create so that 10 or 20 years from now we can present an idealistic and achievable vision of the sort of people that we want to become. The two questions are interrelated.In terms of resilience, there are three things that have been identified as being protective of young Australians. The first is that a young person should be in a stable, caring and constant relationship with at least one adult, preferably a parent. The second is a sense of belonging to a school community which brings with it a sense of identity so that you have some idea of who you are and that you are understood and wanted by other people in your own immediate community. The third is a societal set of values derived from a sense of belonging and from a spiritual purpose, which might seem ephemeral to some members of the chamber.Let us think back to see what that means: I am 41, so my 12-year-olds think I am half dead, but when I was a younger person you could go from one end of Australia to the other and it was essentially a homogeneous society. There was a common set of values and beliefs and a mesh of values and resilience that held us together. It was described, I suppose, as `God, king and country' and inevitably these things change, as they must. But, if you get a group of 16-year-olds together today, as the member for Greenway has done and I know other members also do, and you ask them, `What does it mean to be an Australian today? What are the struggles for your generation?' they struggle to answer the question. Going back to some of the comments alluded to by the member for Greenway, my concern is that in marginalising ethics based and philosophical organisations from public policy debate—churches would be one—in diminishing the importance that we have placed on parenting as a full-time occupation, in trivialising the importance of voluntary work and also in pushing young people into the education system, often beyond their natural abilities for jobs that they doubt are likely to exist when they have finished, to study things which in their hearts they do not wish to do but feel in many ways they are fulfilling the unfulfilled ambitions of their parents, what we have done is to have created a society in which young people today feel in many ways they have nothing other than themselves in which to believe. The `God, king and country' set of values from when I was a young person—as it should and would change—has been replaced only by a vacuum.To the derision of some, what I have sought to do in my own electorate—in being privileged to represent the electorate of Bradfield on the upper North Shore of Sydney, I have found that it is hard enough to change the world, but if you have not got people of influence around you it is damn near impossible—is at least to put to them a vision of the kind of country that I would like to see Australia become. I would like to see Australia become a country in which we value the health and integrity of human life as much as we do our economic objectives. The reasons for which I would like to see this are: so that our debate about suicide prevention, about drug use, about euthanasia and about multiculturalism and other things is just as passionate and well informed as it is about interest rates; so that the barriers to the creation of wealth are seen as the enemy of effective social policy; so that we come here every day and work as hard as we can to maximise economic growth and give the best economic outcome for our nation, not because we are a bunch of accountants, but rather because we know that if we want to deliver services and the benefits of growth and prosperity to those who have neither power nor influence we need to remove the obstacles to wealth creation; so that we live in a country where the idealism of young people is nurtured; so that Australians live in a society where their views are both solicited and heard; so that every Australian, irrespective of their circumstances, knows that they will be cared for, but in return are expected to make a contribution to the society from which they derive a benefit; and so that we see ourselves as an outward looking, competitive, compassionate country, imbued with the values of hard work, self-sacrifice, tolerance and courage. We just had a debate about mutual obligation, the principles of which I strongly support. But it is a pity that it is not called `mutual commitment', which implies both responsibility and care on the part of those who provide it and then on the part of those who are its recipients.Congratulations to the member for Greenway and all of those who contributed to this debate. Let us hope that someone, somewhere, is listening to some of the constructive things that are being put.13:32:0011711Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—I am very pleased to second this motion. I think this motion is, primarily, about respect, and my colleague the member for Greenway summed it up pretty well in the seven points he made in his motion in private members business. We have the opportunity to make this the best ever generation of young people in Australia. By encouraging public leadership and public service amongst our young people we have a sincere and real opportunity to make Australia an even better place.When you look at some of the things which have been done by this government in respect of young people you can see the importance of a motion like this. Young people should not be used as political footballs, and unfortunately that is the only role that some politicians see young people as having. I point to the example of the Work for the Dole project. When you look at the heart of the Work for the Dole project and what it attempted to achieve in its first form, it was really to provide an opportunity for some people in our community, who had a view that young people sat around and were idle all day, to be content with the fact that young people were now being forced under the whip to participate in some of these projects. I think it is a real shame that some people took a political opportunity to put young people in that predicament.There are real opportunities for young people which need to be realised—real opportunities in training and in education. When you look at the state of our schools—I represent the electorate of McMillan, which is about two hours east of Melbourne—you realise how far we still have to go. So many of the schools in my electorate unfortunately have neither the facilities nor the staff resources which they need to produce the leaders our generation requires. If you look at the disparity which exists between private schools and public schools you will realise that students are not being given the opportunity to succeed based on their intellect and on their application, but rather on the affluence of their parents. I think this is something which young people in Australia find abhorrent because for young people in Australia one of the most important principles which we hold dear is being able to achieve based on your own worth and the amount of work you are prepared to put into a task rather than on the social status or affluence of your parents.It has been with some concern and trepidation—and, indeed, alarm—that I have observed over the last week or so the developments which have taken place in, and the discovery of, the government's true intention when it comes to higher education policy. I state on the record today my absolute opposition to any sort of system which requires students to move away from a HECS system, which is a fair, decent and honest system, to some sort of full fee paying arrangement or an arrangement which requires students to pay back their debt at market interest rate. This would represent an enormously regressive step for students from ordinary working families and would deny so many students from those families the opportunity to study at university. As I said, one of the most important things which we young people hold dear is being able to achieve based on our worth and our application, not on how much money our parents have. Unfortunately, this type of system which has been advocated by the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs is a system which will produce an unfair outcome and allow more and more people from affluent backgrounds to go to university and get ahead whilst people from poorer backgrounds will not have that opportunity.The honourable member for Bradfield in his remarks mentioned youth suicide, and this is an issue which I too hold dear. It worries me when I speak to young people across my constituency how very close to them suicide is; how much it is discussed, and how real it is in terms of people they know who have committed suicide and people in their extended circle of friends or family who have gone through that horrible experience.If we are serious about the way we tackle youth suicide, we do need to have at the forefront of our thoughts and intentions the word `respect'. Whilst there is often a lot of shrill talk about things that we must do about youth suicide, it seems to me that we cannot be serious in our approach to that whilst we are taking services out of those areas in rural Australia where there is a greater incidence of youth suicide, such as in my constituency.It worries me when people stand up and seem to be able to simultaneously argue two arguments which are not necessarily consistent. Namely, that it is okay to pull mental health services out of rural and regional Australia, that it is okay to shut down CES offices in those areas and that it is okay to allow a youth unemployment rate of around 50 per cent—which is what exists in my constituency—whilst at the same time saying, hand on heart, `Gee, I am really concerned about youth suicide, particularly in regional Australia.' Young people—and in particular young people in regional Australia—deserve better than that. They deserve some sincerity and some integrity when politicians stand up and talk about youth suicide.We do have a great opportunity with the young people in our nation. We sincerely do. As I mentioned before, we have the opportunity to produce the greatest generation ever in Australia. We should do that by encouraging public leadership, by promoting public service and by being sincere and honest in our dealings with young people. Ours can, and must, be the greatest generation of Australians.13:39:0011712Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—I want to acknowledge the wisdom of the member for Greenway in submitting the motion. He is a member of the cream of the working class, whom Kim Beazley Sr referred to as those who generally characterised the Australian Labor Party when he initially went into politics. Having said that, I do not find myself in agreement with all of the sentiments expressed by the member for Greenway in this motion. I entirely accept that there needs to be greater recognition by all adults of the needs of younger people, but I want to say that the news there is not all bad. There have been some outstanding examples of listening, of creating dialogue, of creating forums for young people to communicate their concerns, their dreams, their ideals to those of us here in the federal parliament.I was preceded by the member for Bradfield who just last week launched a video of his forum titled, `Drugs and other bruises—don't leave me this way', held at the Abottsleigh girls school in his electorate of Bradfield, at which 500 members of the local community came together to examine the question of how to hand on ideals and dreams to the next generation. That is an example a local member taking active steps to create that dialogue. The fact that 500 of his constituents attended and they had to use an overflow hall with closed-circuit TV gives an indication of the level of concern out there in the community.But there are many similar initiatives. I note, for example, the Australian Youth Parliament for the Environment, which I regard as an outstanding initiative, which is drawing together young people from around the country who are finding practical environmental projects and meeting with their members of parliament to raise our awareness of the local environmental needs of the community—taking practical action but lobbying at the same time, participating in the political process. I think it is a great initiative.It has been my pleasure to have some involvement in the National Student Leadership Forum on Faith and Values, which has brought 600 students to Canberra for four days for each of the last three years. Primarily, the influence is not from the members of parliament to the students but from the students to the members of parliament. I, personally, have found that an inspiring interaction. The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has just concluded the National Youth Roundtable, which brought 50 of the brightest, most idealistic young Australians to Canberra for, again, an intensive exchange of views and ideas between young people and parliamentarians.I really part company with the member for Greenway on the question of what we do about large numbers of young people gathering together in public spaces and shopping centres. The argument is that we ought to re-educate and train security guards and others about how to handle these young people. I do not believe that the answer to large groups of relatively aimless young people milling around the entries to shopping centres and cinema complexes is to re-educate security guards. To me, this is like saying, `The Titanic is sinking; we need to mop the floors to make sure that people do not slip. We should be nailing down the furniture to make sure we do not trip over it.' This is not the solution to the problem which the member for Greenway has rightly identified. We have to work out how to motivate and inspire these young Australians to want something more than to hang around in shopping centre malls.Frankly, I agree with the member for Bradfield, who said that the fertile question is not why are young people taking their lives but what can we do to give greater inspiration, motivation and idealism to young Australians. That is where we ought to be focusing our attention. I would not be appointing more social workers to meet with these young people in shopping centre malls to better understand their views. I would not even, as the member for Greenway suggests, be listening uncritically to their views. Surely, we have to inspire young Australians to think critically. We ourselves have to think critically.For me, a young person does not get more or fewer points for their views, simply by virtue of being young. What I do give them is absolute respect as an individual Australian for the merit of their views. If it is a good idea, it ought to get up on its merits. We are seeing whole cadres of young Australians leaving us older ones for dead—for example, in the business stakes—because they are finding a good idea, putting themselves into jobs and creating whole new worlds. That is to be encouraged and applauded. But we do not want to sit around in some patronising way and say, `Because you are young, we have to sit there uncritically and just absorb without comment whatever your view happens to be.' We have to inspire, challenge, provide incentive and promote ability. The way to do that, as I say, is not to mill around week after week, night after night in Westfield, Parramatta.A program that is leading the way in this regard is `Handbrake turn' in my electorate. This is a program for young kids who have fallen off the rails, who are having problems, who for some reason or another have attracted the attention of the police. I attended the second graduation ceremony of `Handbrake turn' in my electorate, where the young people presented a motor vehicle to a woman whose motor vehicle had been stolen and who was uninsured. They had worked on this motor vehicle. They had repainted it, they had fixed the engine and they had worked on the interior. They presented it to her as a sort of restitutionary act.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 1.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Statements by Members117141171411714Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—In all the sound and fury surrounding our debate on the future of the Australian nation and its constitutional arrangements—whether it should stay as a constitutional monarchy or become a republic—the one thing which surprises me most is the deafening silence in this whole debate about the desirability of King Charles III being the future encapsulation of our national aspirations. In fact, by contrast, rather than the articulation and defence of the prospect of King Charles III being our future living constitutional symbol, what we have had from those opposite and those who defend the constitutional monarchy is a deafening silence.I wonder why that is the case? Could it be that in fact there is a degree of embarrassment among constitutional monarchists about this prospect? Further, how would we go explaining to the region and to the world of which we are part that we see our future national embodiment as lying in King Charles III, the prospective inheritor of the crown of the House of Windsor?My challenge to those opposite is simply this: have the courage of your convictions. If you are constitutional monarchists, get out there and defend to the people of this nation why, for the next 25 years, Charles III should represent every aspect of our future national aspirations and the hopes and dreams of the next generation of Australians. I think you will find that that defence falls on fallow ears.1171411714Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—I wish to speak on a subject of great concern to many people in my home state of South Australia and, I am sure, right across Australia. I am talking about the rise in the incidence of home invasions. Our elderly and vulnerable who live in fear because of home invasions have a right to security in their own homes and rightly expect their state government to take steps to ensure that this happens. Ivy Skowronski, a 79-year-old lady from the Salisbury area adjacent to my electorate, has collected tens of thousands of signatures—almost 80,000—for a petition seeking to review the legislation and increase penalties in relation to home invasions.I have had the opportunity to assist Ivy by reproducing the petition and collecting signatures through my office. I commend her courage and determination on this issue. Lee Seidel, one of my volunteers, has tirelessly worked in my electorate of Makin to gain as many signatures as possible and I am sure there are many others who have helped in a similar way. There is going to be a rally on the steps of Parliament House, Adelaide on Wednesday, 20 October concerning this issue. I would urge all South Australians who can go along to do so to support Ivy and her cause.1171411714Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—As one of the thousands of unsuccessful applicants for Sydney Olympics tickets, I am absolutely outraged at the behaviour of SOCOG. Like thousands and thousands of ordinary Australians, some months ago I went through the supplied booklet, put in my choices for tickets and sent in my money—which, incidentally, still has not been returned. When I received a letter to say I had been unsuccessful, I thought that I had just been unlucky—that is, until I spoke to every other person I knew who had applied. They had also been strangely unlucky. Even then, I was prepared to accept this as the luck of the draw—until I realised that one-quarter of the tickets had been set aside for the high rollers of our society.This is totally un-Australian. The games should be for all Australians, not for the high rollers who can afford the extra dollars. So much for egalitarianism. I will not be applying for any more tickets. I have always promoted the Sydney Olympics—here and overseas—but no more applying for tickets for me! I will watch the events on TV and suggest that others do the same. It is totally un-Australian to put more than one-quarter of the tickets aside and not to tell the public about this, thus fooling everyone into applying for tickets that SOCOG had no intention of supplying.1171511715St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—I stand today to wish those in my electorate of New England who are sitting for this year's Higher School Certificate the very best of luck in their exams and in the future. I know what it is like: the studying, the pressure of exams and then the nerve-racking wait until mid-January to read your results. I was a member of the class of 1967 in New South Wales, the first high school year to ever sit exams for the Higher School Certificate, or the HSC, as it is known.I hear and read about the problems associated with pressure being placed on high school students from teachers, parents and peers to perform well in the HSC exams. I agree that too much pressure can be a big burden on young people and I understand that too much pressure to perform can have detrimental and even tragic effects on them. However, I maintain that young adults sometimes need a push in the right direction. A well-aimed prod can work wonders and help to bring out the best in them. It is all about guidance. I also believe that some practice in handling pressure is good practice for the pressures of a productive working life. That is, after all, the life that we are all trying to encourage our young people, especially our children, to pursue. I would like to give some advice to those who are worried about the up-coming exams, as was given to me by my old English teacher, who said, `If you have done the required work and done the study, there is no need to worry. If you haven't done the work, you will fail the exam and there is no point in worrying.' In closing, I wish all those young Australians sitting for this year's HSC the very best of luck. (Time expired)1171511715Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTONYK6IsaacsALP00—I would like to extend the congratulations of the federal parliament to two Courtenay Gardens Primary School students, Caitlin Besim and James Wairau. James is a grade 5 student and a fine athlete, being the Cranbourne Little Athletics Club champion in 1997-98. He has won medals at state level in hurdles and inter-school cross-country running. Caitlin was runner-up in the girls club aggregate, was age-group champion for swimming in 1999 and is a fine cross-country runner also. They have both been awarded the Edwin Flack medal by the mayor of the city of Casey, Councillor Janet Halsall.This fine primary school produces not only great athletes but also some first-class grade 6 performers who recently performed in their play, Kids in Space, which was enjoyed by many in the Cranbourne community. They received many accolades for their wonderful performances. The local community has every right to be justifiably proud of this great local primary school, ably led by its principal, Ms Loretta Hamilton.1171511715Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—Family Drug Support in New South Wales publish a newsletter every month called Hero Insight . It is not a newsletter about sporting heroes or people who trek to the South Pole; it is about drug policy. The newsletter includes the names of people who would be known only to those who loved them in life: they are people who died principally from the use of heroin. On Sunday night at 7.30 p.m., at the Ashfield Mission at 180 Liverpool Road in Ashfield, Sydney, there will be a memorial service for those people and their families. I encourage all members of the parliament who are able to do so to attend that memorial service, to light a candle on behalf of their own constituents who have lost people they love, who may lose them in the future or who are—as one of my constituents said to me—currently living the nightmare. Whatever one's attitude to policy, we need to remember that these people are human beings who either are or were once loved by families somewhere. I think there are few greater issues that face us than dealing with this problem.1171611716Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—I rise to praise the continuing work in our community of the six lifesaving clubs in my electorate. If you walk or bike or skate down the delightful promenade that forms the seaside boundary of my seat, the Esplanade or Beaconsfield Parade, you will come across these six lifesaving clubs. They are: Sandridge, led by Kevin Braken; Port Melbourne, headed up by Steve Roper; South Melbourne, led by Colin Sutherland; Middle Park, led by Darren Gill; St Kilda, led by Ken Baggott; and Elwood, led by John Francis. Despite the fact that Melbourne Ports has a fairly tranquil seaside, these clubs epitomise the spirit of voluntarism.For instance at Port Melbourne Lifesaving Club, which I was visiting just last weekend, in the last surf lifesaving year there were 15 rescues. At Sandridge, further round the bay, there were 18 rescues. There are rescues and resuscitation taking place at all of those clubs throughout the very busy season of summer—which is about to come upon us again. St Kilda Lifesaving Club has some 115,000 visitors. The work of the volunteers on behalf of the people in my electorate provides people in the electorate with a deal of safety and security which they would not otherwise have. I was down at the Port Melbourne Lifesaving Club the other day, and they were very active on behalf of Active Australia. (Time expired)1171611716Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—I rise here today to thank the Blue Nursing Service in south-east Queensland for the wonderful opportunity they gave us on Friday night when 500 people attended the finals of the Golden Years Quest which was run as part of the Year of Older Persons. It showcased 97 people from my electorate and the wonderful work they do for our community in a voluntary capacity. I congratulate the finalists: Rita Reiser, Jean Olga Warren, Keith Muller, Freda Hansen and Leonie Leigh. I would also like to congratulate 86-year-old Sidney Callanan who, with a strong voice, sang a wonderful song on the night—resulting in a standing ovation for at least five minutes. What also amazed me was to see not only the wonderful work that people do in our community as they get older but also the initiative they have and the incentive to continue to learn. One lady by the name of Eva Woodrow went to university at the age of 77 and got her degree four years later. I had the pleasure of launching her first book last Friday—published when Eva was 89. I would like to congratulate her on that wonderful effort. After seeing these wonderful people and how active and mentally alert they are as they get older I definitely look forward to getting older. It gives me a lot of hope that I am going to improve with age. I would like to thank the Blue Nurses for that opportunity and for the wonderful service they provide in health and home care.1171611716Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—On Saturday I joined with residents of Shortland to reclaim the beach at Redhead in an expression of our opposition to BHP's proposal to develop the Belmont wetlands as a beach-side residential subdivision. The Lake Macquarie City Council is currently considering a proposal to rezone the land to allow residential development; residential development of land that has been pillaged and exploited by BHP over the years and development that will lead to the destruction of the only coastal wetland in our region. BHP bought the land for a pittance and, over the years, has mined the land, under the land, the sand on the beach and in the dunes. Any wealth the land has had to offer has been ripped from it. And now BHP argues that, because it has degraded and exploited the land, it should now be able to build a residential subdivision in the catchment and surrounds of Belmont wetlands. BHP has made enormous profits from this land and now its final solution is a residential development which will give it, yet again, profits of many millions of dollars. At a time when BHP has closed its steelworks in Newcastle it is seeking to leave the residents of our area a legacy that demonstrates the big Australian's contempt for the people of the Hunter—people who gave their all for BHP to succeed.1171711717Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—Yesterday I was fortunate to join many members from the Frankston community at the 50th anniversary concert of the Frankston City Band. For 50 years this band has been playing a crucial role in the fabric of our local community. It was great to see so many people turn out to support them. The Victorian Police Show Band was also there—a very important initiative from the Victorian police to connect the police force with the community and another example of why police chiefs from around the world come to Victoria to see how first-class policing is carried out.It was my good fortune to have the honour of making a presentation to Mr Lloyd Worland MBE for his 35 years of service as president of the band. You have to admire anybody who can stick with a pursuit or an interest for 35 years. I have not been alive for that length of time, so I can only admire those who can do 35 years of service for the community. His work has provided much joy and happiness not only to himself and the band—which has members ranging from nine to 78 years of age—but also to many people in our local community. He has been the `Rock of Gibraltar' of the Frankston City Band. He is an enormous character in our local community who has made a big difference to community life in Frankston. The Frankston City Band is just one example of how a big regional centre like Frankston still has its community roots and still has that sense of pride. I am very proud to represent that community in this place. Congratulations, Lloyd Worland. Congratulations, Frankston City Band. (Time expired)1171711717Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—The Hackham West Community Centre is currently staging the musical Superbia . It deals with some of the myths and stereotypes about gangs, drugs, graffiti, single parents and unemployment which the media have inflicted on people living there. The lyrics of one of the 15 songs include the words:So often people lay the blameFor a suburb's dubious fameOn the people living thereWhich really isn't fair.I was pleased to see that the Advertiser ran an editorial reflecting exactly that view. It is the first project in the federal electorate of Kingston to benefit from the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being after 2 p.m., the time for members' statements has concluded.Ministerial Arrangements1171714:00:0011717Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be absent from question time today, tomorrow and Wednesday. He will be travelling to Thailand for official talks relating to the INTERFET operation in East Timor before going to Singapore to attend the World Economic Forum. The trade minister will act in his absence. I also inform the House that the Minister for Finance and Administration will be absent today from questions. He will be in Sydney to attend the Telstra 2 listing at the Australian Stock Exchange, and the Treasurer will take questions on his behalf.Questions Without Notice117171171711717Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister recall his interview on 3AW last Friday where he refused to rule out applying real interest rates to student loans? Does the Prime Minister agree that, if he refuses to rule out real interest rates on student loans, it is impossible to rule out students being forced to repay more than $100,000 for their degree?11718Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. I certainly do remember the interview on 3AW. The leader's question gives me the opportunity to expand on the theme that I developed during that interview. That is that the government stands by the commitments made in 1998, and before the last election, regarding the various pillars of our higher education policy. Cabinet discussed the matter this morning and I can inform the parliament, and through the parliament the Australian people, that support for those principles has been reaffirmed by the cabinet, by the government.I can also inform the House that we have no intention of introducing a loans scheme. I make it very clear that any attempt by the Australian Labor Party to run a scare campaign on the basis of a loans scheme or real rates of interest will fail because there will be no real rates of interest. Real rates of interest are something that belonged to your time in government—they were 18 or 20 per cent. That is when the rate of interest was really a real rate of interest. It was such a real rate of interest that it sent many small businessmen and Australian farmers to the wall.There are a number of challenges in the higher education area. One of those challenges relates to the rigidity of the industrial relations approach adopted within universities and the very negative attitude of many of the academic unions to industrial relations—attitudes that I might say are supported, encouraged and buttressed by the Australian Labor Party and particularly by the Leader of the Opposition. I would not be the least bit surprised if my colleague the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has something further to say about that matter before the day is much older.I make it very clear that we will not be introducing a voucher system. We will be maintaining the principles of the HECS system. There will not be any attempt by this government—through the back door, the front door or any other way of getting into this House—to replace the HECS system with a loans system. The bad news for the Leader of the Opposition is that he cannot run a scare campaign on this.1171811718Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. What action is the government prepared to take to bring about workplace reform in the university sector? How will this affect the current salary round?11718Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. The government has recognised the need within the university sector to consider salary increases for members of staff, but the government is very concerned at the extent to which the National Tertiary Education Union is seeking to impose pattern bargaining on the universities to maintain the existing rigidities that are hindering universities from adjusting to the needs and demands of students. The only ones who suffer from this are the students themselves. Innovative universities—ET4BEVISMr Bevis—You will give them less money, if they use the union.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane had already been warned by the chair but he persisted with his interjection. I ask him to exercise more restraint.BT4Dr KEMP—The Central Queensland University is an example of a university which has made an agreement with staff that allows for summer schools, evening teaching and multiple locations and introduces flexibilities into their arrangements. The government has decided this morning to assist universities to make agreements which will serve their long-term interests and the long-term interests of their students and staff. To do this, the government will be making available some $259 million over three years for university salaries, on condition that the universities meet certain conditions in their enterprise bargaining rounds.The member for Hotham would naturally be listening very closely to this because he was unable to get any support for the universities for their enterprise bargaining rounds so he will remember this very well. This government recognises the issue that arises and is determined to see greater flexibilities introduced into the university sector. This grant will enable universities to offer a pay rise of an extra 2 per cent, in addition to other amounts they receive from normal indexation, their own revenue measures and productivity improvements, on condition that we see flexibilities introduced into the agreements made between the universities and their staff.This government totally rejects the scare campaigns which have been waged on the other side of the House. As the Prime Minister has made clear, the current HECS system is going to be maintained. The cabinet has also decided that the current levels and arrangements for tuition subsidies and the allocation of places between universities will also be maintained. So this reveals the emptiness of the campaign run by the Labor Party, and I believe universities will welcome the offer that has been made by the government to support the current salary round.1171911719Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister, and it follows his statement in answer to my first question. Let us get a bit more detail about this. Will the Prime Minister rule out applying a real rate of interest to the existing HECS scheme?11719Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—We have no intention of changing the existing scheme.1171911719Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer inform the House how the government's reforms to capital gains tax will benefit Australians, including those who have purchased Telstra shares? How will today's sale of Telstra further improve Australia's debt position?11719Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Sturt for his question. Members of the House will be pleased to know that, as a result of the government's plan to give ordinary Australians an opportunity to take out shares in Telstra, around two-thirds of the offer has been allocated to retail investors and 87 per cent of retail applications received the shares that they requested in full. I think members of the House would want to pay tribute to the work of the Minister for Finance and Administration in overseeing this great privatisation initiative. The first instalment of $4.50 was paid on application, and a final instalment of $2.90 will be paid on 2 November 2000.I saw in the paper at the weekend numbers of young Australians talking about this exciting opportunity. The Sunday Age quoted Natalie Edwards of Glen Iris, 16 years of age, as saying:. . . I thought it would be a good investment to buy some this time as an investment for my future.Isn't that a great thing for a 16-year-old? Tim Masher, aged 20, a client services adviser, said:. . . I wanted to start a portfolio for the future and I thought they were the best one to start off with.Simon Wall, a university student from Mosman in Sydney, said:I'm doing it as a learning experience to find out how the sharemarket operates . . . R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—Another battler from Mosman.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Isn't it great to see young Australians starting to save? We hear the socialist left interjecting on this, but even the Leader of the Opposition today wished the float well. He said at a doorstop, `I wish the float well. I'm opposed to it, you know, but I wish it well.' With respect to all of the Telstra employees who have taken up shares, we also think that is a wonderful thing for investing in the future.As a result of this privatisation of Telstra, over 43 per cent of Australians own shares directly or indirectly, which is the highest level of share ownership in the world. With the government's capital gains tax changes, those 43 per cent of Australians will get a cut in the capital gains tax under the coalition. But, if the Labor Party had its way and blocked cuts in capital gains tax, the 43.3 per cent of Australians who own shares in this country would be worse off.I say to those members of the Labor Party who went around after the last election saying that they had missed aspirational politics, do not miss the bus this time. Do not let the ACTU presidents get away with blocking capital gains tax cuts and say after the next election, `We missed the opportunity again.' Now is the opportunity to support the government on capital gains tax cuts—43.3 per cent of Australians now own shares directly or indirectly, and 43.3 per cent of Australians stand to benefit under the government's far-reaching capital gains tax changes.In addition, the float of this 16 per cent equity will give another $16 billion to retire debt—$16 billion off the nation's debt. We can reach our goal of 10 per cent debt to GDP ratios by 2000-01. We can give Australians a stake in the future. We can cut the capital gains tax, and we can give this country the opportunity that it deserves.1172011720Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. I refer the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party to the coalition's 1998 election commitment that the government would not fully privatise Telstra until after an independent inquiry into Telstra's service levels. Do you and the National Party stand by the Minister for Finance and Administration's statement yesterday that the government still intends to fully privatise Telstra and would consider that in the coming months? Or do you remain committed to an independent inquiry into Telstra's service levels, particularly in rural and regional Australia, prior to consideration of any further sale?11720Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The government's position in relation to the further sale of Telstra is well known, and I have nothing to add to that.Opposition members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—Your unbelievable hypocrisy in this matter knows no bounds. The really important point here is that the coalition has put in place effective guidelines for the maintenance of services and for the universal service obligation. The question of who owns telecommunications services in this country really does not go to the central issue of the delivery of services and the maintenance of those services in rural and regional Australia. That is the real concern that we on this side of the parliament have, and we have addressed it. I do not believe that anything further needs to be added.1172011720Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—My question is also addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. What is the government doing to help ensure a better future for rural, regional and remote communities? How important is it that country people are involved directly in meeting the challenges they face in partnership with government and the business sector? What initiatives is the government undertaking to ensure that this occurs?11720Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. Over most of the last four years now the government has achieved a great deal in terms of giving rural and regional Australia a better platform on which to proceed. The slashing of inflation, together with the fact that we now have interest rates at their lowest levels since the late 1960s and that transport reform, waterfront reform and so forth have all been implemented to a great degree in this country, means that rural and regional Australians have a far firmer foundation upon which to build a future than they had in the past.In addition to this, Mr Speaker, we have provided a very large number of tools—if I can use that term—for rural people to progress their future. Whether it is the $1½ billion that we have now allocated for the Natural Heritage Trust through to Agriculture-Advancing Australia and such innovative programs as Farm Family Restart, whether it is Networking the Nation, the social bonus, the hundreds of millions of dollars provided to help people in rural and regional areas access world-class telecommunications tech nologies, or whether it is such innovative programs as rural transaction centres and putting face-to-face services back in the bush, the fact is that we have made very good progress.As I think all observant people in this House know, the challenges in rural and regional Australia are very real. They are driven by factors such as what now amounts to a full century of declining real prices for agricultural and mineral products, and the massive changes in technology resulting in huge changes in labour markets. Unlike urban areas of Australia and, indeed, other Western countries, the new jobs that are emerging have not been developed to the same degree in rural and regional areas.Next week 230 people, mainly from rural and regional areas across this country—plus a number of keynote and very specialist speakers from this and other countries—will assemble here for a summit to give their perspectives on tackling rural and regional challenges. The aims of that summit will be to develop a national appreciation of the challenges facing regional Australia and to deepen that appreciation; to gather ideas on how those challenges can be met; and to identify the roles that each of the partners play, including each level of government, the business and the community sectors as well as rural and regional Australians themselves. The themes of the workshops will include communications; infrastructure; health; community wellbeing and lifestyle; local, state and federal government; finance and facilitating entrepreneurship; value adding to regional communities and their industries; new industries and new opportunities; community and industry leadership; education and training; philanthropy and partnerships; and sustainable resource management.There will be a hotline operating from Wednesday of this week until the end of the summit. It is a solutions line for people in rural and regional Australia—and others for that matter—who may want to put forward innovative ideas. I would encourage people to consult with my office if they want to circularise those numbers in their electorates or whatever. This is about building the most effective partnership possible between this government, which is sympathetic to the needs of rural and regional Australia, and the other players as we all seek to find innovative, forward looking solutions that maximise the potential of our existing industries and help us also attract as many as possible new sources of investment and jobs in rural, regional and remote Australia.1172111721Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question without notice is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of paragraph 6(b) of Dr Kemp's cabinet submission which recommends `a universal tuition subsidy which follows the student', which Dr Kemp claims is not a voucher? Prime Minister, will you now rule out a universal tuition subsidy?11721Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I call the Prime Minister.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I have answered it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I fear that my call to the Prime Minister meant that his answer was lost in the call.Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—I've said I rule it out.1172111721Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Will the minister advise the House how funds from the Natural Heritage Trust are helping to address natural resource degradation?11721Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the member for Hume, who raises this very important issue of natural resource degradation and, in so doing, points to the only government that has ever devoted significant resources to addressing the issue. The Natural Heritage Trust, which is funded from some of the proceeds of the sale of Telstra, has enabled the most significant programs to address environmental degradation in the history of our nation. The sum of $1.25 billion was provided from the first sale of Telstra, and now another $250 million will be available as a result of the second tranche in the sale of Telstra.That will bring to $1.5 billion the amount of money that is available for this particular work. The extra $250 million will enable the continuation of funding for things like bush care, river care, land care, coast care, the Murray-Darling 2001 strategy and a host of other environmental programs which have touched almost every community in Australia, particularly those in rural electorates like the electorate of Hume.This money has also been put to very good effect in capital cities and in urban environments where there is so much work that also needs to be done to help improve our environment and ensure that we pass to future generations a country not damaged by our presence.There are particular concerns about dryland salinity. The Prime Minister's Science, Engineering and Innovation Council in its review of dryland salinity again addressed a number of issues that need to be considered by the government. On Friday this week I expect to release the Murray-Darling Basin Commission's salinity audit, which will cover that very significant part of Australia which produces a significant proportion of our national wealth and where salinity is a growing problem. That report will also help identify some of the issues but, more importantly, the solutions—solutions which simply would not have been possible under the previous Labor government's regime of talking about environmental issues but effectively doing nothing. This government has provided the funds through the Natural Heritage Trust—through the proceeds of the part sale of Telstra—and that has meant a real difference for Australia's environment.1172211722Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE MG4DobellALP00—My question is again addressed to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister now absolutely rule out any real increase in university fees?11722Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I make it clear that the cabinet has considered this matter and we have absolutely no intention of altering present arrangements.1172211722Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—My question is to the Minister for Sport and Tourism. Given that it is one year until the opening of the Sydney Paralympic Games, could the minister advise the House of the Commonwealth's contribution to making the 2000 Paralympic Games the most successful yet?11722Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPSport and Tourism; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—I thank the honourable member for drawing the attention of the House to the fact that there are 12 months to go before the opening ceremony of the Paralympic Games in Sydney. That event will be bigger than the Commonwealth Games and is one of the largest sporting events after the Olympic Games. It tends to be a bit overshadowed by the Olympic Games, but let us not forget that ticket prices are very reasonable. It is going to be a magnificent event.Australia has some outstanding paralympian athletes, such as John Maclean from my own electorate, who has swum the English Channel and who has competed in the Hawaiian iron-man championships. He in fact completed that event within the able-bodied person's time, so he is also trialling for a position in the Paralympic Games. Many people in this House have athletes in their electorates who aspire to compete in the Paralympic Games.The federal government is right behind this event, making sure it is one of the best ever events that Australia has hosted and the very best ever event in the history of the Paralympic Games. In fact, our very own Tim Fischer, the member for Farrer, is the mayor of the Paralympic Village. In addition, we are contributing $5.5 million to assist in the team's preparation for the games and this is the most significant contribution ever to our paralympians. It will ensure a larger team than we had in the 1996 Atlanta Paralympic Games where Australia was second in the medal tally. At those games America, which finished first, had the home ground advantage. We are hoping to have the home ground advantage here in Australia by the federal government assisting over 40,000 Australian students right across Australia to come to the games and be involved in the Elite Athlete Program. We are also providing $25 million to the Sydney Paralympic Organising Committee to help meet the projected deficit from staging the games. They are an important event, and I am sure they enjoy the support of the entire House.1172311723Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, weren't your undertakings to the Australian electorate on higher education in place when you and your cabinet instructed Dr Kemp on 28 June to present his submission with a preferred option to introduce vouchers, deregulate fees and replace HECS with a loan based on a real rate of interest? Why are your undertakings now any more believable than they were prior to your instruction to him? Is this another `never ever' promise?11723Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The position is that we made undertakings. Those undertakings have been observed. Those undertakings will be observed. I know that the Leader of the Opposition is disappointed that he has not been able to get a bit more traction out of this issue. But the situation remains that the government went to the last election with certain commitments regarding the maintenance of the HECS system. That commitment remains. We went to the last election with certain commitments that we would not introduce HECS charges for TAFE courses. That commitment remains. We have no intention of introducing a loans scheme with a real or indeed any other rate of interest. That is not our policy.I would remind the parliament of what I said last week—that is, the number of people going to universities is at a record level under this government. Thanks to the guidance and the policies of the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs—a minister who brings to his portfolio a better understanding of these issues than any of his predecessors on the other side of the parliament—we have seen not only an enhancement of the number of opportunities for young Australians to go to university but also a renaissance in the apprenticeship and training system of this country. If ever there were a group of young Australians who were left for dead by the Australian Labor Party, it was those people who wanted blue-collar trades and apprenticeships. You left them for dead. You were meant to represent them in the parliament but, when it actually came to the allocation of the dollars and the policy vision, the sons and daughters of the working people of Australia were left for dead by the Australian Labor Party. The apprenticeship system and the traineeship system languished under Labor, and it has taken a coalition minister to revive the apprenticeship and traineeship system of this country. I pay a great compliment to the minister for the work that he has done in this area, as I do for the work that he has done in relation to tackling the problem of literacy and numeracy in Australian schools. We gave undertakings before the last election. Those undertakings remain. Those undertakings will be honoured in full.1172311723Washer, Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Can the minister detail to the House what will happen to the Kosovars remaining in Australia after 30 October?11723Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the member for Moore for his question. Members would be aware that of the 3,900 Kosovars who came to Australia fewer than 500 are expected to remain here after their current visas expire on 30 October. I have been visiting the remaining safe haven centres personally. I have been emphasising to the Kosovars the importance of considering their position at this time. It will be recalled by honourable members that they agreed to come to Australia at the request of the UNHCR on a temporary basis in order to ensure that others might not have been denied the opportunity to enter camps in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. It was a prospect that the borders could have been closed. It was also a prospect of course that, if arrangements were other than temporary, one could say that ethnic cleansing had had a successful outcome for those who were implementing it.The UNHCR says now that Kosovo is sufficiently secure for most Kosovars to be able to return home. Hostilities have ceased and KFOR has established security, and basic services such as water and electricity have been restored to most areas in the region. It is obvious that Kosovars who are here should, if they were thinking of their own interests, take advantage of the winter reconstruction allowance that has been offered by Australia and which ceases on 30 October. That was $3,000 per adult and $500 per child.I have been asked what should happen at 30 October. It is my intention to renew the visas for one month and to review the matters thereafter on a regular basis. I will continue to discuss the situation with UNHCR, but one should not assume that these arrangements will go on. Of course, the legal situation is that, if people remain in Australia after visas have expired, there is an obligation upon my department to detain them and to remove them from Australia. I do not think anybody would want it to come to that situation, but you have to look at what the ultimate outcome would be if you are maintaining a temporary regime.There may be individual cases that warrant special consideration. I have never denied that. Each case would have to be considered on its merits. To date—and I emphasise that it is only to date—I have not seen any compelling reasons which I think would warrant a grant of refugee status. Those who have advanced reasons such as people having lost their homes or perhaps having little to return to should recognise that there are 23 million displaced people around the world, many of whom have lost their homes in earthquakes, storms and in other very difficult situations. The expectation is that the international community would seek to assist, as Australia has, with the rebuilding of people's homes in situations of safety and security.That is the situation that I have explained to the Kosovars—that it is not a question of if they return home but really a question of when. It is appropriate that the message be supported. One would not want to see people leaving in circumstances that do not recognise that this was a humanitarian gesture. But those whose circumstances of safety and security enable them to return home should not be taking places that would otherwise be available through our refugee and humanitarian program, and that would be the result if we were to acquiesce to the request of those who simply find it too difficult at this time.1172411724Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Does the minister know the names of the regional campuses the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs believes are at risk and the names of any regional universities among the eight which are operating at a deficit? Minister, if the Prime Minister has said that he has no intention of changing the present arrangements, what steps will you be taking to secure the future of these regional universities and campuses?11724Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I am aware of one or two of the regional universities in particular that have had a rough run in recent years. I do not think there is anything whatsoever to be gained by naming them in this place—I really do not. I am surprised that you would ask me to do that to those universities. Insofar as those regional universities are concerned, I simply say to you that with our interest in and concern for rural and regional Australia we will address the particular concerns of those in the budgetary and cabinet methodology in the normal way we would.1172411724Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Minister, given the concerns that have existed in the past regarding the introduction of the Electronic Travel Authority, could you advise the House of the success of its introduction, the countries it now covers and the percentage of visas that are now issued by this means?11724Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for Cook for his question. I know that the member is involved with the joint committee that deals with immigration matters and has had a longstanding interest in the issue of visaing arrangements. The Electronic Travel Authority, the ETA, is the most advanced and streamlined travel authority system in the world. It is a system by which electronically stored authorities to travel to Australia are issued. In 1998-99, something of the order of 2.3 million ETAs were issued to short-term tourist and business visitors, representing over 75 per cent of all visitor grants to Australia. Over five million have been issued to date.These arrangements were first introduced in September 1996, so they are of very recent origin. They were introduced for Singapore on that date, and they are now available to passport holders from 31 countries and locations. These include the majority of Australia's high volume, low risk tourist markets, including Singapore, the United States of America, Japan, the United Kingdom, western Europe, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Malaysia. It is important to recognise that the extension of the electronic travel authority is on the basis of economies being compliant markets—that is, that people come to Australia and that they observe the intentions stated in their visa arrangements. The electronic travel authority is a form of visa in that sense. It is not evidenced in a paper form—it is electronic—but it does fulfil many of the requirements that other countries operating visa fee arrangements see as being equivalent.In that context, it is a system which enables us to quickly check people's bona fides, particularly in relation to character issues. However, where there are other matters that ought to be addressed, it is still necessary in some places for people to apply for a paper visa in the normal way where additional inquiries can be undertaken. The governments of France, Spain, the United States of America, Japan and Korea have now extended visa waiver arrangements because they see the very significant advantages that come from the ETA system. It is a better system because it means that people arrive in Australia authorised to enter and do not face the sorts of problems that occur in some places where those inquiries are made when you actually arrive at the gate. That is what happens with visa waiver arrangements.I noticed that just last week another young Australian was being returned from the United Kingdom because they went with some references in their kit and the questions that we would ask at the time when the ETA is dealt with were being asked at the gate, and the passenger was turned back to Australia. For travellers coming to Australia, the electronic travel authority is a better system because it enables people to enter faster, but it also ensures the maintenance of effective border control for Australia where we can determine, in our own interests, who is able to come. We do so in the context of looking very much at people's bona fides—to determine where it will apply and where other arrangements might be more appropriate.1172511725Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Do you recollect Dr Kemp's judgment in the submission that you instructed him to prepare that `higher student staff ratios, less frequent lecture and tutorial contact, the persistence of outdated technology and gaps in key areas of professional preparation', including practical skills development, are `fuelling a perception of declining quality' in our higher education system? What do you intend to do about it?11725Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I recollect a number of things and one of the things that I recollect most vividly, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition, is the decision that the government took this morning in cabinet. That decision, as I already outlined to the House—but I will take the opportunity of doing so again—is to maintain the existing arrangements. That means, in particular, a clear rejection of vouchers for post-secondary education, a clear rejection of the deregulation of university fees and any introduction of HECS for TAFE courses, the maintenance of the current level of tuition subsidies and HECS exemption arrangements, the retention of the current processes for agreeing to the number of government funded places and the retention of the prohibition on charging fees for HECS liable places.They are the arrangements that underpin the existing system and that guarantee the realisation of the aspiration of middle Australia for their children to be educated in universities. That has been, and remains, the commitment of this government. We are a government that believes in affordable tertiary education for Australian children. We are also a government that believes in giving parental choice in relation to secondary education—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order and it goes to relevance. I took a quote which presents a situation of declining quality—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am familiar with the quote.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—major problems, higher student staff ratios, less frequent lecture and tutorial contact, et cetera.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I noted the question.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I asked the Prime Minister what he intended to do about it. Thus far, we have heard nothing, and he has gone off into a deviation about secondary education.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is no way that I can rule the Prime Minister as being anything other than relevant to the question and responding to the question of what he intends to do about higher education standards. I invite him to continue.ZD4Mr HOWARD—This is a government that remains very committed in the provision of quality education to Australian children at all levels: primary, secondary and tertiary. That is why we committed ourselves to such strong support for literacy and numeracy. One of the issues that has been identified in this debate—by the vice-chancellors, the minister and all those who have carefully followed the debate—is the problem of salary arrangements within universities. The Leader of the Opposition has obviously read the transcript of my interview with Neil Mitchell. He will be aware that I made the observation in that interview that I thought, judging by community standards and given the sorts of responsibilities that academics had, there was an argument to say that many academic staff in Australia were not as well remunerated as they might have been. I have said that before—and I do not in any way walk away from saying it—but I would say to the universities and the vice-chancellors that there is a quid pro quo in that. If you want greater salary justice, you have to reform your industrial relations system. You cannot, on the one hand, say, `We want greater salary justice for academics; we want our professors and senior lecturers—Mr Tanner interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne is warned.ZD4Mr HOWARD—to be paid according to the responsibility they carry,' but still continue to embrace Neanderthal industrial relations practices, to allow yourselves to become the victims of pattern bargaining, to maintain some outdated notions and to reject Australian workplace arrangements—in other words, to hang on to an old-fashioned industrial relations system that you expect the federal Treasury to underwrite. The essence of what the minister has announced today is, `Yes, we are prepared to give financial help to the universities in relation to their salary problem but only if they are prepared to put their industrial relations house in order.' The ball is in their court. If they fix the industrial relations, we will make the additional money that Dr Kemp indicated available.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask that the Prime Minister table the document from which he quoted in the course of that answer.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—It is clearly marked `In confidence'.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister was quoting from a confidential document.1172611726Bailey, Fran, MPMs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—My question is to the Minister for Employment Services. Could the minister advise the House how the government is utilising new technology to promote employment opportunities for the unemployed? What evidence is there that this strategy is working?11726Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I thank the member for McEwen for her question, for her concern for job seekers in her electorate and for the rather arduous journey she recently took me on to visit them. I am pleased to let the House know how technology is helping job seekers thanks to the efforts of my department. Three years ago, a visitor to an office of the old Commonwealth Employment Service would have been confronted by an array of noticeboards advertising perhaps 200 or 300 local jobs. Today, any visitor to Centrelink has access to over 60,000 jobs around the nation, thanks to the Australian Job Search database produced by my department. Through a network of 2,000 touch screens in Centrelink offices and over 500 touch screens in Job Network member offices, job seekers have access to a national database which is now three times larger than anything ever available from the old CES. I am advised that every day there are 400,000 job searches through these touch screens. This site is also available through the Internet, and I am advised that every day there are 100,000 job searches through the Net. I am further advised that jobsearch.gov.au is the most visited employment site in Australia, and I am further told by the excellent Bulletin magazine that, on the 16th day of last month, the departmental Job Search site was the eighth most visited Australian site overall.What began as an electronic noticeboard has now become a virtual labour market. In March, the government introduced a lodge-a-job facility enabling employers to lodge vacancies directly on the Net. In August, the government launched a lodge-a-resume facility enabling job seekers to put their details directly on the Net without any intermediary and enabling employers to search these resumes without any intermediary. All these services are absolutely free. Thanks to these technological innovations, job seekers can make themselves known to potential employers anywhere in the world and employers have immediate electronic access to a national pool of talent. The government is not going to stop there. I am advised that, early in the new year, we will be giving job seekers access to future job trends on the Net. I would like to congratulate my department for their constantly innovative approach to getting more jobs for more Australians. 1172711727Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you recollect Dr Kemp's further judgment in the submission you instructed him to present after his description of declining quality that we read out in the last question where he said, `Essentially we face a choice: shoring up the existing system as it becomes progressively less capable of delivering what the government wants, industry needs and the community expects, or putting in place a new system, albeit with controversial elements'? Which of these two options have you chosen?11727Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have made our position very clear. I have spelt it out on about four occasions, and I think even the Leader of the Opposition has now absorbed it.1172711727Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Can the minister inform the House what steps the government is taking to prepare farmers and small businesses in rural and regional Australia for the introduction of the GST and other related reforms to the taxation system?11727Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I would be happy to tell the member for Hinkler and indeed the House something about the government's campaign to ensure that all Australians, including farmers, are aware of the processes that will be involved in the introduction of the new tax system so that they are familiar with the new GST arrangements and are able to take advantage of the new tax system and all that it offers. The government will be spending around $15 million over the next year to support farm organisations to deliver tax system information to farmers. Around 150,000 copies of this information booklet are being distributed to farmers so that they have the basic information they need to prepare for the introduction of the new system on 1 July next year. This booklet will tell them about how to register, details about which products are GST free, which ones are input taxed, information about the new tax system and the new diesel fuel rebate arrangements—the sorts of things that farmers will need to plan their businesses for the new tax system. In addition, there will be a detailed reference book, audio tapes, a video, CD-ROMs and even materials on an Internet site, all to be made available over the next few weeks.Industry specific seminars have already begun in Tasmania, and in Victoria there was a state-wide satellite hook-up last week which I understand involved over 4,000 farmers. The Queensland Farmers Federation will be coordinating this campaign in Queensland, and similar organisations in other states will take responsibility for ensuring that the information is available to farmers so that they can plan early for the new tax system. May I take this opportunity to encourage farmers and indeed others in the community not to just put aside the need to plan for the new tax system. I know it is still some months to 1 July, but it will not be good enough to start making plans on the eve of that day for how the new system will work. I would encourage farmers, even though I know they are very busy and they have lots of other things on their minds, to take the time to attend some of these seminars so that they can plan early and be ready for when the new tax system arrives on 1 July.1172811728Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question without notice is to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, isn't it the case that your first attempt to privatise Australia's universities has failed and the Prime Minister has put on hold all the major proposals contained in your cabinet submission? Hasn't he put on hold your plan to abolish HECS, to deregulate fees and to introduce vouchers? Minister, didn't you also fail on the Job Network, forcing the Prime Minister to sack you from the Employment portfolio? Didn't you also fail when your own backbench rolled you—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell will come to his question.MG4Mr LEE—on the VSU proposal? Minister, having failed on three successive occasions, will you now resign or are you going to hang around to have another go next year?SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—That is out of order.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—If you don't like a question, we won't have it, eh?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It is not a question whether or not I like a question; it is a question of whether or not it fits within the context of the standing orders, particularly standing order 144. I refer the House to standing order 144 and the fact that questions may not contain arguments, inferences or imputations. I felt that question was certainly ripe with imputations and I do not think it therefore necessary for the minister to respond.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, a number of points of order arise from your ruling but I would like to raise just one initially with you. What is it that you are suggesting this question imputed? Imputation is a reference of motive. What on earth is the imputation which you are purporting to read into a question which stated some facts and asked the minister for a response?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I ruled the question out of order on the grounds not only of what it imputed but also, as I said in my earlier statement, of what it inferred as well. I felt that the question first advanced argument, as the member for Dobell largely recognised when I called his attention to the fact that he had to come to the question—MG4LEEMr Lee—How did I do that?10000Mr SPEAKER—and not advance the argument, and that it was therefore not appropriate for the question to stand as it was.Dissent from Ruling1172814:56:0011728Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I move:That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.To get this clear, we need to go through the question that was asked on this matter. After all that we have heard from our political opponents when they have got up and asked their dorothy dixers on the economy, their dorothy dixers to secure a view from their ministers on what they think about opposition policy, their dorothy dixers to their spokesperson on the Job Network and after the Leader of the House's effort to deprive me of an audience on their side lest they become even more uncomfortable than they are with their wretched performance over the course of the last week, I would have thought that, with one question after another containing imputations, epithets and allusions as the government goes through its exercise of never-ending paeans of self-praise when it comes to dealing with issues before the parliament that they find convenient to answer, the question from the member for Dobell was a paragon of politeness, rectitude, mildness and general good behaviour within the framework of standing orders.DT4CREANMr Crean—Read it out.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Before I read this question out, as I am sure you all agree with that analysis, I think it is necessary to go further into the process which has led us to this question—the three days of questioning that we have had so far which has seen backing and filling from the government. On the one hand, they come up saying yes, there will be vouchers; yes, there will be a $100,000 university fee on offer; yes, we have a university system in total decline; and yes, we have regional campuses closing. Then we had the Prime Minister saying, `Well, we will rule out deregulating fees, but we will not rule out interest bearing loans,' and we had the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs getting up and saying, `We will not be having vouchers, but we will have fully transferable subsidies attached to students.' We went through one mendacious performance after another.Mr Sidebottom interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I remind the member for—SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker—Honourable members interjecting—10000Beazley, Kim, MPMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Forestry and Conservation will resume his seat. The member for Fowler, the member for Hunter—Mr Adams interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lyons. If the member for Lyons has a point of order, he is an occupier of the chair and must at least know that shouting instructions from a seated position is not in accord with the standing orders. I was interrupting the Leader of the Opposition to draw the attention of the member for Braddon to the fact that he is not in his seat and his interjections therefore made it obligatory for the chair to intervene. I call the Minister for Forestry and Conservation on a point of order.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—The simple point is that this is a dissent motion to your ruling. The Leader of the Opposition must address that in the context of the question and, what is more, not use it as an extra opportunity to make a speech.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I understand, but obviously the Leader of the Opposition was indicating that he felt that the question that had been asked had some validity and could stand, and was backgrounding the question. It was in that context that I had not interrupted his dissent.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As I said, this question follows, I think, 30-odd questions in the course of the last three sitting days which have established with absolute clarity that, firstly, there was a cabinet submission put in place, under the instructions of the Prime Minister and his fellow cabinet ministers, which manifestly breached election undertakings.Mr Martin interjecting—Mr O'Connor interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members on my left are currently taking up a great of deal of time that would normally be allocated to the Leader of the Opposition.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker, I raise a further point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 144, which surely, in the circumstances, must be the grounds for the Leader of the Opposition's dissent motion. It is of course:Questions cannot be debated.Questions should not contain—(a) statements of fact or names of persons unless they are strictly necessary to render the question intelligible and can be authenticated; 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Forestry and Conservation will come to his point of order.Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hunter is warned!SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—The particular standing order goes on to say:(b) arguments;(c) inferences;(d) imputations;(e) epithets;(f) ironical expressions; or(g) hypothetical matter.Questions should not ask Ministers—(a) for an expression of opinion;(b) to announce the government's policy—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister must come to his point of order.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—The point of order is that I am drawing your attention, Sir, to the issues which the Leader of the Opposition should address in dissenting from your ruling. He is not doing that. He is trying to give some history of the questions that have been asked previously. That is not grounds on which he can dissent from your ruling—quite properly given.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have already ruled on the point of order and indicated that the Leader of the Opposition was in fact indicating why he felt the question was valid. I have every confidence that he will come to standing order 144.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—It is very necessary, in order for me to demonstrate that this does not contain unnecessary statements of fact or names of persons or arguments, inferences or imputations, because this is not a stand-alone question. It has followed three most extraordinary sitting days and effectively summarises the failure of the particular minister in the form of entirely legitimate questions.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I would point out to the Leader of the Opposition that he has an obligation to indicate the failure of the Speaker in this instance, not of the minister.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—If I am correct in my view, Mr Speaker, then of course your ruling is incorrect. That is why I am making that argument in favour of this particular dissent motion.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I understand.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—So we come to the question that summarises the affairs of the last three days. He asked Dr Kemp this question: `Minister, isn't it the case that your first attempt to privatise Australia's universities has failed and the Prime Minister has put on hold all the major proposals in your cabinet submission?' I would have had just a bit of a feeling, having listened to the Prime Minister for the previous nine questions, that there was a substantial chance that the answer to that question was yes, and that it would be very difficult to formulate that question any other way: `Minister, isn't it the case that your first attempt to privatise Australia's universities has failed?' That is what the submission was about. This is not an unfair characterisation. This is not unnecessary information or information unnecessary to the question. All of this was information entirely appropriate to the question. That is precisely what the submission is about. It is about privatising Australia's universities, and therefore that question contained neither arguments, inferences, imputations nor statements of fact—statements of fact that were not necessary to establishing the case. Then he asked: `Hasn't he put on hold your plans to abolish HECS?' The cabinet submission had, as we clearly established, plans in it to abolish HECS. What, therefore, in this question is a product of argument, inferences or imputations? It is simply a question: `Hasn't he put on hold your plans to abolish HECS?' I would have thought it was entirely reasonable and within the framework of standing orders. `Hasn't he put on hold your plan to deregulate fees?' I would have thought we established, pretty clearly, early in this the deregulation of fees—contrary to the promises and undertakings by the Liberal Party at the last election, and despite those promises and undertakings and the Prime Minister's protestations today, massively breached by the cabinet submission that was put in place. We asked the simple question, having heard the Prime Minister today: `Hasn't he put on hold your plan to deregulate fees?' What in that contains argument, inferences, imputations, `statements of fact or names of persons unless they are strictly necessary to render the question intelligible'? If we did not actually ask: `Hasn't he put on hold your plans to deregulate fees?' I would have thought the question would not be intelligible. We do have to have words like that, Wilson. You actually do have to have a few words like that if you are going to be able to find out the answer.Then he went on, `Hasn't he put on hold your plan to introduce vouchers?' We do recollect that, don't we, over the course of the last couple of question times? The vouchers that were not vouchers. The vouchers that dare not speak their name. The vouchers that were not vouchers but were in fact subsidies attached to particular students. We had the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs saying, `Yes, we'll be doing that,' and emphatically these are the arguments why in his cabinet submission. And then we had the Prime Minister saying, `Well, maybe he can do that,' in the course of his remarks on 3AW. And then we heard the Prime Minister, as we went line by line through what he would regard as his surrender document, which he would not table—remember, he described his surrender document as confidential; this is the first confidential surrender in human history—SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition, having addressed the question, has suddenly gone off into a matter of history. He must come back to his dissent motion.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Forestry and Conservation will—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Every government needs its useful idiots, and this is one of them. I withdraw that. Now what in that constitutes:(a) statements of facts or names of persons unless they are strictly necessary to render the question intelligible and can be authenticated;(b) arguments;(c) inferences; (d) imputations...I cannot find any in that particularly simple question:. . . hasn't he put on hold your plan to . . . introduce vouchers?Then he goes on to delve into some past history:. . . didn't you also fail on the Job Network, forcing the Prime Minister to sack you from the employment portfolio?That does contain a number of facts. That is true. So the question arises: are the facts unnecessary in relation to an answer to the question or seeking the information? This part possibly is in breach of (a). We have got down to that point, so let us look at it a bit more closely, to make absolutely certain that it does not contain:(a) statements of facts or names of persons unless they are strictly necessary to render the question intelligible and can be authenticated...;It says here:. . . the Prime Minister to sack you from the employment portfolio?I think we can authenticate that. If you go to the front of any Daily Hansard , you will see a ministry list. If you go to the ministry list prior to the last election, you will find that the responsibilities related to employment have been removed from this minister's responsibilities. It is rather like the way in which higher education seems to have been removed from it as well. We well may ask tomorrow what the minister is actually doing with his life at this stage of the game. But it goes on:Minister, didn't you also fail on the Job Network . . . That was the reason, of course, why he was sacked, so I do not think it is unnecessary information in relation to the question that was asked. Therefore, I would have thought that this certainly was fine as far as the standing orders are concerned. This minister comprehensively failed on the Job Network, which was the reason he was removed. Then he goes on:Minister, didn't you also fail when your own backbench rolled you—on your ideological crusade? Perhaps the expression `ideological crusade' might start to get within the framework of a difficulty with standing orders but, since we had already got out five of these questions as reasonable within the framework of the standing orders, I think a mild deviation on question six might have been permitted without the entire question having been ruled out of order. Even so, it was a reasonably presented proposition, despite the words `ideological crusade,' which might be regarded as an epithet or imputation, because the rest of it stands completely appropriately:. . . didn't you also fail when your own backbench rolled you . . . We do have evidence of that. We can authenticate that the backbench rolled him at the time. Indeed, we had Mr Katter out there in public, proclaiming how devastating this proposition would be out there in the community generally and how devastating it would be for regional universities if this were knocked out. So I would concede now—in what has been a question of some 40 or 50 words in length—a problem thus far with two words in the entirety of this question. Then we come down to the final part of the question:. . . having failed on three successive occasions, will you now resign or are you going to hang around to have another go—at your higher education agenda—next year?What is wrong with that? I would have thought that was an entirely reasonable question to ask of a minister. We have had the minister up there for three days now, in full flight and pomp on the first couple of days in the censure motions that were moved on him, telling us what a tragic situation he was confronted with in the universities of this country and how absolutely it had to be fixed by the measures that he was putting forward.You have no alternatives—indeed, his cabinet submission says—Either you do the things that I suggest or, if you fail to do the things that I suggest, then what will persist is a situation in which eight regional campuses are at risk and several likely to collapse in which there is a higher education system marked by higher staff-student ratios, less frequent lecturer and tutorial contact, the persistence of outdated technology— SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Again, the Leader of the Opposition has been granted the proper courtesies of this place—until he rushes off and starts reading from something he authenticated the other day and obviously also stole—but the fact of life is that he has to stick to the standing orders.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition may have been ranging a little wider than he intended in the dissent motion, and I invite him to come back to it.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I revise the description to `useless idiots', in this case. I withdraw that.It continues:and gaps in key areas of professional preparation, including skills development.So the question:. . . having failed on three—SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker, I raised a point of order on the responsibilities that apply to all members of parliament in this type of debate. What the Leader of the Opposition has been doing does not comply, and he should be brought back to the dissent motion.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I did, in fact, draw the Leader of the Opposition's attention to that, and he acknowledged that point. I invite him now to return to the motion of dissent.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—So we come to the question of his having had three massive failures. Objectively, when you look at the record of this minister in relation to the Job Network, the VSU and the issues contained in his higher education portfolio, on which we have now asked 30 questions in the course of the past three days, we are entitled to include that in a question. Particularly bear in mind that we frequently get from the other side questions to ministers asking for endorsement, effectively, of the notion of success of one policy or another and that the occasions are many when we hear dorothy dixers, where a member gets up and asks the Treasurer to explain to us the outstanding success of this, that or the other. Having heard those questions day in, day out, we are entitled to ask a question based on the precedents associated with the operation of these standing orders.The standing orders are, as well as the letter of the standing orders, the precedents associ ated with them. I think we are entitled to ask, `Having had three massive failures, will you now resign or are you going to hang around to have another go at your higher education agenda next year?' This is a legitimate question in the circumstances in which we have a Prime Minister who broke a never ever promise on the GST and has now delivered a never ever promise as far as the education system is concerned. He says never ever on vouchers, never ever on deregulating fees, never ever on a subsidy dragged from one to the other place.And now we are entitled to ask—and be within standing orders—`In the light of that failure, are you going to resign?' Give or take the odd word—and only the odd word—this was a question completely within standing orders as they are written and completely within standing orders as precedent has established them.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?15:16:0011733Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Yes. Question time is our chance to hold the government accountable. Question time is the opposition's chance to hold this government accountable. Question time is the Australian people's opportunity to hold David Kemp, Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, accountable for his words in this House and his deeds back in that room, the dark dungeon cellar in MG61. The point we make is that this question is a fair attempt to hold the government and the minister accountable for their actions. If questions like this are struck down—WI4REITHMr Reith—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member attempts to mount his argument on a false premise. He is only entitled to raise before you questions which go to your ruling, not to policy issues or the alleged accountability of the minister. On that basis, he should be required—R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—Under what standing order?WI4REITHMr Reith—It is on a standing order which says that it ought to be relevant to the motion which is before the chair. That is my point, too, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell has the call. I ask him to confine his remarks more closely to the censure of the chair.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Mr Speaker, my argument was absolutely confined to the censure.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will determine how closely it is confined.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—After 30 questions to a minister of the Crown, on behalf of the Australian public we have the right to put these questions to Dr Kemp. We have the right to insist that this minister be held accountable for the things that he says and the things that he has done. And that is what this question goes to. I say to my colleagues that, after a series of 30 questions over three sitting days, we are entitled to put to the minister whether he is actually still standing and whether he should be required to resign.The question went to the very nub of this argument. The question actually put to the minister was: `Isn't it the case that your first attempt to privatise Australia's universities has failed?' How could that be challenged as a legitimate question, Mr Speaker? The minister clearly had a proposal to privatise Australia's universities. He clearly had a plan to deregulate university fees, to bring in vouchers and real rates of interest for loans. That clearly would have resulted in the privatisation of Australia's universities. It also would have meant that Australian parents of students would have had to choose whether they would pay up to $100,000 to send their children to university.So we are entitled to ask, `Minister, isn't it the case that your first attempt to privatise Australia's universities has failed?' It has clearly failed. It would have been legitimate to put that question to the minister, because it is quite obvious that the Prime Minister cut him off at the knees here today. It was quite legitimate for us to ask the minister whether his attempt to privatise Australia's universities had failed, because it clearly has failed.The question we still have is whether the minister is going to continue attempting to privatise Australia's universities. So we are trying in the subsequent parts of the question to force the minister to admit that he failed. We put to the minister the question of whether he had failed in his plans to abolish HECS. It is quite clear that he did try to abolish HECS. It is quite clear that he had a cabinet submission that was going to replace HECS with a loans scheme with a real rate of interest. So it was legitimate for us to ask the minister whether he had a plan to abolish HECS.In the same way, we are entitled to ask the minister whether he had a plan to deregulate fees. When we asked that question in this House and tried to hold the minister accountable, and when we tried to hold the government accountable in the House last Wednesday, the minister misled the House. The minister took action which actually led to the House being given incorrect information.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask the member to withdraw that allegation against the minister. He well knows that if you make an allegation of misleading the House you must do so under a substantive motion particularly relevant to this. This is not a censure of the minister. This is a dissent motion against your ruling and, as such, the member must withdraw.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The tradition of—Ms Hall interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I did not know that the member for Shortland had been asked for a ruling, and I did not hear precisely what it was. The tradition of chairs has been that it is unparliamentary to suggest that a minister has deliberately misled the House. They were not the words used by the member for Dobell, because the minister could otherwise have inadvertently misled the House. For that reason, what the member for Dobell has said is not unparliamentary.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Thank you, Mr Speaker. The point we make is that we put to the minister: `Haven't you put on hold your plan to deregulate fees?' It is quite clear that when we put these questions to the minister on Wednesday his answers were quite misleading. The answers could have led a reasonable person sitting in the gallery to believe the very words that the minister and the government were putting to the Australian people last Wednesday when, in fact, there was a secret cabinet submission advocating that the government do the exact opposite. It is for that reason that it was quite legitimate for us to put to the minister the question as to whether he had put on hold his plan to deregulate fees.It was also legitimate for us to put to the minister the question: `Have you put on hold your plan to introduce vouchers?' The reason that was a legitimate question is that the minister claimed on Wednesday and Thursday that the universal tuition subsidy was not a voucher. The minister claimed that he could introduce the universal tuition subsidy that went with students, depending on what institution they were at—whether it was a private or a public university. The minister claimed that that was not a voucher. So it was legitimate for us again to put to the minister the question as to whether or not he had put on hold his plan to introduce vouchers.It was also legitimate for us to go through this minister's recent record. It is legitimate for us to put any question to a minister of the Crown on behalf of the Australian people. Frankly, the Australian people want to remember who the minister responsible for the Job Network fiasco was. The Australian people are entitled to know the answer to this question: `Minister, didn't you also fail on the Job Network, forcing the Prime Minister to sack you from the employment portfolio?' We know that the minister for forests might not want us to remember that David Kemp lost half of his job, but David Kemp has not forgotten. The minister for education remembers who the Prime Minister who took away half of his job was.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the requirement for all members to refer to ministers and others by their title or their electorate, not by their personal name.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I wish to raise another point of order, Mr Speaker, when you have dealt with that one.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Forestry and Conservation makes a valid point, but I have no doubt that it was in the heat of the moment that the member for Dobell was referring to the minister by his surname. I ask him to desist.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I draw your attention to standing order 303 as it relates to the behaviour of the minister for forests. It relates to a member persistently and wilfully disrupting the business of the House—and everybody in this place knows that that is exactly what he is doing and that he is doing it deliberately, if incompetently. It is a breach of standing order 303, and you should deal with him.WI4REITHMr Reith—On that point of order, I put to you that members are entitled to raise certain points of order. I put it to you also that on each and every occasion the minister has raised a matter which is fair and square within the standing orders and that on no reasonable or objective basis could anybody say that any point of order he has raised has not on the face of it been a bona fide and reasonable one.Mrs Irwin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Fowler! It is self-evident that the chair has an obligation to recognise points of order. It is also fair to say that what I have endeavoured to do in the almost 12 months I have occupied the chair is to recognise points of order from both sides without fear or favour. I will, however, act appropriately with people who are simply taking up people's time with points of order.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Thank you for your protection, Mr Speaker. So it is legitimate for us to ask the question: `Minister, didn't you also fail on the Job Network, forcing the Prime Minister to sack you from the employment portfolio?' And he did, Mr Speaker. You know as well as we do that this minister lost half of his job because he stuffed up the Job Network. We are also entitled to ask: `Minister, didn't you also completely fail when your own backbench rolled you in your ideological crusade to introduce voluntary student unionism and to attempt to destroy student unions?' The reason that is a legitimate question is that we know quite well that, in his attempts to destroy student unions, the minister was undermined by members such as the member for Ballarat and others. It is for that reason that we are entitled to ask—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell will come back to the matter before the chair.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—whether or not the minister acknowledges the fact that he was rolled by his backbench in his attempts to bring in voluntary student unionism. After his having failed on the Job Network and on the VSU, having failed in his attempt to deregulate university fees, to abolish HECS and to bring in student loans and a real rate of interest and to introduce vouchers—having failed on all those measures—is it not legitimate for us to ask why this minister should not resign? The minister has been cut off at the knees and he should go. What we say—WI4REITHMr Reith—On a point of order, Mr Speaker, this shadow minister is repeatedly outside the bounds of relevance. He is just taking this as an opportunity for an open debate. If he wants to have an open debate, there are forms of the House; but he is required to keep within the standing orders of the House and the government is entitled to raise a point of order every time he goes beyond the bounds of fair play.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House is in fact correct, and I am sure the member for Dobell knows that the latter part of the statement he made was outside the motion of dissent from the Speaker's ruling, because it implied a censure of the minister.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—As always, we accept your ruling, Mr Speaker, except on this issue, which is why we are moving dissent. The point we make is that we are entitled to ask: shouldn't the minister resign? That was the last question. Because he had had the massive failures on VSU, on the Job Network, on the deregulation of universities, we are entitled to ask: why is he still there?I am sure the people in the galleries this afternoon and the people listening at home must think we are a pretty strange lot here. We have a question time, and you expect ministers to get questions. They do not understand why a question such as this could be ruled out, given that it goes to the very nub of three days of questions—30 questions to the minister for education and to the Prime Minister about these very issues. We in the opposition have tried to hold this minister accountable for a secret plan. We have tried to hold this minister accountable for things that he and the Prime Minister have said in public but on which they have done the opposite in private. The people in the gallery, the students out there attending Australia's universities and the parents listening out there who are going to pay the $100,000 fees want the answers to these questions.83ZIRWINMrs Irwin—They deserve an honest answer.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Fowler.WI4REITHMr Reith—On a point of order, Mr Speaker, these claims and statements by the shadow minister just make the standing orders a complete mockery. The fact is that a dissent motion can only raise matters relevant to the dissent motion. It is quite obvious that they have no intention whatsoever of abiding by the points that you have made.I have been in this situation myself. It is not easy, as I will demonstrate in a moment. It is not new for people to be required to keep within a dissent motion but they are required to do that. All past Speakers have so required and the member for Dobell should be required, in his last few moments, to abide by the standing orders. He is looking to the standing orders on the basis of putting his dissent motion so he should be required to stick with them as he puts his motion.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Motions of dissent from the chair's ruling always put the chair in a difficult position because the chair is not, of course, able to mount its own defence. I am sure everybody in the House understands precisely why the member for Dobell is mounting the case as he is mounting it, and he has an obligation to indicate where anything that the chair has done has frustrated his intent.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Thank you, Mr Speaker. So to the people in the gallery, to the students listening and to the parents who are listening and who are worried about having to pay up to $100,000 to send their kids to university, do not think that just because the Prime Minister made certain statements today that that means this is over. Under this govern ment, under this Prime Minister, we have learnt before that when they say `Never, ever' we never believe it. The Prime Minister said that he would never deregulate university fees yet he gave this minister approval to do just that—to draw up a plan to do it.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As has just been pointed out to you, that most recent statement, which somehow drew the Prime Minister into it when I thought he was dissenting from your ruling, is further evidence of this person abusing the process of the House.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I was distracted in a conversation with the Clerk and I did not hear his comments so I invite the member for Dobell to continue.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The Australian people want the answers to these questions. The Australian people are entitled to know how much the Prime Minister's word counts. (Time expired)4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Give him an extension, Reith, you took enough time off him.15:31:0011736Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Mr Speaker, could you have that frontbencher on the other side withdraw the unparliamentary remark that he made.Mr Crean interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—And now those of the member for Hotham.MG4LEEMr Lee—The shadow minister said I should get an extension of time.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell will resume his seat. I am not even aware of who made the statement but I ask whoever did to withdraw—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Well, both the member for Hotham—what is your seat—2V5SWANMr Swan—Which one was it?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Well, one of you did.8I4MARTINMr Martin—If you do not know which one it is, it is a bit hard to sustain—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Cunningham! I am not in a position to require anyone to withdraw anything. I do not know what was said, so I ask the member—Mr Adams interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Lyons. I have persistently reminded him of his obligations under the standing orders to attract the chair's attention by rising. If he fails to do so—Mr Latham interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa will excuse himself from the House under the provisions of standing order 304A. That sort of behaviour and statement is totally unacceptable and always has been.The honourable member for Werriwa thereupon withdrew from the chamber.BV5ADAMSMr Adams—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the House was standing at the box dictating that one or two on the frontbench on this side had said something that he took exception to. While you were speaking, he was commenting and telling them to go out, or pointing that they were taking—SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—What is your point of order?BV5ADAMSMr Adams—My point of order is—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lyons will resume his seat. I warn the Minister for Forestry and Conservation.BV5ADAMSMr Adams—My point of order is that the Leader of the House should have been sat down while you gave a ruling on his point of order but he was allowed to stand and dictate to the parliament.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The chair has already dealt objectively with that issue, indicating that the chair did not hear the interjections. The Leader of the House was gracious enough not to pursue the matter, recognising that the chair was at a disadvantage and he ought now to be allowed to be heard in silence.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Mr Speaker, you have before you a dissent motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. I advise the House that the government will rigorously oppose the dissent motion. We do not support it; it is entirely without merit. I have seen many dissent motions here but this is one of the most frivolous, unsubstantiated claims for a dissent motion that I have seen in this House. Mr Speaker, you have acted entirely in accordance with practice and with the longstanding conventions in this place and, just for good measure, you have acted entirely in accordance with the relevant standing orders, which have been supported by both sides of this parliament for many years.Standing order 144 has been in place under Labor governments and coalition governments, and has been in place for many years. There has never been any real debate about the interpretation of those provisions and, Mr Speaker, you have exercised commonsense, if I may say so, in refusing that question. It was blatantly, obviously and absurdly outside the standing orders. It was no surprise that you should, as quickly as you did, dispense with that particular question. In fact, I will demonstrate the absurdity of the claims made by the Leader of the Opposition by quoting the Leader of the Opposition when he was in my position as Leader of the House.He would never, as Leader of the House, have countenanced the propositions that he has just advanced because they do not stand up to any fair and commonsense analysis. The example I will give you in a moment is a very timid one compared to the words used today. The fact is, Mr Speaker, your ruling was perfectly fair and no reasonable person could possibly quibble with it. The inability of the opposition to have any form of tactic or strategy for dealing with question time surprises me. Question time had not finished, there was a further question or two—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—We had asked our last question.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—There was another good question to come from the government, and you might have enjoyed the answer. One of my colleagues intends to say something after question time, as we told you. You are simply denying your own shadow minister the opportunity of having that matter brought on sooner rather than later.The purpose of question time, obviously, is not what Paul Keating once said—namely, an indulgence that the executive gives the other side—but rather it is an opportunity for private members to seek information from the government to thereby bring the government to account. The rules set out for question time in standing order 144 make it clear what can and cannot be asked. Standing order 144 says:The following general rules shall apply to questions:Questions cannot be debated.Questions should not contain— (a) statements of facts or names of persons unless they are strictly necessary to render the question intelligible and can be authenticated; (b) arguments; (c) inferences; (d) imputations; (e) epithets; (f) ironical expressions; or (g) hypothetical matter.The fact that this dissent motion is very poorly based was demonstrated by the words of the Leader of the Opposition when he addressed the substance of his proposition. I suppose it is another lesson that sometimes some people can talk too much, and the Leader of the Opposition has a very bad case of talking too much. He actually spelt out the reason why this question was in fact an argument and, in essence, there are other links to standing order 144 which can be relied upon.He went through each and every proposition within the question to say that each of those propositions was true and, therefore, was a fair argument to put to the minister. That was his basic proposition. He sort of said that six points were being made and that maybe a couple of them were not as strong as the other ones but he said, as a whole, they were very strong arguments and that, in fact, some particular aspects were very strong in themselves. In respect of one of the propositions, the Leader of the Opposition said, `It's a reasonably presented proposition.' To my mind, `a reasonably presented proposition' is another expression for an argument. What is an argument if it is not a reasonably presented argument? That is exactly the point. This was the last fling for question time.This is the sort of smart alec question you get when you wrap all your accusations up and have the choirboy throw it with great force at the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. It was the clearest statement of an argument within a question that you could possibly imagine.The parliament has been running since 1901, or thereabouts, and, not surprisingly, we have had this sort of issue once before. Would you believe that half of the participants today are the same participants we had back in 1991? In the right-hand corner, we have the member for O'Connor, a well-known and recognised expert on standing orders—he is also well known for enjoying a substantial debate. In the left-hand corner, we have the huge frame of the Leader of the Opposition, whose mastery of the standing orders leaves us all in absolute awe.Mr Beazley interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I am right, he says. Of course I am right because I am going to quote you. Why else would I build you up? This was the timid question that was asked back in 1991. I was here and so was the member for O'Connor and so was Mr Beazley, the then Leader of the House—filling my shoes. Fred Chaney asked:. . . my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister deny that the days and nights that his Government has spent agonising over how to solve the problem of resource security are a direct result of its strategy of playing the environment for every vote that it can produce?That is a shockingly political statement. He went on:Even if the Government finally comes up with some sort of legislative backing for forestry projects, what reliance does the Prime Minister seriously expect anyone to place on it in light of the Government's appalling record of using the environment as a political football without regard to the national interest?You would have to say that these were very timid accusations that we as an opposition made—namely, we accused the government. This was the sort of argument or ironical expression thrust at the then Prime Minister: `playing the environment for every vote', `the government's appalling record' and playing `political football'. These were the shocking, heinous claims that we then as an opposition made.YT4SCOTTMr Bruce Scott—Who was the Speaker?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—The then Speaker was the honourable member for Watson, now the Chief Opposition Whip. `Leaping Leo' are the words that immediately come to mind. What did he say? He said that, based on standing order 144, the question was out of order. In fact, the then Leader of the House, Mr Beazley, said:I would submit the content of the honourable member's question contained arguments, inferences, imputations and ironical expressions, and therefore ought to be out of order.What did Leaping Leo—excuse me, the then Speaker—rule? He ruled the question was out of order. And, as is the wont of oppositions, we complained, just as the opposition is complaining today, not because we had any real complaint but because it is the life of opposition to complain about decisions which then provide an opportunity to launch a general attack on the minister of the day. As the then Leader of the House said:The fact is that the Standing Orders in relation to Question Time place very strict limits on the way in which a question can be asked and very broad limits—I am conceding this point—on the way in which it should be answered.The Leader of the Opposition was absolutely right. If he was absolutely right then, he is absolutely wrong today, and that is his problem.Mr Beazley interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—It is called hypocrisy, but I would not want to be so discourteous as to throw that accusation across the bar table at the frame of the Leader of the Opposition. He said:As he read that out, every single person in this chamber and every single person listening to this debate recognised clearly that a standing order which provides that in a question there shall be no argument, inference, imputation, epithet or ironical expression, could clearly not sustain such a question as that asked by the honourable member.Didn't he say it well in 1991? Because as I sat here eight years later as the Leader of the House and the Labor Party asked such a question, I thought exactly the same myself. This is a smart alec question. This is not a fair dinkum question. This is a question containing argument, inference, epithet and ironical expression, simply for the opposition to enjoy the political thrust of the day. Well, they are entitled to enjoy a document—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Absolutely. We're having a ball.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Exactly, you are entitled to. Mr Speaker, I am the first to admit it: when a document falls off the back of a truck, as an opposition when you have no policies, when your leader is going down the gurgler ever slowly, bit by bit, when you have absolutely nothing to offer, when you have no education policy of your own, when the shadow minister—MG4LEEMr Lee—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker.Mr Tuckey interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I remind the Minister for Forestry and Conservation!SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Sorry, I was talking to the minister.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am just reminding the minister that the ice he is skating on is relatively thin.MG4LEEMr Lee—Mr Speaker, given the many points of order that were taken during the contributions of members of the opposition during the previous debate, I thought it would be in order for me to draw to the chair's attention the standing orders that govern the minister's contribution during the debate on the dissent. I ask that you consider some of the sentences and statements the minister has been making and make a judgment as to whether or not the minister has been complying with the standing orders.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell will resume his seat. The Leader of the House is entirely in order and I call him.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Mr Speaker, I can do no better than to conclude with the words of the then Leader of the House who said of a similar tactic in 1991 words to the effect that this was a tactic to place the Speaker in an invidious position.MG4LEEMr Lee—Time's up.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Mr Speaker, you are not in such a position today. We will reject the motion. MG4LEEMr Lee—Come on, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell seems to be ignoring the fact that the same sort of courtesy was extended to him and to the Leader of the Opposition, who would have acknowledged that very point.Question put:That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.15:51:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew)60Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr BeazleyMr BevisMr BreretonMr CoxMr CreanMr DanbyMr EdwardsMs EllisDr EmersonMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMr KerrDr LawrenceMr LeeMs LivermoreMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MossfieldMr MurphyMs O'ByrneMr O'ConnorMr O'KeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*Mr SciaccaMr Sercombe*Mr SidebottomMr SmithMr SnowdonMr SwanMr 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 CostelloMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Ms GambaroMrs GashMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HardgraveMr HawkerMr HockeyMr HowardMrs HullMr JullMr KatterMrs 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 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 BarresiMr McLeayMr DownerMr M. J. EvansMrs GallusMs BurkeMr ProsserMr CreanMr Somlyay* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions to the Speaker117401174011740Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the report tabled this morning by the honourable member for Aston. You will recall he was a parliamentary representative on the Australian Delegation to the Third Round of Australia-China Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue. Reports from the bilateral visits, including from both sides of the House, are quite usual practice in this place. Will you write to the Minister for Foreign Affairs expressing the virtues of bipartisan representation on such delegations? Have you established new guidelines for single member participation and reporting to the House? Should the Leader of the Opposition establish a delegation including one member of this House, would you allow the subsequent report to be tabled and pay for the trip? Was this trip paid for from an amount allocated to you and the President of the Senate? Is there a precedent for this? Further, isn't it the usual practice for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to pay for such a parliamentary delegate?11741Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The member for Chifley would appreciate the fact that he has asked me a question that, because it has multiple parts, will require me to go away and seek a reply. I will reply to parts of it as appropriate. So far as the tabling of the report by the member for Aston is concerned and any other reports that any member may wish to table or have revisited in the House, that is a matter entirely in the hands of the Selection Committee.QI4PRICEMr Price—I did not wish to reflect on the honourable member for Aston in any way but rather the procedures surrounding the delegation.10000Mr SPEAKER—The member for Chifley has asked his question and I will respond to it as appropriate, but the question of what reports are in fact tabled in the House and reported on in the House is a matter for the Selection Committee.Personal Explanations1174115:58:0011741Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the minister claim to have been misrepresented?DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—Yes, I have been.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister may proceed.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—In the Sun-Herald of 17 October in an article titled `The mother of all rip-offs' the journalist Katrina Adamski makes a number of inaccurate assertions and reports a number of misleading statements by my constituent Mr Gordon Walker. In the first case it was reported:Last year, two years since she had lived in her own home, Mrs Walker received a letter from Federal North Sydney MP Joe Hockey, saying her pension had been cancelled.This is wrong on two counts: firstly, I have never sent a letter to Mrs Walker and all correspondence in this matter has been through her son, Mr Gordon Walker.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The minister has the call. The courtesies of the House will be extended to him.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—Secondly, it is wrong because members of parliament do not have the power to cancel any individual's pension which is governed by the Social Security Act and enforced by Centrelink. The minister responsible for the act is the Minister for Family and Community Services, the Hon. Senator Jocelyn Newman. So neither as member for North Sydney nor as Minister for Financial Services and Regulation have I had anything to do with the cancellation of Mrs Walker's pension. In the second case, Mr Walker was quoted as saying:. . . Mr Hockey has done nothing."He simply acted as a postman when I wrote to him for help and passed my letter on to another government department."This is also wrong on two counts. I have spoken with or written to three different ministers on this matter, including the Treasurer, the former Minister for Aged Care, Warwick Smith, and the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman. My office and I have spoken on numerous occasions with Senator Newman's staff and Centrelink, including addressing Mr Walker's complaint about his treatment by Centrelink staff. I have written to Mr Walker on this issue on three separate occasions. On 29 January of this year I wrote a five-page detailed letter to Mr Walker that incorporated all the comments of Senator Newman and the results of my lobbying efforts.Finally, the journalist, Katrina Adamski, claims that I refused to comment to the Sun-Herald on this matter. Ms Adamski spoke with my office on numerous occasions asking for Mrs Walker and her son's contact details, including home address. On one occasion Ms Adamski even tried to trick an elderly volunteer in my office who assists with answering the phone into disclosing my constituent's personal details. At no stage did Ms Adamski ask me to discuss the comments Mr Walker had made to the Sun-Herald.Ministerial Statements117421174216:01:0011742Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—by leave—As members would be aware, the government decided in the context of the negotiations around the agreement of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists covering the three years from 1998-99 to 2001-02 to introduce Medicare benefits funding for magnetic resonance imaging machines. This decision was announced on 12 May 1998 as part of the 1998 budget. It was announced at that time that eligibility for benefits was to be limited to machines that were in place or on order on that day. Subsequently, the government decided to require operators of machines to notify the Health Insurance Commission of any machines they considered to be eligible by no later than 11 October 1999.Last Friday I received a minute from the Managing Director of the Health Insurance Commission advising me that 111 machines have now been notified to the commission. Of these, 59 were in place on 12 May 1998, the date of the 1998 budget, and 52 were claimed to be on order on that day. No fewer than 13 of the machines claimed to be on order last May were advised to the Health Insurance Commission in the fortnight before the cut-off on 11 October this year—that is, in the last week or so, 13 radiologists have just remembered that they spent $3 million 18 months ago on an MRI machine. Of the 52 on order, 48 were ordered between 10 February, when negotiations with the royal college commenced, and the budget on 12 May 1998. I table a minute from the Health Insurance Commission.While the Health Insurance Commission is continuing to investigate the bona fides of orders, their investigations so far indicate `that a significant number of the applications have question marks around both the accuracy of the date itself claimed for the contract and the conditional nature of the contract'. Given that an additional 13 machines have just turned up and given the comments from the Health Insurance Commission, I have decided to recommend to the Executive Council meeting this Wednesday a regulation to limit access to Medicare benefits to those machines that were on order on 10 February 1998 when formal negotiations with the Royal College of Radiologists got under way.This is an interim measure that will ensure that an advantage does not accrue to any person who may have taken advantage of backdating of a contract, a non-binding contract or any form of inside knowledge as a result of the negotiation process to order a machine before 12 May 1998. The regulation will take effect from 1 November to ensure that people who have MRI scans booked are in no way disadvantaged. Where a machine is located outside a capital city, is operating as of today and where no other machine is readily available, that MRI will be able to continue to operate, thus not in any way disadvantaging people in rural and regional Australia.In total, the measure I am proposing will leave in place a Medicare benefit subsidy for at least 66 machines—the 59 that were in place on 12 May, four that were ordered before 10 February 1998 and at least three machines that were on order on 12 May 1998 for location in regional and rural areas and unknown to the Health Insurance Commission to be in operation as of today. If there are other machines operating in regional and rural areas as at today, they too will be included.I should remind the House that the extension of Medicare benefits to these 66 machines has widened access to MRI technology in a way that those opposite were not prepared to fund when in government. The regulation will in no way be retrospective as it will only limit benefits from 1 November 1999. Doctors with machines operating or on order that are affected by this regulation may be disappointed but have no reason to complain. They took their own counsel and claimed to order machines with irrevocable contracts without any knowledge that the government would agree to allow Medicare benefits for services for those machines.As I have said before, the proposal to extend Medicare benefits to MRI services dates back to at least the Australian Health Technology Advisory Committee report in 1997. Following this report, I stated publicly that I would like to see MRI better funded. It was also widely known the college was discussing this with the government in the context of a possible broad financing agreement that would cover all radiologists. These negotiations were specifically authorised by the Expenditure Review Committee and noted in its minutes. The negotiations were with the representatives of the college who were expected to seek the views of their membership about the arrangements.I do not know whether or how members of the profession may have gained inside knowledge or if indeed any inside knowledge existed. In the weeks before the budget, MRI suppliers were openly and aggressively offering non-binding contracts to radiologists. The apparent rush of orders may be explained by this, combined with some backdating. If one has had to sign a non-binding order or backdate an order, by definition you could not have had advance knowledge of the measure. Whatever the cause, the larger number of orders than I ever contemplated and the advice that a significant number have question marks around them require more resolute action than to await possible legal action by the Health Insurance Commission.In view of concerns that have been raised about the integrity of the process of negotiating the diagnostic imaging agreement, I am today writing to the Auditor-General, Mr Barrett, asking him to conduct a probity audit of the process and to report to parliament as soon as possible. When I have written to Mr Barrett, I will table a copy of the letter.I have also been informed that Health Care of Australia is one of the companies that had machines on order on 12 May 1998. Given that it is such a large provider of radiology services, there is nothing surprising in this. At that stage, however, Dr Barry Catchlove was the Managing Director of Health Care of Australia—although he informs me, having announced his retirement, that he was no longer involved in the day-to-day running of the business. He was appointed as Chairman of the Health Insurance Commission from 30 July 1998.Dr Catchlove advised me last Friday that he has applied for leave of absence from his position in the commission while it concludes its investigations into the machines ordered by Health Care of Australia. I seek leave to table Dr Catchlove's letter to me. I would like to make it clear that there is no suggestion of any impropriety in the conduct of Dr Catchlove. The investigation by the Health Insurance Commission to date has been carried out at arms-length from the board of commissioners and the chairman has had no contact or involvement in any way with the investigation. Further, Dr Catchlove was not involved in and nor did he have any knowledge of budget negotiations with the college. However, Dr Catchlove has told me that, in view of the possible perception of the conflict of interest and so that we can maintain absolute probity in this matter, he considers it appropriate to take no further part in the affairs of the Health Insurance Commission until any investigation of the activities of Health Care of Australia has been completed.When the government decided to extend Medicare benefits to MRI, it did so on the understanding that the number of machines in the country was on the basis of the 1977 Health Technology Committee's report finding—that is, that it was about right, but some increase might be warranted, particularly to ensure appropriate access across Australia. It now appears that the number of machines in place or on order is considerably in excess of what is required to meet the needs of the Australian population. On the other hand, the 66 machines that will now be eligible for Medicare benefits may not be the optimal number given further advancements in diagnostic imaging. They also may not be optimally distributed across Australia. When MRI was introduced to the Medicare Benefits Schedule, I announced that there would be a review after 18 months. I have now decided to bring forward this review by several months. I am deciding on the terms of reference for the review and I will table them when they become available.The terms of reference will ask the review to recommend, among other things, the appropriate number and distribution of machines and to identify options to achieve this. At that time, the government will review the interim regulation that I have announced today to operate from 1 November. I will announce the membership of the review shortly and I will ask it to report by the end of February next year.As for the Health Insurance Commission investigation, I will make available all necessary resources to ensure that it is conducted in a thorough and timely manner. I am loath, however, to rush this investigation, as to do so may limit the likelihood of the success of any prosecution that might be appropriate. When I receive the final report from the Health Insurance Commission, I will consult the Attorney-General and the Australian Government Solicitor as to what further action, if any, should occur.I have no doubt that the majority of radiologists are honourable and honest people. It would appear, however, that a significant number have behaved in a manner that can be described only as a scam. Had people behaved in a similar manner in the share market, they would be expected to be treated with the utmost severity. I have no intention of allowing precious taxpayers' money that could be used in our immunisation, asthma or diabetes programs to go into the pockets of radiologists who have behaved improperly. This measure was designed for the benefit of the Australian public. It has dramatically increased the availability of MRI services. It was not designed for the benefit of radiologists, and it will not be allowed to be.16:11:0011744Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—by leave—The Minister for Health and Aged Care has been covering up this issue for eight months. Day after day, week after week, we have asked him question after question. Just last week, he said, `I think my answers to these questions over the last seven months show that in fact we have been highly proper.' Highly improper is the only way that it can be described. He has abused us, vilified us and hoped that we would stop asking him questions. Apparently, he was informally advised by the Health Insurance Commission last Wednesday that there were problems—that in fact there was a huge rush of new MRI applications. He did not of course come into the House at the earliest opportunity when he had been told that in the last week or so 13 radiologists remembered—they just somehow remembered—that they had each spent $3 million on an MRI machine 18 months ago but that they remembered only just last week. This minister has misled this House either deliberately or through an extraordinary lack of diligence or incompetence.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The shadow minister knows that she cannot accuse deliberate misrepresentation—PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—I do not know which it is, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The shadow minister knows better than to interrupt the chair, I would have thought. The shadow minister knows that she cannot accuse any minister of deliberately misleading the House without a substantive motion.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—I do not know which he has done, but we will find out soon enough.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—But the shadow minister is obliged to withdraw any implication of deliberately misleading the House.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—I will withdraw it, Mr Speaker—until the time comes that we move further motions on this minister. This minister stands condemned of course by his own words. On 11 February this year, he said to the parliament:I completely and categorically deny and repudiate any suggestion whatsoever that there was any leak from me or my office.Also on 11 February, he said:. . . there is no evidence that all these machines were ordered in the weeks before the budget. You are quite wrong there.Well, that is not what the Health Insurance Commission says now. On 27 September, he said:I would be deeply concerned if I knew that someone at the meeting— remember the meeting on 6 May, the one that we still have not got to the bottom of—had a potential conflict of interest.We have not been able to get an answer from this minister as to whether he even asked whether people had a conflict of interest or for statements of pecuniary interest. We have had no answers to any of the questions that we have asked of this minister. This minister does stand condemned, and there are a number of allegations which he himself has yet to answer. By the minister's own statement today, it is true that he failed to adopt a measure to control the supply of MRI machines in accordance with the recommendations of the Australian Health Technology Advisory Council.If he had followed their recommendations back in December 1997, we would not be in the mess we are in today. He personally decided to extend Medicare rebates to MRI units under contract without properly researching how many contracts there were. We know that from his statement today. He says that he did not know until Friday—or maybe it was last Wednesday—that there were 111 MRI machines. This is a minister supposedly responsible for one of the most significant portfolios in this country, and he says that he did not have any idea.He is guilty of incompetence and failure in his duty as a minister by failing to properly check the effectiveness of the proposed supply-side measure. The proposed supply-side measure, you might remember, was that only those contracts signed before budget night would be able to claim Medicare rebates. That was going to mean that the whole thing did not blow out and that we would not get more machines than we needed. Has that been effective? Absolutely not: we have ended up with nearly 100 per cent more machines than this minister now claims the country needs.He failed to obtain declarations of pecuniary interest from the radiologists he negotiated with and failed to bind those radiologists not to take advantage of discussions that he and his department had with them. Indirectly or directly—we still do not know—he allowed the radiologists with whom he was negotiat ing to confidently know that he intended to include contracted machines in the new arrangements. And, funnily enough, a lot of them went out and spent quite a lot of money, confident in the belief that this minister would extend Medicare rebates to machines under contract. I wonder how it was that they were so confident in their belief.Days prior to the budget, the department—and we have had this from the department—actually advised the minister that there was a problem, but the minister took no notice of the department's advice and went ahead with his original plan. The department then failed to investigate the allegations of insider trading—and let us not forget that is the seriousness of what we are talking about today. We are talking about allegations of insider trading. These allegations of insider trading were not investigated when they were first raised by the department. They have not been investigated since they were first raised in the parliament by the opposition. There has not been any investigation of any of these allegations.The minister failed to amend his agreement with the radiologists prior to signing it a week after the budget, even though once again the department had warned him that a problem existed. Now we know—the opposition has known for eight months—that the investigation that the Health Insurance Commission commenced has been limited in scope and carried out so slowly that the damage had been done by the time it was completed.The minister himself set up a system to require statutory declarations. He said that an adequate way to make sure that everything was done adequately would be for everyone to sign a statutory declaration saying that they had signed their contracts before the budget. They were not those sorts of shonky contracts that say, `If he doesn't really do it, we'll just rip these up afterwards.' The minister told this House that this investigation was at his instigation, not anyone else's. We now know it was a weak and ineffective means of preventing abuse of the public purse.Finally, this minister stands charged with his failure to act when he was warned of this problem and his failure to ensure a prompt investigation of a major fraud risk to the Commonwealth. Given this minister's direct and personal involvement in the negotiations about the extension of Medicare rebates to new MRI machines, this minister should stand aside while this matter is further investigated. It is not good enough for this matter to only be referred to the Auditor-General. That will not inquire into ministerial misconduct, illegality or conflict of interest.We need to find out who knew what, how they knew and what the role of this minister was in allowing the Commonwealth to be defrauded in this way. We have been told today that Barry Catchlove, the Chairman of the Health Insurance Commission and former Chief Executive Officer of Health Care of Australia, has stood aside. He has stood aside only today, not when this investigation started—only today when problems finally got too much and something had to be done.83UCOXMr Cox—Something stinks!PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—Something stinks and, finally, Barry Catchlove has stood aside. This minister should stand aside because, by his own words in a statement written in the minister's own handwriting, `It would appear that a significant number of radiologists have behaved in a manner that can only be described as a scam.' It is a scam. It is a scam that this minister is involved in right up to his neck.He should stand aside not just while the Auditor-General investigates it but while we have a full judicial inquiry into the role of this minister, into whether there has been any illegality and into the conflicts of interest that exist in this case that can be described only as a scam. The minister was planning to go overseas today. What he must do is stay here, stay in this parliament and make sure that he is available to answer the questions that a full judicial inquiry will put to him. He has to stand up, take responsibility and face the music for the horrific cover-up of what we can only imagine is a major fraud against the Commonwealth. Censure Motion117461174616:22:0011746Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I seek leave to move:That this House censures the Minister for Health and Aged Care for his failure, either intentionally or through gross negligence, to properly investigate serious allegations of ministerial misconduct, conflict of interest and impropriety and illegality which have been raised in this House in relation to the 1998 MRI budget decision, for his misleading and evasive answers to questions asked in the House on this matter over an eight-month period and for his attempts to prevent proper investigation of this matter.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is leave granted?YT4SCOTTMr Bruce Scott—Leave is not granted.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I move:That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving forthwith that this House censures the Minister for Health and Aged Care for his failure, either intentionally or through gross negligence, to properly investigate serious allegations of ministerial misconduct, conflict of interest and impropriety and illegality which have been raised in this House in relation to the 1998 MRI budget decision, for his misleading and evasive answers to questions asked in the House on this matter over an eight-month period and for his attempts to prevent proper investigation of the matter.There are three Liberals in serious trouble—Motion (by Mr Bruce Scott) put:That the member be not further heard.16:28:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew)72Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr K. J. AndrewsMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr BroughMr CadmanMr CameronMr CausleyMr CharlesMr CostelloMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Ms GambaroMrs GashMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HardgraveMr HawkerMr HockeyMrs HullMr JullMr KatterMrs 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 St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperDr SouthcottDr StoneMrs SullivanMr C. P. ThompsonMr A. P. ThomsonMr TrussMr TuckeyMr M. A. J. VaileMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs Worth59Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr BeazleyMr BevisMr BreretonMr CoxMr DanbyMr EdwardsMs EllisDr EmersonMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMr KerrMr LathamDr LawrenceMs LivermoreMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MossfieldMr MurphyMs O'ByrneMr O'ConnorMr O'KeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*Mr SciaccaMr Sercombe*Mr SidebottomMr SmithMr SnowdonMr SwanMr TannerDr TheophanousMr K. J. ThomsonMr WilkieMr WiltonMr ZahraMrs CrosioMr BarresiMr McLeayMr DownerMr M. J. EvansMrs GallusMs BurkeMr ProsserMs KernotMr Somlyay* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.10000Beazley, Kim, MPMr SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?16:32:0011747Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—I second the motion. This is a cover-up of a major fraud by the Minister for Health and Aged Care—Motion (by Mr Bruce Scott) put:That the member be not further heard.16:33:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew)72Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr K. J. AndrewsMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr BroughMr CadmanMr CameronMr CausleyMr CharlesMr CostelloMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Ms GambaroMrs GashMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HardgraveMr HawkerMr HockeyMrs HullMr JullMr KatterMrs 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 St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperDr SouthcottDr StoneMrs SullivanMr C. P. ThompsonMr A. P. ThomsonMr TrussMr TuckeyMr M. A. J. VaileMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs Worth59Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr BeazleyMr BevisMr BreretonMr CoxMr DanbyMr EdwardsMs EllisDr EmersonMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMr KerrMr LathamDr LawrenceMs LivermoreMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MossfieldMr MurphyMs O'ByrneMr O'ConnorMr O'KeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*Mr SciaccaMr Sercombe*Mr SidebottomMr SmithMr SnowdonMr SwanMr TannerDr TheophanousMr K. J. ThomsonMr WilkieMr WiltonMr ZahraMrs CrosioMr BarresiMr McLeayMr DownerMr M. J. EvansMrs GallusMs BurkeMr ProsserMs KernotMr Somlyay* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put:That the motion (Mr Beazley's ) be agreed to. 16:36:00The House divided. 0Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr BeazleyMr BevisMr BreretonMr CoxMr DanbyMr EdwardsMs EllisDr EmersonMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HollisMr HorneMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMr KerrMr LathamDr LawrenceMs LivermoreMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MossfieldMr MurphyMs O'ByrneMr O'ConnorMr O'KeefeMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*Mr SciaccaMr Sercombe*Mr SidebottomMr SmithMr SnowdonMr SwanMr TannerDr TheophanousMr K. J. ThomsonMr WilkieMr WiltonMr Zahra0Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr K. J. AndrewsMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr BroughMr CadmanMr CameronMr CausleyMr CharlesMr CostelloMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Ms GambaroMrs GashMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HardgraveMr HawkerMr HockeyMrs HullMr JullMr KatterMrs 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 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 WorthMr BarresiMrs CrosioMr DownerMr McLeayMrs GallusMr M. J. EvansMr ProsserMs BurkeMr SomlyayMs Kernot* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.1174910001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:11749851XW4Kernot Cheryl MPTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of electors of Dickson points out to the House our desire to see community pharmacists retain their unique position in Australia's health system.We trust and respect our local pharmacists and are opposed to any moves to allow supermarkets to compete against them. We believe that the community benefits from pharmacies being owned by pharmacists.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House heeds our wishes and allows our local pharmacy to continue to play a vital role in our health care.Ms KernotXW4Ms Kernot(from 851 citizen)11749288PG6Macklin Jenny MPTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of electors of Jagajaga points out to the House our desire to see community pharmacists retain their unique position in Australia's health system.We trust and respect our local pharmacists and are opposed to any moves to allow supermarkets to compete against them. We believe that the community benefits from pharmacies being owned by pharmacists.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House heeds our wishes and allows our local pharmacy to continue to play a vital role in our health care.Ms MacklinPG6Ms Macklin(from 288 citizens)11749209WF6Danby Michael MPTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We, the undersigned, draw the attention of the House to the discrimination experienced by same sex couples in the provision of superannuation benefits.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to reintroduce and pass the Private Member's Bill, entitled the Superannuation (Entitlements of Same Sex Couples) Amendment Bill, introduced into the House by the Member for Grayndler, Mr Anthony Albanese, and seconded by the Member for Melbourne Ports, Mr Michael Danby.And your petitioners, as is duty bound, will ever pray.Mr DanbyWF6Mr Danby(from 209 citizens)1174945WF6Danby Michael MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that the people of East Timor have overwhelmingly voted to become an independent and sovereign nation and the Indonesian Government has failed to fulfil its responsibility to maintain security in East Timor during the period of transition to independence.We therefore petition the House to require the Government and all responsible Ministers to:(a) Withdraw Australia's original de jure recognition of Indonesia's annexation of East Timor;(b) Suspend Australia's remaining military ties with Indonesia;(c) Support calls for international institutions to suspend all financial assistance to Indonesia;(d) Advise the Indonesian Government to direct forthwith the Indonesian Army to disarm the pro-Jakarta militia in East Timor;(e) Advise the Indonesian Government to cooperate with the UN peacekeeping force to East Timor; and (f) Support the UN establishing a War Crimes Tribunal to deal with those responsible for the genocide in East Timor.Mr DanbyWF6Mr Danby(from 45 citizens)1175075383V XS4Emerson Craig MP; Lawrence Carmen MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that the people of East Timor have overwhelmingly voted to become an independent and sovereign nation and the Indonesian Government has failed to fulfil its responsibility to maintain security in East Timor during the period of transmission of independence.We therefore petition the House to require the Government to:(a) Withdraw Australia's de jure recognition of Indonesian's annexation of East Timor; and(b) Act urgently to establish an international peacekeeping force to end the anarchy that exists in East Timor and to protect the security of all citizens of East Timor.Mr Emerson83VMr Emerson(from 733 citizens)Dr LawrenceXS4Dr Lawrence(from 20 citizens)117504683NHall Jill MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The undersigned citizens and residents of Australia call on you to:. Label all Genetically Engineered foods that may be approved for sale;. Ensure pies contain meat and jam contains fruit;. Make food labels reflect the true nature of the contents;. Ensure that the Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA)—the food safety watchdog—is adequately resourced to protect our food.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Ms Hall83NMs Hall(from 46 citizens)1175062PG6Macklin Jenny MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House our concern at the implementation of the Tax Reforms effecting Defence Force personnel, specifically the new Fringe Benefits Tax reporting regime. We believe that the implementation of these reforms will severely disadvantage Defence Force members and place many in financial hardship, leading to a number seeking discharge. Your petitioners therefore request that the House takes all necessary steps to redress the crisis in Australian Defence Forces caused by these changes.Ms MacklinPG6Ms Macklin(from 62 citizens)11750183DMurphy John MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws attention to the House that the advertising provisions of Therapeutic Goods Regulations are being misinterpreted so as to inhibit price competition of Schedule 3, 4 and 8 (prescription) medication. The National Health Act prohibits price competition of subsidised medicine.The petitioners respectfully urge the House to amend the advertising provisions of the Therapeutic Goods Regulations to allow the publication and supply to the general public of a catalogue by a Pharmacy containing prices of prescriptions and other products—one catalogue annually.The petitioners also respectfully urge the House to amend the National Health Act to allow discounting of the patient contribution. [currently $3.20 for pensioners and $20.30 for general patients]Mr Murphy83DMr Murphy(from one citizen)11750934RW5Nelson Dr Brendan MPTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled.This petition of citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the fact that the United Nations has chosen Tuesday 12 October 1999 as the date to symbolise the moment when the world's population passes the 6 billion mark.The doubling of world population in only 40 years has had tragic consequences for an estimated 1.3 billion people who live in absolute poverty, 840 million of them malnourished.The UN projects that world population could reach 10.7 billion by the year 2050, unless the international community provides sufficient resources to provide health care, contraception and literacy programs to those who do not have access to these goods and services.The Secretary General of the UN, Kofi Annan, told a special session of the General Assembly on 30 June that nothing could be more important than helping the world's people to control their numbers. He said for the Earth to continue to sustain people in future, the population must be stabilised.We note that Australia was a signatory to the Programme of Action agreed at the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo in 1994, and also a signatory at the follow-up UN special session in New York in July this year. By signing, Australia acknowledged that there was an "urgent need to renew and intensify efforts to meet the need for resources to implement the costed elements of the Programme of Action".However Australia's annual foreign aid spending related directly to population stabilisation measures is $37 million, only one quarter the amount due under UN guidelines, calculated to be $148 million.To meet Australia's international commitments and to make up for the shortfall in spending in this area over the past five years, we request that this spending be immediately increased to $220 million a year over the next five years.We also request that Australia's overall spending on overseas development aid be increased from the present 0.25 per cent of GDP to the UN recommended 0.7 per cent of GDP, and that Australia fully embrace its commitment, made to the UN at Cairo, to stabilise its own population.The UN has asked advanced nations for $5.7 billion next year for population assistance, equivalent to one week's spending from the US Defense Budget, but these nations have subscribed an average of only $2.2 billion over the past five years.We believe that many Australians are ashamed that, when so much is at stake for such a small expenditure, advanced nations including Australia have consistently failed to give adequate support to activities agreed under the UN's Programme of Action, and we request Parliament to urgently remedy Australia's inadequate support for population stabilisation.Prayer: Citizens of Australia request that the House urgently increase Australia's annual foreign aid spending related directly to population stabilisation and reproductive health from $37 million to $220 million, and that the House increase Australia's overall spending on overseas development aid from the present 0.25 per cent of GDP to the UN recommended proportion of 0.7 per cent of GDP.Dr NelsonRW5Dr Nelson(from 934 citizens)Petitions received.Miscellaneous11751QI4PRICEMr Price—Mr Deputy Speaker, did any minister afford themselves of standing order 302 to make a ministerial response to petitions?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—As the honourable member knows full well, it is a requirement of the standing orders that any such notification be reported to the House. There have not been any, and that is why there has been no notification. I thank the honourable member for Chifley for his interest. Private Members' Business117511175116:43:0011751Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—I move:That the House:(1) notes the recent report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, "Pregnant and Productive: It's a Right not a Privilege to Work while Pregnant";(2) recognises that a significant level of discrimination against pregnant women still exists in many workplaces;(3) acknowledges the vital importance of families in Australian society; and(4) calls on all employers in Australia to be aware of, and sensitive to, their responsibility to their female employees to ensure they do not suffer discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy.We live in a progressive society where significant gains have been made regarding equal opportunity in the workplace, community and home for both men and women. It is a measure of how far we have come in my lifetime alone that women now have a legitimate place in company boardrooms and men now have a legitimate place by their partner's side in hospital labour rooms. Neither of these situations was commonplace in my younger days. They signal our maturity as a society and a very genuine belief by most people in equality of the sexes. It is perhaps not surprising, though, that we still have quite a few hurdles to overcome when it comes to the issue of pregnancy.Pregnancy is possibly the most stark and significant reminder of the physical differences between the sexes. It is also an inescapable and visible manifestation of the central role women have traditionally had, and continue to have, in nurturing and raising a family. It is a fact that, even in today's modern society, there is a large divide between workplace and family life. While some employers are attempting to create family friendly environments—and our new industrial relations system certainly allows greater flexibility to accommodate the demands of family life—we still have a long way to go.Children are still viewed as an unprofessional burden. We had the sad case recently where our kayak team member Shelly Oates-Wilding was criticised for spontaneously cuddling her two-year-old son on the victory dais when she was presented with a medal. There is still a train of thought, particularly in professional occupations, that employees should put their jobs and careers before anything else. This goes equally for men as for women. There is still the view that the best possible employee is someone who puts their career first and rates their family second in importance. In my view, that is a sad indictment of what we value as a society. It is something we ought to question.In moving this motion today, I am not seeking to apportion blame to all employers. Pregnant and productive: it's a right not a privilege to work while pregnant is a very comprehensive report by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. It is a very detailed document of 269 pages which acknowledges the complexities of this issue, and I commend it as very interesting and informative reading for all members of this House. I do not intend to discuss in detail—nor is there enough time for me to do so—all 41 recommended pregnancy guidelines outlined in the report. I am sure that the government will respond in a sensitive and thorough manner in due course. I am proud of the fact that it was a coalition government that commissioned this report—the first ever national inquiry on this issue—and I commend the Attorney-General for having done so in August last year. Pregnancy is not simply a women's issue. It is a family issue, and families are at the heart of everything the Howard government does.In moving this motion, I want to recognise the difficulties that many women still experience in the workplace when they become pregnant. I want to acknowledge the central role of families in our society and I want to talk about why it is important that businesses and industry take a more positive and productive approach to pregnancy in the workplace. As I said at the outset, I do not want to apportion blame, nor am I advocating more red tape, bureaucracy, or unreasonable cost burdens for small businesses.While this report contains some very shocking case studies, I also acknowledge that there are very many thoughtful employers who take a more constructive approach and are sensitive to, and accommodating of, the special needs of pregnant employees. It must be remembered that we are not dealing with an exact science: pregnancy can mean vastly different things for each woman, and every pregnancy differs. Some women experience sickness of varying degrees and at different times throughout their pregnancy. Some women do not experience any sickness at all. For many women, it is a time when they feel healthier and stronger than ever before, while for others the opposite is true.As a pregnant woman's physical shape changes, so does her physical capacity to do certain tasks, such as heavy lifting. Regardless of how problem free the pregnancy may be, there are still regular doctors appointments which must be kept, and time off work for maternity leave when the baby is born. All of this, I readily acknowledge, can in some cases be an inconvenience—for want of a better word—for an employer. That is the blunt reality. We can talk all we want about the human rights of pregnant women but, if we do not acknowledge the reality that pregnancy can and does have an impact in the workplace, we are living in a fantasy world.I know there will be some militant feminists who believe that beating employers into submission with more stringent rules and regulations is the way to help overcome the unfair treatment of pregnant workers. I believe we can make better progress if we can educate employers to realign their thinking and view pregnant women workers differently. Indeed, employers will need increasingly to develop a flexible approach to pregnancy, given that the participation of women in the workplace continues to grow. In 1986, women made up 39 per cent of the work force and, in 1996, that had grown to 43 per cent.There is in chapter 12 of the report an interesting section headed `The needs of small business'. Some submissions to the inquiry indicated that accommodating pregnancy in the workplace poses more difficulties for small businesses than for larger businesses. It was contended that, simply by virtue of the smaller size of their work force, small businesses often experienced practical prob lems with pregnancy related issues at the workplace: for example, finding a suitable employee to take on a position for just one year, and the cost of training that may be required. However—and I found this very interesting—it was also contended that many small businesses can benefit from the experience: they are able to build a stronger team of trained employees by virtue of the extra training that can occur whilst employees are on maternity leave, and via the return of experienced staff after maternity leave. By promoting flexible arrangements for the re-entry of staff, they have been rewarded by being able to retain committed, experienced employees.The report also found very strong evidence that:Employees in workplaces that have access to well articulated, comprehensive frameworks for pregnancy and maternity leave felt a sense of security, reduced anxiety and were better placed to plan for their future.One large company reported that after it implemented a comprehensive parental leave policy, including paid maternity leave and flexible work practices, its retention rate for staff taking maternity leave increased from 52 per cent in 1995 to 94.5 per cent in 1998. It is a sad fact, reflected in this report, that today's women are actually choosing between work and family, or limiting the number of children they have to just one child. In 1997, the total fertility rate per woman was around 1.8 and, in 1998, the average number of babies per woman was just 1.74, the lowest fertility rate ever in this nation.The Australian Bureau of Statistics predicts that, if this trend continues, within 30 years our natural population increase will be reduced to zero. The report itself states the clear truth:The need, over time, to reproduce as a society is also of fundamental importance to Australia, both socially and economically.In the end, I believe business must take a long-term view and a broader picture. If women are discouraged from having children because of the way they are treated at work, and Australia's population shrinks, then simple supply and demand economics dictates that businesses will not be able to continue to grow and make profits. If families are so devalued that pregnant women are treated as a burden and an oddity, then what sort of social message are we sending to our young people?We should ask ourselves whether the erosion of the value of parenting and families is contributing to the level of crime, violence and vandalism in our society. And exactly what does that cost amount to for all businesses? I believe that some businesses need to take a close look at how family friendly they actually are. And it starts fundamentally with how they treat their pregnant employees. Businesses should be encouraged, as a widening of the Prime Minister's excellent vision of a `social coalition', to view the fair treatment of pregnant women not merely as a legal obligation, as it rightly is, but as a moral and social obligation. I am not suggesting for a moment that pregnant women should be treated as a charity. But the crucial role and value of motherhood to our entire society should be recognised and reflected in work practices. To not do so limits the fundamental rights of individual women, as well as devalues the importance of our families. In the end, the future of our society is not just a matter for the government but for all of us. Businesses have a special role to play shaping our society—and they can contribute enormously by instituting family friendly policies for both men and women, especially women who are in the first crucial and vital stage of motherhood, pregnancy.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the motion seconded?16:53:0011753Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00—I second the motion, Mr Speaker. I am actually very pleased to rise today to speak on this important topic. It is very refreshing and way past time for the government to be recognising the importance of this Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report, Pregnant and productive: it's a right not a privilege to work while pregnant . This issue has not received enough attention from the government. I certainly hope that the member for Forde, in taking it up in this way, will act as a positive voice within her own party to make sure that the 46 recommendations included in this report are taken up by the government.This is exactly the sort of excellent work that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission will not be able to do if the process of undermining the commission that the government has started continues in the same manner. In fact, cuts to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's budget have been consistent and extreme. The commission was funded in 1995-96 to the tune of $21.6 million. This was reduced to $12.3 million in 1998-99 and to an average of only $10.6 million over each of the three out years. This means that the commission is actually facing cuts of 55 per cent to its budget and certainly will not be able to undertake this sort of very important work in the future if those budget cuts continue.We are still facing significant levels of discrimination against women generally but in particular against pregnant women. This is despite the fact that we are now facing the 15th anniversary of the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act, which was introduced in 1984. We have had 15 years of this legislation and, although some very positive moves have been made, in fact there still is a very high level of discrimination. Many examples of this discrimination appear in this very valuable report. Some of the tales that have come from the report include women lawyers who, you would think, are in a very strong bargaining position and would have a very good knowledge of the Commonwealth sex discrimination legislation. They are having their babies during their annual leave because they are so worried about their maternity leave appearing on their record—they are not prepared to have the leave appear there and are having babies during annual leave instead.Another example in the report is the following:A woman who worked in a male dominated workplace where women were concentrated in the human resources area stated that during the course of her first pregnancy the organisation embarked upon a selection process of downsizing. She stated that male managers use criteria such as `Who might be pregnant? Who is pregnant?' to identify the positions that would be made redundant. She stated that one manager stated that `We don't need to worry about them, because they won't return to work.'There is an assumption that where organisations are facing downsizing perhaps the most logical people to be downsized are women who are not necessarily pregnant at the time but may one day become pregnant.So how has this government responded to this report? It has ignored the 46 recommendations made in the report. It has made no move to implement them, despite the fact that the shadow minister for women said very early after the report was released: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.We have offered our support but the government has decided not to take up any of the 46 recommendations made in the report. As we heard last week, the government also failed to send an appropriate recommendation to the International Labour Organisation's conference on maternity leave provisions. In fact, we sent a 12-person delegation to the ILO conference in Geneva—of course, every one of them a man. A staffer from the office of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business was quoted as saying, ` You don't have to be pregnant to present a policy position.' Sarah Maddison from the New South Wales Women's Electoral Lobby put it well when she said, `No. You just have to be a bloke apparently.'The government has failed to respond to this Pregnant and productive report. It has failed to send appropriate representation to the ILO conference in Geneva dealing with these issues. In fact, this government has made it increasingly difficult for women to balance family and work responsibilities. The member for Forde has alluded to a problem we face with the declining birth rate. Why would a woman have children when every news bulletin includes information about cuts to child care, cuts to education—to primary school education and now to tertiary education, with parents facing $100,000 fees to send their children to university? The government has done nothing to make balancing work and family easier. In contrast, Labor would act. When the report was first released we offered to support the implementation of the recommendations. The shadow minister for women has now said that, given government inaction in this area, we will move amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act to implement the recommendations of Pregnant and productive.The amendments we are proposing to move include: empowering the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to publish enforceable standards in relation to pregnancy and potential pregnancy in the workplace; inserting a specific provision that prohibits the asking of questions which might reasonably be understood as intended to elicit information about pregnancy; clarifying the unlawfulness of discriminating in medical examinations of pregnant women during recruitment; allowing referrals by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner to the Industrial Relations Commission of discriminatory awards or agreements without the need for a written complaint; including breastfeeding as a ground of unlawful discrimination; enabling the awarding of punitive damages as well as compensatory damages; ensuring coverage of unpaid workers; removing the exemption of employment by an instrumentality of a state; removing the exemption for educational institutions established for religious purposes in relation to pregnancy and potential pregnancy; and, finally, clarifying the coverage for federal statutory authorities, judicial office holders and members of parliament.As I said, the opposition called for these changes to be made when the report was first released. However, it is now almost four months since the report was released and still there has been no action—although, I applaud the member for Forde for bringing this matter to the attention of the parliament today. There has been no concrete change in relation to this report. The good intentions of the member are not worth a lot if they are not backed up by government action in this area. We will certainly be pursuing amendments to the bill, in relation to the Affirmative Action Agency, in the Senate that will reflect some of these changes as well.It is important to say that the shadow minister has taken this action because of a lack of government action in this area. It has been four months. The government have had ample opportunity to introduce their own legislative changes in this area and, instead, we have had several statements of good intent but no concrete action. I would like to see the government support the shadow minister's amendments in this area. I would like to see them put their money where their mouth is and say that the recommendations contained in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report are sensible recommendations, that they are recommendations that can be implemented easily, with changes to the Sex Discrimination Act, in most cases.Many of the recommendations, of course, relate to an increased commitment to education in this area, and they are certainly not difficult recommendations to implement. Let us see whether the government is prepared to support women in the work force, whether it is prepared to support women who are trying to balance the responsibilities of work and family. Let us see whether it has a genuine commitment to families. Let us see the government support the shadow minister for the status of women in her efforts to improve working conditions for Australian women.17:02:0011755Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—In speaking on this motion, can I firstly say that I was disappointed that the member for Sydney's speech degenerated into an attack on the government's education policies and that she made the quite untruthful claim that parents will spend $100,000 paying for their children to go to university. She knows that that is untrue. It is just adding to the unnecessary scare campaign that the Labor Party is attempting to mount. I also make the comment that being followed by the member for Lowe is becoming a habit in this House but, fortunately, we do not have the member for Throsby attacking the Catholic Church before we speak on this motion. It is on pregnancy so you could have forgiven the member for Throsby for launching one of his bitter attacks on the Catholic Church. Fortunately, he is not here to do that today and the member for Lowe will not have to follow him up and point out his inconsistencies.Discrimination saps incentive and drains innovation—it is a key ingredient in a recipe for mediocrity. Incentives are a key feature of an aspirational Australia. Public policies that crippled incentive are why Australia lost its way under the former Labor government. That is why the coalition government is working so hard to deliver sweeping taxation reforms that promote an incentive based economy and society. But the social contract that exists in Australia prescribes that financial incentives operate in tandem with the incentive of opportunity—such as educational opportunities, health care opportunities and employment opportunities.As Australians, we believe each individual has an unfettered right to take advantage of these opportunities if they want to and are prepared to work for it. If we make exceptions or qualifications to this principle, we are acquiescing to discriminatory behaviour and, thus, destroying incentive. Discrimination in the work force against pregnant women is no exception. The message that this form of discrimination sends to the community is that there is no incentive for women of child-bearing age who may want to have children to pursue excellence in the workplace as they may be discriminated against at a later date. I congratulate the member for Forde for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.When incentive is eroded, motivation decreases, productivity drops and product development and innovation stalls. A far better situation is to eliminate discrimination from the work force so that every individual has an incentive to work harder and advance their career opportunities. A motivated labour market results in increases to productivity, and drives product development and innovation to a higher plane. It raises the excellence bar in the workplace. This is an excellent outcome not just in terms of social justice and social cohesion but also in the context of a national labour market reaching its full potential. It completes a virtuous cycle of social and economic policies complementing each other—where good social policy produces economic dividends. So it is very concerning that there is a significant body of anecdotal evidence which indicates that discrimination against pregnant women still exists in many workplaces.It is a situation that runs entirely counter to coalition government policy. In Australia, discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy is unlawful under both the Sex Discrimination Act and the Workplace Relations Act. At the International Labour Organisation meeting in June this year, in Geneva, the coalition government affirmed that position during discussions on the Maternity Protection Convention. Future scheduled sessions of the International Labour Organisation will have on the agenda the revision of instruments concerning maternity protection.As the national labour market base continues to broaden, and participation rates of women increase, it is critical that Australia work towards the eradication of discriminatory practices in the workplace. Under the coalition government, we have a record high number of women in the work force in Australia. We need to build on this. But a critical balance must be struck. The needs and interests of employers and employees—particularly in the private sector—need to be considered and given equal consideration. It means accepting that even employers can be discriminated against by overzealous legislation.The current legislative framework which regulates workplace relations discriminates against small business employers. In the last parliament, important workplace relations reform, particularly in relation to small business, was blocked in the Senate with the help of the Labor Party. The coalition government's mandate for tax reform secured at the last election also applies to its workplace relations reform that will remove some of the discriminatory features of our present system. Under the social contract that operates in Australia, there is no place for discrimination of any form at any level in society. I would call on the opposition and the Democrats to help the coalition government to remove the last vestiges of discrimination on both employers and employees alike. (Time expired)17:07:0011757Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I speak today in support of the motion moved by the member for Forde regarding the report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Pregnant and productive: it's a right not a privilege to work while pregnant . However, I, too, must ask the question: why has it taken the Howard government four months to respond to this report? The inquiry which gave rise to the report has confirmed that, despite legislation, pregnant women are still being denied equal opportunity in employment. One important recommendation arising from the report is the importance of educating employers to ensure compliance between the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and how the act interrelates with workplace relations and occupational health and safety requirements.Two other main areas are addressed in the report. Firstly, there is a large range of federal, state and territory legislation covering pregnancy related concerns, in particular, antidiscrimination, workplace relations and occupational health and safety. There must be a way to minimise duplicated legislation and inconsistencies. The Sex Discrimination Act must be amended to reflect how the workplace has changed over the past 15 years. One issue is that pregnancy is not legislatively defined in the Sex Discrimination Act.Secondly, it is clear there must be more research on the issues of pregnancy and work both Australia-wide and internationally. I note that one of the problems, particularly in traditionally male oriented work environments, is the lack of understanding by male colleagues of the needs of pregnant women. Another of the problems is that a lack of equal opportunity in the workplace has led to a significant financial and emotional impact on women and their families. The report also found that many cases of discrimination against pregnant women go unreported, casual workers have fewer rights when they become pregnant, partners of pregnant women are often denied leave to attend medical appointments or the birth of their child and there have been cases of employers misusing occupational health and safety regulations to remove pregnant employees.Women in our society have been discriminated against in terms of equal pay. They have been consistently denied equal rights despite attempts to improve their situations. It is not the government which is prepared to ensure that the recommendations in the report are implemented; it is Labor which is prepared to move amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act. Changes we would make include empowering the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to publish enforceable standards in relation to pregnancy and potential pregnancy in the workplace, prohibiting the asking of questions which might reasonably be understood as intended to elicit information about pregnancy, clarifying the unlawfulness of discriminating in medical examinations of pregnant women during the recruitment process and allowing referrals by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner to the Industrial Relations Commission of discriminatory awards or agreements without the need for a written complaint.I turn now to the government's proposed amendments which will have the result of weakening the Affirmative Action Agency. It is time the government started taking seriously the inquiries such as this one and legislated to improve the rights of working women, not reduce the powers of agencies developed to protect them. Sex Discrimination Commissioner Susan Halliday believes that the report was also able to demonstrate that certain employers are benefiting through accommodating pregnancy in the workplace. I also note that government cuts to child care, education and health services have adversely impacted upon women who are attempting to raise a family and work to improve their family's living standards.I implore all members of this House to stand up for the rights of women who want to raise families and have a career. That is their inalienable right. I refer specifically to Commissioner Halliday's comment that the challenge that lies before Australians on the eve of the 21st century is to ensure appropriate, safe and fair management of workplace pregnancy. It is our duty to rise to this challenge. As the previous speaker on our side, the member for Sydney, said, the government has to act on this report because it has been too long. It certainly does not send a very good message when such an important report was handed down four months ago and it has taken a member of the government until now to bring it to the attention of the parliament and have a debate on it. To that extent, I commend the member for Forde for showing the initiative for doing that. I will give her, as a member of the government, great credit, but it certainly says sorry things about the Howard government and its real interest in women. Since time immemorial, women have been discriminated against in the workplace. In my experience at the Public Service and Merit Protection Commission I have seen many instances of it, and this is reflected particularly in the area of pregnancy. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—Order! The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.1175817:13:0011758Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—I move:That the House:(1) expresses its sympathy at the loss of life of three Australian AusAID workers in the recent air crash in Fiji;(2) commends AusAID for the work it is performing throughout the South Pacific, especially relating to population and development issues; and(3) calls on the Australian Government to at least maintain current funding, but also consider increased aid for development work in the South Pacific.On 24 July this year, an EMB-110 plane from Suva to Nadi crashed and 17 lives were lost. Among those who tragically died were two AusAID workers and two others involved in aid programs. They were Mr Ray Lloyd, Ms Clare Bleakley, Mr Peter Yong and Dr Chris Kohlenberg. Two other Australians also died tragically in this crash. This crash is just an example of some of the dangers faced by aid workers. Of course the loss of the lives of all the passengers and crew was a tragedy for everyone, but we can ill afford to lose the talents of AusAID workers. This plane crash had a special significance to me and to members from the All Party Group on Population and Development who had just completed a tour of Vanuatu and Fiji. In fact, the plane that crashed was the one we had been aboard 24 hours earlier.People are often critical of overseas aid but, having visited many aid projects, I can say that the Australian taxpayers' money is in the main very well spent. In 1999-2000 Australia's total aid flows to the Pacific will be almost $140 million. In a sectoral break-up of that aid, about 35 per cent will be spent on education and training, 20 per cent on economic reform and governance, 15 per cent on health, another 15 per cent on environment and natural resources, with a further 10 per cent on private sector development.Madam Deputy Speaker Gash, as you would be well aware, the Pacific Island countries in our region face a number of common problems because of their remoteness from markets and their often limited natural resource base. Land areas are generally small and they are susceptible to natural disaster. As a result, economic growth tends to fluctuate and is unable to outstrip population growth. This population growth is a particular problem in the Pacific. This is not so much because of the overall numbers—as many Pacific Island nations in our view would have a small population—but it is the density of this small population which means they are overpopulated. For that reason, they have health problems, and security of income and family planning are essential.Key development indicators for the region—such as literacy, infant mortality and life expectancy—are generally better than in other developing regions. Per capita income is in most cases high by developed country standards, but so are the costs. Much of the infrastructure now needs renewal. The health and education systems are not keeping up with the needs of growing populations, diseases including HIV-AIDS are increasing and there is a severe shortage of trained personnel to fill key positions in government and the private sector.Australia is one of the leading donors to the independent island nations of the Pacific. The goal of Australia's program is to assist these island countries achieve the maximum possible degree of self-reliance. I believe we have a special responsibility in the Pacific. Not only is it our region and Australia is a wealthy developed nation, but with the United States withdrawing funding for this area in many aid projects, if Australia does not step in, who else will?During the All Party Group on Population and Development's visit, we saw many aid projects. They were not all AusAID funded but they were all quite impressive, such as the Family Health Services Clinic at Port Vila, the Youth Health Centre also at Port Vila and the Vanuatu Institute of Technology. We also visited the Family Health Services Clinics on the Island of Espiritu Santo and a hospital at Port Vila.During our time in Fiji we met many women's groups, such as the Women's Rights Movement Office, the Reproductive and Family Health Clinic and the Fiji School of Medicine. We also saw the Fiji School of Nursing and the Valelevu Health Centre. As I said at the outset, not all of these were AusAID funded projects but all the projects convinced us that the Australian aid dollar is being well spent.In conclusion, part of my motion moved that the House:. . . commends AusAID for the work it is performing—and—calls on the Australian Government to at least maintain current funding, but also consider increased aid for development work in the South Pacific.I feel very strongly about this. One of the real difficulties with aid projects at the moment is that they are being funded on a project basis. That is good for the bureaucrats. People go in there maybe for three or six months and carry out a program, and the program can then be evaluated with the results being published. But what we need in many cases—although it always has to be a mix—are long-term projects where you do not see the results for maybe two, three, four or five years but they are ongoing projects that need ongoing funding. For the benefit of the people, these need to be funded as well.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—Is the motion seconded?83YHOAREMs Hoare—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.17:19:0011759Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—I rise also to speak to this motion because it was indeed a tragic event on 24 July this year when Air Fiji flight 121 crashed into the remote mountain range, with 17 people including six Australians and a New Zealander losing their lives. Ray Lloyd and Clare Bleakley, who worked for AusAID, and Peter Yong and Dr Christopher Kohlenberg, who I believe were contracted to work for AusAID, were amongst those who lost their lives in this tragic accident. Today we are here to remember them and to express our deepest sympathy to their families, their friends and their work colleagues.People working for AusAID are found in many parts of the world, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. Often they are working in isolated communities with very few of the comforts that most of us take for granted. I met some of those aid workers when I was an observer during the Indonesian elections. I had the privilege of working with two AusAID officers in the East Kalamantan region. Both of them were fluent in the language and one had spent time living and working in a village on a rice program. I was really impressed with the knowledge and dedication they had to their work. They had made a very significant contribution to the success of the observer team.When I was in Tibet earlier this year, I met aid workers in Xigaze, one of the remote parts of Tibet. Again, they were living in isolation but doing wonderful work to improve the quality of life for people in that region.Today this motion specifically commends the work of AusAID in the South Pacific, especially in the area relating to population and development issues. The island nations of the Pacific have always faced the problems of isolation, limited natural resources and a reliance on exports. Population increases and lack of or ageing infrastructure place many of these communities under considerable pressure. These factors, combined with natural disasters and health threats due to parasitic and infectious diseases endemic to this region, highlight the vulnerability of people living in these areas.Australians have always had very strong ties with the Pacific, and the Australian government have been responsive to the specific needs of the island nations. They have been responsive through the provision of aid for primary health care, education and training. Despite the great progress that has been made in many of these areas over a very long period of time, the needs continue to be substantial.The aim of our aid program is to assist the small nations to become self-sufficient and to help overcome the severe shortage of trained personnel to fill key positions within their communities. That is one of the critical needs of the island nations. I listened with interest to my colleague across the chamber and agree with him that it is important that we have long-term projects because these are not short-term problems; these are long-term problems for many of the people who live in this area. I believe that the government are well aware of that and they have put into place programs that will address the long-term needs.The aim, as I said, of this program is to assist these small nations to become self-sufficient and to help them to cope better in the longer term. Unemployment, shortage of food, and lack of educational opportunities are problems that can affect several generations, entrenching the cycle of poverty and all the difficulties and heartache that extreme poverty engenders. Australia's aid programs have been targeted to try to address these kinds of problems over the long term. They have been targeted at a number of different levels designed in a way which ensures the creation of practical and durable programs that can provide lasting improvements in the quality of life of people living in the island nations of the Pacific and can be responsive also to the emergencies because these are nations that are often afflicted by weather conditions and other conditions such as natural disasters which are not preventable but which unleash a torrent of heartache and problems for many of the residents in that region. So Australia's programs ought to also be responsive to those unforeseen disasters that do occur from time to time.In the Pacific the focus of the Australian aid program is on five key areas: health, economic reform and governance, education and training, environment and natural resource management, and private sector development. All of these are critical elements of communities being able to have sustainable development and a sustainable economy that will in the long term address some of the social and economic issues that beset them.I thought it was a bit unfortunate that in drafting the last part of the motion, the third part of the motion, the member did not perhaps take enough time to acquaint himself with the government program and also with the funding that is available. Perhaps the inclusion of the third part of the motion was unnecessary.The Australian people through the government will provide $1.5 billion in development assistance for 1999-2000. This is an increase of $22 million over the last year's budget and it maintains the aid budget in real terms. Australia's gross national product ratio in 1999-2000 will be 0.25 per cent. This places Australia above the latest 1997 average of donor countries of 0.22 per cent. In fact, as the member quite rightly pointed out to the House, Australia is one of the most generous contributors of any nation in the world to the Pacific islands.The Asia-Pacific region continues to be a very high priority for aid funding and will benefit from the government's `Better aid for a better future' policy, which was announced by the minister not so long ago. This is aimed at reducing poverty and achieving sustainable development. That is what it is all about, and it is a very good policy. The estimated aid for the Pacific area in 1999-2000 is $136.9 million in addition to an estimated budget of $328.9 million for assistance to Papua New Guinea. In fact, Australia, as I said, is one of the largest donors, as my colleague has already acknowledged, to the island nations and it has to be remembered that, aside from specific development assistance, Australia contributes in many other ways to many other institutions which are important to the fabric of these societies.Administering these programs is a very dedicated group of officers working for AusAID out in the field. They are quietly going about their work. They are the unsung heroes and they are improving the quality of life for so many people. Sometimes they work in isolation in fairly tough physical environments and today we specifically speak in this House to commend that work—the work of AusAID officers in the South Pacific—and to remember Ray Lloyd, Clare Bleakley, Peter Yong and Dr Christopher Kohlenberg, who lost their lives so tragically in the course of their work. Once again, may I convey my sincere condolences to the families, the friends and the workmates of those officers who so tragically lost their lives and may their life's work be an inspiration to those who come after them to continue to carry out that important work in the Asia-Pacific and in other parts of the world that clearly are neighbours to the Australian community.17:28:0011761Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—I am pleased to second this motion. I am also pleased to support the private member's motion put forward by my colleague Colin Hollis, the member for Throsby. Members in this place who were here long before me know of the commitment and dedication by the member for Throsby in relation to overseas aid and, in particular, on issues of population and development.The motion expresses sympathy at the loss of the Australian aid workers in the recent air crash in Fiji. I want to join with my colleagues on both sides of the House in conveying my condolences not only to the families and friends of those who were killed, including Clare Bleakley and Ray Lloyd but also to the family and friends of Dr Christopher Kohlenberg, who was in Fiji on an aid mission to teach local health care workers about obstetrics.The loss of a loved one can never be reconciled, but I hope that as time goes by your grief will become more bearable and you will cherish the fond memories they have left with you. You should also be very proud of their lives and of the commitment and dedication they showed for less fortunate people in developing countries. People like Ms Bleakley, Mr Lloyd and Dr Kohlenberg are rare and will be remembered for the part of their lives they gave to ensuring a better quality of life for those with whom they worked. I also want to take this opportunity to commend their colleagues they have left behind in AusAID.AusAID is an organisation which attracts the very best committed workers, whether they are based in Australia or at overseas posts working on specific projects. Members may know that, as the member for Pearce mentioned, in June this year I was also invited to join the Australian delegation as part of the 500-strong international observer mission during the Indonesian general elections. I and the member for Pearce, who has just participated in this debate, were joined in Balikpapan for over a week by Kevin O'Reilly and Jenny Clarke from AusAID. Kevin and Jenny brought with them extreme competency and diligence, great compassion, good friendship, good humour and goodwill. Kevin and Jenny also brought with them an excellent command of Indonesian Bahasa. I take this opportunity to thank Kevin and Jenny for their expertise and their friendship at the time. I commend all AusAID workers and I am pleased to place on the national public record my personal gratification for the work they do.But, as this motion goes on, the member for Throsby is also calling on the Australian government to not only maintain current funding but also consider increased aid for development work in the South Pacific. While I acknowledge that there has been an increase in Australian aid to South Pacific countries of around two per cent, I want to examine Australia's overseas aid budget in general. The budget papers state that the aid budget for 1999-2000 will be $1.5 billion. In real terms, this happens to be a decrease of 0.2 per cent on the 1998-99 outlay, a trend which has been followed by this government since its election in 1996.Since that election, the Australian aid budget has fallen by 9.7 per cent. As government members have a penchant for referring to the 13 great years of Labor government, over the period from 1990 to 1995 the aid budget grew by an average of three per cent a year. What we have seen in this current budget is that the ratio of the volume of official development assistance to the gross national product has fallen to an all-time low of 0.25 per cent. It must be reiterated and emphasised so that there can be no misunderstanding by members of this House or by those people listening to this debate: the ratio of ODA to the GNP has fallen to an all-time low of 0.25 per cent, an all-time low in the history of our country contributing to international development countries.The UN target is 0.7 per cent of ODA to GNP ratio. It is also used to rank OECD countries in relation to their aid budgets. In that order of 22 OECD donor countries, Australia is ranked 17 out of the 22 donor countries in relation to overseas aid. I conclude with a quote from the Australian Council for Overseas Aid in its review of the 1999-2000 federal budget. They said:Never has there been a year when an increase in aid was more justified—the budget surplus in Australia is unexpectedly large and the pain being suffered by people around the world is immense. A generous community could have expected a more generous response.17:33:0011762May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—I am happy today to join with my colleagues in supporting the member for Throsby on his motion with regard to AusAID workers. Firstly, I would like to take the opportunity to express my sincere regret at the recent loss of life of three Australian AusAID workers and extend to the families of those three workers my condolences. Several days prior to the July crash in Fiji I met several people working with AusAID during a trip to the island nation. I was touched by the dedication and commitment of the band of AusAID workers who are striving to improve conditions for people in this developing country and other Pacific island nations.As I have witnessed first-hand, AusAID provides tremendous support which is crucial to the development of Pacific island countries. Australia's reason for providing long-term funding for projects is based on our nation's desire to assist island countries to achieve the maximum degree of self-reliance. While this means different things for different countries, our underlying reasoning reflects our nation's humanitarian philosophy. It also reflects the varying needs of our neighbouring countries in the Pacific islands. Some countries are resource rich and will meet a state of self-reliance in a shorter period. For others who face climatic vulnerability, the path to self-sufficiency will be longer, even with commitment from countries such as Australia.The Pacific island countries face a number of common problems, firstly, because of their remoteness from markets and, secondly, because of their limited natural resource base. In such countries, the landmass area is relatively small and they are prone to experience natural disasters such as floods and hurricanes. As a result, the economic growth in such countries has a tendency to fluctuate. The Pacific Island Development Strategy 1999-2001 is the first comprehensive strategy for Australia's aid to Pacific island countries. In 1999-2000, Australia's total aid directed to the Pacific will amount to almost $140 million and will be spent on education and training, economic reform and governance, health, environment and natural resources, and private sector development.Firstly, Australia's aid for economic reform and governance is targeted to support the regional reform agenda of Pacific island nations. This is in recognition of the strong links between aid effectiveness and good recipient government policy. Secondly, education and training are two crucial elements to assist Pacific island nations overcome two of the main barriers to economic growth and poverty reduction. Thirdly, in relation to health, the Pacific islands face health challenges which can stand as an impediment to economic growth and development. Australia's assistance in the health sector is directed towards national policy development, disease prevention and control, women's and children's health and the prevention of non-communicable diseases. Australia's aid is also targeted at improving the effectiveness of the delivery of family planning services throughout the region through such avenues as training community educators and teachers and assisting local family planning centres.It is imperative that the Australian government and organisations such as AusAID continue work on developing strategies in the area of family planning and encourage countries to implement suitable programs. Family planning services are an essential part of reproductive health care and have saved the lives and protected the health of millions of men, women and children. In addition, population control in such Pacific countries is vital to the achievement of economic objectives. In the area of environment and natural resources, Australia's aid is critical. Effective management of natural resources is vital for developing countries to reach the achievement of self-reliance goals. For example, for many island countries, the sustainable exploitation of forests and fisheries offers good potential for economic advancement.In the final area of private sector development, funding provided by Australia is again vitally important. At present, the private sector in many Pacific island countries has a rather narrow base and remains unattractive to potential foreign investors. Australia remains committed to the sustainable development of the Pacific island countries and is one of the largest donors to the region. Our aid to Pacific nations is critical to them achieving their self-reliance and long-term sustainable development objectives. I commend the government's aid efforts to date and support the maintenance of current funding levels.17:38:0011763Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—It is with some regret that we are all participating in this debate today, which is in no small measure to acknowledge the loss of life of six Australians, including two AusAID workers, Ray Lloyd and Clare Bleakley, and two people contracted to AusAID, Peter Yong and Christopher Kohlenberg, in an unfortunate air crash in Fiji on 24 July. This tragedy is exacerbated by the fact that the people who work for AusAID do so out of a commitment to making a contribution well beyond their own personal advancement—they do so out of a commitment to improving the living standards of those people in our immediate region in the Pacific. Australia's total aid to the Pacific in 1998-99 was $131.2 million, with a slight increase in this current financial year. Australia's aid goes to contribute to economic reform and governance, education and training, health, environment and natural resources, and private sector development.In my comments today, I wish to concentrate on the issue of reproductive health and population. I participated in a delegation of the all-party group on population and development to Vanuatu and Fiji earlier this year. It was a very enlightening experience to have meetings with people on the ground, including AusAID workers, who are working to achieve those admirable objectives. The principles of population include that individuals should decide the number of children and when, that individuals should have access to reproductive health facilities and that it is important that family planning be available for both women and men.In Vanuatu, we had a number of very successful meetings with the ministry of health and the Family Planning Association on both the main island and Espiritu Santo. Our delegation was greatly assisted by the High Commissioner in Vanuatu, Perry Head, who looked after us and arranged our program, including organising a meeting over afternoon tea at his residence with the Prime Minister, the Speaker and other significant parliamentarians from Vanuatu. Our visit was also important because we saw that AusAID dollars are not being used in a patronising way; they are being used in a culturally sensitive way. By way of example, I would point to the cultural performance we saw from the theatre group Won Smal Bag. They are a group of young people who go into the villages and, through plays and the use of theatre, have a great educative role on the dangers of AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases, birth control and all these health issues. They get their message across in a way which I think would be impossible for, say, a group of politicians. It would be impos sible for politicians to go and talk to those people on the ground about such issues. The work they have done is incredibly impressive. In terms of value for the Australian dollar, all the projects we saw were very much worth while.In Fiji, we had meetings with the Reproductive and Family Health Association, the Women's Crisis Centre, the women's rights movement, the Fiji School of Medicine, the Valelevu Health Centre and the AIDS task force. It was an extremely enlightening experience for those young people in the AIDS task force, who were assisted by Australian training, to go out and talk to street kids and prostitutes, both male and female—being out there on the ground and distributing condoms and distributing information in a way which benefits the entire society in Fiji. I believe that Australia as a relatively wealthy nation has an obligation to assist our neighbours. Through AusAID, we can be certain not only that is happening but that Australian dollars are being well spent. (Time expired)UNKNOWNMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Grievance Debate11764Question proposed:That grievances be noted.1176417:43:0011764Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA6J4BowmanALP00—I rise in this grievance debate to mention a couple of matters of great concern to me. The first matter that I want to bring to the attention of the House is the plight of one of my constituents, Mr Noel Bourne, whose home at Alexandra Hills was subjected to forced entry by two juveniles. The two offenders were apprehended after spending four days in Noel Bourne's home. But, while they were on the premises, the pair fraudulently logged up telephone calls to the value of $9,329.51 to the 1900 service. You can imagine my constituent's dismay when he received accounts from both Telstra and Optus requesting payments for $6,674.15 and $2,655.36 respectively. In good faith, he approached both Telstra and Optus and explained the circumstances behind these extraordinarily large bills. Optus compassionately waived the $2,655.30 owing, and for this I must extend, on behalf of Mr Bourne and his family, my appreciation and thanks.Telstra, on the other hand, have pursued the debt and are threatening legal action to collect the outstanding debt, even though they have established the nature and the validity of the calls. My constituent is a battler with four young children. There is no way he could afford to pay this amount, yet Telstra remain unrepentant, even suggesting that Mr Bourne's insurance would cover the cost of the fraudulent calls. It does not.They go further to recommend that he should have perhaps put on a temporary suspension network barring and easy call control, which would have mitigated my constituent's exposure to some of this debt. I would ask: what percentage of ordinary Australians have these facilities or even know that all these facilities exist? Even officers of the Consumer Affairs Division of Treasury have been unable to resolve my constituent's dilemma. Surely, there should be some protection for consumers in instances such as this where clearly there has been fraudulent use of their telephone service.On 28 May 1999, I made representations to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Richard Alston, requesting that he intervene on behalf of my constituent and show some compassion for the circumstances Mr Bourne and his family have found themselves in. Have we heard back from the minister? No. This is despite a further reminder to him on 2 August 1999. Telstra should show some compassion and do the same thing as Optus. I ask the question, given that today Telstra listed on the Stock Exchange: what are they going to be like if the government gets its way and privatises them altogether? I ask Telstra to reverse their decision and show some consideration for my constituent.While we are talking about compassion, I want to bring up another matter which I think needs to be brought up, particularly in view of a dorothy dixer that was asked in the parliament today of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. I refer to the question of the number of Kosovar refugees who are still here. All members of this House will remember that, some months ago, we involved ourselves in an enormous humanitarian operation. At the time, it was a bipartisan thing, and it still is. I heard just about all of the speeches, and I personally welcomed the first arrivals from the European camps along with the Prime Minister and the minister for immigration.I cannot recall the Kosovars being told anywhere in speeches made by the Prime Minister and the minister that, if they overstayed their welcome, they would be in breach of the Migration Act and would be forcibly deported. But I will get to that later. Over ensuing months, the outpouring of support continued from all sections of the community, fuelled by the government's assurances of safety to these poor people. The government emphasised that these people were now safe and that they could count on Australia's hospitality and protection for as long as it took.All in this House knew, however, that our official hospitality had already been set in concrete by legislation for a period of some three months, with a possible extension of a mere three months. The Labor Party, in spite of our in-principle support for the humanitarian operation, urged the government to be generous in the way that they handled that this very major exercise. I spoke about this in a number of press releases in April and, later, in August. Under the heading, Kosovo refugee `pause'—Labor says Australia should reaffirm its commitment, I said on 10 April:In the event that a resolution is reached, I call upon the Government to make a commitment to expand, on a one-off basis, the annual permanent refugee intake to cater for those who have become politically vulnerable and in fear of their lives should they return to Kosovo.The Government need only to look at what Labor did while in Government to assist the plight of refugees from Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1995. On that occasion, 2000 extra refugees were added to the normal annual intake—borrowed from the forward program.Again, a press release of Tuesday, 24 August 1999 stated:Mr Sciacca said that while parts of Kosovo are now relatively safe, almost 1000 refugees are from Eastern Kosovo, which following the redrawing of national boundaries by NATO is still under Serbian influence.`The Federal Opposition has been saying for many months that some of these people would want to remain in Australia and that those who had a proven fear of persecution upon their return should be allowed to apply for refugee status.`For the umpteenth time, the Opposition calls on the Government to amend the Kosovo Safe Haven legislation to allow those Kosovars who fear for their safety should they return to be allowed to state their case.`Allowing the Kosovars to apply for refugee status will safeguard their safety while at the same time removing them as a burden on the public purse, giving them a chance to become productive members of the Australian community,' Mr Sciacca said.Time and time again, the opposition has stated publicly that a few hundred Kosovars would want to remain because of well-founded fears of persecution if they were forced to return to their homeland. Some of these people, as I said in the press release, are from a part of Kosovo that is still under Serbian control. I cannot think of a better reason to be generous and compassionate towards these people. We are not talking about thousands of them but rather a few hundred. We allow 12,000 refugees in every year. Even if all of these who want to stay—approximately 400 or 500—could prove that they were refugees and even if all of them stayed, they would be only something like four per cent or five per cent of our total refugee intake. In fact, it would be a minuscule half of one per cent of our total immigration intake of 86,000.In comparison, the United States, whom we try to emulate in so many ways, has guaranteed permanent residency to their Kosovar refugees. In addition, if their refugees choose to go back to their homeland and then return within a year, the US government will still grant them permanent residency. Obviously, we have much more to learn about compas sion. Instead, our government's approach is to remove these people against their wishes and the wishes of the communities in which they live, especially Tasmania and South Australia. I acknowledge Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, who has just taken the chair, who has been taking their side with my full support and that of the opposition, irrespective of the abuse he is getting from Senator Abetz, who would not know if it were Christmas or New Year's.Firstly, the government encouraged the public campaign aimed at hardening the hearts of the same people they tried to win over a few months earlier with speeches about Australia's responsibility to help those who are less fortunate. Stories of Kosovar refugees stealing furniture, destroying equipment and smearing faeces on the wall of safe havens were stories of the actions of a few who are probably still disturbed, traumatised and frightened by their experiences. These stories are designed to shed darkness on all the Kosovars and their so-called disgraceful behaviour.Secondly, when the government felt public opinion shifting against the Kosovars, the minister flew to Tasmania, where the refugees were dangerously close to being accepted and adopted by the community. The front page of the Hobart Mercury says `Five months ago Tasmanians made them welcome—yesterday Ruddock told Kosovos go home'. Have a look at this: it is disgraceful. He tells them to go home, and then went on to say in the same publication:`I don't want it to come to this but if people become unlawful, they may have to be taken into detention and removed from Australia . . . `That's the law and at the moment, unless I extend their visas on the 30th October, they become unlawful.'It is clear that, where people can be forcibly removed, that will occur. Essentially what he has said is, `We don't want you anymore. Go home now or I will arrest you and deport you.' He reiterated that stance today in answer to a dorothy dixer. This is nothing more than compassion with a use-by date.Senator Andrew Bartlett said something very relevant the other day in a press release. He said:The Prime Minister was there welcoming the refugees when they landed in Australia. Will he be there waving them goodbye when they are forcibly deported?The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs prides himself on being a fair and compassionate person—a champion of human rights and the plight of refugees—yet the minister chose Refugee Week to tell a couple of hundred traumatised Kosovars that they are no longer welcome. How compassionate is that? I acknowledge that as politicians we have to temper our compassion with political judgment; however, there are lines that should not be crossed, and there are times when compassionate generosity should be unreserved and unconditional. This is one of those times.I fail to see the reason why we have thrown $100 million plus down the toilet—that is what we have spent on those people so far—by not allowing 300 or 400 of these people to stay here. I call on the government to allow these Kosovars to state their case for refugee status under the current guidelines and, if their fears are substantiated, to let them rebuild their lives in this country that they so desperately want to be a part of. (Time expired)1176617:53:0011766Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—Just over a week ago I finalised a list of successful recipients of the recognition awards for older Australians. I was also present in Canberra for the presentation of the Older Australian of the Year award. These occasions are a wonderful inspiration. It was fantastic to see the enthusiasm, the vitality and the energy of people in their 70s, 80s and even 90s who have a real desire to learn, are still thrilled by new experiences in life and have a real zest for living.It was also really encouraging to see the immeasurable contribution of these retirees and these older persons to our community and to the lives of others in their roles as volunteers, as carers and as members of groups such as Lantern, Legacy, CWA, Red Cross, hospital auxiliaries, Probus, Meals on Wheels and other support organisations that put in so many voluntary hours for the good of others in the community.Over the past three years it has been a privilege to meet so many older Australians in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury communities—people who are selflessly committed to the wellbeing of others and who give so much of themselves to improve the lives of others and who play an invaluable role in the life of our community. The recognition of the International Year of Older Persons provides an excellent opportunity to recognise the contribution of older Australians. It is also an important time to remind ourselves of the growing challenges of an ageing demographic and the need to make long-term plans adequately, first of all, so we can maximise the benefits of the contribution of older citizens to our community and, secondly, to ensure that we can adequately meet their needs. This is a challenge not only for Australia but for most of the OECD countries. In Australia there are currently 2.2 million people who are over the age of 65—that is, 12 per cent of our population. Within 20 years that will rise to four million, or 18 per cent of our population. Within 50 years it will rise to 6.3 million, or 26 per cent of our population. We now have half a million people over the age of 80, which is 2.8 per cent of our population. This will rise within 30 years to more than one million, which is 4.5 per cent of our population.As this ageing process occurs, so the age dependency ratio rises—that is, the number of retirees per working-age person who can support them. Those age dependency ratios are estimated to rise from the current level of 18 per cent to some 40 per cent within the next 50 years. Conversely, the number of people working to support each retiree will fall from 5.6 to 2.5 in that same period. This is a measure of the difficulty there will be to adequately provide an income support level for our older Australians.There are a number of challenges involved with an ageing community, and two of them I want to pursue in a little more detail. The first is the challenge to provide an adequate income support level to our older citizens. It is essential that we guarantee adequate living standards. This cannot be done by the pension alone. The OECD estimates that age and related pensions will rise from three per cent of GDP in Australia to 4½ per cent by the middle of the next century. Therefore, it is essential that we do what we can to encourage self-sufficiency.Certainly it is essential that we do what we can to provide for those who are on the pension, and this government have already begun to do that. We have indexed age pensions to a minimum of 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings. We have raised the tax-free threshold for independent retirees. We have put in place a number of strategies already to improve our support for older Australians, but we need to also put in place longer term planning policies that will encourage self-sufficiency and greater saving for retirement, that will remove the incentives for earlier retirement and that will provide job opportunities for mature age employees.The average age of retirement in Australia is 58, which is too low. We need to encourage people to stay in the workplace longer. Firstly, this will reduce the pressures on taxation revenue and will reduce the rise in the dependency ratio. Secondly, it will reduce the level of dissaving and the double-dipping that occurs. Thirdly, it will delay the threshold of pension dependency along with a level of pension dependency. We need to encourage people to stay in the workplace longer, and this is one of the principles that the OECD enunciated in its approach to adequately providing long-term planning for retirement.This government is introducing necessary reforms to plan for this issue and to plan for an ageing demographic. We have already introduced a pension bonus plan for delayed retirement. We have introduced a graded raising of the superannuation preservation age for those born after 1964. We have introduced moves to end the compulsory retirement age of 65 in the Commonwealth Public Service. We have introduced a graded rise in the pensionable age for women to eventually bring it up to the same level as it is for men. We need to introduce improvements also in incentives for people to continue in part-time or temporary work so that they can increase their level of independence and reduce the call on savings and, ultimately, the age pension.There is still much more that needs to be done. Attention needs to be given to the interface between incomes, pensions and tax rates. We have started to make progress in this area. The reduction in the income-pension trade-off from 50 cents in the dollar to 40 cents in the dollar under the new tax package to be introduced next year is a big improvement to provide incentive for older Australians. The lower income tax rate and the higher tax-free threshold under the ANTS package will also be a big improvement. Capital gains tax rollover relief for small business, the removal of provisional tax and the refund of excess dividend imputation credits are all improvements which will help. There is a need for greater flexibility for people to move in and out of temporary work, contract work and casual work, particularly in those immediate pre-pension years and in the post-pension years. There needs to be greater incentive to invest for retirement, and this government's proposals for capital gains tax will certainly help in that regard. We need to introduce policies to make it easier for mature age unemployed—those involuntarily unemployed—to re-enter the work force, otherwise we lose an extremely valuable resource in knowledge and skills. We need to introduce greater incentive job training policies to overcome discrimination and prejudice in the work force, we need to consider incentives for employers to take on mature age unemployed and we need to remove some of the structural obstacles to employing older people. For instance, in no state except Queensland and the ACT is there workers compensation past the age of 65. We need to remove these restrictions that make it harder for employers to take on mature age unemployed people.The second challenge for us is to provide appropriate health care levels for an ageing community. Clearly, an ageing population will bring with it growing expenditure on health care. The demand for health care for people over 65 is 3.8 times higher than it is for people under 65, rising to five times as much for people over 75. This includes acute health care, pharmaceuticals and the need for residential health care. The OECD estimates that, for Australia, government health outlays will rise by about 2½ per cent of GDP over the next 30 years. This government has increased already the allocation of funding for aged care from $2.3 billion per annum in 1996 to $2.9 billion this year. But there is a long way to go. We are already putting in place other improvements to help take the pressure off residential aged care: the $270 million Staying at Home package to remove the pressure to move into residential care; the introduction of a lifetime community rating for private health insurance; the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate; the extension of the seniors health care card to another 220,000 people; improved domiciliary nursing care benefits; the extension of the veterans gold card, et cetera.There is a need for much more long-term planning in this area. In my own electorate in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury we have considerable areas of need for aged care. Certainly we are seeing improvements. We saw last year the opening of a new hostel, Morven Gardens, with 60 beds. We have seen planning for a new nursing home attached to Hawkesbury Village with 61 beds. We are seeing an increase in day respite facilities with the recent awarding of $250,000 per annum to Anglicare to provide for day respite for people with dementia. But there is still a need for increased funding for more aged care places and more community aged care packages for the Blue Mountains and for the Hawkesbury to allow for the ageing demographic in my electorate. (Time expired)1176818:03:0011768Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—Nearly a fortnight ago BHP announced the result of its steel portfolio review. BHP intends to become a major, world-class natural resource company with a strategic interest in steel making. BHP, in its press release of 6 October 1999, stated it will become:. . . a simpler business, focusing on those areas in which BHP has ongoing operational and marketing advantages, which are consistent with its strategic objectives, and which generate substantial shareholder value.Following the announcement, BHP will concentrate on flat products in Australia, New Zealand and Asia and service the building and construction markets internationally. The announcement has major implications for BHP steel operations based in the heart of my electorate. The Port Kembla steelworks will become the jewel in the crown of BHP's steel operation in Australia.When the announcement was made nearly a fortnight ago, I broadly welcomed its measures in my public statements. I am obviously very pleased that the Port Kembla operation, which is the most cost-effective holding for BHP in its steel portfolio with its low cost supply of steel and leading position in coated steel, will become a key asset for steel production in this country. Illawarra steel workers and the major steel unions can feel more secure about BHP's future operations at Port Kembla. I note that the public statements of steel union officials, particularly from the Port Kembla Branch of the Australian Workers Union, have been broadly positive since the announcement was made. I also understand that meetings of steel union delegates have taken place over the last week, giving union officials the opportunity to explain the BHP restructure to its workers.I think it is important to place on the record that the work done by steel workers and the steel unions in my region, over the last two decades especially, has contributed crucially to the positive performance of steel production in my region. The huge capital investment injection which has been pumped into the Port Kembla steel operation over the last few years has been nothing short of a vote of confidence in the steel work force in the Illawarra. There was a time when my region copped a hiding from critical media coverage about industrial relations strife and poor productivity, much of it, in my view, unfair and a diversion from the inability of managers to deal with their workers and the Illawarra unions. All of this crucial attention was focused on three main industries in my region—steel was one, coal was the other and the waterfront was the last. Over the last two decades, and published in a series of reports on regional development and industrial relations, the critical perception of the Illawarra as an industrial relations wasteland has been properly shelved once and for all.I am concerned that BHP intends to divest itself of its Tin Mill Products holding. In the Illawarra about 1,500 workers will be affected by this decision. On the day that this part of the announcement was made, I raised my concerns directly in correspondence with the President, BHP Flat Products, Mr George Edgar. The following day he did me the courtesy of a reply. It appears we are all joined in our concern to ensure that the Tin Mill Products employees in my region are looked after when a new owner can be found for the operation. I want any new owner or joint venturer for the Tin Mill Products division to ensure the retention of each of those jobs. Tin Mill Product's existing plant has very good equipment and, as George Edgar said to me in his reply to my letter, `good people', and that should ring in the ears of any potential new owner of the mill.Despite the positive features of this announcement for the Illawarra region, there are continuing worrying indications that there is a strategic withdrawal from steel making taking place in Australia. I have been concerned for a number of years that there is a view developing in Australia that it should quit steel production.In 1997 I served on the all-party committee that assessed the Australian iron and steel industry and reported to the then Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism. This committee was established following the BHP announcement that it would close the Newcastle steelworks after 87 years of steel production. The committee travelled around Australia. It visited steel operations throughout the country, met with steel industry representatives, trade unions and community organisations, and presented its report in September 1997. From memory, I do not believe that the Howard government ever responded to any of the recommendations in that report. No doubt it occupies a nice place on some departmental shelf, attracting its appropriate hold of dust. If Australia quits the steel making industry, frankly, it forfeits its manufacturing industry.On two occasions in the last two years, Australia's primary producer of steel has made significant announcements, and the Howard government has said nothing. The then minister, I recall, went off to play blackjack and the current minister issued a media release saying only that the government will not interfere in what is essentially a commercial decision.The Hawke Labor government in 1983, faced with a similar crisis in steel making, intervened to save an industry that employed hundreds of thousands of workers and earned Australia billions of dollars in export income. In the first 100 days of the Hawke government, steel making in Australia was rescued by the implementation of a five-year steel plan. The Hawke government came out with a carrot and a stick, directed at both the company and the unions. What was achieved by this intervention? BHP committed to investing nearly $1 billion in its steel plants, the government would provide nearly $100 million a year in bounty payments and the unions would exercise wage restraint and productivity targets.The results were a viable Australian steel industry. Profitability was restored, productivity was lifted by at least 40 per cent, industrial disputation was slashed and steel export rose dramatically. BHP ended up investing $2 billion into steel upgrades during the life of the steel plant, and in the following decade invested up to $7 billion—although some of this dramatic investment went into holdings that have cost BHP dearly over recent times and is one of the reasons for their announcement in the last fortnight. The Howard government's response has once again shown that it has no industry policy and no regional development policy. It has no plans, no ideas and no vision, and it is content to leave everything to the market.I took great interest in an article in the business section of the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday headed `Now, at your service', which covered the BHP announcement. Throughout the article there appeared to be pride in the fact that:. . . as BHP retreated from its once seemingly impregnable bastion of steel, there were no industry plans and no offers of assistance from Federal or State Governments to hold back the inevitability of change.The article mentioned that in the United States the so-called rust belt—which has had a decline in traditional industries such as steel, car manufacturing and other heavy industry—is being replaced by `vibrant centres of growth and job creation'. This is true—and some of this kind of transformation in industry can be seen in regions such as the Illawarra, which is a leader in the telecommunications industry—but it should be highlighted that many of these new industries in the United States operate in foreign trade zones. In other words, they are provided with assistance by state and federal governments. This, incidentally, was recommendation No. 6 in the minority report of Labor MPs on the all party committee assessing the steel industry, which I mentioned earlier.The BHP announcement on 6 October has positive features for my electorate and my region, which I have publicly and broadly welcomed. But I do not kid myself into believing that this is the end of such announcements. Unless there is a substantial shift in the policy thinking in government, bureaucracy and business away from blind faith in the market, a big announcement will one day be made. I can see the day, perhaps in the next five years or so, when an announcement will be made that Australia no longer is to be involved in steel making. The question will then be: do we greet this announcement with a shrug of the shoulders, or do we kick ourselves about yet another lost opportunity and yet another lost industry? I have said it many times: it is essential that Australia maintains its position as a world producer of steel. We have the equipment, the workers and the infrastructure at Port Kembla to make sure that Australia takes its place as a leading producer of steel.1177018:13:0011770Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—Over the weekend in Townsville in the suburb of Currajong someone set fire to an Australian flag hung out on display at the residence of Barbara and Noel Lucas. Mr and Mrs Lucas had put the flag up as a symbolic and public show of support for their son serving in East Timor, Corporal Keith Lucas. The flag had been raised for display on the day that Corporal Lucas and many other Townsville based men and women of our ADF were deployed to East Timor as part of the INTERFET force. According to reports in today's Townsville Bulletin , the flag was set alight some time in the early hours of Sunday morning. If this was simply an act of petty vandalism, all I can say is that I hope the person or persons responsible are ashamed of their actions and of the hurt and concern that they have caused to the Lucas family and other defence families in Townsville. The decent thing to do would be to own up and apologise in person to Mr and Mrs Lucas and to their family.If, however, this is a more sinister political attack on Australia's military role in East Timor, then I call on local residents to support the Lucas family and all of our defence personnel in East Timor by flying Australian flags in a similar public fashion. Residents in Townsville and Thuringowa have responded magnificently to our efforts in East Timor and to the needs and concerns of local defence families. After all, more than 2,000 of the troops from Townsville are currently in East Timor. Townsville's bus and taxi drivers, for example, are to be commended for wearing their hearts and national pride on their sleeves by flying small Australian flags on their radio aerials and on vehicles in support of our troops in East Timor. I call on residents to follow their lead and to fly a flag for freedom in East Timor; fly a flag in support of our Defence Force personnel and their families.Another matter I want to raise today concerns the serious mineral exploration industry downturn that has occurred in Queensland and probably throughout Australia. Mineral exploration and mining companies are very concerned about the current state of their industry—Mr Melham interjecting—HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—You ought to listen to this, the member for Banks. They have linked many of their concerns back to the vexed question of native title in Australia and to the native title legislation being put forward by the Queensland state government in particular. Their core concerns are tied up with the section of the Beattie government's native title act relating to access to the exploration permit tenements to undertake drilling operations. They know that, by dividing exploration tenements into `low impact' and `high impact' categories, new exploration work simply will not proceed and is not proceeding. Under the state government's legislation, low impact exploration activity is characterised as a drilling activity that, firstly, does not include clearing or site excavation, other than the minimum necessary to establish a drill pad for a mobile rig and, secondly, does not include clearing of a road or track—amongst other characteristics and requirements.There is almost never a road to the site where a geo wants to drill an exploration hole. The industry's point is that this effectively will mean that it must apply for a high impact exploration permit. This then means that the organisation must enter into protracted negotiations and compensation agreements, including payments, with native title holders. I heard today the ultimate irony, that indigenous people in the Torres Strait are frustrated that they cannot get on with some exploration activity because of this particular situation. In a letter to the Queensland Premier in August, one exploration company said:By making exploration difficult and more complicated the government has simply provided a strong disincentive for major mining and junior explorers to participate in the industry throughout Queensland.The message is blunt and practical: if you do not drill for new mineral deposits, you do not make new discoveries. If you do not make new discoveries, your resources eventually dry up. If your resources dry up, regional centres like Townsville will bear the economic and employment consequences.While Townsville itself is not a mining town, it is very much a base for mineral refining, mineral export and mineral exploration operations. In 1994, 1995 and 1996, there were 13 mineral exploration companies operating out of Townsville. Since 1996, the number of exploration offices has fallen to five. Companies such as CRA, Goldfields, Western Mining Corporation, Barkely Minerals, Dominion and Aberfoyle have all closed their office doors in Townsville in this period of time. These offices directly employed about 79 geologists and support staff.Let us look at Mount Isa, previously one of Australia's main exploration bases for all the major mining companies, including CRA and BHP. Mount Isa is now an exploration ghetto, a ghost town as far as exploration is concerned. All the majors have packed up and gone. It is now likely that the three major supply companies will also close. So why have exploration units closed down in the north-west minerals province, the largest minerals province in the world? The answer lies in native title. Exploration companies simply cannot get new tenements to explore, so their view is, `What's the point in hanging around? We may as well go away.'The state government hears but it says and does nothing. While low commodity prices have been a factor, I believe that the native title issue is the major factor contributing to the uncertainty that has been crippling the exploration industry. Seventy per cent of trained geologists currently in Australia are out of work. Clearly, this is not good news for the minerals exploration industry in general or the local Townsville and Thuringowa community in particular.The concerns being expressed by those in the industry who speak out are not isolated comments, either. They represent the serious concerns of the mining and exploration industry in general. Australian Bureau of Statistics figures released last month show private spending on minerals exploration has fallen to its lowest level in five years. In response to the figures, the Minerals Council of Australia said the depressed state of this vital job generating industry was due to a range of factors, including native title. Last month, the Australian Drilling Industry Association echoed these sentiments, saying that there were many factors affecting their industry—such as commodity prices, the Asian crisis and the value of the Australian dollar—but that the underlying problem was that of native title.The association's executive officer, Graeme Wakeling, described his members as being in dire trouble, with more than $100 million worth of exploration equipment in Queensland sitting idle because of native title constraints. In an article last month in the Courier-Mail, Mr Wakeling said:Some companies are still carrying out some limited exploration work. However, this is generally restricted to land that is not affected by native title.Everyone's concern is that problems and confusion associated with native title are not just driving minerals exploration companies out of regional centres like Townsville but are forcing Australian companies overseas. As stated by one CEO of an exploration company in an article in the Financial Review on 6 October of this year, `It is easier to explore in Iran than it is in Queensland.' What a disgraceful state of affairs! This too is not an isolated comment and was a point noted earlier this year by the chief economist of Dresdner Kleinwort Benson, who said that over half the mining companies that he had spoken to had expressed concern about exploration levels in Australia. In an article in the Financial Review in June, Mr Rob Henderson said that miners:are looking offshore in places like Africa, Asia and South America. That's a potential negative, not necessarily for the companies, but for Australian exports.The Financial Review article went on to say that native title issues were harming the industry's longer term decisions, though some companies were bypassing government to negotiate directly with Aboriginal Australians.As honourable members will know, the mining industry has for years operated in a cyclic phase. It goes into an upturn and then back into a downturn, and so on. The industry worldwide is just coming off the bottom of the last downturn. Higher commodity prices are certainly driving the latest upturn. This is the time when mining houses need confidence to increase their spending on exploration. Sadly, this looks very unlikely. The consequence of the native title problem, which is uncertainty, is going to make Australia miss out on the next boom.1177318:22:0011773Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—In this grievance speech I would like to refer to the rapid social, industrial and economic change taking place in Western Sydney and in my electorate of Greenway in particular. I will refer to the sadness, hope and opportunity that the change will bring about.As a reflection of the district's rural past we have three Country Women's Association branches functioning in the electorate: at Blacktown, Quakers Hill and Riverstone. These three organisations continue to contribute to the district socially by charity fund raising as well as being a link with the younger generation. I particularly enjoy attending the international day at the Quakers Hill Country Women's Association where schoolchildren from the local primary school, Quakers Hill East, present a display of a particular country which has been chosen to be studied for that year.Unfortunately, Quakers Hill Country Women's Association is moving through a sad period as they prepare to move out of the hall they have occupied for almost half a century. This hall was bought from Schofields in 1955 and it has been the home of this organisation since then. Fortunately, the association will continue to hold their meetings in the Quakers Hill Community Centre. I wish Mrs Paynter, the association president, and her members, all the best in their new accommodation.The electorate is seeing many new extremely large residential developments being undertaken, one of these being at Stanhope Gardens, which will become the model for future housing developments in Western Sydney. A special feature of this development is a $400 million Landcom project which will include crime minimisation designs such as no rear lanes and no back fencing facing into reserves and parks. Every house should be within 400 metres of a bus stop or cycling and road share way used by both pedestrians and motorists. These features were requested by the local council based on its past experience with other residential developments in the Blacktown local government area. The new 189-hectare suburb will have about 2,000 homes, four schools, a retail town centre and community facilities. The Stanhope Gardens Residents Association president, Dushan Djukic, is particularly impressed with the way the developer, Landcom, has maintained links to the physical surroundings and the historical nature of the site.I have presented to the House these two brief examples of the changes taking place in Western Sydney that go towards making up the thriving city of Blacktown. This city has recently held a local government election which resulted in the election of some new councillors and the departure of some previous councillors within my electorate of Greenway. I present the names of these people—both past and present—in recognition of the contribution that each has made to the growth of our city. Those departing were Michael Somerton, Michael Corbin and Geoff Bisby. Elected were: Alan Pendleton—the new mayor—Ron Alder, David Poole, Leo Kelly—now deputy mayor—Con Constantine, Len Robinson, Barbara Gapps, Kathie Collins and Russ Dickens. I mention these names, irrespective of the political parties the people belong to, as a recognition of the great work that the Blacktown council in general is doing for the citizens of that city.Blacktown city has a population of over 240,000 and covers an area of 241 square kilometres. Blacktown city is strategically located just 35 kilometres west of Sydney CBD and is one of Australia's fastest growing urban areas. The city itself is located in the heartland of Greater Western Sydney and is now a prosperous urban community with a thriving industrial and commercial base.This great city is home to a wide range of readily available industrial and commercial land and an extensive network of major transport links which will provide a direct access to local, national and international markets with the completion of the Western Sydney orbital road link. Of great interest is the revelation that the city is home to a number of Australia's major tourism and recreational attractions. Tourism is an important part of Blacktown's economy. The most recent estimate by Tourism New South Wales shows that, of Sydney's LGAs, Blacktown is ranked third by both number of nights spent by visitors in the area and expenditure raised. The major tourist attractions in the city region are Featherdale Wildlife Park, Sydney's Wonderland and the Eastern Creek Raceway for motor vehicle competitions. There are also many passive recreational facilities in the city area, such as the enormously popular Prospect Reservoir and the Nurragingy Reserve, which provide a venue for so many happy family gatherings throughout the whole year for an area that is so far away from the east coast beaches of New South Wales.The local labour market remains strong. Over the past two years there has been an increase in the labour force participation rate, which remains significantly higher than for the rest of the Sydney metropolitan area. The number of job advertisements in Blacktown LGA has grown significantly. From October 1998 to February 1999 there was an overall increase of 12 per cent. Over the past year there has been a 36 per cent increase in advertisements—more than double the rise in either New South Wales or across Australia.However, I move to my strong grievance about the infrastructure development that is being held up in Western Sydney by the failure of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services to provide funds for the completion of the Western Sydney Orbital Road System. With Sydney's population expected to increase to almost 4.5 million within the next two decades, it is anticipated that half of Sydney's future housing needs will be met in newly developed areas that are available in Western Sydney. As I have said so many times in this House, to meet existing and future demands, the construction of the Western Sydney Orbital Road System is now extremely urgent. The existing road network out from Sydney's CBD is radial and lacks cross-regional links between employment zones and regional centres.I have constantly brought to the attention of the minister the problems of the high levels of congestion being increasingly experienced on existing road networks. Roads such as the M4, M5 and Cumberland Highway are Western Sydney's major freight corridors. The capacity of the M4 has already been reached with 4,200 vehicles at peak-hour traffic times. I have consistently raised the issue—as have many local organisations—that this congestion is threatening the competitiveness of industry and commerce located in Greater Western Sydney, due to insufficient freight movements and longer transport times.It seems so patently clear to all of us with a knowledge of Western Sydney that the construction of the Western Sydney orbital would overcome these problems by improving access to employment, education, cultural and retail facilities in Western Sydney by reducing travelling time and transport costs. Local communities would be overjoyed by a major side effect in that the Western Sydney orbital would also redirect regional traffic away from residential centres, thus reducing local traffic congestion, noise and pollution. Our local communities would also welcome the fact that interregional traffic would be removed from roads fronted by homes, schools child-care centres, nursing homes and hospitals.The New South Wales RTA has estimated that there would be a considerable reduction in regional road traffic, ranging from 10 per cent to 45 per cent, with the construction of the Western Sydney orbital. By the year 2019, Western Sydney will have a population greater than the rest of Sydney. It is time for the minister to act and to act quickly to provide these much needed funds which will enable the orbital to be completed and which will provide such a huge boost to the local residential communities and to the economies of the business communities as well. I grieve that on the horizon there appears, at this stage, to be little likelihood of action from the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, and I believe this remains a blot on the record of this minister and his predecessor. I thank members of the House for their courtesy.Sitting suspended from 6.32 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. 1177520:00:0011775Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—I have great pleasure in speaking on the grievance debate tonight. All Australians can be proud, in my view, of the leadership role Australia is playing in East Timor. I think it is fair to say that all Australians cannot be as proud of events over the last 24 years. I thought it was interesting the other day when the Parliamentarians for East Timor group met with Xanana Gusmao, that Mr Gusmao told the Parliamentarians for East Timor that his people were looking forward—not looking back—to a constructive relationship with Indonesia. I and other members of the group were impressed with the commitment of Xanana Gusmao on behalf of his people—to look forward rather than back.It is probably not widely known that Australia has given some $50 million in aid to East Timor since 1980, under a variety of political parties. That is more than any other donor country has given. The member for Moncrieff quite rightly made that point a couple of weeks ago in the House. That aid was, of course, desperately needed. East Timor is stricken by severe poverty—a poverty that has, I think, shocked the Western world in the last month. Eighty per cent of East Timor's population depend on subsistence agriculture for their livelihood. In 1990, life expectancy was found to be at a low 57 years, with infant mortality at an appalling 124 in every 1,000 live births. I think that would horrify honourable members, as it horrified me when I heard the honourable member for Moncrieff quote those figures. A 1992 UNICEF study found that more than half of East Timorese children under five were malnourished. Australia's response to the situation has been comprehensive. Our response to the horrible violence that followed the independence vote on 30 August has also been comprehensive.Today is the 29th day that the INTERFET forces have been on the ground in East Timor. They have been protecting the East Timorese people, they have been disarming the militia and restoring order to a place where chaos reigned only six weeks ago. In the circumstances, the response of the Australian government, I believe, has been outstanding. But we will have to be there for the long haul. I think we are all waiting and hoping that the Blue Helmets will be in East Timor sooner rather than later. Obviously, there is a lot more that needs to happen before that eventuates but, once we see the blue helmets there, we will know that the work of INTERFET has been done and that phase 3 of the East Timorese move towards independence will be on its way to having succeeded.On Saturday, as a member of the Parliamentarians for East Timor, I attended a seminar organised in Ballarat titled `What can we do for East Timor?' When the East Timor crisis first started in its present form a coalition of interested members in the Ballarat community was formed. A variety of people—including me, both the Catholic and Anglican bishops and a large number of other people—were involved in that coalition. I would like to pay tribute here to Mr David MacPhail. David was the one who originally got people organised for this meeting and we met at my office. The coalition has now disbanded because the Australia East Timor Association, Ballarat Branch, was officially launched on Saturday. I am sure Brian Martin, who operates from the Trades Hall, will do a terrific job. I had my photo taken with Mr Martin, and there was some suggestion that it should hang in the Ballarat Trades Hall, but I have said that I think in all the circumstances it should perhaps hang in the main street rather than in the Trades Hall.Another issue in relation to East Timor which is of importance is the AusAID and Austrade joint seminar being held here in Canberra tomorrow to brief Australian companies wishing to assist in the rebuilding of East Timor. Not only companies in Canberra but companies right throughout Australia can play their part in addressing what will be a massive reconstruction of East Timor. There is an enormous amount of work to do, as honourable members will know.I was very pleased a couple of weeks ago to talk about members of the armed forces who come from my own area of Ballarat. I would like to pay tribute to Mrs Jenny Ashley of Mount Clear who has started a support group for the local families of those serving in the INTERFET force. As I said to the support group for family members at the Ballarat RSL—organised by Phil Horwood, with the local president there—they are, in some respects, suffering as much as their family members in East Timor. At least the person serving knows what is happening, because he or she is on the ground over there, but for the families here it is very difficult to know what is happening—for security reasons, obviously. They have to wait for that bit of news that comes through, mainly via the Australian media.While we are acknowledging bravery in wartime in a permanent way, I want to talk again about the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial Appeal. The memorial is to be based in Ballarat. It has been actively supported by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Hon. Bruce Scott. The Australian government has donated $50,000 towards that memorial, as well as giving tax deductibility status, which is obviously essential for this very ambitious $1.5 to $2 million program. This national appeal is raising money to build a memorial to all Australian ex-POWs from the Boer War, the First World War, the Second World War and the Korean War.Nearly 35,000 names will be engraved into the granite wall, which will include a separate section for the 8,684 Australians who died in captivity mainly due to brutality, starvation and disease. This memorial was designed by Ballarat artist, Peter Blizzard, and will be built in the Botanical Gardens. Significantly, it is the only memorial in Australia which recognises all POWs from those theatres of war that I mentioned before.Befitting a national launch, the ceremony to launch the appeal was attended by the official Prisoner of War Association representatives from Queensland, Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide; RSL National President Major General Phillips AO MC, retired; local ex-POWs; returned service men and women; state parliamentarians and civic leaders. It was a special day and a milestone for those who put countless hours into the project since it was first unofficially launched in 1996.I would like to congratulate Mr David Baird OAM, who recently stepped down as committee chair, and the project coordinator, Mr Les Kennedy, for the work they have done. They led an extremely hardworking and diligent committee. The fruits of their labour are now being born, which they deserve. Their great concern was the age of many POWs now. They wanted to make sure that those men and women were alive to see this national memorial being erected on their behalf.I notice that we are broadcasting at the moment. I know a lot of people listen to parliament. Can I plead with those who are listening and to honourable members on both sides of the House to assist in this fundraising event. It cannot be done by the community of Ballarat alone. It is a national memorial celebrating and commemorating those 35,000-odd people I referred to before, our fellow Australians who were POWs.If anyone listening would like to donate to this cause, they can contact my office in Ballarat or in Canberra. I would urge all Australians to make this a national fundraising appeal. Of all people, prisoners of war are those who light a fire in the belly of all Australians. We should especially remember those 8,500 of our fellow Australians who died in captivity in the most appalling conditions that we cannot even imagine. As I said before, I urge all Australians to support this national memorial to the POWs.There is a forthcoming event in my electorate as well which I want to bring to the attention of honourable members tonight—that is, the Online Australia Field Day, which will be held on 19 and 20 November. It has been organised by the Centre for Electronic Commerce and Communications at the University of Ballarat. The field day has been modelled on the successful agricultural field day concept and will have a rural focus. Attractions include field demonstrations showing the use of online technology in rural operations, a business expo and activities for children, including a kids tent—(Time expired)1177720:10:0011777Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—This evening I grieve that inequality in our society is increasing rather than decreasing. Recently, it was reported that some 18 per cent of Australians under the age of 15 were growing up in households where no parent had a job. This compares to something like 1.7 million children under 15—that is, 42.5 per cent of Australia's young—who are living in the relative security of a two-income family. Also it has been recently reported that the income share gap between rich and poor has continued to expand rather than contract.Figures from the Bureau of Statistics indicated that, in 1997-98, the income share of the bottom 20 per cent was just 8.3 per cent, down from 9.8 per cent a year earlier. At the same time, the top 20 per cent had increased their share from 38.4 per cent to 41.2 per cent. While the average weekly income of the bottom 20 per cent increased by just $7 over the three years to 1997-98, their counterparts in the top 20 per cent saw their average weekly income increase by a massive $121 per week.Wage disparity continues to be a major problem for our society. This inequality is exacerbated when the salaries of elite groups seem to increase without justification. The salaries of executives seem to obscenely skyrocket regularly as ordinary workers are lectured continually by economists and government ministers about the morals of wage restraint. Executives at the top 50 companies gained, on average, $155,000 in the last year. Their median pay went from $1 million to $1.155 million. This represents a massive increase of 15 per cent, compared to ordinary workers who saw their pay increase by a mere three per cent over the same period. This is not about the politics of envy; this is something that should be of grave concern to all. These enormous salaries do not reflect the performance of the executives, and there never appears to be any relationship between the remuneration and the level of performance demanded in return.The case of Tabcorp's chief executive, Ross Wilson, is one that I have drawn to the House's attention before. Mr Wilson was paid $675,000 initially in 1993-94, with an interest free loan of $6.75 million to buy shares in Tabcorp. By 1997, his salary had increased to $1 million and his shares had appreciated by some $10 million. This was despite the debacle of Melbourne Cup Day 1996 when computer malfunctions at Tabcorp meant that many ordinary Victorians were deprived of the opportunity to place a bet on the most important racing day in the country. This proves, yet again, that executive salaries, unlike most everyone else's in the community, do not appear to be linked to performance or productivity.On Friday, 1 October, yet again, due to a computer malfunction at Tabcorp, Tabcorp customers were unable to get their winning bets funded. In fact, they were not able to find out how much they had actually won. There continued to be ads over the next 10 days asking these customers of Tabcorp to bear with the organisation because of the problems they were having with their computer system. This happened on a Friday when there were four race meetings. If it had happened on a Saturday, when there are interstate race meetings, it would have been much worse.I was quite surprised, therefore, to see it reported in the Financial Review last week that Mr Wilson's salary has increased to $1.56 million and his Tabcorp shares are now worth $40.7 million. In addition, he has agreed to stay on until 2002 and will receive options on over three million Tabcorp shares for doing so. This was reported last week, at the same time as Tabcorp telephone betting operators rejected the 8.5 per cent offered to them as inadequate and threatened industrial action. They based their claim on the fact that telephone betting had increased by 22.7 per cent over 12 months and that they wanted a fair share, seeing as their chief executive officer was sitting on an overall package of some $44.5 million.It is not just wage disparity which is contributing to the increase in inequality in our society. There was an allegation made that Labor governments presided over a decrease in the value of real wages. Yet Labor governments attempted to remedy this through the social wage. Through initiatives such as the introduction and expansion of Medicare and the revolution in access to higher education that occurred under Labor governments, government services were delivered to those in our community who had never been able to afford them.Last week the Howard government's secret plans for higher education were revealed. These plans would strip away the gains made in the social wage for those on lower incomes in our community, denying them in many cases access to higher education. These plans come at a time when our public hospital infrastructures in many states are an absolute disgrace after years of shameful neglect and resource starving by conservative state administrations. Given events in my state of Victoria this morning, thankfully there will be one less conservative government after tomorrow.If we have a look at the way the public health system works in the state of Victoria, if one needs to be admitted as an in-patient from a casualty centre in a public hospital, one might stay for two or three nights on a trolley in casualty. If one has private cover, one can immediately find a bed in a private hospital. If a public patient has to have a test like an angiogram or a gastroscopy, they will wait weeks to get that test done. If they are a private patient, they will get it immediately. This is a further indication of the growing disparity within our society.I am concerned that, given the increasing reliance on information technology, lower income people will also end up becoming the information poor if access to this technology is not improved. The inequality is not just manifesting itself through lopsided wage outcomes and access to services. It is actively being encouraged by government policy. I mentioned the secret plans for education revealed last week as an example of the widening inequality. It is sadly not the only example coming from this government. The government has announced a major shake-up in the wake of the Ralph Review of Business Taxation. There is of course in itself nothing wrong with reforming the business tax system. Over its 13 years in office, Labor was constantly reforming the entire tax system, with measures such as the introduction of the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax and the lowering of business tax rates and personal tax rates.The aims of any proposals for business taxation reform should be to improve the competitiveness of Australian industry and to use the tax system to help create more jobs and investment. Of course, the test of the proposals is to do this while ensuring that business carries its fair share of the tax burden. It is here that the government's response to the Ralph recommendations fails.The government's proposals leave a massive $3.8 billion hole in revenue. They fail the government's own test, which was that the overall package was to be revenue neutral. This $3.8 billion hole is unacceptable at a time when Australians are about to be slugged with a 10 per cent tax on nearly everything they do or buy. It is a sign of increasing inequality in our society that the consumer in the supermarket ends up paying so that business is let off the hook of its fair share of tax—because at the end of the day, that is what is going to happen. Whether it be through the GST or cuts to Commonwealth outlays in areas like health and education, the ordinary taxpayer will end up paying to plug this gap.The shifting of the burden on to those who can least afford it has been a worrying worldwide development over the last few decades. In his book The good society: the humane agenda, J.K. Galbraith states:. . . the most effective instrument for achieving a greater measure of income equality remains the progressive income tax. This has the central role in accomplishing a reasonable, even civilised distribution of income. Nothing else, it may be added, is subject to such highly motivated and wholly predictable attack.With this government's shift to increasing reliance on consumption tax and now this business tax reform, there is a very real attack on the progressive income taxation system designed to shift an increasing amount of the tax burden on to PAYE taxpayers—in other words, to those who truly can least afford it.Australians constantly pride themselves on the egalitarian nature of the society we have created for ourselves. However, that egalitarianism and sense of fair go that many Australians display in their dealings with each other on a personal level is increasingly becoming something that is not borne out by the statistics. If inequality is allowed to continue unchecked, permanent underclasses entrench themselves and the related problems become so much harder to deal with. If inequality is actively encouraged by government policy, that entrenchment occurs all the more quickly. (Time expired)1177920:20:0011779Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—Tonight in this grievance debate I would like to talk about health funding. It is a bit of a mantra of mine and I will never resile from it. It is an issue that causes a great deal of friction between the Commonwealth and the states. A number of state premiers and health ministers, particularly in Queensland, have criticised the federal government for not providing enough funding, and recently there have been renewed calls for an inquiry into health in Australia.The problems of Queensland health will not be solved by a Senate inquiry or a wider inquiry; an inquiry would only confirm that the federal government is providing record levels of health funding to the states. Public hospital funding will increase by $7.2 billion in the next five years, an increase of more than 30 per cent. My premise is that there is no necessity for an inquiry into health funding in Australia, but there could well be an inquiry into health funding in some of the states—and I do not exempt Queensland from that. The Commonwealth has delivered an extra 19.2 per cent to the states, which blunts the argument that we are cutting back funding in the public sector. The problems in Queensland lie with Labor's philosophy and its own administration of health.As honourable members know, I do not try to be particularly political in these matters, but I have made a bit of a study of this matter. The problems began in Queensland in the early 1990s under the Goss government. But the trouble really set in when they got to their second three-year term. Working off a benchmark of $685 million in the year 1991-92, their funding for the next three years was $661 million, $569 million and $656 million respectively. You might ask: what does that mean? Let me contrast that with the federal funding for Queensland. Working off a benchmark of a similar figure of $669 million, we find that for the next three years the federal funding was $699 million, $776 million and $812 million respectively. In other words, as the federal government put money into the system, the state was either not topping it up or in a way just taking it out. That changed when the Borbidge government came to power in 1996 and 1997—state funding increased significantly and matched federal funding.The problem of ineffective use of federal funds is beginning to surface again under the current Labor government in Queensland. In my electorate of Hinkler, the Bundaberg Base Hospital has suffered this year due to underfunding and bureaucratic bungles. The hospital was coming in $1.1 million short on its budget. It was accused of overspending and was told that it would have to operate within its budget. When it became obvious that it could not, the state government made a loan available. But what it did not say was that of the $1.1 million provided $200,000 was transferred from the mental health budget and $700,000 was sidelined for elective surgery and had to be returned to Brisbane unspent at the end of the financial year. So, in effect, the hospital received in net terms $100,000.Despite the protestations of the minister for health and authorities at the time that the hospital had to live within its budget, within six months the state government had to concede this fiasco of special funding and, in its more recent budget, increased the funding for the Bundaberg Base Hospital by $2 million—$1.2 million was added to the operating budget, which only goes to prove what the hospital administration had been saying for the previous two years, that the hospital was underfunded by around $1 million to $1.5 million. In fact, the state government only confirmed what everyone knew. But worse than that—worse in one sense and good in another—the state government provided another $800,000 for growth funding. That is very interesting: the state government said that the hospital would have to live within its budget but then suddenly granted $800,000 to the hospital. The state government defeated its own purpose because it admitted not only that the operational budget was underfunded but also that the hospital was in need of growth funding. I will be watching very closely and with interest how that money is administered.It seems that the state Labor government in Queensland has a fetish about tiers of bureaucracy. During the previous Goss administration, regional health authorities were set up. These were wasteful authorities. They employed some 300 people. Their cost estimates ranged as high as $15 million and all they did was take people from the bedside. When these authorities were dismantled very little could be seen on the surface for their having been there over the previous years. But having got rid of them and returned to regional health councils, which were a form of the old hospital boards, unfortunately without statutory authority, the state government is now going to put in three new positions worth $180,000 a year. As the state shadow health minister Fiona Simpson states, these three new zone manager positions will invalidate the role of the district health managers and the district health councils which have only just been established. To some extent, it will impinge on their authority and some think this will make them toothless tigers.This is certainly an innovative approach, having these managers who are going to oversee regional areas but who will live in Brisbane and be attached to hospitals. These new positions not only take power away from regional and rural communities of Queensland and their hospitals' administration but also are not even in the country. That could be a blessing in disguise, I suppose, insofar as we will not get another repetition I hope of these needless bureaucracies, but it is a very inter esting trend—going back to another layer of bureaucracy, not away from it. I propose that we do something quite different: we should enhance the role of the regional health councils and return them to boards with statutory authority.The other thing that troubles me in this matter of health is the lack of doctors in rural and regional areas. This is not something that has happened overnight; this has been a creeping disease, so to speak, for many years. The current government is doing what it can to address that problem. We have put a number of initiatives in place such as two rural medical campuses—one at Wagga and one at Townsville—the John Flynn scholarships for medical students, improved rural training at Mount Isa and Broken Hill and general practice retention payments. All these things are designed to entice people to go into regional and rural areas.Dr Denise Powell from the local division of general practice in Bundaberg has seen me on a number of occasions saying that what has occurred in the more remote rural areas and other rural areas is now starting to impinge on the small and medium sized provincial cities where there are not enough GPs to go round. That is a very worrying trend. I note in today's media she is seeking funds to validate those figures and to see how general practice might be improved in the country.It was interesting that the federal government entered into agreement—a verbal agreement at this stage but agreement nonetheless—with the Queensland government for a scheme called Doctors in the Bush, which was designed to bring doctors from overseas and allow them into country areas and provide them with a provider number on the condition that they stay in that area for a set period—say, five years. The sad part about it is that the Queensland government has done nothing about legislating for this despite the fact that the Commonwealth has undertaken to co-fund it. We have to watch these sorts of things. Although the first priority has to be in the more remote rural areas, I would like to see a similar program addressing the shortage of doctors in the smaller and medium sized provincial cities. I will be working with Dr Powell and her colleagues to ensure that that happens.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—The question is:That grievances be noted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills11781Message from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bills: Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 Crimes Amendment (Fine Enforcement) Bill 1999 Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 States Grants (General Purposes) Amendment Bill 1999 Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Bill 1999 Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Consequential and Transitional Bill 1999 Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1999 National Health Amendment (Lifetime Health Cover) Bill 1999 Superannuation Contributions and Termination Payments Taxes Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999 Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 Bills11781s18911781Bill 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.Committees11781117811178120:31:0011781Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Report 26—an agreement to extend the period of operation of the joint defence facility at Pine Gap , together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.FB6Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSON—by leave—The report I have just tabled is the result of the review by the Joint Committee on Treaties of a proposed agreement between Australia and the United States to extend the period of operation of the joint defence facility at Pine Gap from November 1998 to November 2008. The national interest analysis prepared in support of the proposed treaty action describes the facility as an intelligence gathering facility. I believe this to be an accurate description of the principal purpose of the facility.This review has proved to be difficult and time consuming for our committee. From the outset, we sought to apply the same test to this treaty action as we apply to all treaties that come before us—that is, to ask whether the proposed action is in Australia's national interest. Unfortunately, we have not been able to obtain from official sources the range and the depth of information we need to be able to express unqualified support for the proposed treaty action. This is because the Department of Defence has chosen to limit the information given to us about the purpose and operation of the facility and to deny us appropriate access to the facility.In the end, we obtained more information about the joint defence facility from non-government sources than from the Department of Defence, which gave us less information about the facility than is available at the public libraries. There is clearly a conflict between the openness and the transparency that characterises the government's reformed treaty making process and the Department of Defence's tradition of secrecy.If the treaty review process is to continue to operate effectively, we are of the opinion that this conflict must be resolved. Hence, we have made two recommendations to this end: first, the Minister for Defence authorise his department to provide the treaties committee with such information and such access as would genuinely allow us to determine whether the treaty action is in Australia's national interest; and, second, that the minister, in conjunction with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the committee, develop a means of ensuring more constructive parliamentary consideration of all sensitive security related treaties in the future.All members of the committee hold the view that the continued operation of the facility is in Australia's national interest. Although we cannot say that a compelling case has been made in favour of the proposed treaty action, the majority report does express in-principle support for the extension of the Pine Gap agreement. The concluding words in our report perhaps best sum up the view of most committee members. They read:. . . with the limited evidence made available, we find no reason to object to the continuation of the Joint Defence Facility.As I said at the beginning, this has not been an easy exercise. We have debated the proposed treaty action at length. While we found agreement on most issues, some members have dissented. I respect their right to do so. I note that, despite these differences, all members have contributed to our review with an immensely cooperative spirit. I urge the government to give careful consideration to our recommendations. They ought to be addressed if the parliament is able to deal effectively with sensitive security related treaty actions. I commend the report to the House.20:36:0011782Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—This report considers a proposal from government to extend for a further 10 years the operation of the joint defence facility at Pine Gap. This facility has operated as a joint Australian-American intelligence gathering facility since 1966. As the chairman, the member for Wentworth, has noted, our review of this proposal has been complicated immeasurably by the attitude taken by the Department of Defence. The defence department, apparently with the minister's consent, have deliberately sought to limit the information provided to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties about the purpose and operation of the joint defence facility. They have denied our repeated requests to inspect the facility and have provided us with less information about the facility than is available on the public record. As a result, Defence have undermined our ability to perform the treaty review mandate given to us by the parliament.It is absurd that we have learned more about the facility by speaking to two respected academics, Professor Des Ball and Professor Paul Dibb. While we regard the evidence from Professor Ball and Professor Dibb very highly and have no reason to doubt it, we do not feel that we can completely endorse the proposed treaty action on the basis of evidence from non-government witnesses. We also find it absurd that Defence supports the right of members of the US Congress to visit the facility and receive confidential briefings while at the same time denying Australian parliamentarians similar rights.I would also like to highlight the dissenting report, as I am one of the signatories to it. Senator Schacht, Mrs Crosio, Mr Wilkie and I agree with much that is in the majority report, including the recommendation that full access to information and to the facility be provided to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties so as to allow it to complete its review. Our views differ only in two respects. First, we believe that, if the government does not allow the treaties committee to complete its review, parliament should appoint a joint national security committee to complete the review and, more generally, to oversee the operations of the Defence related security and intelligence agencies. Second, we believe that action should not be taken to extend the period of operation of the joint defence facility until parliament has had an opportunity, through either the treaties committee or a new national security committee, to come to a considered view on whether the facility is in Australia's national interest.Those members who have signed the dissenting report believe that taking binding treaty action in the absence of either of these approaches would undermine the government's own reform treaty making process. More importantly, it would display a disturbing lack of confidence in the maturity of Australia's democracy and a profound disregard for the fundamental principles of public accountability which underpin our parliamentary system. In our view, the principles of openness, transparency and parliamentary sovereignty must override the claim of secrecy being made by the Department of Defence. Before I commend the report, particularly the dissenting report, to the House, I wish to read out a short paragraph from our conclusion to that dissenting report:. . . in a changing world environment, expectations about community influence over government decision-making have grown. Transparency, not secrecy, is being demanded of governments. Likewise, a better balance is being sought between Executive decision-making and parliamentary oversight.I commend the report to the parliament.20:40:0011783Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—by leave—As a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I would like to make a few observations about Report 26—an agreement to extend the period of operation of the joint defence facility at Pine Gap . As the chairman of the committee, the honourable member for Wentworth, has already noted, the attitude of the Department of Defence throughout the review has complicated what should really have been a very simple matter. The charter of the treaties committee, as described by the government in 1996, is to review all proposed treaty actions and report to parliament—read: the people of Australia—on whether the proposed treaty action is in our nation's interest. To complete this task, we need, and expect, cooperation from various government departments. In this particular case—it is certainly not the first case where a department has been less than fully cooperative on the first brush—the Department of Defence held out right to the very end in its lack of cooperation with the committee.The department decided that its claim of secrecy should have precedence over the parliament's desire for openness in treaty making. In other words, the Department of Defence believes that their claim of secrecy is far more important than full accountability to the people of Australia. I find that a particularly disappointing development. I guess the motivation for those who have authored the dissenting report contained within report 26 has been that the department's resistance has in fact exposed a potential flaw in the reform treaty making process. As a very passionate believer in the reform treaty making process being a good process, I could not agree with the dissenting report's recommendation to bring in certain other elements which, to my mind, would probably devalue the important role that the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties brings to the parliament and therefore to the people of Australia.However, it is the conflict between openness and the necessary secrecy that is deemed by those in the know—that is, that the right to know should be restricted to an exclusive group—that has been exposed in this particular process, and it needs resolution In fact, it is worth noting on the record that there are only two members of the executive who are afforded full access to and briefing about the Pine Gap facility: the member for Cunningham and the Leader of the Opposition. So I suspect that the people of Australia could be satisfied that some members of this place are exposed to some understanding about what occurs, and that is reasonable in one sense. But I would submit to you that extending this in a more generous way than the Department of Defence offered on this particular occasion to others in this place, on behalf of the people of Australia, would also have been a reasonable thing to expect.The conflict in relation to both the Pine Gap extension treaty and other security related treaty actions which may come before parliament is a matter that does need to be resolved. Our recommendations contained in this report are aimed at resolving this conflict. The minority report offers another viewpoint on a way of resolving this particular conflict. We as a committee are firmly of the view that the best way to resolve the conflict is for the Minister for Defence to authorise a committee, such as the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, to have access to the joint defence facility and with a classified briefing on the purpose and operation of that facility in just the same way that members of the United States Congress seem to be authorised and given the access to the place. Any other solution, I believe, would undermine the mandate of the treaties committee.The irony of the situation of course is that, from the outset of our review, we have been inclined to support the proposed treaty action. Like most Australians, the committee believed that something good happened at Pine Gap. We simply would have liked to have had a greater quantification about what that something happened to be.8I4MARTINMr Martin—I could tell you, but I would have to kill you.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—I thought I would take that interjection on the record. It is a bit spy versus spy. It is likely that, had we received sufficient information from the Department of Defence, we would have concluded unanimously as a committee that continued operation of the facility at Pine Gap would be in Australia's national interest. However, given the failure of the department to provide that information, we do not have a sufficient basis on which to completely endorse the proposed treaty action, although it is understood that we have.Instead, we have concluded that, on the basis of the limited evidence available to us, we have no reason to object to the continuation of the joint defence facility. It is extraordinary that it took the evidence of both Professor Des Ball and Professor Paul Dibb to fill in a few of the gaps, to raise a few of the possibilities that we would have liked to have discovered officially from department officials, who I suspect took the mantra of the member for Cunningham quite seriously that, if they had told us, they would have had to dispose of us.I would urge the government—read: the executive of the government; and that is not a partisan political observation, because I suspect the same problem exists no matter which particular party is in power—to look positively to our recommendations and to accept that we are trying to act in the best interests of bringing the people of Australia with us on decisions to extend a treaty such as this. The treaties committee process is important. The recommendations will allow us to complete our consideration of this treaty action and to prevent similar stumbling blocks from emerging in the future. I commend the report of the treaties committee to the House.20:46:0011784Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—by leave—Pine Gap has been—and I am confident will continue to be—a vital joint facility between Australia and the United States of America. Our friendship and ongoing cooperation is of mutual benefit. I am supporting the dissenting report on this treaty not because of any great concern about our association with the USA but because of concern about the lack of information made available to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, primarily by our own Department of Defence. Given the controversial nature of the facility, I find this action totally unacceptable.The treaties committee was established to ensure that the public could be confident that any agreement has the endorsement of the parliament and is transparent and accountable. Whilst I agree with the majority of remarks contained within Report 26—an agreement to extend the period of operation of the Joint Defence Facility at Pine Gap, unfortunately I do not believe the current recommendations go far enough. The conclusion suggests signing the treaty, even though there was inadequate information to make a recommendation as to the future of the facility. As the current arrangements can be extended and there is no urgency for this treaty to be signed, I believe the issues contained within the report must be dealt with first.As a member of the treaties committee, I believe we must take seriously our obligation to review all arrangements which Australia enters into with other nations. Whilst there are security implications of this treaty which must be considered, the difficulties surrounding these are not insurmountable. The current situation where the parliament can obtain more information from a public library as opposed to our own Department of Defence is ludicrous. Some may even be excused for thinking the department has treated the parliament with contempt over this issue.That private citizens can provide the parliament with more information than its own department—and that it is suggested this information should be taken as fact without confirmation by the department—is to me ridiculous, no matter how qualified the provider or how reliable that information may be. To argue that elected representatives of the Australian community cannot be entrusted with any more information than has been provided to us during the review displays a disturbing lack of confidence in the maturity of Australia's democracy and a profound disregard for the fundamental principles of public accountability that underpin our parliamentary system.Another area of the report which highlighted the need for further information is the current inequality which exists between the treatment given to members of the US Congress and members of the Australian parliament. Whilst prior requests for access and information have been met with a need to know response, the reality is the treaties committee must receive this access and information to make a valued recommendation on this issue. Australia must come of age and be afforded equal treatment and access to what is in fact a `joint facility'. On prior occasions when this issue had been raised, the treaties committee was not in existence. Now the committee has the responsibility for dealing with this treaty, it must be afforded the proper access.The absurdity of this argument is highlighted by the fact that a good many US congressional committees are routinely allowed access to such information without apparent jeopardy to US national interests. Recommendation 1 of the dissenting report states:The Minister for Defence should authorise his departmental officials to provide the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties with:• a full (classified level) briefing on the purpose and operation of the Joint Defence Facility; • a copy of the classified agreement that gives operational effect to the Agreement between the Australian Government and the United States Government relating to the Establishment of a Joint Defence Space Research Facility (1966); and• on-site access to the Joint Defence Facility at Pine Gap.If the government does not accept the recommendation to provide a full briefing to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, then the Government should move to establish a National Security Committee of Parliament to oversee the operation of Defence facilities, including the Joint Defence Facility, and other defence-related security and intelligence agencies.Therefore, the recommendations contained within the dissenting report must be acted on as a matter of priority. I commend both the report and, more importantly, the dissenting report to the House.11785Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—by leave—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills11785r854Billsr853Bills11785Debate resumed from 24 June, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.20:51:0011785McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—While the Labor Party considers these proposals to be fundamentally flawed and misconceived, we will not be opposing the second reading of the Federal Magistrates Bill 1999 . The Federal Magistrates (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 is a different story. In respect of the establishment of the federal magistracy, we are saying to the government, `If this is as good as you get, you go your hardest.' In all kinds of speeches since they have been elected, the answer to court delays—massive that they are—and the answer to access to justice issues has been, `Wait for the magistracy. We are going to establish a federal magistracy, and that is going to resolve these problems.'If this is as good as it gets, it is a pretty poor effort. We will not stand in the way of the establishment of the Federal Magistrates Court. In 18 months or two years time—whenever the next federal election will be—when these massive court delays, which will inevitably exist, are there for all to see, we will not be put in a position where the government can say, `The only reason these court delays are here is that the opposition stood in the way of the federal magistracy.' We are deliberately not giving the government that opportunity, but we are saying very much to the government, `Put up or you're in trouble.' The magistracy will neither achieve what the government wants—that is, providing greater access to justice—nor remove these horrific delays that exist, particularly in the Family Court.Recent evidence to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee showed that parties in the Federal Court in the Brisbane registry currently have to wait two years for a matter to reach a trial date. In Melbourne it is 28 months, and in Adelaide it is 29 months. In evidence to the committee, Fabian Dixon, the President of the Law Council of Australia, said:The delays in the Family Court in relation to children's matters amounted, in June 1998, to a national average of 72.2 weeks. That has been reduced this year to 71.7 weeks. So far as property matters are concerned, in June last year they were 71.8 weeks. That has now gone out, on a national level, to 77.8 weeks, with some registries experiencing well in excess of over 100 weeks delay.Massive trauma is caused by marital breakdown, and it relates to access to children and finality of a marriage that, unfortunately, has fallen apart. Those delays are unacceptable in anyone's language, but if this is as good as it gets they are going to be there in two years time as the government face an election, despite the establishment of the federal magistracy.Why do I say that? These bills replace 19 judicial registrars with 16 federal magistrates—three fewer bodies considering matters. Granted these magistrates will have the power to dispose of matters—they will be appointed as judges under chapter III of our Constitution—but, nonetheless, there will be three fewer people. They will also have a wide range of additional responsibilities not only from the Family Court but also from the Federal Court. They will have a wide range of trade practices matters—for instance, section 52 disputes about misleading and deceptive conduct, disputes regarding false or misleading misrepresentations, product safety standards and unsafe goods. In addition, they will have jurisdiction regarding bankruptcy. I started off my career as a Federal Court judge's associate. If there is anything to ruin a day, it is the bankruptcy list. That will be thrust upon magistrates.Under this legislation—and we strongly oppose this provision of the Federal Magistrates (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999—is reference to the powers under the Workplace Relations Act, and specifically section 127 orders, which are the no-strike orders made against unions either as a result of industrial disputation or in anticipation of industrial disputation. These applications are heard urgently, and invariably they involve applications for interim orders. So it is all hands on deck; down the tools for all other matters and consider this urgent application before you. If the government is going to give these magistrates that sort of jurisdiction, all the other lists will be blown out because these things will come up at a moment's notice—and they take days at a time, so the list will be completely dislocated.The government is also proposing to give the Magistrates Court power under part XA of the Workplace Relations Act regarding freedom of association. Members may recall last year's waterfront dispute and that it was the freedom of association provisions which constituted the basis of the actions in the Federal Court of Australia and, ultimately, the High Court. I recall that there were 10 separate hearings during last year's waterfront dispute. These were highly charged, highly political issues; they drew a lot of attention and required urgent consideration. Indeed, if the government's more dramatic and draconian provisions go through under its second- wave reforms, they would also be included in the part XA provisions considered by the federal magistracy, which would include the provisions regarding the prohibition on closed shops. These magistrates would have to determine whether an employer who had more than 60 per cent of their employees as union members had a closed shop—again, highly political, highly controversial and in instances where, of necessity, these applications require urgent orders. So you have 16 going into 19, as well as handling all these additional responsibilities.You are not going to resolve the court lists with that occurring. Indeed, it is fanciful to suggest that it will have any realistic effect at all on the court lists. At the same time, it will involve quite considerable additional expense. I think the budget papers show that it will involve about $27.9 million over four years, and that will primarily go into infrastructure and administrative costs. If you round that figure up to $28 million, and you take it at $7 million a year, that is about three to four additional Family Court judges that could have been appointed with this money. I can tell you that, if three or four Family Court judges had been appointed by the government, in 18 months or two years time when they will be facing an election, most certainly they would have been able to boast about having significantly improved court lists, certainly in the Family Court. But they have not taken that course of action.The lack of logic behind this proposal and the obsession with establishing it as a separate court—separate and distinct from either the Family Court or the Federal Court—defies logic. Initially I ignored or did not accept suggestions that the rationale was more to pander to some fringe groups in the family law area who have expressed their discontent with decisions coming out of the Family Court, but the more you look at this bill and its lack of logic the more you wonder whether that is not the case. I also sincerely trust that the decision not to integrate the magistrates into either the Federal Court or the Family Court had nothing to do with the animosity that has surfaced on occasions between the current Attorney-General and the Chief Justice of the Family Court. I think the Attorney-General, with respect to him, has unfairly criticised the Chief Justice of the Family Court about being concerned more about his jurisdiction in an empire building sense than genuinely being concerned with the proper functioning of the Family Court area and the administration of justice. A 1995 report on the funding and administration of the Family Court by the Joint Select Committee on Certain Family Law Matters, of which the Attorney-General was a member, supported the establishment of a magistrates level of jurisdiction—which, again, the Australian Labor Party supports—but it recommended that it be attached to the existing federal courts. I note that at that stage the Attorney-General, who was a member of that committee, agreed with those recommendations.If you like, the proof of the pie is in the eating. In Western Australia the state magistrates, while they are under the control of the Chief Magistrate of Western Australia, are integrated with the Family Court structure so that they can work side by side in a productive manner with Federal Court judges. It is, as the member for Perth—a solicitor from the west, experienced in the area—says, a system which works well. There will always be resourcing issues that apply as equally to Western Australia as they do to any state, but in terms of a functioning, effective and cooperative system that is an example which stands out. One would think that the onus rests on those not following a tried and proven methodology to show why they are not, and the government have not put forward sensible reasons as to why they are not integrating the magistrates with the existing courts. Indeed, their proposal not to do so has been strongly opposed not only by the Family Court but also by the Law Council of Australia and its 12 associated bar councils and law societies. So, effectively, the representative bodies of all practitioners have said, `This isn't the way to go.' To ignore their advice is asking for trouble but, be that as it may, the government is.The government has also ignored constructive proposals put forward not only by Jeff Shaw, the New South Wales Attorney-Gener al, Matt Foley, the Queensland Attorney-General and Peter Patmore, the Tasmanian Attorney-General—on the Labor side of politics—but also by the former Victorian Attorney-General Jan Wade, who said a far more constructive use of the resources being put into the establishment of this Magistrates Court would have been to work on an integrated system whereby state magistrates were given dual commissions to handle at the same time Family Court and federal matters. That would have been a significant boost to regional Australia, because obviously state and territory magistracies exist more frequently in regional areas than they do in any of these Federal Court structures.The Australian Law Reform Commission, in its 1997 report Seen and heard, also expressed a preference for alternative means. They expressed a preference for that which is occurring in Western Australia for integration of these magistrates, particularly children's matters in the Family Court. Again, that makes sense, because there is ready access to mediation, arbitration, conciliation and counselling services. I know the Attorney-General has said the federal magistrates will have access to those services, but there will be a seam in between. It will be far more difficult to interact to find out whether these services have been booked up by the Family Court, and just accessing them will be far more difficult for litigants. In fact, in January 1997, the Attorney-General's Department released a short, confidential options paper which included four options, one of which, again, vested the jurisdiction of these magistrates to the respective courts.But probably the most practical suggestion in the area is contained in the 1995 Family Law Council report to the Attorney-General entitled Magistrates in family law: an evaluation of the exercise of summary jurisdiction to improve access to the family law. It recommended that magistrates be appointed directly to the Family Court on a gradual basis replacing judicial registrars, and in the medium term it suggested that a limited number of state and territory magistrates should be given dual commissions to exercise family law matters in particular regions. So, if you like, it was a mixture, a hybrid, of those two suggestions to which I have referred. But none of them recommended spending $27.9 million of taxpayers' money to establish an entirely separate and distinct bureaucracy surrounding these magistrates, existing, as they will, in a separate court structure.These proposals will actually reduce the ability of the Family Court, in particular, to service regional Australia. The Federal Court, I suppose, has not had that emphasis, although it does travel on circuits, as certain cases can require it to take evidence and so forth. But certainly the Family Court of Australia regularly services regional areas through its judicial registrars, who will now be replaced, and certainly through circuits by judges. But, as a result of the cost of the establishment of these magistrates and the fact that the government says that these magistrates will now be doing the work of the Family Court, the budget of the Family Court is going to be reduced—initial suggestions say by something like $5 million a year. That is going to further deplete the already strained resources of the Family Court and impede the court's ability to do circuit work in particular. So, regional Australia is going to be the double loser.As I have said, the ability to give dual commissions to state magistrates has been tried. In a number of states it has been tried in respect of the industrial area, where state industrial judges and commissioners are given dual commissions to exercise both state and federal powers. It has been offered by these Attorneys-General to whom I have referred. While I can understand that there would be some concern that certain magistrates perhaps would not have the skills or the sophistication to deal with sensitive family law matters, the reality is that the calibre of magistrates at the state and territory level is becoming increasingly sophisticated. It would certainly be easy to identify those who have the appropriate skills, qualifications and experience to be given dual commissions.In addition to those impractical consequences, there is going to be waste and confusion in the procedures involved in the interaction between the separate Magistrates Court and the Family Court. It has yet to be seen, but the Law Council has estimated that the 16 magistrates will require a support staff of at least 50. Obviously, there are also going to be accommodation complexities. The magistrates are going to have to be accommodated. If they are dealing with complex trade practices matters and complex family law matters, one would think that a library would be essential, and there is cost associated with that. A CD-ROM service in itself involves considerable expense. There will need to be accommodation for the magistrates' staff and, of course, there will need to be accommodation for storage of a very significant number of files—again, particularly in the family law area.There are obviously going to be integration complexities. There are going to be three separate case management systems—for the Federal Court, the Family Court and now the new Magistrates Court. As I understand it—but this is yet to be clarified, perhaps by the Attorney—these will be interfacing, at least initially, through one registry structure and one computer system.Also, lines of accountability of staff are going to be blurred if there is one set of counter staff dealing with the public. As my colleague the member for Perth would recollect, any solicitor or any member of the public who has gone to a court registry counter would know that perhaps the most bureaucratic and least helpful of public servants tend to be court counter staff. In those circumstances—when they are dealing with people who are traumatised through marriage breakdown and so forth, who need a bit of advice and guidance—who are they responsible for and accountable to? With these lines of blurred communication, accountability and responsibility, how are you going to make the registry user friendly to members of the public at a time when increasingly people are unrepresented? The figures show that, because of a reduction in legal aid, 42 per cent of litigants in the Family Court area are unrepresented.The government says the other reason—the big ticket item—for this federal magistracy is a significant access to justice issue. Indeed, the weekend before last I spoke at the annual conference of the Law Council of Australia. Senator Payne gave an able presentation, but she said that a significant access to justice initiative was going to be the establishment of this Magistrates Court. Certainly, we commend and we say it is appropriate that the filing fee for commencement of proceedings before the Federal Magistrates Court be lowered. But, again, the government is responsible for setting the filing fees, and they could just as easily reduce the filing fees in the Family Court. I am not sure that it would be appropriate in the Federal Court, which tends to handle more commercially oriented cases, but certainly in the Family Court, where ordinary members of the public need access more frequently, they could just as easily do that.We are also strongly in favour of the simplification of procedures, the removal of unnecessary technicalities and the removal of archaic forms insofar as they may exist. But, surely, these can and should be addressed within the existing court structures if these practices, these procedures and these forms are being carried out. Indeed, the Australian Law Reform Commission recently gave a report in respect of the federal litigation system which said that in many areas there could be improvements. The focus should be on those improvements in those courts as they already exist, rather than ignoring those and then setting up a new court structure.In any event, the bottom line is that the government is strongly overemphasising the extent to which this federal magistracy is going to be, as they describe it, `user friendly' or `more streamlined' or have a `less formal judicial culture'. These are all phrases that we have heard before. Essentially, they are meaningless if you do not look at what is actually going to occur. When you look at what is going to occur, these magistrates will still have to determine cases according to the rules of evidence. The principles behind the rules of evidence are based on fairness and logic. No-one will be able to avoid that. If there was an attempt to do so, you would have a miscarriage of justice.Even aside from that fact, there are going to be all of these intricacies involved in respect of which matters will be heard in which jurisdiction. As I have said, there will essentially be an overlap of jurisdiction between the Magistrates Court and the Family Court, although the Family Court will retain exclusive jurisdiction in respect of the declaration of nullity, the validity of marriage, and leave for adoption. The Magistrates Court, on the other hand, has a whole range of Family Court responsibilities, including interim child residency matters and property matters. Very significant issues, such as whether a child should be sterilised and disputes regarding international abduction, will still be able to be determined by the Magistrates Court.It is quite conceivable that there will be dual applications, that there will be an application for interim relief in respect of a child residency issue filed in the Magistrates Court but also an application for orders in respect of property filed in the Family Court. Instead of the one file containing all related matters so that the judge deliberating in respect of the issues can have regard to the totality of circumstances between the parties, these are going to be fragmented. Indeed, if you are looking at the fact that the jurisdictional limit in property law matters is $300,000 for these magistrates, it will necessarily be the case that matters above that will have to be dealt with in the Family Court.When you are looking at Sydney and Melbourne in particular, quite frequently property matters are going to be valued in excess of $300,000. So you are going to have competition for jurisdiction where—quite frequently, I predict—there will be matters commenced in the separate courts. It will create an unnecessary seam. And how do you resolve that? You can make application to the magistrate, and the magistrate can refer the matter to the Federal Court. But, if he or she decides not to, there is no right of appeal. Indeed, if you make application to the Family Court or to the Federal Court—if there is a matter in the Federal Court—neither of those courts, although they are superior courts, will have the power to move the matter from the Magistrates Court into those courts.It is really quite astounding that neither of those superior courts is given those powers. So there will be very much a division and a seam which will depend totally on the willingness of the magistrates to give up the matter, if they like, to the Federal Court. We are dependent upon whether these magistrates are going to act from the point of view of logic and rational disposal of all matters in dispute or whether they are going to be more protective of their jurisdiction and hence hang on to matters. Indeed, if you look at how these things are being structured, they are entirely contrary to the move we have had in the past decade in the federal law area where, increasingly, the federal courts have utilised their accrued or pendent jurisdiction to deal with not only the federal issues involved in the case before them but also any relevant state issues so that they can dispose of, between the litigants, all relevant issues relating to the common substratum of fact. The creation of the artificial seams is a departure from those healthy and more efficient trends that have been to the benefit of litigants and the benefit of courts and the use of taxpayer resources. Again, regrettably, that has been overlooked by the government.There are also a number of technical problems with the bill that have been identified in evidence given to the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee. For instance, under section 76(1) of the act, it is provided that these magistrates will be able to give their decisions orally or in writing, and we do not know at this stage the extent of transcription services that will be made available and whether the parties will be able to get access to those decisions that are going to be given orally.Also, section 76(4) enables Federal Magistrates Courts to give written reasons in short form—which again concerns us. In fact, section 76(5) specifically excludes the operation of the Acts Interpretation Act, which defines what reasons for judgment are. The Law Council of Australia in particular was very critical of this aspect of the bill, about which they said:Depriving litigants of the reasons for a magistrate's decision is an extremely serious course of action. Obviously, reasons enable the parties to see whether their arguments have been understood and accepted. They are part of judicial accountability in terms of their competence in comprehending these sorts of issues. They provide the basis for developing precedent and, of course, they enable parties to assess whether they have reasonable prospects of overturning a decision on appeal. In fact, the council's submission said:The Law Council finds it extraordinary that the Government is proposing that a court constituted under chapter 3 of the Constitution would not be required to set out `findings on material questions of fact' nor `refer to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based'.I should add, in conclusion, that there are a number of technical aspects to the bill that I will comment on in the consideration in detail stage. In view of the time, 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:(1) believes that the Federal Magistrates Service proposed in the Bill is unlikely to reduce the delays currently being experienced in the Family Court unless significant additional resources are provided;(2) calls upon the Government to work with the Family Court of Australia to address the problems identified in the discussion paper entitled Review of the Federal Civil Justice System released by the Australian Law Reform Commission; and(3) calls for an inquiry by the House of Representatives Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee into the need to establish standard procedures and case management techniques for Court administration, relying on best practice models".10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—Is the amendment seconded?5V5SMITHMr Stephen Smith—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.21:21:0011791Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—I am sorry that I have not had the advantage of seeing the amendment moved by the honourable member for Barton, but I am sure it will not contain any surprises that we have not already heard in his speech. It surprises me yet again that the member for Barton made it very clear in his speech that the Labor Party support a federal magistracy. He said that on a number occasions and then went on to find every reason why on this occasion they would not vote with the government to support the introduction of a federal magistracy. Some could be mistaken for believing that the member for Barton is more like his boss, Mr Beazley, who has two or three positions on every issue. On this issue, the Labor Party have another two or three positions: they are in favour of a federal magistracy but they cannot vote for a federal magistracy; they take the Law Councils's position, they take Alistair Nicholson's position, they take everybody's position, and they cannot actually come up with one of their own and stick with their integrity—their integrity being to support what they actually support, which is a federal magistracy. In every single report of every single House of Representatives committee that the Labor Party have sat on in the last few years they have supported this proposal, but today, in order to gain political kudos from it, they have yet again done a backflip and are not supporting the government.The member for Barton spoke about the motivations of the Attorney-General and suggested that for some reason we might be, in a narkish sort of fashion, introducing this bill, the Federal Magistrates Bill 1999 , to get at the Chief Justice of the Family Court. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. The Chief Justice of the Family Court has his views and he puts them very forcefully. We respect and admire the independence of the judiciary and will continue to do so. This bill is motivated by one thing and one thing only: to make it easier for people to access family law in a way that is timely and creates as few difficulties for them as possible—unlike what they have experienced in the last 13 years under the Labor Party when the list for family law became a complete joke. Happily, we have got into power and, yet again, it is a coalition government that is being forced to act to redress some of the appalling situations left to us by the Labor Party after their 13 years of neglect of the legal system.The central tenet of the coalition government's approach to family law issues is to treat the interests of children of the relationship as paramount. In many situations, that approach is best served by reducing the stress and pressure that their parents may be experiencing as a result of the separation process. As a society we would ideally like to see less divorce and separation. Relationships can end for myriad reasons. It is sometimes the case that financial problems experienced by the couple in a relationship are a significant contributor. Long-term unemployment can also be a factor that places stress on a relationship and compounds other difficulties that a couple is experiencing.Record low rates of interest and inflation, combined with some of the lowest unemployment figures since Paul Keating and the Labor Party's `recession we had to have', all contributed to a better quality and standard of living for Australian families under this government. The coalition government has also introduced other aspirational features to help Australian families. The private health insurance rebate and the new tax system, which will put around $50 a week extra into the pocket of an average Australian family, are two measures that demonstrate the coalition government's commitment to Australian families. Indeed, it must be cold comfort for most Australian families to know that the Labor Party opposed these initiatives in the name of rank political opportunism.The coalition has made family orientated policies a cornerstone of its government. They are policies that are not only supportive of families; they are polices that help reduce some of the financial pressures that individuals in a relationship may experience. In some cases it may be the difference between a relationship surviving or ending. In those unfortunate situations where a relationship does break down, government is obligated to assist those individuals and their children through policies that minimise the emotional and financial costs that often go hand in hand with separation. It would be folly to suggest that these problems can be completely eliminated. One of the most irresponsible things a member of parliament can do is to build expectations in the community about what can be achieved with policies regarding family law.There are no off-the-shelf panaceas in family law. Instead, government should develop a holistic approach to family law related issues. Public policy can be shaped to ease some of the problems experienced or faced by individuals who are separating and divorcing. Extensive and impulsive reforms to an area of public policy as sensitive as family law run the risk of causing irreparable social consequences. Reforms need to be measured and progressive.Divorce or separation often comes at a high emotional and financial cost. Compounding this is the fact that this usually occurs at a time when separating individuals are least emotionally and financially equipped to deal with the situation—particularly if there are children involved. The financial costs are considerable. There are relocation costs to contend with as well as the start-up costs associated with re-establishment in new accommodation. Sometimes a parent must change employment to accommodate new parenting arrangements. And while responsible parents appreciate there is no substitute for giving a child love and attention there is an understandable tendency in these situations for parents to spend money on their children in an attempt to extinguish some of the guilt they may feel because of the circumstances. So the added cost of legal fees often comes at a time when separating individuals are least prepared or in a position to manage financially.An adversarial element in family law situations cannot be totally avoided—there will always be occasions when passions and emotions run high. But in circumstances where there is no adversarial element involved and, where both parties can go to the negotiating table on an equal footing, public policy should accommodate such a feature.The bill currently before the House provides for the establishment of an innovative development in the delivery of justice—a Federal Magistrates Service. Under the legislative provisions contained in this bill, the newly created Federal Magistrates Service will have concurrent jurisdiction with either the Federal Court of Australia or the Family Court of Australia. Consequently, the Federal Magistrates Service will have authority to make determinations on issues relating to family law, consumer protection, review of administrative decisions, bankruptcy and unresolved antidiscrimination complaints.One of the alternatives to this new initiative is to allocate further resources to the Family Law Court and, more specifically, to appoint additional justices, which was advocated by the member for Barton. A Federal Magistrates Service not only will be as productive in terms of workload as extra resources to the Family Law Court would be but will introduce a number of new features to the justice system that the current structure is unable to effectively deliver. The most important aspect of this new judicial structure is that individuals in the community will have greater access to affordable and expeditious justice in circumstances where it is practical to use this new service.This streamlined approach to delivering greater access to justice will also remove some of the adversarial element that currently exists in the family law system. It will be the beginning of a new culture for the adversarial system with an emphasis on a user-friendly approach. There will no longer be an automatic assumption that every matter will end in a contested hearing. This legislation will encourage the use of conciliation, counselling, mediation and arbitration where circumstances allow. In such circumstances, litigants will have access to existing counselling and mediation services of the Family Court. Litigants will also be encouraged to use community based counselling and mediation services.In what is an extremely important social dividend of this legislation, court costs to the litigants will be significantly reduced. Divorcing or separating couples, whose case can be determined by the federal magistracy, will be the major beneficiaries of this new initiative. The actual process of divorce or separation can place enormous financial strain on the people involved. In such circumstances, these individuals must make dramatic adjustments to their personal budgets and therefore their quality of life. The stresses that these financial pressures inflict often occur at a time when the individuals involved are at their most financially and emotionally vulnerable. Reducing the cost of litigation will go a small but significant way to reducing some of these anxieties.The community will also benefit by having a Federal Court and Family Court with a reduced case workload. This will ensure that both the Federal Court and Family Court are better equipped to deal with more complicated cases in those situations where the federal magistracy will not have jurisdiction to hear such matters. The introduction of this new tier in the judicial process also delivers a new level of flexibility—which has previously been absent—to the court system. A part of that flexibility will be features to encourage people to resolve disputes through primary dispute resolution and not through litigation. In drafting this bill, the government considered the advice of the National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Committee on how best to achieve those outcomes.The use of conciliation, counselling and mediation—and possibly arbitration—will be strongly encouraged in appropriate cases. The advantage of this approach is that it gives the parties involved a certain degree of ownership over the result. It will give them a sense of empowerment and the knowledge that they are contributing to the direction of the agreement. Federal magistrates will be selected according to their expertise and suitability or adaptability to the new structure, particularly in the area of family law. Based on expertise available, the federal magistracy will be given the opportunity to devise its own set of regulations for practice and procedure. This bill includes provisions designed to assist the federal magistracy to develop these procedures so they are as simple and efficient as possible, with the principal aim of reducing delay and costs to litigants.Delays will be reduced by the Federal Magistrates Service having the authority to set time limits for witnesses and to limit the length of both written and oral submissions. The process of discovery and interrogatories will be permitted only if the new court con siders them appropriate. There will be more emphasis on delivering decisions orally in appropriate cases, rather than parties having to wait for reserved judgments; and federal magistrates will be able to give reasons in abbreviated form where circumstances allow.These features of the new system are not accommodated under the old system. By reducing delays, we will be allowing separating couples the opportunity to move on with their new lives as soon as practically possible after separation. Too often under the old system, delays in the Family Court not only frustrated litigants, their families and lawyers alike, but it also meant that the legal process of separating dragged on unnecessarily. This continuing uncertainty causes distress and anxiety for the individuals separating and their children. The new system will minimise—but not eradicate—this problem.Costs to the litigant will be reduced twofold. Firstly, professional fees will be reduced as a consequence of the streamlined approach and, secondly, the new service will use the infrastructure of existing courts—including registry services—as much as practicable in order to minimise costs. Minimising costs is not only a good result for privately funded litigants, it also helps release some of the strain being placed on taxpayer funded legal aid commissions throughout Australia. This means that the resources of legal aid can go further and help more people. It also allows the coalition government to create greater community access to justice. For instance, this government has recently announced funding for an extra 11 community legal centres in Australia's rural and regional areas—an important part of Australia that was sadly neglected by the former Labor government for 13 years.The government's holistic approach to family law related issues is manifested in other initiatives supported by the coalition. This government seeks lateral solutions to address the growing problems in the area of family law. My colleague the Commonwealth Attorney-General has already announced government support of $15.7 million over three years for the provision of community based family counselling and mediation dispute resolution services. Again, this is a part of the coalition government's commitment to increase the availability of alternatives to litigious solutions to family law disputes. It is expected that government support of these services will help up to an extra 20,000 Australians every year—that is, 20,000 Australians who will have an opportunity to avoid the litigation trap and save themselves some of the emotional and financial hardships that normally come with it.The coalition government is also supporting a national family law advice hotline with the allocation of $3.1 million. This important service will improve national access to advice about family law matters or legal concerns regarding child support. It is anticipated that up to 100,000 callers per year will access this service, which will also promote the use of dispute resolution and mediation services. A part of this government funded program incorporates the Internet as a medium to advance family law advice issues. This will particularly assist young people who are far more inclined to access information through the Internet than through other mediums. It will complement the face-to-face service provided by legal aid commissions and community legal centres as well as facilitating links to relationship services and counselling.Another initiative in the area of family law by the coalition government has been the introduction of the Family Law Amendment Bill 1999 . It is legislation which will serve two broad aims. Firstly, it will further streamline and enhance the enforcement of parenting orders by the introduction of a new three-stage parenting compliance regime. This innovative development follows recommendations made by the Family Law Council to the government. This new innovation includes a combination of preventative, remedial and punitive measures that will help improve communication between separating individuals.Secondly, the introduction of binding financial arrangements will enable the commencement of private arbitration disputes about property. This will provide greater choice for separating individuals in property settlements, and it will provide a more effi cient and less costly means of dispute resolution in property matters than is presently available through the Family Court.The policies of the coalition government in the area of family law consistently promote the best interests of children, and they are also policies which aim to improve the lines of communication and dialogue between individuals who are separating. Under the social contract, there are important social dividends to be gained by pursuing policies that aim to cut delays and remove as much of the adversarial cost elements as practicable.In closing, can I congratulate the Attorney-General on the introduction of this legislation and the establishment of a federal magistracy. I hope that it will be speedily passed by the House and the Senate because I believe that it will be of great benefit to the average Australian, to those people who are suffering under the yoke of the current burden in the Family Court area, which I am sure all members of the Labor Party would agree is unacceptable in our society. This is an innovation of which we should all be proud. I look forward to its establishment and to attending the first inductions of the federal magistrates around Australia, particularly in my home state of South Australia.21:38:0011795O'Byrne, MichelleMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—I also rise to speak on the Federal Magistrates Bill 1999 , and I just point out for the benefit of the previous speaker that, despite some concerns about the consequential amendment, we actually will support this bill. The points that the shadow Attorney-General raised are our grave concerns about the efficacy of this bill. The position that we are taking is that we do not think this is good enough but, if this is the best the government can come up with for resourcing the Family Court, we will take what we can get in the short term.What we have here is a family court system that is actually under attack. The Federal Magistrates Bill, introduced by this government, is an attack on the integrity and the philosophy which underpins the Family Court of Australia. This bill proposes to establish another Chapter III federal court in accordance with the Australian Constitution. It proposes to create an additional magistracy service, the Federal Magistrates Service, to assist the Family Court with its consistently growing workload.Through creating the Federal Magistrates Service under Chapter III of the Constitution, the Federal Magistrates Service will operate outside of the existing Magistrates Court and Family Court structure. However, I believe that creating a federal magistracy, as proposed by this bill, is not the best nor the most effective way to resolve the delays the community is facing in the Family Court. It is certainly not the answer that northern Tasmania has been waiting for. It is not the solution for regional Australia.In order to fully appreciate and value the work of the Family Court, and in order to evaluate any reform proposals such as the federal magistracy, it is necessary to briefly explore the historical background of the Family Court. The federal parliament created the Family Court of Australia with the passage of the Family Law Act 1975. On 5 January 1976, the Family Court commenced operation, and it is an understatement to say that the Family Law Act 1975 and the subsequent creation of the Family Court revolutionised family law.A new specialist federal Family Court of Australia emerged—judges were appointed, research facilities were created, as were counselling and conciliation services. The paramount consideration of the court became the welfare of the child, amended in 1996 to the current test—that is, the best interests of the child. Judicial discretion has been expanded to cater for the new approach to family litigation and disputes. Today, according to the Family Court annual report 1997-98:The Court's objective is to serve its clients and the interests of the Australian community by providing for the just, equitable and timely administration of justice in all matters within its jurisdiction. Its primary emphasis is on achieving outcomes that are in the best interests of the children and on helping people to come to their own agreements without a judicial determination.The purpose of the Family Court of Australia, as put simply by Mr Andrew Phelan, General Manager, Corporate Services, FCOA, in a paper presented to the third national Family Court conference in 1998, is quite simply: solving family disputes. In the same paper, on page 15, Mr Andrew Phelan described the vision of the FCOA as putting children and families first in the design and delivery of services, cost-effective dispute resolution for separated families, being a world leader in the development of innovative services for families in conflict and promoting functional family relationships after separation.These functions, through necessity, are based on stimulating and maintaining a workable relationship between the separating parents of the child. In light of the proposed changes to the Family Court with the passage of the Federal Magistrates Bill, the question becomes how can the Family Court meet these objectives and this purpose if the court is swamped by work and the federal government refuses to replace retiring judges and refuses to acknowledge the objectives of the court?Delays in Family Court proceedings throughout the country are now rife. The government is failing to provide the necessary support which will allow the Family Court to meet these objectives. How we as a society, as a community, avoid delays in Family Court matters is not a watershed question. We as politicians are not the first to offer solutions to how the problem can be remedied.Chief Justice Nicholson suggests the appointment of more judges and registrars will solve the problems currently facing the Family Court. The government proposes the federal magistracy service as the answer. But, to propose a federal magistracy, operating on its own, dangling outside of the existing structure, creating another system, lacks foresight on the part of the government. It is endemic of the Howard government's failure to address the crisis the family courts are experiencing in Australia in a meaningful and considered fashion.The government is convinced cost cutting through not replacing judges is the answer, but where is the money going to come from for the proposed federal magistracy service? Will the Family Court eventually receive a reduced portion of this pie? I believe this is inevitable in order to prop up the federal government's expenditure on the federal magistracy. The Victorian Bar, in their submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, were also concerned that this may occur, stating:The proposed reallocation of resources to a new court from the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Court of Australia . . . will severely affect the ability of those courts to function effectively.To remove funding from an institution which deals with highly emotive and often complex matters is to undervalue and underappreciate the enormous role and task our Family Court workers address on a daily basis. To remove funding from the Family Court is also to remove resources and support from the very people in our community who need assistance the most, those who are forced to approach the court for their solution.Only five per cent of Family Court matters end up before the Family Court for trial. These people are not there for some kind of fun; they are there because it is their last option. The government have made a simplistic calculation that a Family Court judge will cost $305,000 and a federal magistrate will cost $260,000 and, therefore, federal magistrates are the answer. This demonstrates the lack of understanding the government has of the nature of the FCOA and its work.The Tasmanian experience has been that we have one less judge. Specifically, northern Tasmania has been without a Family Court judge since 1996 when Justice Butler retired. I would like to take the time to remind the House of the difficulties that we are experiencing in my electorate which directly relate to the absence of a Launceston based Family Court judge.Justice Butler retired in April 1996 and, since this time, northern Tasmania has been without its own Family Court judge, despite promises by the government to replace Justice Butler. Currently, we are serviced by visiting judges. Delays have increased and waiting lists grow on a daily basis. There is simply no end in sight. The government believe the answer is to create a family magistracy service. I do not believe this is necessarily the answer. The answer I believe is to appoint more judges. A federal Labor government was prepared to do this as a strategy to address the backlog.In the 1997-98 financial year 50 judges and the Chief Justice and Deputy Chief Justice were employed to conduct the judicial business of the Family Court of Australia. The Law Society of Australia have identified the real and urgent need for additional judges nationally, recognising the need for at least one of these family judges to be appointed in Launceston. Recently, the Family Court in Launceston had 62 matters listed for a sitting, and only 13 matters were dealt with. The situation demonstrates the depth of this problem.The answer to combating the delay and the backlog is for the federal government to adequately resource the court—to stop starving the Family Court of resources and simply appoint a Launceston based family judge. Put simply, I guess the answer is to actually stop setting the Family Court up to fail.In Tasmania we have actually had cuts to vitally important counselling services, demonstrating the desperate state the Family Court is currently experiencing. An increasing burden has been placed on the Launceston court counsellors as a result of a temporary measure to remove all face-to-face counselling to north-west coast residents. North-west coast residents must now either travel to Launceston for counselling or alternatively rely on a telephone service.The work of the court has progressively grown over time according to Chief Justice Nicholson. This growth in the workload of the court is attributable to a number of factors, as summarised by Chief Justice Nicholson in the Law Institute Journal:1) Families have suffered enormous stress resulting in an increase in the breakdown of marital relationships.2) Behind conveyancing, probate and possibly criminal law family law represents the most frequent contact members of the public have with civil litigation.3) The chief Judge [and rightly so] is responsible for managing the administrative affairs of the court.4) The family court is having to cope with the increased workload flowing from child support disputes. It was initially envisaged this work load would fall largely to Registrars but the complexities of the matters have resulted in more judge time being consumed on these matters than anticipated.5) There has also been an increase in the Appeal Division of the family court with the court receiving 302 appeals in the year ending 30 June 1997, the second highest total since the court commenced in 1976. Add to this the fact that appellants in person have increased from 26% to 40% and it becomes clearer why the family court is in crisis.6) Access to the family court by legally aided clients is decreasing and the Federal Magistracy Service proposal does nothing to address or resolve this issue. In the third national family court conference in Melbourne in November 1998 Judy Robinson said that "By the family court's own estimate, 35% of all matters in the court involve at least one unrepresented party."More and more unrepresented clients are appearing before the court, which means cases are taking longer to be dealt with. Unrepresented clients have no real chance in often complex proceedings of presenting their case. This is particularly a problem we have found for working men who pay child support and have a decreasing amount of disposable income accessible. This has led to an inequity of access. The Federal Magistrates Bill proposed by the federal government does not address this problem. This government is responsible for a net reduction in Commonwealth funding of legal aid and the consequent increase in the number of unrepresented clients before the family courts.Of course, the obvious reason for delays within the court system, as espoused by Chief Justice Nicholson, is: `One of the major difficulties that has faced the Family Court in recent years has been the tardy process of replacing judges,' or, as is the case in Launceston, the complete failure to appoint a replacement judge since the 1996 retirement of Justice Butler. To propose that the federal magistracy service operate in isolation from the Family Court and not be attached to the existing Family Court structure confirms this government's lack of understanding of Family Court matters. In the words of Chief Justice Nicholson in his opening address at the National Family Court Conference in 1998, and he suspected at the time that the federal government had a federal magistracy service in mind in order to address the backlog:In my view this is a recipe for trouble when regard is had to the volume of work that needs to be done and the fact that these cases must be managed in the case management system of this Court. If what is envisaged is attaching magistrates to this Court then the question must be asked as to why they should not be part and parcel of this Court.Not only does it display a lack of empathy with and understanding of the nature of the work of the Family Court, it totally ignores the structural costs which will be incurred establishing another judicial framework—a structural cost and inefficiency recognised both by the Attorney-General of Tasmania, Peter Patmore, and the Victorian Bar in their respective submissions to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, where they questioned the usefulness of `an additional layer of judicial bureaucracy in jurisdictions which could be adequately served by existing courts and tribunals'.Victorian Legal Aid also raised this issue in their submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee. They said:It will be essential to ensure that the creation of a Federal magistracy does not result in simply another layer of judicial decision making that adds rather than reduces cost.Yes, the Family Court can be improved, but should funds vital to its successful operation be diverted into creating another bureaucracy? The Howard government are intent on undermining and eroding the very principle the Family Court of Australia was established upon—that is, promoting the best interests of the child. It is difficult to see how this statutory mandate embodied in section 67 of the Family Law Act of Australia can be delivered outside of the Family Court by the federal magistracy service as proposed.The Family Law Act of Australia specifically stipulates the characteristics a judge of the Family Court is to possess. Even the selection criteria for appointment to the Family Court are different from those required for any other judicial position. Section 22(2) of the Family Court of Australia Act specifies:(a) the person is or has been a Judge of another court created by the Parliament or of a court of a State or has been enrolled as a legal practitioner of the High Court or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory for not less than 5 years; and(b) by reason of training, experience and personality, the person is a suitable person to deal with matters of family law.The federal government has not offered a commitment to ensuring that the federal magistracy is comprised of magistrates who by reason of their training, experience and personality are suitable to deal with family law matters. Family law practitioners embody an entirely different approach to the law—they are not overcome by precedents and do not expect to apply exactly the same approach to each case before the court.To use the analogy of the application of a formula, family judges do not believe the same formula will produce the same outcome each and every time, as there is nothing definite about what is in the best interests of a particular child. An assurance from the federal government that the best interests of the child will be legislatively enshrined is essential. The Family Court of Australia quite clearly embodies different principles from other federal courts. This distinct and different focus is designed to cater for the needs of a very different legal client. The different structure, focus and philosophy reflect and acknowledge the very different role the Family Court must provide to ensure the social fabric of our society is maintained.The Family Court moves away from the adversarial winner and loser structure embodied in our court system in recognition of the need for a continuing relationship between two separating partners who have children. The Family Court looks forward, not backwards, to assess what is in the best interests of the child. That is what makes it a unique court. Will the federal magistracy be guided by the same principle? It is impossible for the magistracy service to embody this principle in a meaningful way if the magistrates appointed are federal generalists and not Family Court specialists.Will those who assess the federal magistracy service to resolve a family matter also have access to the non-judicial resources of the Family Court? If so, to what extent? Will the magistrates appointed to the federal magistracy service have the skills to identify when non-judicial processes are necessary and/or appropriate? The Family Court currently makes such assessments but, as I have already indicated, Family Court judges are selected on the basis of their specialist knowledge and understanding of the area. This issue and the way it is resolved is crucial if the federal magistracy service is to be successful.The very philosophy underpinning the Family Court's creation is being whittled away. No wonder Chief Justice Nicholson was highly suspicious of the federal government. The Family Court is a specialist court; the federal magistracy is generalist as opposed to specialist in nature. The federal magistracy proposed in this bill will not be dedicated solely to the work of the Family Court. The work of the federal magistracy will include human rights legislation, workplace relations, the Bankruptcy Act, appeals, et cetera.Ultimately it is the Family Court judges who need to determine which matters would be most appropriately dealt with by the federal magistracy, as Family Court judges are best placed to make this assessment. This principle is not embodied in legislation. Nor is the federal magistracy awarded, by virtue of this bill, jurisdiction to deal with custody matters. It is difficult to see exactly how the urgent work and backlog of the Family Court can be suitably managed and dealt with by the federal magistracy as proposed.The government is not proposing to create a `specialist' court to deal with family matters. The court will be generalist. The minister stated:The federal magistrates will be selected for their expertise in federal matters, including family law, and will deal with a range of matters of a less complex nature that are currently dealt with by the Federal and Family Courts.Not only will the federal magistrates appointed to the federal magistracy service be `generalist trained', but they will have general functions—that is, it is proposed that they will preside over a range of federal legal matters.Some people in the community had interpreted the existing focus negatively and described the FCOA as having a gender bias. But it is always important to remember that the court does not look at fault. It does not look at factors other than those which will impact on the best interests of the child. Many of the court's decisions reflect the social realities of our society today—that is, one gender is predominantly the primary care providers for children in the community. When this social reality changes so will the decisions of the Family Court. It is appropriate where children are concerned for the court to be solely focused on the needs and rights of the child. It is proper and necessary for the courts to adopt this focus. It is also required in accordance with international law and Australia's obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in November 1989 and ratified by Australia on 17 December 1990.I do not believe that this bill is aimed solely at reducing delays in the Family Court. The federal magistracy service proposed is not an adequate solution to any of the problems the Family Court is currently grappling with. I remind the government of a comment made by the Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia, who said during a seminar to the Law Institute in 1990, and reproduced in the Law Institute Journal:No amount of improvement in management or structure will be adequate unless the court is properly funded . . .The Family Court has not been funded adequately by this government. If the government chooses not to invest in the Family Court of Australia, the Howard government cannot expect the Family Court to deliver the results we have come to expect. The government should review the cost, efficiency and reductions in delay resulting from the establishment of a federal magistracy structure in Australia on the anniversary of the federal magistracy's establishment. The government should adopt a consultative approach to formulating practice guidelines in the court. The government should ensure and maintain that the best interests of the child are served within the new federal magistracy structure.I am certainly not convinced that the creation of a federal magistracy will result in decreased delays, but we on this side of the House will not stand in the way of an attempt, however misguided I believe it to be, to reduce the delays and to clear some of the Family Court's existing backlog. We in Bass in northern Tasmania desperately require judicial relief. If this government refuses to provide us with a Family Court judge based in northern Tasmania, despite election promises to the contrary, then we fully expect a Federal Court magistrate with specialised expertise in Family Court matters will be appointed to northern Tasmania.21:57:0011800Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I rise today in support of the Federal Magistrates Bill 1999 and the Federal Magistrates (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 establishing the Federal Magistrates Court. Unlike the member for Bass, I feel there is a need to alleviate the lengthening delays in the family and federal courts. From the outset, I must say I am impressed with the solution offered by the Attorney-General in these two bills. Creating a federal magistracy service will not only ease the burden on the abovementioned courts but also allow proceedings which are much more informal, much more open to dispute resolution, cheaper and less time consuming, and that is a good thing. This is an outstanding result that can only benefit everyone in the process.The focus of the Federal Magistrates Court will be on less complex issues that are currently considered by the federal and family courts. There are six principal areas of jurisdiction. They have been mentioned by a number of previous speakers, but I would like to reiterate them: administrative law, bankruptcy law, employment law, human rights law, family law, and trade practices law. This will allow the freeing up of the family and federal courts to focus on more complex issues within their current jurisdiction.A key feature, which I believe is a very popular feature, of the Federal Magistrates Court will be the intention to be as informal as possible, and that is consistent with the appropriate functioning of its duties. The electorate of Petrie will welcome this initia tive, given that the average Australian can easily find the legal process to be quite intimidatory and often incomprehensible. Given that the court will be dealing with issues of a less complex nature, the parties involved will have a greater awareness and understanding about how justice is dispensed in a style that is much more easily understood.I think it is worth highlighting some of the procedures that will facilitate the informal nature of the Federal Magistrates Court. These include: the setting of time limits for witnesses, as well as limiting the length of both oral and written submissions; the court can make a decision without an oral hearing if the parties so consent; a renewed emphasis will be placed upon delivering decisions orally in selected cases, rather than having to wait for reserved judgments to be handed down; and federal magistrates will be allowed to give reasons in a shortened form in appropriate cases.Associated with the aim of informality is the continued emphasis of the coalition government to encourage flexible approaches to resolving disputes. There is the strong encouragement and use of conciliation, counselling and mediation wherever possible. Obviously, in family law matters there will be a focus on primary dispute resolution rather than litigation. I think that is an important feature to highlight. These proposals will highlight this government's commitment to achieving results which are just and which provide for the maximum efficiency in the utilisation of judicial resources.The benefits from this approach are very obvious and are to be commended. This follows from the March 1999 report of the National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council entitled The use of alternative dispute resolution in the Federal Magistracy. The report highlights the need to provide options so that disputes do not always have to go through the very expensive and time consuming legal process. This bill specifically emphasises the importance of parties taking responsibility to find a solution to the dispute themselves and that the appro priate dispute resolution services be provided accordingly.One of the major benefits from this reform will be the reduced cost for all parties involved. As the Attorney-General has announced, the streamlining and less formal procedures will reduce costs in a number of ways. Firstly, solicitors' fees will be reduced. Secondly, barristers are less likely to be briefed. Thirdly, there will be a lessening of costs of forgone wages. Fourthly, there will also be a fixed price regime for the magistrates. Finally, regional access to magistrates will reduce litigants' travel expenses. The people living in my electorate of Petrie will certainly benefit and appreciate many of those lower costs involved with the Federal Magistrates Court. This demonstrates the commitment of the Howard government to provide equality of opportunity for all Australians to have access to affordable legal processes.Apart from those employed within the legal profession, the average Australian does not have the luxury of extended periods of free time to pursue legal action. It is not ideal, to say the least, for some people to set aside time to resolve issues that sometimes cannot be resolved for many, many years. I see many cases of that in my daily work as a federal member. This brings me to another clear benefit for the establishment of the Federal Magistrates Court, and that is the anticipated reduction in time for decisions to be delivered. This will make it much more convenient for litigants to have their case heard so that they can get on with their lives as quickly as possible. I have seen many family law cases that do completely the opposite—that is, drag on for years. That is not to the benefit of anyone, least of all the children who are involved.To gain an idea of the scope of the Federal Magistrates Court's responsibilities, the Federal Magistrates (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 will allow for the following acts to come under the new court's jurisdiction: the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, the Bankruptcy Act 1966, the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988, the Family Law Act 1975, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986, as well as the Trade Practices Act 1974 and the Workplace Relations Act 1996. This highlights just how much pressure will be relieved on the federal and family courts to deal with the more complex issues covered by the above acts.I would like to pay particular attention to the benefits that the Federal Magistrates Court will provide for those pursuing grievances that would normally be heard in the Family Court. It is a tragic reality that not all marriages last a lifetime, and more and more marriages these days do seem to end in divorce. The breakdown of a relationship is a very painful one and extremely emotional for many people. In a situation of shattered expectations and concern over the welfare of any children involved, the last thing that is needed is a long, drawn out court battle. The associated financial costs and the emotional pain mean that there are usually no winners from this situation.The federal government's emphasis in the establishment of the Federal Magistrates Court on timely decisions, reduced costs and the encouragement of mediation and dispute resolution is to be highly commended because it will reduce the stress and a lot of the acrimony associated with divorce and custody issues. I know that this scheme will be greatly appreciated by those in my electorate who may have had to go through the process, so the obvious burden imposed will be much less.There are some who argue that the $27.9 million allocated over four years to the establishment of the Federal Magistrates Court could be better spent on providing more resources to the federal and family courts. The member for Bass alluded to that in her speech. I believe that this is not the view of the Law Council of Australia, and I believe she also referred to the Law Council in her speech. While I have tremendous respect for the Law Council of Australia, it is my opinion that this view is slightly erroneous. The Law Council of Australia highlighted their concerns over delays, particularly in the Family Court, in their submission to the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee—that is, over 70 weeks in the cases of children's matters in the Family Court.I do share their concern over the delays experienced in waiting for cases to be heard, but their explanation is that there are insufficient judges to hear the contested matters. However, funding more judges to hear contested matters will not necessarily clear the backlog of cases waiting to be heard. I agree that this situation is obviously untenable. The creation of the Federal Magistrates Court is a much more perceptive course of action that will help alleviate this pressure. However, it is not only a case of a new Federal Magistrates Court dealing with less complex cases; it is also about creating a much more accessible and user-friendly system for litigants.It is easy to lose sight of the significance of the Federal Magistrates Court in ensuring justice is much more easily within the reach of average Australians. It is fundamentally important that people realise that this will not only allow for shorter court proceedings, but the fact is that it will provide a cheaper alternative for many people who are not in a position to afford expensive legal fees. Even better is the possibility that disputes can be potentially resolved at a very early stage of proceedings. This flexibility and accessibility will be welcomed by all those affected.What is really needed is a little vision about how the court processes can be made more relevant to people's needs as we approach the 21st century. These bills not only are visionary but also promote the efficient use of finite resources that bring only benefits to difficult situations. In a nutshell, it means that they will allow proceedings to be much more informal, open to dispute resolution, cheaper and less time consuming. This will reduce the burden on the Family and Federal Courts and allow them to focus their efforts on much more complex cases when necessary. I firmly believe that the majority of Australians will welcome and support the intentions that underpin the creation of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia. There is no doubt that this initiative will help make the legal process more approachable, efficient and cheaper for those people whom the court is serving: the litigants. I strongly urge the House to support these two bills establishing the Federal Magistrates Service.22:09:0011802Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—It is a delight to unexpectedly have an opportunity to speak on the Federal Magistrates Bill 1999 and the Federal Magistrates (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 . I note that my colleague the member for Barton, the shadow Attorney-General, has moved an amendment and expressed a number of concerns about the bills. I also note, having heard a number of the contributions from both sides of the House, that there is a degree of bipartisanship on issues surrounding family law, and so there should be. We as members of this House all have a constant procession of constituents visiting our offices expressing concern about our system of family law in this country and sharing with us, as members, their experiences with respect to family law matters—in particular, child support matters. It is an area of legislation or public policy where we should all be combining to address the anomalies that exist and the difficulties that our system of family law presents in this country.I do not profess to be an expert on the particular matter before the House but, as I said, it is good to see members expressing shared concerns about the inadequacies of our system and about the very great strain it places upon both live families and `un-live' families—for want of a better term. I repeat the amendment the shadow minister has moved:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading the House:(1) believes that the Federal Magistrates Service proposed in the Bill is unlikely to reduce the delays currently being experienced in the Family Court unless significant additional resources are provided;(2) calls upon the Government to work with the Family Court of Australia to address the problems identified in the discussion paper entitled Review of the Federal Civil Justice System released by the Australian Law Reform Commission; and (3) calls for an inquiry by the House of Representatives Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee into the need to establish standard procedures and case management techniques for Court administration, relying on best practice models".I see that the honourable member for Chifley has joined the members in the House and I am delighted to see him do so, for many reasons—not the least of which being that, as the Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Certain Family Law Matters, he has gained for himself a great insight into all of these issues, as have been addressed by earlier speakers. Certainly he has a great deal of expertise in this area and, more than any other person in this chamber, has worked relentlessly to address the many anomalies that exist in the system and the many problems that flow from them. I recommend the shadow Attorney-General's amendment to the House.22:12:0011803Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—I thank the honourable member for Chifley for his courtesy and kindness. I also thank the honourable member for Hunter. The Labor Party is not at all enthusiastic about these proposals. We are not minded to throw them out because, in a sense, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating and this issue will be on the head of the government in relation to what we perceive to be the likelihood of their failure to achieve the objectives they have set out. It is not surprising that the opposition takes this view because the now Attorney-General was a member of the 1995 Joint Select Committee on Certain Family Law Issues which reported that there was some merit in the establishment of a magistracy but recommended this in the context of an attachment to the Family Court.We have now seen a proposal for a stand-alone magistracy which is truly neither fish nor fowl. It is neither a court of scale or substance that is going to be sufficient to give it the national weight to operate as a court with its own resources, traditions and processes—which would be possible were the government to take a more radical approach to the jurisdiction of a magistracy—nor a proposal which works in harmony with either the Family Court or the Federal Court. Nor is it a proposal which draws the synergies that are possible were the government to look at arrangements which could be entered into with the states to harmonise the provision of judicial services through greater use of state magistrates.This is a puzzling proposal because it essentially creates a court of 16 federal magistrates seeking to replace 19 judicial registrars in the Family Court. At the same time, these 16 magistrates are supposed to take over responsibility for a wide range of trade practices matters—particularly the consumer related matters in relation to section 52 on misleading and deceptive conduct and disputes regarding false or misleading representations, product safety standards and unsafe goods. The magistracy will have jurisdiction regarding bankruptcy and some areas which are both controversial and, in the opposition's view, at least doubtful in terms of the wisdom of giving them to a magistrate's jurisdiction in relation to the Workplace Relations Act under section 127 and part XA regarding freedom of association.It is puzzling to see how this measure is going to achieve what the government says are its objectives—that is, facilitating greater efficiencies in the Family Court jurisdiction—when, instead of new resources going to that court, we find resources essentially being constrained and 16 magistrates created as a separate court replacing 19 judicial registrars. The court is a Federal Court, which means that those appointed to it will have to be appointed on the terms prescribed by the Constitution. They will be, therefore, tenured to the age of 70 and incapable of being removed should rearrangements in relation to the judicial structure be desired.That is not to say that, in future, should the opposition find that these initiatives have failed, there will not be remedial measures possible. Those remedial measures, however, will have to take into account that those who have been appointed as federal magistrates are appointed on those terms to the age of 70 and would continue on those terms notwithstanding any subsequent and future arrangements in relation to the disposition of the court and the jurisdiction that is granted to it.In other words, if a future government at any stage were minded to take a view that there ought to be a more substantial conferral of jurisdiction and the establishment of a magistracy attached to either the Federal Court or the Family Court, at least notionally, the existing tenured magistrates would have to remain on a salary basis at least to the age of 70. They could have joint appointments to new courts and the jurisdiction of the older courts effectively removed in practice, but it is a clumsy mechanism that would be seen to have to be resorted to.The law societies of the various states and the Family Law Association, in particular, have been extremely critical of these proposals—again, not surprisingly. Before the election of the current government, the then opposition had been quite sympathetic to the arguments put forward in relation to the need for addressing the structure of the Family Court and the resources attendant needed for it. That seems to have been the dim, distant past in relation to the Attorney's approach. Driving this seems to be the sense that the Family Court is beyond reform.I have some sympathy, having been Minister for Justice and working with the former Attorney-General Michael Lavarch, for difficulties in the efficiencies and practices of the Family Court. The current Attorney is not the only Attorney who has had sharp exchanges from time to time with Mr Justice Nicholson and the administration of the court regarding those practices, the need to gain greater efficiencies and the need to ensure that the primary objectives fundamental to the establishment of the Family Court—that is, for there to be a forum which is as far as practicable convenient, informal and without delay—were reasserted.I think this almost gives up on those objectives, and this is a very troubling point to have reached. If the government has squibbed the task of working with the Family Court to reform its procedures and its objectives and to ensure that it gets outcomes which are consistent with the public policy requirements and feels that the only way it can go forward is to vest some of those functions in a new federal magistracy, two things have happened. Firstly, it has failed in the primary task—that is, making certain that the community has available to it accessible, fair, cheap and well-resourced facilities for the disposition of family law matters—but, secondly, it has provided a most inadequate response to the community in relation to these measures. It should be pretty plain from the smallness of the proposal that it is unlikely to do much by way of the asserted objectives. The delay in the Family Court in some jurisdictions already is horrific, and that is not going to be addressed by these measures.Indeed, there are going to be some jurisdictions where delays are, if anything, going to increase because instead of additional resources going into the system there will be fewer. As I indicated previously, I have some sympathy with the conundrum faced by the Attorney-General in getting outcomes from the Family Court. The courts stand firmly on their dignity and resist any inference—and, in many instances, quite properly—that they are subject to the direction of the executive in relation to the conduct and management of their affairs, but I believe that there is a fundamental difference between principles of judicial independence and that of public accountability. Public accountability is a touchstone which governments ought to insist on in relation to the discharge of functions, wherever they are located in the constitutional framework.The fact that the courts, for proper and constitutional reasons, are given security of tenure, freedom from interference in respect of their decision making processes and complete independence in relation to all matters that come before them for determination does not mean that the Attorney-General is relieved in any way of the responsibility of confronting the court with the need for better and more efficient processes and outcomes to make certain that the resources that are expended by the community in relation to dispute resolution in the Family Court are not ill-used.There is no doubt that this is a measure which, in seeking to respond to complaints that have come to the government in relation to the Family Court, is at best a half-measure which takes us no further in respect of the issues that it is intended to address and in fact may lead to greater obstinacy from the Family Court, with respect to the overhaul of its system, to ensure that we avoid unnecessary complexities and get away from those matters of administration which have been inadequately attended to in the past by the court and which go to the fact that it has not been able to deal effectively with the increasing backlog of matters that have come before it. There should be, as far as possible, simple and transparent procedures.I must indicate that the court has not been blind to all these issues but, having said that, whilst not blind, it has seen but dimly. When the Attorney-General first took office, I approached him with a considerable amount of goodwill to indicate that, if it came to issues regarding his pressing the court for greater accountability in the public sphere, then he would have no greater ally than me. Regrettably, however, rather than pursuing that hard course and taking the substantive and difficult sets of public policy decisions and advocacy that are necessary to change administration and practice within a court which is broadly self-administering, rather than addressing whether or not, for example, the court should be made subject to a collegiate system of management rather than the administration of the Chief Justice alone, and rather than looking at the implementation of judicial charters—efficiency commitments that the court would give; explicit obligations in relation to its performance requirements—the Attorney-General has in a sense slid off into a second-best solution, that of proposing a magistracy which will be set up to deal with some of those family law issues which could quite conveniently be dealt with within an overall system within the Family Court were he to address these larger, but admittedly more difficult and more contentious, issues.The Attorney-General got his fingers burnt in some early public disputes with the Chief Justice of the Family Court. I have to say that Mr Justice Nicholson is probably amongst Australia's best politicians—a politician judge of considerable skill and renown. He has given Attorneys-General of both parties touch- ups from time to time when they have sought to intrude into his turf, or what he has seen to be his turf—and the case does have to be made for the requirements of public accountability as opposed to interference to judicial independence.I believe that in the end we have something which is neither fish nor fowl. It is a bit of a camel of a proposal. It will not achieve, in the opposition's view, the objectives which are sought.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—The Attorney-General is scurrying out. You have him under attack!RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—The Attorney-General is scurrying out, savaged by this attack but obviously unrepentant. The opposition indicate that we will watch carefully the way in which these new initiatives are made operational. We reserve the right to put forward our own proposals, which may be much more comprehensive and much more inclusive of the procedures they recommend, so that the real ills that the Attorney-General has identified are more effectively and more comprehensively dealt with in a proposal that perhaps integrates the magistracy into an existing court structure but imposes on that court structure greater obligations of performance in accordance with what we would all expect as members of this community for the efficient discharge of judicial functions so as to overcome delays, to simplify procedures and to make certain that the courts offer a service which is courteous, where those who come before the courts know in advance what time lines to expect, so that there are complaint mechanisms built into the system so that, if a judgment is not delivered within the expected time, there is a convenience mechanism where no adverse conclusions will be drawn—where you can draw that to the court's attention and seek the assistance of the court to have the matters responded to quickly and to have all the other public performance requirements that we expect our courts to build into their operations. I simply conclude that these are matters we will look at as the court comes into operation. We will of course put forward proposals in that context to the people at the next election, designed to offer a far more effective solution than the half-measures thus far proposed.Debate interrupted.Adjournment1180610000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.1180622:30:0011806Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—The decision by the National Rugby League to exclude South Sydney from the 2000 competition leaves the faceless men who run the game with red and green blood on their hands. It is a fatal blow which will be challenged in every arena—in the courts, in the parliament and in the public arena. The public know that this struggle is not just about South Sydney; it is about community, it is about history, it is about the aspirations of our youth and it is about whether the dollar can override all human and social relationships. Friday's decision is wrong. As Alan Jones has said:No country, no institution and no organisation can sweep history aside, without debate, without losing the support of those who have made that history and cherished that tradition.It is wrong not just because it does not acknowledge the history of the game; it is wrong because it does not stand up to scrutiny.The whole process was not public and the criteria were designed to achieve the outcome of payback to traditional clubs. There was an extraordinary decision to have two criteria. The basic criterion, which included junior development, ground facilities and solvency, was replaced by the ranking criterion. I will talk about just one of the criteria released last Friday—profitability. On the one hand, clubs like Canberra, North Queensland, Cronulla, Auckland and Melbourne have amassed massive debt with News Ltd. In two years Melbourne has amassed $12 million worth of debt. Their success on the field has been funded by massive debt, which contributes to other criteria such as crowd numbers. That is why South Sydney have asked for all the books of all these clubs to be open to public scrutiny. Compare this with Souths, who have paid their own way, have still been competitive and have still produced the most outstanding young prospect in rugby league in Craig Wing. To complete the farce, the $1.5 million grant from Souths Juniors—more than any club gives any team, junior or senior—was not taken into account in the criteria.This crisis derives from the Super League assault in 1995. Super League paid too much for its players in a predatory pricing policy which could only have been justified if the game had become truly global. That has, of course, not been the case, and News Ltd have lost up to half a billion dollars through this exercise in just four years. So, if we talk about profitability of the clubs as being grounds for dismissal, News Ltd should be dismissed from their involvement in rugby league due to their financial mismanagement of their involvement. News Ltd have in fact won the war. The clubs which have been folded or forced to amalgamate are clubs which stayed loyal to the Australian Rugby League. Rugby league has lost some of its body parts during this war but it cannot survive if it has no soul. A scorched earth policy does not make sense. Rugby league is the loser if the product loses value and, as the major financial shareholder, News Ltd have an interest in the profitability and thriving of rugby league.There are two options now before those who run the game: a dreadful, drawn-out fight for survival from Souths supporters over their right to play or News Ltd and the National Rugby League could gain enormous public support and kudos from simply backing off and saying, `We have heard the message of the public. Enough is enough. We will support South Sydney's right to play.' The game is not about elites—quite the opposite. It is about the juniors and it is about the mums and dads who sell raffle tickets and cakes so their kids can play. Indeed, rugby league's greatest shareholder is not Rupert Murdoch; it is the fans, and that cannot be forgotten.South Sydney have had magnificent leadership from George Piggins, who has led the way he played: with honour, with integrity, with courage, with determination and with principle. The respect he has from his community, who proudly proclaim `In George we trust', is a commodity which cannot be bought, it can only be earned. As he said about the failure of NRL Chairman Malcolm Noad to even phone him last Friday with the result, `We haven't got much money compared with them, but we've got more class.'1180722:35:0011807Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I would like to report to the parliament tonight about Australia's garrison city. Of course, I refer to Townsville. Over the past several weeks there has been enormous activity in that city in supporting the events in East Timor. Both at RAAF Townsville and at Lavarack Barracks tremendous amounts of work have been going on by members of the ADF who work at the local airfield and at the army barracks. I was at both the army barracks and the airfield last Friday. It is truly amazing the work that has been going on. RAAF Garbutt is a mass of tents. You could not put another tent there. The tents are there because of all the troops from other countries. On Friday there were Thai, Korean and Italian people there and also people from the USA.The logistics of handling all that have been horrendous. While from time to time things go wrong, I have not heard a single complaint. I am, of course, very close to the ADF in Townsville and I have not heard a single complaint. The troops there just get on, solve the problems and support our people in Timor.Some of the warts when you have an extra 3,000 people on the base at any given time are how you handle the ablutions, the catering and the electricity supply. RAAF Townsville, under the command of Wing Commander Chris McHugh, has just gone in there and done the job. Interestingly, I think that the RAAF base has captured every last port-a-loo in North Queensland. They are all at the RAAF base, in addition to other temporary facilities.The Commercial Support Program that has been introduced into the forces has by and large worked well, except in catering, and this is a little concerning. I think that when this is all over the ADF will look into this and perhaps rethink what they might do in relation to the Commercial Support Program and its relationship to catering, because clearly in this exercise it has not worked properly. I think that members of the ADF will back what I am saying here tonight.Lavarack Barracks—which, of course, is home to the ready deployment force, the 1st Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment and the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment—is almost like a ghost town. About 2,000 people have moved out of the barracks and gone to Timor. We have lost the 2nd Battalion. We have lost 10th Force Support Battalion. We have lost 3/4 Cavalry Regiment. We have lost 4th Field Regiment, and we have lost 3rd BASB. It is quite remarkable that there is only the 1st Battalion left. Of course, they are just itching—in about February of next year when the rotation occurs—to take their turn to go overseas.Lieutenant Colonel Mark Bornholt of the 1st Battalion is certainly there making sure that his troops are ready to go. Of course they only just missed out on going because they had come off being the online battalion only about two or three weeks before this incident happened. The 2nd Battalion were very lucky. They became the online battalion, the battalion that responds within 24 hours, and they got to go. I know that they were very pleased and the 1st Battalion members were very disappointed. But they will have their go.I am also pleased about the military band that is part of the 1st Battalion. There were some people down south who decided that Townsville was not going to have a military band, after some 30 years. Our city saw things differently to those down south, and I am pleased to say that the 1st Battalion band is likely also to go to Timor. It is going to be expanded rather than closed down and sent south.Finally, I would like to compliment Margaret Kilin and her people at the Defence Community Organisation, who are supporting the families that are still in Townsville while the troops are overseas. Well done, Margaret, and well done to your team.1180822:40:0011808Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I rise in this adjournment debate to refer to seven local persons from my electorate of Greenway who have each received appropriate publicity in the local papers for service to my electorate, and whose input I acknowledge in these comments.Firstly, I refer to star Air League cadet William Tarbuck, a student at Tindale Christian School. William joined the Air League about nine years ago and has a major interest in aviation. He saw an Air League display at the Blacktown Festival, and this spurred him on to join this fine body. William has been flying since he was 16 and earned his pilots licence at 17. Once he finishes his HSC this year, he plans to work full time to enable him to raise sufficient money to pay for more flying lessons. I am advised that William went through a very hectic and stressful day of judging against competitors from all over the state to win this prestigious award of Cadet of the Year. Congratulations to William Tarbuck.The dux of St Andrew's College, Marayong, Tadeusz Gielas, is a young man of Polish descent. He could not speak English when he arrived in Australia only seven years ago. I am advised that he learned English with such speed that he won the regional division of the Sydney Morning Herald's Young Writer of the Year competition in August. Tadeusz hopes to study law at university next year and is very busy preparing for the HSC, which begins shortly. He has chosen humanity subjects for his HSC—not the usual route to high UAI through science. We all wish him every success. Tadeusz's achievement again underlines our very successful migration system, which serves Australia so well.My third comment is about St Johns Primary School, Riverstone student Sarah Procopio, who claimed a very creditable third place in the recent Voice of Youth competition finals. This annual event is designed to foster confidence and the ability to speak publicly among schoolchildren in the Parramatta diocese. Sarah spoke from the point of view of a Kosovo refugee and asked people to picture the anger and pain they would experience if they were forced to flee from their homes and split from their families, many of whom they would never see again. This is an important subject and a fine contribution from a young constituent who deserves high praise for her great effort.A young man who is a resident of Blacktown, Francis Ocampo, believes the misrepresentation of Blacktown youth has been removed by the emergence of our young talented people. Francis has been selected to represent Australia in the Hague International Model United Nations Youth Conference in January of next year. He is one of 14 who beat 200 others from Australia and New Zealand. The process took about nine months to complete. The representatives were selected for their oratory and debating skills, confidence and closeness with the youth of Australia. Also needed were good academic results and active participation in sport. Francis Ocampo is greatly honoured by his selection, and he and his family are busy raising the $5,0000 needed to attend the conference.Four students from Marsden Park Public School have beaten the best in Sydney's west to earn them the right to represent the region in a New South Wales school debating competition. Sharnie Hoskin, Christine Bruckner, Paula Bujega and Clayton Hood defeated Blaxland East Public School to win the final. The topic of the debate was `We are not a nation of imitators'.As the parliament will see from my reference to these seven young people, Western Sydney—and the Greenway electorate in particular—will have no problem holding its head high as we move into the year 2000 with such fine young talented potential leaders within our great community. I salute them all, and I am confident that they will make their respective marks within our world in the years ahead.1180822:44:0011808Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—During the grievance debate, I was referring to some events in my home town of Ballarat, and I would like to finish from where I left off, as time got away. During the grievance debate I was telling honourable members about an upcoming event in Ballarat of enormous significance to regional Victoria, and that is the Online Australia Field Day to be held on 19 and 20 November. It has been organised by the Centre for Electronic Commerce and Communications at the University of Ballarat.The field day has been modelled on successful agricultural field days and will have a rural focus. Attractions include field demonstrations showing the use of online technology in rural operations; a business expo; activities for children, including a kids tent with Internet, online learning and games; and a cyber cafe where visitors can order their food and drink online or surf the Net. Four main pavilions will offer participants the chance to learn hands-on, using interactive displays and computer equipment. I would like to congratulate Helen Dawes and Ross Davey from the Centre for Electronic Commerce and Communications, who have worked extremely hard to make the event the success that it will be.Interestingly, this event underscores what is becoming increasingly apparent to all Australians, especially those living in rural and remote areas, about the need for those living outside metropolitan Melbourne, Sydney and the other capitals to have access to technology that others take for granted. I am absolutely convinced that, until rural and regional Australians do have that access, they will continue to suffer the impediments that are faced at the moment. The government is quite rightly putting tens of millions of dollars into the technology going into rural and regional areas. I would encourage the government to continue doing so and to renew their endeavours.The important aspect is that the sale of 16 per cent of Telstra will actually deliver real benefits to regional and rural Australians. This is about transferring a part of the public ownership of an asset like Telstra back to the people. I do not hear many arguments from people in my electorate about the transfer of those funds back into regional and rural communities. It should not matter whether you live in Avoca or Adelaide, or Ballan or Brisbane, or Stawell or Sydney: you should have access to those basic services.It was only a matter of two or three years ago that there were people in my electorate who could not access the poisons information line. So we really have some significant steps to take to make sure that the access is there. I think this country will finally have arrived when it does not matter where you live you are able to access that sort of technology, and you should be able to operate just as effectively on top of Ayers Rock as you would in a major capital city.I think we are getting there. This government deserves congratulations in relation to where that money is going. My own University of Ballarat is very actively involved right throughout Western Victoria, taking information to farmers and to small business organisations right throughout my electorate and into the electorates of the honourable members for Wannon and Mallee. I think we are kicking some real goals, but we need to continue doing that. If we do, I think the access that regional and rural Australians and regional and rural Victorians and my constituents deserve will be delivered.On one final matter in the short time that is left, I want to quickly go through some names in relation to the Australian Ex-POW Memorial Subcommittee. They are David Baird, Bill Bahr, Neville Greenbank, Barry Edwards, Bob Fewster, Les Kennedy, Frank Peebles, John Wilkinson, David van den Brule, Keith Bootsman, Mark Waddington, Rex Hollioak, Peter Blizzard, Phil Horwood, Ray Wheeler, Bill Toon, Jack Fitzgerald and John Paterson. These are the people who have got the memorial up and running, and they deserve the applause of this House.1180922:49:0011809Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—I am very pleased to rise today to support the member for Grayndler—not in relation to his football club, although I wish him well in his endeavours, but concerning the Aviation Noise Ombudsman Bill 1999 . For the past year I have spent considerable time dealing with issues concerning the Perth airport. Members might recall my statements in this House pertaining to the plight of those residents affected by aircraft noise. The issues raised related to problems for the local community and for me as their representative.The first was the degree of community consultation that needed improvement, and the second was the capacity of the minister to take unilateral action in the face of community resistance to the plans of Westralia Airports Corporation. The decision making process can be illustrated by the intense community lobbying on the part of the residents of South Guildford, Cannington, Queens Park and their local government representatives, with respect to the noise problem. This has been echoed to a degree by other local issues, such as the recent proposed development of a car auction yard on Westralian Airports Corporation land, and other areas being used for industrial purposes. This development unfortunately created concerns with local residents. In many ways it was the methodology rather than the proposal that had residents up in arms. From my dealings with the residents, I can attest that many had constructive points of view to put, but they were ignored in the process.I wish to indicate that I do not intend to castigate the Westralian Airports Corporation for its utilisation of resources at its disposal, rather for the way in which these decisions were made, which has had little regard for the views of residents or even standard planning considerations. Put quite simply, in signing off the Airports Draft Master Plan without a framework that would ensure fair and representative decision making, the government was asking for trouble. By supporting this bill, the government can send the message to the community that it cares about the impacts of airports on the community and that it is prepared to listen to them.The role of the Ombudsman would be to process community complaints that would go to an independent body. This body will investigate breaches on behalf of those citizens. In doing so, the Ombudsman would remove the financial and political interests that may exist when solving the many contro versial matters and other issues associated with the operation of airports.The benefits of the Aviation Noise Ombudsman Bill 1999 will ensure that complaints regarding excessive aircraft noise and flight paths are heard without bias and judged fairly on the merits of the case. An arm's-length approach is what is needed rather than the existing situation of complaining to the body which is itself responsible for those breaches. As we have seen in the case of Perth airport, this can lead to a feeling of alienation within the community. The increase in population around airports in Australia means that the government must take action.In reading the documentation associated with the master plan in Perth I notice that as flight frequency increases approximately 10,000 local residents will be affected in the coming years. We certainly should plan now for the most appropriate mechanism to guarantee they are given the forum necessary to ensure that policy on the matter is hijacked by neither those with vested interests or those who consider the community views unimportant. We do need an independent referee who will enable people to achieve justice and have their complaints heard. I would also suggest that the creation of an independent body will mean that effective consultation occurs in the first place.On a totally different tack, I also take this opportunity to congratulate Steve Bracks and his Labor government in Victoria. Well done. I am hoping that we can achieve the same result in Western Australia with Geoff Gallop and his team next year.1181022:53:0011810Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—I wish to draw the attention of the House and indeed of the Australian community to a video recording of an interactive drug forum which I was privileged to be able to hold in my electorate of Bradfield on 17 August this year. It was sponsored by the Bradfield Liberal Party, the Rotary Club of Lindfield, Sony Music Australia and RAMS. It was unique in the sense that it brought together a range of people with a different perspective and expertise, including Professor David Bennett, the head of the Department of Adolescent Medicine at the Children's Hospital in Sydney; Ms Imogen Clark, who is the author of Saving Jesse , in which she recounts her family's experiences dealing with their daughter's addiction to heroin; Mr Martin Enock, who is the president of the St Ives High School P&C; and Ms Sally Loane, the Radio 2BL presenter and the author of Who cares? Guilt, hope and the child care debate ; Lieutenant Paul Moulds, the director of the Oasis Youth Network for the Salvation Army; Dr Ian Paterson, who concluded 28 years as the principal of Knox Grammar late last year; Mr Tony Trimmingham, who of course founded Family Drug Support, initiated after the death of his son Damien in 1997 from a heroin overdose; Dr Alex Wodak, the Director of Alcohol and Drug Services for St Vincent's Hospital; and two year 11 students.The forum was provocative and also confronting at times. I have now addressed, I would think, hundreds of drug forums over the years. I have found many of them to have limited value. I have either been asked to give quite powerful dissertations on the evils of smoking cannabis or I have gone along to be seen to be offering support to those who want to unravel the policies of prohibition.What we did on this occasion, over two hours, was cover the issues of not only the drugs themselves but also what parents do if they find that one of their children is using drugs—which, sadly, is more likely to be the case than not, these days. We talked about the challenges of adolescence; drugs in schools; drug use as a normal part of growing up, if you like; teenage parties; drug education; every parent's nightmare, the addiction of a son or daughter to heroin—in this case, one ended in death and the other in hope. We discussed `What would I do differently if I could go back?' We also examined the issues of injecting rooms, heroin trials and the use of cannabis.A couple of remarkable comments were made during the interactive evening. For example, in the debate about injecting rooms, Lieutenant Paul Moulds, who runs the Youth Oasis program for the Salvation Army, put quite a compelling argument for why he considers that injecting rooms and heroin trials would perhaps send messages to young people that we are liberalising our attitudes to these drugs. I then invited him to present those views directly to Mr Trimmingham, whose son died not only because he used heroin but because he injected alone and died from an overdose. Trimmingham said, in defence of his view that there ought to be injecting rooms, `Look, I admire everything the government is doing. I admire everything the Salvation Army is doing. But you can't save the life of somebody who is already dead.'Ms Imogen Clark discussed going back over the years to when she first discovered that her daughter was using cannabis and subsequently heroin. She said, `I would be much more proactive about the way I talk to my kids about drugs—more explicit, more direct. There are some issues for kids that no school can deal with.'The ABC presenter and author, Sally Loane said:Some parents have no faith in their ability to bring up children. If you don't talk to them and listen to them right from the start, by the time they're 13 it is too late.The President of St Ives P&C said, when I asked him, that of the 1,200 parents in their school population less than five per cent actually are members of the P&C and only one per cent of that school population of parents actually turn up to meetings.I urge anyone who has an interest in the complexities surrounding drug use and the things that drive it to acquire a copy of this video, if they wish, from my office. I think parents, schools and young people in particular would find it particularly helpful. We hear a lot about the problems of drug use; we hear much less about the solutions. Perhaps this might in some way contribute to a better understanding of them.1181122:58:0011811Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—When I was elected to parliament 12 months ago, one of the first official invitations Adriana and I received came from the Concord Garden Club to attend its annual Concord Spring Flower, Floral Art and Vegetable Show. Well, I am pleased to report to the House tonight that Adriana and I attended our second Concord Garden Club show last Saturday afternoon at St Stephen's Presbyterian Church Hall, Concord. His Worship the Mayor of Concord, Councillor Peter Woods, opened the flower show and he was joined by Mrs Woods and Councillor Jeanette O'Hara.Like last year, we all thought the show was magnificent. The show demonstrated what wonderful flower and vegetable growers and floral artists live in the Concord area. The club can be justifiably proud of them—particularly the rose and orchid growers. I would like to pay special tribute to the President, Mrs Betty Willison, Secretary, Mrs Margaret Haynes, Show Secretary, Mrs Marj Taylor, and all those who participated for their hard work in organising such a brilliant display of exhibits. I would also like to thank the club for putting on such a splendid afternoon tea. We all look forward to next year's Concord Garden Club show and many more to come.1181222:59:0011812Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—On Sunday 3 October I had the privilege of being present at Sydney Town Hall to witness life membership of the Australian Labor Party conferred on Kurri Kurri's Bill Parker, George Burgess, Ron Hughes and Alex McIntosh, Abermain's Ted Plunkett and Cessnock's Bill Bedford.3E4SULLIVANMrs Sullivan—Did you see Paul as well?8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—Yes, indeed, they were in very good company on the same day to see Paul Keating, the party's icon, also receive life membership. The most basic prerequisite for life membership is 40 years membership of the party—more years than I have been alive. So this is something that is conferred upon those who have had a very longstanding commitment to the party. Certainly, all those people I have mentioned have had just that. Indeed they have made an enormous contribution to their local communities, and I congratulate them.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted.House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices11812The following notices were given:Mr Slipper to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 , the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Anzac Hall extension, Australian War Memorial, Canberra.Mr Danby to move:That this House notes the failure of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business to ensure the passing on of the benefits of increased waterfront productivity to Australian importers, exporters and consumers despite a $250m taxpayer subsidy which appears to have merely provided increased profits to lang Corporation and Patricks with a subsequent increase in their share prices.Ms Hall to move:That this House notes:(1) the failure of the Howard Government to address the needs of people living in regional Australia;(2) the lack of knowledge demonstrated by the Government of issues that impact on the daily lives of regional Australians;(3) the failure of the Government to provide jobs, services and adequate health resources to regional Australia; and(4) the betrayal of regional Australia by the Government's inability to differentiate between regional and rural Australia.Mr Schultz to move:That this House notes:(1) places on record concern about the continued activity of the NSW Government in relation to the control of Ovine Johne's Disease (OJD) in sheep being without precedent in animal disease control in Australia;(2) notes that as at April 1999 over 900 farms were identified as being affected or suspected of having OJD in rural NSW alone, with most of these properties being in quarantine;(3) further notes the serious economic and social problems being faced by sheep and wool producers because of a growing concern that employment of veterinarians is a greater factor in the current enthusiasm for control than concerns for the disease free status of the industry; and(4) calls on the Federal Government to freeze all funding under the National Ovine Johne's Disease program until such time as an investigation is undertaken into NSW Department of Agriculture procedures to ensure its actions are based on sound scientific and socio-economic grounds.Mr Albanese to move:That this House:(1) notes the national and international status of Rugby League;(2) applauds the actions of rugby league supporters in demonstrating their support for clubs to remain in the National Rugby League (NRL) competition;(3) notes that teams which are financially sound, have superb facilities, a support base and an outstanding junior team development structure are vital to the future survival of rugby league;(4) notes that to abandon any sense of history, spirit and community involvement will destroy Rugby League;(5) recognises that local institutions play a central role in defining a sense of community and giving our youth role models to aspire to.;(6) notes that the Super League/ARL dispute resulted in significant disillusionment from Rugby League supporters and that any forced exclusion of teams will exacerbate this;(7) declares that Rugby League's greatest shareholders are its fans; and(8) calls upon the NRL to include South Sydney in the 2000 competition.Answers to Questions in Writing11814The following answers to questions were circulated:11814(Question No. 864)86411814McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 24 August 1999:How many workers' compensation claims relating to radiation exposure have been lodged by present or former employees of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation since 1991.11814Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:Two officers have lodged claims. In neither case did the officer concerned receive a radiation dose in excess of the relevant limit prescribed by the National Health and Medical Research Council.One case involves stress as a result of the claimant being exposed to a low level of radiation. He has received compensation, and continues to receive incapacity payments. The other case involves anxiety/depression which the claimant attributes to events in the workplace, although any radiation exposure he might have received from those events would have been very low. COMCARE has denied liability and the claimant has appealed.11814(Question No. 912)91211814Morris, Allan, MPMr Allan MorrisFI4NewcastleALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 20 September 1999:(1) How many (a) citizens and (b) non-citizens have been deported for committing serious crimes since March 1996.(2) Of the persons referred to in part (1), (a) to which countries were they deported; (b) what racial or cultural groups are represented; (c) what crimes were committed and (d) what sentences were served.11814Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a)-(b) It is only non-citizens that may be deported. For the period 1 March 1996 to 30 June 1999, 161 non-citizens were deported for committing serious crimes.(2) (a) Table A below details the nationality of the deportees. In all but exceptional circumstances, deportees are returned to their country of nationality.(b) This information is not held.(c) A listing of offences and numbers charged with those offences appears in Table A below.(d) A summary of the length of sentences is at Table A below. It should be noted that a decision whether to deport or not deport is taken prior to the criminal completing their prison term. Statistics on actual prison terms served are not kept, rather details are recorded of actual prison sentences handed down in respect of the offence for which the deportation order has been issued.NATIONALITY1 March 1996 to 30 June 1999OFFENCESMarch `96 to June `99LENGTH OF SENTENCEAlbania2Antisocial Acts1Less than 2 years35Bosnia1Armed Assault1Britain15Armed Robbery312 years to less than 5 years65Colombia1Assault15 Cyprus2Burglary25 years to less than 10 years47Egypt2Commercially Dealing in Drugs1El Salvador1Crimes Against Children4More than 10 years12Fiji5Distribution of Drugs6Hong Kong1Drug Offences—Other1data not available2Ireland1Extortion2Israel2General1Jordan1Importation of Drugs5Lebanon2Kidnapping1Malaysia1Manslaughter3Nepal1Murder4New Zealand92Other Fraud Behaviour4Peru1Other Break and Enter6Romania10Other Burglary10Saudi Arabia1Other Theft10South Africa1Robbery Other4Thailand1Serious Sexual Assault20Tonga3Stealing1Turkey1Supplying Drugs2USA5Trafficking of Drugs16West Samoa1Violence to a Person8Vietnam1data not available2Yugoslavia1data not available516111815(Question No. 926)92611815Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon8K6HunterALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 22 September 1999:(1) Is the Minister able to provide figures showing what proportion of petroleum by volume of the total petroleum retail market is retailed by (a) BP, (b) Caltex/Ampol, (c) Shell and (d) Mobil.(2) Of the companies referred to in part (1), is the Minister able to provide figures showing, as a proportion of the Australian petroleum retail market, the amount of petroleum by volume retailed by service stations (a) directly operated by those companies and (b) which operate on a commission agency relationship with those companies. 11816Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) (a) No.(b) No.(c) No.(d) No.(2) (a) No.(b) No.11816(Question No. 931)93111816Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:(1) In each State and Territory how many Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel without dependants currently occupy living-in accommodation (LIA) classified as being (a) level 1, (b) level 2, (c) level 3, (d) level 4 and (e) level 5.(2) What is the estimated annual cost of the reduction in accommodation charges for LIA levels 1 and 2 that took effect from 8 July 1999.(3) What is the estimated annual cost of allowing personnel occupying levels 1 and 2 LIA the option of living off-base and claiming Rent Allowance.(4) How many personnel have claimed compensation on the basis that they entered into a binding lease for off-base accommodation, in line with the ADF circular dated 27 May 1999, but were subsequently directed to remain in living-in accommodation pending the outcome of a further review.11816Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1)ACTNSWNTQLDSATASVICWATOTAL(a)3461,4583041,3822208651054,482(b)541,40274247152182421622,351(c)1,0775077115018905161453,546(d)7138534010520291(e)222810213103191,4863,5071,4232,170266191,70641210,989Note: The data in this table was compiled from pay records for payday 16/09/99 and only includes those members making a contribution for their living-in accommodation. The data does not include those members undergoing basic recruit training or absent on duty who do not pay for their living-in accommodation.(2) $8.2 million.(3) $78 million.(4) None.