1999-10-193914REPS1181701999-10-19Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice118171181711817Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister recall the government's pre-election commitment not to deregulate university fees? Does the Prime Minister also recall his words of yesterday:The position is that we made undertakings. Those undertakings have been observed.How can you claim that you observed your election undertakings when on 28 June 1999 cabinet explicitly commissioned Dr Kemp to do more work on his plan to deregulate fees? Prime Minister, how can Australian students and their families believe that you have genuinely ruled out Dr Kemp's plan when you supported it in secret and only dropped it when it became public?11817Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The Leader of the Opposition asked a very similar question to this yesterday, so I am very happy to repeat the substance of what I said yesterday. In so doing, I do not accept uncritically the interpretation that the Leader of the Opposition has put on discussions that may have taken place in cabinet. As the Leader of the Opposition will know from the years that he was in government, what matters are the decisions that cabinets take. We have taken a decision yesterday that was reported to this parliament, and I think widely welcomed throughout the Australian community, to maintain the existing higher education system. We have no intention of deregulating university fees. We have no intention of altering the current HECS arrangement.I say to the parents of Australian children aspiring to go to university that under the current government more young Australians have won places in universities than ever before; under this government more young Australians have won apprenticeships and traineeships than ever before; and under this government more young Australians have won jobs than ever before. Since we were elected in 1996 more than 520,000 Australians have gained jobs. On top of that, as my colleague the Treasurer reminds me, more young Australians have been able to afford to buy a home under this government because, through our wise policies, our frugal policies, our elimination of the Beazley $10½ billion deficit, we have been able to reduce interest rates. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: the government has firmly ruled out any departure from the commitments I made to the Australian people and which were repeated by Dr Kemp before the election last year. That remains the policy. It will be the policy. It is a policy widely supported within the Australian community.1181711817Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House what new steps the government is taking to further assist small business in the transition to a new tax system?11817Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Pearce for her interest in small business and for her question. Australia moves to a new tax system on 1 July of next year. In addition to that, on Thursday of this week the government will be introducing the first bills to implement a new business tax system as well—bills which will reduce corporate tax rates, change depreciation schedules and introduce simplification and reduction in capital gains taxes. It is apparent that, as we move towards the new tax system for the new century, this is going to involve additional measures by the government to explain how the tax system operates. From November of this year, businesses will be applying for and getting the Australian business number. The Tax Commissioner has announced that in order to help with the first three quarterly returns under the new tax system there will be extended periods for lodgement—that is, for the first quarterly return there will be an extended period of three weeks, for the second it will be two weeks, and for the third the extension will be one week—to give tax agents additional time to get those quarterly returns in.The government has already announced that there will be major income tax concessions for businesses that get new software. In addition to that, tax agents are going to be provided with basic business software by the tax office to give free to their small business clients. On a recommendation of the board for the new tax system, the government has lifted the threshold for cash accounting to $1 million and the government has now signed contracts amounting to over $55 million in funding to give to peak bodies to explain the new tax system. The government has funded a GST Business Assist help line being run by the Australian Society of CPAs. In addition, the government has set up a tax reform web site to provide up-to-date information for small business. The web site got 2.5 million hits in August and 3.4 million in the month of September. Australia's biggest seminar program ever is being conducted to explain the new tax system and, so far, over 137,000 registrations have occurred.As part of the new tax system, Australians will be getting income tax cuts on 1 July, family benefits will be increasing, there will be new Commonwealth-state financial arrangements and we will be taking the opportunity to get rid of some of the indirect taxes which have been holding Australia's business sector back. That is the new taxation system that starts on 1 July. On Thursday of this week, we begin the story of the new business taxation system for Australia—a tax system which will take Australia into the next century and make it a strong economy, creating jobs that this nation really needs for the young people of tomorrow.1181811818Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question without notice is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, if you claim that you have always observed your undertakings and that cabinet was not secretly considering deregulating university fees, will you agree to release the following three DETYA files, to prove that you were telling the truth: ET99 Nos 7219, 8387 and 8337, relating to the Higher Education Reform Group and the Higher Education Reform Project?11818Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—No.1181811818Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Would the minister inform the House of the benefits that will flow to business—and, through them, to the community—because of the successful passage of the government's corporate law economic reform program? Minister, what opposition has the reform met during its progress through the parliament, and does such opposition deter the government from continuing with its reforms?11818Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I thank the member for Sturt for his question. When the government was originally elected in 1996, we promised less red tape for business, leading to more jobs and more investment. The Treasurer announced in 1996 the beginning of a significant corporate law reform program, and I am pleased to advise the House that last night the Senate passed the first part of that program. It is a significant win for 1.1 million Australian companies and particularly for 950,000 Australian small businesses. It has put in place an incentive for business to take calculated and well-informed risks. It delivers better director accountability through the safe harbour provisions which we have put in place. It has improved shareholders' rights. Importantly, it has given small business the opportunity to access capital in a far more efficient manner. It is far cheaper now, with this corporate law reform program, for small business to raise capital to develop their ideas and to deliver on their ambitions.The two key areas of reform which passed through last night mean that we have got business, and not just the accountants, having a say about Australian accounting standards; and we have got business, and not just the lawyers, having a say about Australian takeovers. It is not often that I quote the Australian Financial Review—Opposition members interjecting—DK6Mr HOCKEY—I am resisting the urgings of my colleagues. The editorial of the Australian Financial Review said:CLERP: reason for applause.The GST and business tax changes have grabbed the headlines, but an equally important plank of the government's reform agenda corporate law reform . . . PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—What? The Australian Financial Review ?DK6Mr HOCKEY—It is the Australian Financial Review . They go on to say:It is crucial. If the government is serious about making Australia a global financial markets player, unnecessary regulation is as big an impediment for offshore companies that want to invest in Australia as tax rates. Similarly, transparency and accountability is crucial for a fair and efficient investment market.This delivers jobs and investment in Australians and Australian ideas. I would like to particularly thank the Australian Democrats for their support of this bill. The Australian Democrats were prepared to talk and negotiate on this bill. It defies logic that the Labor Party would choose to oppose this bill and the principles behind it at every point. Every political bone in your body would make you wonder why the Labor Party would oppose it. How many votes would they have picked up in the seat of Lindsay, Herbert or Petrie because they opposed CLERP? The professional opposition opposes IR reform that delivers more than half a million jobs; it opposes tax reform that delivers more than half a million jobs, the privatisation of Telstra, and budget reform that delivers more than half a million jobs for Australians. The Labor Party has also opposed us on corporate law reform which delivers for small Australian businesses.But the good news for the Labor Party is this: they have entered the second chance draw. On IR, Telstra, budgetary reform, taxation and corporate law reform, there are second tranches coming along, and you have the chance to oppose them again. Our initiatives are delivering jobs for Australians, particularly young Australians. This is another step forward. Why would Labor continue to oppose it?1181911819Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Do you recall yesterday raising concerns about `an inexplicable rush of applications for MRI machines'? Minister, how can you say that this is `inexplicable' when you have been saying there are two possible explanations: backdated contracts and non-binding contracts? Haven't you been avoiding the third possibility: insider knowledge from a budget leak?11819Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for her question. I have never said that it is impossible that a budget leak could occur, just that I have not had any information to support it. There is much more information to support the view that there is likely backdating and that there were contracts that were non-binding that have been portrayed as binding. So I think that is far more likely to be the explanation.1181911819Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, what action has been taken by third party organisations in response to the government's workplace relations programs and reforms? What is the government's response to this action being taken?11819Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I have released, on behalf of the government, a discussion paper on registered organisations. This covers both unions and employer bodies, and it follows on a couple of reports that we have had in the last couple of years. I think the response has been reasonably positive, but it is interesting that, as usual, the Labor Party is completely opposed to reform. Even in the area of workplace relations and, on the face of it, on the ACTU's estimate, real wage increases for low income people of over nine per cent, even in the face of that clear evidence and the further jobs that have been created, Labor is completely opposed to reform. In this area the proposals are straightforward proposals to ensure the accountability, the transparency, of the operation of both employer bodies and union bodies.It is a nonsense for the Labor Party just to say, `Oh, no, we're completely opposed to sensible reforms.' The fact is that many unions have been losing members, and I believe there are union officials who think sensible reform is the way to go. It is however interesting also that, in line with this very negative approach from the Labor Party, and certainly also members of various trade unions, we now have revealed to us—and I want to thank the member of the House who provided me with this material—the latest desperate tactic by some trade unions to work with the parliamentary party on the other side to gain further membership. In particular—and I will table the document without the name of the addressee; it is a letter from the Transport Workers Union and it is in conjunction with the Labour Council of New South Wales—it contains a proposal to federal Labor MPs and state Labor MPs that, as a means of boosting the flagging numbers of the trade union movement, these MPs use their parliamentary offices as new outposts and branches for these unions that cannot attract members. They want to use parliamentary staff and they want to use electorate offices. They want electorate offices of members of parliament to be used as referral points for constituents to be sent off to some trade union `if you have got a problem'.Opposition members interjecting— Mr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell! The member for Brisbane! Opposition members interjecting—11820Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—In New South Wales the unions are planning a slush fund, with a tax—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane is ignoring the chair, as is the member for Dobell and the Deputy Leader of the opposition.WI4Mr REITH—This is typical of the Labor Party. Half of their frontbench are former trade union officials. Over in the Senate, of the 29 senators you have got, 20 are former trade union officials—69 per cent. It just demonstrates that the unions have bought you lock, stock and barrel. I table the letter.1182011820Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is again to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, how do you reconcile your last answer with what you told the parliament on 30 September this year? I quote:. . . I will keep giving the same answer: that I do not concede there was a budget leak.What additional information have you received which now requires you to change your answer of 30 September?11820Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I have not changed my answer. The fact is I have never conceded that there was a budget leak, because I have been provided with no information to say that that has happened. What I said was that I could not say that it did not happen. It is quite different. The fact is I believe the majority of cases will be shown by being backdated or by being non-binding contracts that were shown to be binding. It would stand logically that, if you had to backdate a contract you could not have known about it, and if you had to have a binding contract, or non-binding contract that you portrayed to be binding, you could not have known about it either. So my answers are absolutely consistent.Mr Crean interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will exercise just a little more restraint.1182011820May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Could the minister advise the House of recent initiatives taken by the government to prepare for the reconstruction of East Timor?11820Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I thank the honourable member for McPherson for her question. I am sure all members of the House would be aware that the East Timorese people are currently dealing with a widespread humanitarian crisis. Thousands of East Timorese are hungry, sick and displaced, property and infrastructure have been destroyed and the most basic of services that we take for granted in this country just do not exist. Just as Australia was well prepared to make a contribution to INTERFET, we also need to be well prepared to make a contribution to the international effort to rebuild East Timor. To help the Australian government monitor the situation and ensure the effective delivery of Australian aid, we have located an AusAID officer in Dili. Next week, I understand, the United Nations will be embarking on a major exercise to coordinate the restoration of these services, and a World Bank team will be visiting East Timor to assess the situation there.Based on Australia's expertise in the field of multilateral procurement, our strong record of development assistance to East Timor and our proximity to the territory, the government believes that Australia and Australian companies are in a position to make an important contribution in this task. This morning I convened a forum in Canberra to provide potential Australian suppliers with a comprehensive overview of the reconstruction requirements and how they can contribute to the vital task of rebuilding East Timor. Over 450 representatives from Australian business and government agencies participated in the forum—and I should note that the member for the Northern Territory was also in attendance. Speakers at that forum this morning giving information about how the international process will work included representatives from AusAID, Austrade, the United Nations, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the Northern Territory government.There is a very serious and difficult task in front of the international community to rebuild and reconstruct East Timor, and Australia obviously will need to play a vital role in that. It was pleasing to see the commitment from the business community today to understand how the process will work under the auspices of the United Nations.1182111821Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. As there are three possible explanations for the rush of applications for MRIs, why have you asked the Auditor-General to examine only two of these explanations and excluded examination of insider knowledge from a budget leak?11821Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I have not excluded it. What I have done is say that it has to wait for the Health Insurance Commission to finish its investigation. I did say yesterday specifically that, when that is finished, I will seek the advice of the Attorney-General and the Australian Government Solicitor as to whether any further action should be taken.1182111821Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. Can the minister inform the House how the government has improved the delivery of social security services right around Australia; and how will this benefit my constituents in the electorate of Parkes, especially in the western part with towns like Broken Hill?11821Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—I thank the member for Parkes, whose electorate covers one-third of New South Wales. I am certainly very pleased to advise the member for Parkes that the Broken Hill Centrelink office earlier this year had a major refurbishment and is now a very modern open-plan office. I do acknowledge that the Broken Hill Mayor, Ron Page, and his delegation are with us today and would certainly know that office. The Broken Hill office is an important office because it provides a visiting service and agent to Wilcannia and also an agent to Menindee—Wilcannia, which is 200 kilometres from Broken Hill with a very large indigenous community; and Menindee, which is 120 kilometres from Broken Hill. There, a service is provided through a community agent every day to those people in remote Australia.The government is committed to improving Centrelink services. This is a far cry from the dark old days of the DSS, particularly when the opposition was in government. What we want to see now is that, when people go to a Centrelink office, those offices are open, bright and breezy and they have very good customer service.2V5SWANMr Swan—And there's no staff.XJ6Mr ANTHONY—The opposition interjects, but the interesting thing with Centrelink today is that at least it is open five days a week. Under the old DSS, if you went there on a Wednesday afternoon at 1.30, the door was shut, it was not open. Centrelink today is open five days a week. In the old days of the Labor Party, you could not even make an appointment. Now you can make an appointment with Centrelink; if it is an urgent appointment, you can make it on the day. In the old days of the Australian Labor Party, you would have to wait in long queues to get into the DSS. Those queues now are minimised. Centrelink customers now have choice; they have a choice of what day to receive their pay. They did not have any choice under the old ALP regime. They did not have personalised service; today they do have personalised service, with one-to-one contact, and you do not have to keep repeating your story—like I have to keep repeating it to the opposition so they will learn. These are the improvements that Centrelink is making across the country.Importantly, in rural and regional Australia there are more services now: 260 rural agents and 140 visiting services, with options to video conference, et cetera. These did not exist under the Australian Labor Party. Likewise, in the early 1990s there were hardly any telecentres or call centres. Now there are 23, and two more will be opening shortly. Over 13 of those, just under half, are in regional Australia. What is more, we actually have a customer charter. You did not have a customer charter before with Centrelink. What this is all about is providing the best possible service—I know the member for Lilley is listening; he may learn something—to Australians. But I recognise that we will always continue to review Centrelink for its six million customers to ensure that it provides the best possible service to the community and to the Australian taxpayer.1182211822Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Given that the Auditor-General will be examining the conduct of all concerned throughout the negotiation process, will he be specifically examining your conduct and that of your office?11822Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—My understanding is that the Auditor-General can do what he wishes, and he will have my full cooperation. But just in case you are trying to lead by implication that I or my office has done something wrong with this, I completely repudiated that.1182211822Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation. Would the minister update the House on any developments to help businesses sponsor Australia's arts organisations; and what are the benefits of such partnerships between business and our cultural sector?11822McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I thank the honourable member for Curtin for her question. I note her abiding interest in artistic matters. No previous government or Prime Minister has devoted itself to the cause of raising social and cultural philanthropy as this government has. Earlier this year there was a radical change in the taxation system which brought our capital gains tax and tax deductibility regime to world's best practice so that there is simply no excuse for any private individual or the corporate sector to claim taxation disincentives—something that this government did that was sadly neglected under 13 years of Labor.At the same time we are working to revolutionise private support for the cultural and arts sectors through the Australia Foundation for Culture and the Humanities. We have worked with the foundation to develop two tools for business and private individuals: the first is the cultural products menu, and the second is the business case for cultural investment. They were launched last week in Melbourne at the foundation's successful conference `Partnerships: the business case for sponsoring arts and culture'. These two tools will help both business and the cultural sector to work together to understand and to develop the commercial benefit to businesses by supporting the arts.The cultural products menu is an Internet based register of arts and cultural products that are available for business sponsorship or donation. It contains details of more than 120 arts projects from around Australia, making it easier for businesses to locate these projects or organisations which will match their commercial and social objectives. The second tool is the business case study guide which shows companies how to plan, develop and evaluate successful partnerships with the arts. It shows how a strategic cultural investment can deliver measurable commercial benefits and returns for shareholders, including corporate legitimacy, market advantages and employee benefits.Together with the outgoing Chairperson of the Australia Foundation for Culture and the Humanities, Mr Richard Pratt, to whom I wish to pay special tribute for his energy and devotion to the cause of cultural philanthropy over the last few years, we will be going to different states to further the work of the Australia foundation and the government's commitment to cultural and social philanthropy.1182311823McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, has the so-called `probity audit' been requested by you under section 20 of the Auditor-General Act 1997? If so, are you aware that section 31 of that act specifically prevents the Auditor-General when conducting such an audit from exercising his powers under sections 32 and 33 of that act, which includes the powers to compel witnesses to attend and produce documents? Minister, why won't the government immediately establish a royal commission which would compel witnesses to attend and to produce documents?11823Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I cannot pretend for a moment to be an expert on the Auditor-General Act. I took advice from my department and wrote to the Auditor-General on the basis of advice from my department. As to a royal commission, you would have to provide some advice of wrongdoing. Other than the backdating and the contracts that were non-binding and that have been passed off as binding, which is a scam, you have provided no evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever. 1182311823Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—My question is to the Minister for Employment Services. Could the minister outline the latest developments in the government's highly successful Work for the Dole program?10000Mr SPEAKER—This question is very close to a question that was asked yesterday.Opposition members interjecting—10000Mr SPEAKER—The chair does at least expect—without any assistance from the member for Hunter—to be able to make a pronouncement without interruption. Under standing order 55 that courtesy is extended to every member and at least ought to be exercised in reference to the chair. The question is perilously close to a question asked yesterday. I will monitor the answer to see that there is new information revealed in the response to the question.11823Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I thank the member for Blair for his question. It gives me the opportunity to talk about the coming tender round for the Work for the Dole program. As the House would know, the government is expanding Work for the Dole from a 25,000 places a year program in the last financial year to a 50,000 places a year program in the coming financial year and, as part of this expansion, we are moving from a `one sponsor, one project' model to a brokered model that will enable more community groups to be involved. We are trying to get larger, shorter, smaller and more varied projects. In other words, we are trying to get a more varied range of projects available to participants and a wider range of work experience available to job seekers.Two weeks ago, tenders closed for the next round of Work for the Dole applications. The government was seeking 67,000 places at about $2,000 a place. I am pleased to tell the House that we have received bids for 283,000 places at prices within the government's expected range. When this program began there was some concern about the capacity of the community sector to provide enough places. The overwhelming response to this tender demonstrates growing community acceptance of this program, which is not only a question of mutual obligation but also a question of restoring the social contract of bringing potentially alienated people back into the mainstream of society. When Work for the Dole began, it was strongly opposed by the Australian Labor Party, and it would be fair to say that the ALP is still opposed to some aspects of the program. But it is important to give credit where it is due. Some time ago, the former shadow minister for employment began to encourage community groups to participate in the program in the national interest and in the interests of job seekers. I am very pleased to tell the House that a significant number of large charitable organisations have bid to participate in Work for the Dole for the first time. For the first time, they are coming into this great program. I welcome the former shadow minister's contribution on this subject, and I trust that the new shadow minister for employment will be equally constructive.1182411824Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, will you now release the dates of each of the 48 contracts signed between 10 February 1998 and 12 May 1998 when you were negotiating with the College of Radiologists about MRI? How many of these 48 contracts involve members of the negotiating task force or the executive of the College of Radiologists? If 14 is wrong, as you said on AM today, how many contracts do they have?11824Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for her question. In Hansard of 11 February 1999, I am recorded as tabling advice from the Health Insurance Commission, which stated:The Health Insurance Act 1973 contains secrecy provisions which preclude the release of information about individual cases. Furthermore, it has not been the practice of successive Health Ministers to interfere in the action of the HIC with respect to individual providers. This practice is a sound one and there is no basis for an exception being made in this case.That was the advice that I was given by the Health Insurance Commission on that day in February. That advice has not changed.1182411824Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Given the recent 50th anniversary celebrations of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority, can the minister outline the contribution made to Australia by the intake of migrants to work on that scheme?11824Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for Hughes for her question. As the Prime Minister mentioned last week, we were celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme and the very significant contribution that it has made to Australia. It is recognised as one of the greatest engineering projects in the world and rated as one of the seven civil engineering wonders of the world by the American Society of Civil Engineers. The Prime Minister and other members attended a number of those 50th anniversary events. I had the opportunity on Saturday, with the member for Eden-Monaro, of being able to attend the citizenship event that took place. It was a very moving occasion because it brought together many who had migrated to Australia and who had played a significant part in the building of the Snowy Mountains scheme. I am gratified by the very significant contribution that so many of those people who participated have made. I even note that another of our colleagues, the member for Sydney, was there because of her own parents' involvement with the scheme in those early years.The contribution this scheme has made to the growth and development of Australia's economy has been well acknowledged, but I also want to acknowledge the fact that many have argued the scheme was the birthplace of Australia's multicultural policies and programs. The workers in that scheme came from something in the order of 30 different countries. Fifty years ago, 100,000 of them made a very significant contribution to this nation.My department, through the Living in Harmony initiative and through the celebration of 50 years of Australian citizenship, was able to support the event that took place in Cooma Park where those who had migrated at that time and had not yet taken out Austral ian citizenship—and some of their descendants—were able to do so. But, more impressively, some 4,000 Australians who had taken out citizenship or who had obtained citizenship through birth took the opportunity to affirm their commitment to Australia through the affirmation ceremony that we also conducted.During this 50th year of Australian citizenship, I have been particularly impressed with the enthusiasm with which Australians have embraced their identity as Australians and the fact that this brings together people from so many different cultural backgrounds in a unifying way to pledge themselves to this nation and its future. The affirmation ceremonies, which provide a unique opportunity for Australians to be able to affirm their commitment, have been an innovation. I have been pleased to see them so warmly supported and so enthusiastically participated in.1182511825Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, did you have an informal private meeting—which, until now, you have not disclosed—with members of the College of Radiologists without officers of your department present in the week prior to the 1998 budget? Why haven't you disclosed this meeting? Why was it held? What was discussed at it? Did you foreshadow the budget decision which put insiders in a position to benefit substantially?11825Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The only meeting I have any recollection of is the one I have talked about that took place on 6 May, where one of my staff members and a departmental officer were present. Both of them have tabled statutory declarations as to the content of that meeting.1182511825Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—My question is to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. Minister, what is the effect on Australia's woodchip exports and the associated jobs in electorates such as my electorate of Eden-Monaro and in cities such as Geelong and Newcastle of any action that would undermine the certainty of signed and pending regional forest agreements?11825Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPForestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—A new circumstance has arisen from the Labor Party's clear commitment to continuing with their amendments to the regional forest agreements legislation, which was evidenced by their calling of a division in this place the other day. The problem that arises is that a large number of regional forest agreements have been signed and some are very close to signing. In each case, were they suddenly to become legally subject to a disallowance motion in the Senate, they would have no standing in terms of the provision that they create whereby woodchip companies no longer have to get export licences for the areas covered by those regional forest agreements. The fact that they had no standing would automatically mean that each and every one of them could not claim to not need an export licence until the Senate had dealt with these matters.The problem there is that most of these companies have contracts. If there were any effect on those contracts, the importing countries would be laughing their heads off. There is an oversupply of woodchips in the world at the moment. Some are sourced from countries that do not have the standards of forest management that exist here in Australia. Once our high value contracts were broken—as they would be by the failure to deliver—the countries that import would not even need to come back. I point out that the company of Midway operates out of the port of Geelong and does its chipping in Geelong. Boral does so out of the port of Newcastle. They create jobs in those cities as well as creating opportunities to work for people further out in the regional centres. There is, of course, another export out of the port of Eden by Harris Daishowa. All of the RFAs signed associated with those particular companies would be affected if the government were to accept Labor's amendments to the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 . The reality is that at the moment those particular RFAs have standing, but as of 31 December of this year any woodchip must be sourced from a region covered by an RFA. It must be obvious to all present that, if this legislation were still pending but had been accepted and amended in the way the Labor Party proposes, we would have a situation where none of those companies would be able to export woodchips at all.There is a further problem, and that relates to Tasmania and some parts of Victoria that the Labor Party claim are exempt from these particular amendments for disallowance. That is, of course, a question that cannot be answered because there are constitutional issues. Companies, in Tasmania in particular, would confront the situation of not knowing how the law applied to them and, as a consequence, would probably also, awaiting its clarification, stop exporting, lose contracts and put all the people out of work. That is what the Labor Party propose with these amendments. It will be total confusion. They know it. We have written to them. We will see just what the senators from Victoria, New South Wales and Tasmania do about their own constituency when confronted with this issue tomorrow. We will see what the member for McMillan wants to do too. They obviously have no power in their own caucus, so they had better demonstrate some in the parliament.1182611826McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, is it the case that fundraising functions were organised for you by Dr Jack Best, whom you appointed to the National Health and Medical Research Council, and Dr Ronald Meikle, a radiologist with the Victorian Imaging Group, whom you had appointed as a director of Medibank Private? Is it the case that Dr Meikle's Victorian Imaging Group has installed new MRI units in Box Hill, Frankston and the Monash Medical Centre since the 1998 budget? Is it also the case that the people attending these fundraising functions included radiologists who benefited from your 1998 budget decision, each of whom was asked to donate several thousand dollars? Did this money go towards your election campaign? If so, through what vehicle was it channelled?11826Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—Similar to every member of this House, I attend fundraising functions. It is part of being a member of parliament. Yes, I have attended one or two functions that Dr Best has organised. I am not aware of Dr Meikle actually having organised any function for me. Any money that has been raised has been raised in accordance with the Liberal Party's fundraising guidelines and has been properly disclosed. There is absolutely nothing improper about that.Just to go back to the previous question, I was first told that there was likely to be a supply measure in the budget on 5 May 1998, and I was aware of the commercially sensitive nature of that. I do not believe that I spoke to any radiologist, directly or indirectly, other than my one meeting with the College of Radiologists between my first being informed on 5 May and its being announced on budget night.Censure Motion118261182614:51:0011826Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—by leave—I move:That this House censures the Minister for Health and Aged Care for:(1) deliberately or carelessly causing a situation in which some radiologists were able to take advantage of inside Budget knowledge to buy or contract for new Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRIs) machines in time to be eligible for taxpayer funded Medicare benefits, announced in the 1998 Budget;(2) enabling, through this inside Budget knowledge, some radiologists and manufacturers to enter into advantageous arrangements which were not the subject of adequate checks by the Minister to protect the Commonwealth budget;(3) failing to act appropriately when warned by his Department immediately before the 1998 Budget, and delaying investigating this problem until too late; and(4) since being first challenged on these issues in the House as early as 9 February 1999, giving deliberately misleading answers on his role in pre-Budget MRI negotiations and not taking immediate action to investigate the serious allegations of inside Budget knowledge of the MRI decision.We have here before us, on the minister's own admittance, a very substantial scam. It is a scam in which the Minister for Health and Aged Care has been actively engaged in terms of discussions with those who have apparently been the perpetrators of this scam. This minister is avoiding every mechanism of investigation which would actually get to the bottom of this scam. He is putting in place a series of investigations which will guarantee that the inquiry is so drawn out over such a length of time that perhaps it will go away before an inquiry can be put in place which will go to the heart of the matter—that is, the involvement of him and his office inadvertently, or advertently, in the leaks which resulted in a $150 million whack on the budget.Contemplate what that $150 million would mean in the public hospital system. Contemplate it in relation to procedures, contemplate it in relation to dealing with the needs of ordinary Australian families in relation to health, and contemplate what it would mean in terms of starting to give the support, the underpinning, that our public health system needs. This is not a small issue. This is an issue fundamentally about probity in government, and this government and this minister seem to have picked up a Victorian Liberal disease: under no circumstances investigate what it is that is your problem and hope that the public will forget it. The public did not forget it in relation to the ambulance situation, the casino situation and all the other scandals reverberating inside Victorian politics at the moment. The public gave a verdict and they said to the Liberal government now departing Victoria, `Come clean or go.' They would not come clean; therefore they go.The minister now finds himself in exactly the same position as his Victorian counterpart was in with the ambulance contract scam in Victoria. He finds himself in precisely the same position, and he is taking precisely the same measures to avoid an appropriate inquiry into it. He has put in place an inquiry that is secretive—that is, the HIC inquiry—and an inquiry that has no possibility of getting into the minister's office and the minister's activities, and that of course is the inquiry related to the Auditor-General. Both those things are running out there to obfuscate and avoid questions. The minister got up in this parliament the other day with extraordinary handwritten additions to what he had obviously passed through his cabinet—because he managed to produce the only public statement I found in this House which was stamped confidential; it clearly came straight out of the cabinet to us, hot off the cabinet press—and stated that there was a scam over which he had presided as the minister for health. Having presided over this scam, he is like the French captain of police in Casablanca who has been on the take from Rick's Place for about a decade. He comes into Rick's Place and says, `Good heavens! There's gambling taking place here. Let's close it down,' as though it was new information to him.This minister has comprehended all along what is at stake. What this minister has done is to evade the consequences and to mislead in this chamber. We recollect his mockery of our spokesperson on health over the last couple of months. Every time he got up he would say, `I deny there has been any budget leak. That is not possible. We have had nothing to do with this. My office has been utterly proper all the way through this occasion. I'm a doctor. Believe me.' He has been up here day after day saying it. In the last week, of course, he has repudiated all of that, but he cannot take that extra step. He cannot take that extra step and give the Australian taxpayer an assurance that every conceivable element of those responsible for this $150 million scam will be brought to book by putting in place an appropriate inquiry.There are four key charges that we level against the minister for health: firstly, he deliberately or carelessly caused a situation in which people in the radiology industry were able to take advantage of inside knowledge to contract for those machines; secondly, this knowledge enabled radiologists and manufacturers to enter into advantageous arrangements, and the minister failed to take reasonable checks to protect the public purse; thirdly, the minister failed to act appropriately when warned by his department immediately before the 1998 budget and delayed investigation of this problem until far too late; and, fourthly, since being first challenged on these issues by us in this House as early as 9 February this year, the minister for health has deliberately and misleadingly obfuscated on his role in the negotiations and on the consequences to the budget bottom line. He did not take immediate action (1) to put in place arrangements to stop the plundering of the government's coffers by radiologists suspected of using machines ineligible for a Medicare benefit and (2) to speed up the HIC's inquiries into the contracts and is only now—18 months after the 1998 budget—instituting a totally inadequate inquiry. This is no reflection on the Auditor-General—he is a good Auditor-General. It is a reflection on his powers, particularly his powers to bring to book the person who, as the minister, stands responsible for the totality of his department.These are the facts of the case. On budget night last year 59 MRIs were in operation and 52 were on order. Of the 52 on order, the HIC heard about 13 of them only in the past couple of weeks and 48 of the 52 were ordered between 10 February 1998 when the negotiations began and budget night, 12 May 1998. The minister also admitted yesterday that, in the week before the budget, MRI suppliers were openly and aggressively offering non-binding contracts to radiologists. The minister must immediately tell this parliament the dates on which each of the suspect 48 contracts was signed and how many of the 48 contracts involved members of the negotiating task force or the executive of the College of Radiologists. Part of the mockery that he has exhibited in this place is that he listens to the question, he gives a confusing answer and then when we put something forward he says, `Aha, you've got no evidence for that. I don't have to answer.' We have heard that repeatedly from him in this place.DT4CREANMr Crean—And then he growls.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Then he growls a bit, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition points out. Or else he gets up and says, `I couldn't possibly name the 48 people who've got those contracts. I couldn't possibly name them. That would, after all, interfere with the HIC's investigation.' And that is becoming the Blue Hills of investigations in this place. That of course is not the question we have asked of him. We have asked two simple probity check questions that are easy to answer. We could go to the other issues, or the inquiries should go to the other issues, in relation to how they got where they are, but we and the Australian people are entitled to know two things. Firstly, we want to know the date those contracts were signed. Then we can pass judgment about whether it is a problem, as the minister states, of the contract being signed after the budget but backdated, or a problem of information discovered during the budget process. We will be able to tell that, Minister, from the dates. That is why we want to know them. Secondly, we want to know who picked them up from among those who were negotiating with you.There is one great problem in the one meeting you have so far admitted to—though we note today your very cautious answer on the possibility of a second meeting. You have said this: `At no point of time in this meeting did I tell the radiologists who were discussing with me where we were going, but then I swore them to secrecy.' Swore them to secrecy about what? What was in the sandwiches? Was there a sort of Kim's game played by you around your office—`Guess where the pen is? Guess where the chair is? Write down how many things you can see in the office, but don't tell anybody else, because I play this game with everybody who comes into the office and I would hate to spoil the little surprise for them because I give you a $5 prize if you get everything right'? Is that what you swore them to secrecy on? Or did you swear them to secrecy because they had been in active discussion with your department for a substantial period of time about this matter and how the department intended to respond to it? Is that what you swore them to secrecy about, or did you swear them to secrecy about the nod nod, wink wink that you went through in this process?Minister, there are many reasons why you have a problem. That is one of them. There are other reasons why you have a problem. You have involved yourself front and centre in what you regard as the solution to this. Your own technological advisory group and your own department—and we know this not from you but from questions that have been asked in estimates in the Senate—said these things to you: firstly, there are enough machines in this country now; there are some regional inadequacies, but a small program of planned additional provision would deal with those regional inadequacies; and, therefore, if you extend the Medicare rebate to these operations you have a small, containable number about which you can know at the end of the day the financial result.Don't come in here and tell us that it is all right because it is a capped program. What a capped program means is this: if you have blown $150 million already on what was supposed to be $80 million over a couple of years, the punters out there pay. There is no cap on the needs of the people who have to access these machines. They pay outright as a result of this, and those who have the machines in place have run away with apparently twice what was actually budgeted for them over a substantial period of time. Minister, your department and the technologists advising you on health technologies—and you need that good advice because it is an extraordinarily expensive area of health arrangements in this country, and that is why they exist—told you exactly what to do. They told you, `Do planned provision.'You alone started the ball rolling with the College of Radiologists to go to the so-called supply side mechanism for dealing with this. All of a sudden these things began to grow like mushrooms around the country as a result of their discussions with you and what they anticipated about the decisions that you would take. We originally thought that after 10 years there was merely a 50 per cent increase over about four or five months. We discovered we were absolutely wrong, as the 7.30 Report last night chastised our spokesperson. She had underestimated it by a factor of two; there had been a 100 per cent increase in machines over that period of time.So, Minister, there is a whole series of questions that you have to answer. You ignored what was actually occurring in all of this in the radiology industry and you probably misled the ERC in that process. A responsible minister would have studied the industry more carefully. A decent minister would have known that there were 59 MRIs in place at budget time and that there were dozens more on order. He would also have known how many of the MRIs on order were ordered by companies associated with the executive of the College of Radiologists in its MRI negotiating task force. You would have known that, Minister, if indeed you do not know it now. You should know it by now, but the point is that you should have known it then.People here are making decisions on spending $3 million. Each $3 million they spend carries a potential $1.5 million charge on the Medicare system. You are engaged in serious business here and serious money matters of which you know a great deal. You are so proud in this place to tell us all of your medical expertise and your health expertise. It is something that you say you bring uniquely to this portfolio. You are not a minister who is capable, on the basis of your knowledge, of being snowed unless there is some deliberation in your intent. You know very well what all this means. You know it better than any other member of this House. You are a well-informed minister, but you have chosen either to keep yourself in ignorance as a matter of deliberate choice or you have chosen to encourage this process in the false belief that somehow or other the capping arrangements would fix this particular problem for you.You have obfuscated and refused to take our concern seriously. You have painted yourself as a hero by saying that you started the AHIC inquiry, and then the very next day after you said that, you denied that you were involved in the process of setting it up. You have so regularly contradicted yourself in this entire discussion over the last eight months. For example, on 11 February you said:. . . there is no evidence that all these machines were ordered in the weeks before the budget. You are quite wrong there.Now you admit, on 18 October 1999, an inexplicable rush of applications for MRI machines. Back then you said:I completely and categorically deny and repudiate any suggestion whatsoever that there was any leak from me or my office.That was on 11 February 1999. Then you said:. . . I will keep giving the same answer: that I do not concede there was a budget leak.That was on 30 September 1999. Now you say:Well, I can't rule a budget leak out at this stage.That was on 19 October 1999 on ABC radio. Gradually you have admitted details you could no longer deny, such as the private meetings with representatives of the radiology industry and the knowledge of rumours that the industry knew of your plan. You acknowledge the rumours that the industry knew of your plan, but you went ahead without any check on the people with whom you were negotiating or any desire to get from them a declaration of interest in this matter. But you knew, you now say, although you have obfuscated that for ages. You did not tell the industry that a supply-side option had been included in the budget, but then tabled a statutory declaration from a former staffer who said that industry reps at the informal meeting on 6 May 1998—six days from the budget—were sworn to secrecy, as I pointed out a bit earlier on. On 11 February 1999 you told the parliament:I completely and categorically deny and repudiate any suggestion whatsoever that there was any leak from me or my office.What nonsense!We are calling for a royal commission, and it is the first we have called for in three years of opposition. We do not call for royal commissions terribly lightly on this side of the House, because we recognise that in royal commissions there are opportunities often for lawyers and judges but rarely necessarily for the whole truth. Nevertheless, there is a proper role for royal commissions within the arrangements that we have in place in our governing institutions. Royal commissions ought not to be there for political purposes; royal commissions ought to be there to deal with the central issues of probity in government when no other mechanism of investigation can do that.We know now that you, Minister, will not give the Health Insurance Commission the capacity to investigate what occurred between your office, your department possibly, and any of the radiologists involved prior to the budget and prior to the ERC. They are not investigating that and they do not have the capacity to investigate that. The Auditor-General has the capacity to investigate anything that happened in your department at that point of time but has no capacity to investigate anything that happened in your office or in relation to private meetings between you and other people, or the radiologists in this regard. There is no power for the Auditor-General there at all, and in neither case can the Auditor-General compel information or demand the materials.You have described this as a scam, but you have put in place two set of inquiries that cannot possibly establish how the scam operated and who was responsible for it. Yet you elevate it to a scam—the scan scam—but you do not allow the Australian people to have the certainty that you have not been involved. I suggest you ring ex-minister Tehan about all this. I suggest she will tell you that you die slowly in these situations.Give yourself a rapid out. Stand yourself aside, since the Prime Minister does not have the guts to do it. Stand yourself aside; encourage him to put in place a royal commission. If you are that confident about yourself, it will clear you. But you clearly are not; therefore you should be censured. (Time expired)PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:12:0011830Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—All we have had from the Leader of the Opposition is a series of unsubstantiated and scurrilous allegations. One of my staff members has just provided me with my diary of the week beginning 5 May 1998. I am happy to table that diary so everyone can see what I did that week. There is no meeting with radiologists; there is no private meeting in the week before the budget. There is only the meeting that I have consistently said happened, and I have had two statutory declarations to say what the nature of that meeting was.The Leader of the Opposition makes several charges, and they are as follows: that I deliberately or carelessly caused a situation in which some radiologists were able to take advantage of budget knowledge. We still have not had any concrete evidence from the opposition that there was inside knowledge. We have had assertions that have never been backed up by any fact. The fact is that there does appear to be widespread backdating. There does appear to be widespread misrepresentation of contracts, and that is a complete scam that is totally unacceptable. But there is no evidence at all that people benefited from inside information.I have said previously that there was very widespread expectation of this measure and that was for several reasons. The first is that the Australian Health Technology Advisory Committee reported in October 1997 and that report said that MRI should be more greatly funded than it is now. I had said publicly and privately on many occasions that I would like to see MRI better funded. The reason was very simple. I thought that the situation that I inherited from the Labor Party, whereby 100,000 Australians a year were having to pay between $400 and $800 each for a scan, was completely unacceptable, and I wanted to see that situation changed.It was well known that the government wished to do something about this. We entered formal negotiations with the College of Radiologists as a representative body on 10 February, and those negotiations continued through till about 23 April, off the top of my head. Those negotiations were carried out by my department. They conducted the negotiations and in that time I had one meeting in March with the President of the College of Radiologists to discuss a large range of issues, but I had no further part in the negotiations whatsoever.I was told by my department around 5 May, and I wrote to the Prime Minister the same day, that there was a potential problem whereby we may have a large number of orders. The Leader of the Opposition has alleged in the last 24 hours that I did not take my department's advice, but that is not correct. On 5 May, when I was first alerted that there may be a problem, I asked my department what advice they could give me because, to use the Leader of the Opposition's phrase, this is a technical area and you do need advice from your department. I agree. It is a highly technical area.The fact is the decision I took on 5 May was in line with my department's advice. I asked my department for a range of options. I asked them what their preferred option was. I chose their preferred option. In making that decision as a minister, I was taking the preferred option put to me by the department. I acted the same day I was told there was potentially a problem with bringing it in from 1 September. I was told in the middle of August that there appeared to be, and there were rumours of, a large number of machines coming in. At that time, I again took my department's advice and passed a regulation bringing in the supply-side measure. When I was informed this year, and actually last week, about a problem with the Health Insurance Commission's investigation, I again acted swiftly to institute what I have done now.So, far from not taking my department's advice, I have taken their advice the whole way along. I have not acted independently. Far from not acting swiftly, in every case where I have been alerted by my department that there was a problem, I have acted as swiftly as possible. The third point of the opposition's censure that I failed to act appropriately when warned by my department is simply wrong. I have taken my department's advice on this matter because of the technical nature of it. I have acted with great speed on every occasion.The further allegation is that I delayed the investigation until it was too late. The records simply do not back up that fact. I concede the Health Insurance Commission's investigation is going slowly. The only intervention I have had in the Health Insurance Commission's investigation is to ask them to do it as fast as possible, after which they increased their staff numbers doing the investigation—and they have increased the staff numbers a second time. So, far from delaying investigations, my only intervention as minister has been to try to speed up investigations. I notice that, in Senate estimates, the Health Insurance Commission said they expected to have the investigations over by July. I was later told it would be November. It will now be perhaps later than that.The Health Insurance Commission advise me that they are finding there is significant obstruction from a number of people involved. They are having to seek warrants to acquire information, and it takes two weeks per warrant to execute. When this involves serial pieces of information, it may take several lots of two weeks. I realise that is highly unsatisfactory, but the Health Insurance Act offers little alternative. This is not something into which you can bring the Federal Police; this is something the Health Insurance Commission must investigate itself under the National Health Act. I repeat: far from delaying the investigation, at every point I have sought to speed up this investigation and get the information absolutely as fast as possible.The opposition also charges that, after being challenged as early as 9 February, I have given misleading answers on my role in pre-budget MRI negotiations. I have said many times—and I stick by this—that I was told on 5 May by the department that we may need a supply measure. That was the first I knew about it. The same day, I wrote to the Prime Minister saying that we would need a supplyside measure. My only involvement between then and budget night was the one meeting with the College of Radiologists.If you read the statutory declarations that were tabled some time ago, the reason for this meeting is quite clear. The negotiation had gone on late in the budget cycle. We had missed the cut-off date for the printing of the budget. What was going to appear in the budget were the savings we were making in radiology without the balancing of the other side whereby we were providing MRI. We felt that there was a problem with good faith with the radiologists in that they had negotiated an overall package of savings, one of which was MRI, and this would not be reflected in the budget documents on budget night. So I had to explain to them the reason for it not appearing in the budget documents the way they were imagining and how we would communicate with their members immediately after the budget so they could see that the government had acted in good faith. The meeting went for about an hour, and most of the meeting was discussing that. Again, you will see that confirmed by the two statutory declarations that I tabled in this House.The supply-side measure, which was commercially sensitive, was talked about in general terms. I stated that in the House as early as 16 February in answer to a question, but the college did not know what that supply-side measure would be. The notion of asking them to keep the final meeting secret was not because they had been told what the supply-side measure was but because they were told that the government would need to take some action to limit supply.The Leader of the Opposition has said that there are several contradictions in what I have said. I would say there is no contradiction in anything I have said. Firstly, he claims that, on 11 February, I was talking about our not knowing the time scale of ordering of machines but that, on 18 October this year, I had said there had been a rush. I was referring to two different things. The rush that I was referring to yesterday was the rush of the 13 machines that radiologists have just found that they ordered 18 months ago and spent $3 million on but forgot to tell anybody about. That is just not tenable. It is completely unacceptable. I do not know the dates on which they were supposed to have been ordered. I have not been told, and that is the normal process for an investigation such as this.The second contradictory thing I am supposed to have said is about a budget leak. I have never conceded there was a budget leak, because we have not been given any evidence that it occurred. All the opposition have done is make up a whole series of allegations and assertions but they have provided no information that it happened. I cannot rule out the possibility, but I think it is very unlikely. I think people were speculating and taking positions on the advice of MRI companies. When the Health Insurance Commission finally finishes its investigation, I think people will see that the scam is a widespread backdating and widespread misrepresentation of contracts. That, by definition, rules out a leak—because you would not have to do either of those things if, indeed, there had been a leak.The opposition said that I had private meetings in the week before the budget. I have tabled my diary for that week and, between learning of the supply-side measure on the 5th and tabling on budget night, I had no meetings with radiologists.83ZIRWINMrs Irwin—What about phone calls?8E4Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE—The member opposite says, `What about phone calls?' My recollection is that I did not speak directly or indirectly to any radiologist anywhere in Australia. The Leader of the Opposition makes allegations also that we went ahead without any checks. If you have a look at the sequence of events here, there were checks at every point of the process.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—They were pretty good!8E4Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE—They were pretty good. They have uncovered a widespread scam, and it will result in many referrals to the Director of Public Prosecutions; and they have been stopped.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—You should have stopped them. That's your problem.Mr Beazley interjecting—8E4Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE—They have been stopped; they have absolutely been stopped. The Leader of the Opposition interjects—I know I should not respond to him, but it shows that he does not understand the sequence of events here. I was not told of a scam on 5 May; I was told of a theoretical possibility. I was told in August that year that there was a problem. That is when we brought in the statutory declarations, which have proved to be very effective.The other thing I should respond to is the $150 million that the Leader of the Opposition talks about being wasted. I do not know where he gets his mathematics from but, if he has a look at this year's budget papers, he will see that we are only budgeting $66 million for MRI and, as at the end of August, it was on budget. So that figure of $150 million he seems to have plucked out of the air. Even so, I concede that I do not want to see any of taxpayers' money used inappropriately.Finally, in question time, allegations were made about Dr Best and Dr Meikle. I think that is highly scurrilous. I hope he has the courage to go and make the allegations outside of the House. I am not aware of Dr Meikle ever organising a dinner for me. Having checked with my chief of staff, who tends to know about these things, I do not believe he has ever organised a dinner for me, although I do know him. I have known him for the best part of 20 years because my younger sister used to date his son when they were at school. With respect to the fact that he is a radiologist and has MRIs, I was aware he had one at Box Hill, because he asked me to open it. With the other two, this is the first I have heard anything to do with it. That you should seek to besmirch someone's name in this House is, I think, utterly cowardly.As for Dr Best, he has organised the odd dinner for me, and there is nothing improper in that. Everyone in this House does fundraising dinners from time to time. Any money I have obtained from those dinners has been dealt with appropriately, according to the party's fundraising guidelines and in accordance with disclosure under the Electoral Act. The opposition has put up nothing other than cowardly and scurrilous allegations. Quite frankly, Kim, on your polling, I think I am going to be around a lot longer than you.15:26:0011833Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—This minister stands condemned by his own words just now in this House. He acknowledged just a few minutes ago in this House that Jack Best organised dinners for him for fundraising. Who was it that appointed Dr Jack Best to the National Health and Medical Research Council, a statutory appointment?The minister said in his remarks just now, and in answer to the question from the member for Fraser, that money was raised in accordance with Liberal Party guidelines—not the Electoral Commission—and that it has been properly disclosed. The opposition would like to know whether it was properly disclosed through the Liberal Party's Greenfields Foundation, which of course they have fought tooth and nail to keep secret. The minister has said that all of the money has been disclosed. Where has the money been disclosed? The opposition has checked the records. No money from these dinners has been recorded as going into his campaign account. There is no record of disclosure, despite the minister saying that he had properly disclosed the money.What we have here is that people who have benefited from his decisions have been along to dinners, organised for him, fundraising for his election campaign. These are extremely serious allegations of conflict of interest that this minister faces, and that is not all. I might just let the minister know that the opposition is led to believe that a number of these dinners have taken place where money has been donated directly into the minister's campaign accounts and that doctors attending the dinners have been under no illusions as to where the money was going. They were told what they were donating the money for and they were under no illusions whatsoever as to the benefits that would arise.The other major issue of grave seriousness that I want to pursue in this censure motion is the nature of the inquiries that this minister has set in train. Yesterday Dr Wooldridge said he would table the letter that he is sending to the Auditor-General proposing the terms of reference for the inquiry. We had quite a bit of debate about the nature of this inquiry today in question time, but we still have not seen any tabling of the terms of reference for this inquiry. I wonder if that is because the government have finally realised what our shadow Attorney-General realised: if the proposed inquiry that the minister wants to pursue is under section 20 of the act, the Auditor-General will not be able to direct a person to provide the Auditor-General with any information that he requires; he will not be able to require people to attend and give evidence before the Auditor-General; he will not be able to require that any documents in the custody or under the control of a person be provided to the Auditor-General. So what sort of inquiry is it that the Auditor-General is going to be able to undertake? Certainly not an inquiry that is going to get to the bottom of this scam. If it is correct that the inquiry this minister is going to instigate is under section 20 of this act, it will not be able to call him, it will not be able to call members of his staff, it will not be able to require that documents be produced, and so it certainly will not be able to uncover the scam that this minister is sitting on top of.That became very clear in question time today. The minister has no idea under which section he is calling for this probity audit. He obviously has no idea what the powers of the Auditor-General are going to be as to whether or not documents will be able to be called for, whether radiologists will be able to be called before the Auditor-General and, most importantly, whether his conduct will be subject to review by the Auditor-General. The minister obviously has no idea about these restrictions that are placed on him. It just goes further to the urgent need for the royal commission that we are calling for, and that this minister must see happen. It is the only way we are going to get to the bottom of this scandal that is creating a huge drain on the federal budget.The minister says, `Oh, there is no evidence it is going to cost anybody any more money.' The way we work out the figures, Minister—if you have not been able to work it out—is that these 50-odd extra machines at $3 million each makes $150 million that certain radiologists just banked on—they just banked on there being a certain decision made in last year's budget. They did not know, did they? They had no idea that this decision was coming up. You did not tell them anything. Minister, it is completely unbelievable that anybody would invest $150 million on a chance. Nobody is going to believe that. Nobody in the public believes that. Slowly but surely, this issue is going to come to the fore.At the moment all you are saying is that you cannot rule out a leak—you cannot rule out that anybody knew. What is very clear, of course, is that people did know. That is why they went out and spent $150 million. Other wise they would not have done it. That is the prima facie case for the investigation that must be allowed to occur into what the leak was, who told the radiologists, when they were told, who benefited—who it was that found out just before the budget that this minister had decided to extend Medicare rebates to MRI contracts.What we know from other sources is that many decisions were made in the lead-up to the budget. That is why we are wanting to find out the dates of the contracts. I wonder why it is that we cannot find out those dates. Why is it that the minister keeps concealing these dates? It is because he knows that when these dates are finally released it will become very clear that people knew and took advantage of the information that was provided to them that exposed the federal budget to this major fraud risk. What is very clear indeed is that a royal commission is the only way we are going to get to the bottom of this problem. There is no other way, Minister, and there is no other way that we are going to find out what your involvement in this entire mess is. You suggested in your response that you have done the right thing for the last 15 months—that is how long this has been going on. It is not the case that, as you just suggested, you have been so quick to act. That is not the case at all. Step by step, what has become very clear to us now is that the minister has failed in his duty, has continued to cover up his actions and continues today to deny the existence of what he himself calls a scam.On 9 February the minister said he did not know how many contracts there were. And what is most important about this, Minister, is that you failed to make any inquiries. You failed at every turn to inquire into the risk that has been exposed as a result of your action. What we know both from evidence presented to Senate estimates and from your own answers in here is that you were told of a loophole or a problem several days before the budget. Did this minister do anything to close that loophole? Nothing was done to close the loophole. Of course, the minister says that what he did to close the loophole was to require people to sign statutory declarations. Minister, surely even you could not say that that method—of getting people to sign statutory declarations—has had any impact whatsoever on stopping this scandal. The idea that this requirement of having people sign statutory declarations would be effective is a complete and utter farce, because we now have so many machines under question that this so-called effective action did nothing to resolve the matter.On 15 February this year, he explained that the loophole that he had been told about was essentially—and I like this quote of Dr Wooldridge's—that radiologists `could gain on the decision, so we could have found a very large number of MRI scanners.' Well, I'll be! That is exactly what we have found, Minister. Your department warned you that this was going to happen, and they warned you of it before the federal budget came down.What sort of responsible minister goes ahead with a decision when it is perfectly clear that there exists a loophole that people are driving a truck through for personal benefit at the expense of the taxpayer and making millions?Opposition member interjecting—PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—That is exactly right—making millions of dollars at the expense of the taxpayer. Of course, all through the time that the minister was negotiating this deal with the radiologists, not once did he ask them to declare a pecuniary interest—not once. There is no evidence of it. When we have asked him this question in question time before, he has just fobbed it off: `Why would I want to do such a thing?' The reason he should have asked them for their pecuniary interest was that he might have had some idea of the risk that he was posing to the budget, and he might have had some idea that he should have behaved differently from the way that he did.The minister likes to take the credit himself for setting up the Health Insurance Commission investigation; but of course that is not true. The Health Insurance Commission established their own investigation. They have received exactly the same allegations that the department received and that the department passed on to the minister. The department said, `There is a risk, there is a loophole, there are problems,' and the minister did nothing about it. Then we had the Health Insurance Commission getting the same allegations, and the commission did commence their own investigation—unfortunately, as far back as December 1998, and we are still waiting for the results.Of course, since February, the opposition has been receiving the same allegations—exactly the same allegations that this minister got, back before the budget in May 1998; the same allegations that the Health Insurance Commission received. Now the opposition is getting those allegations and getting them daily. The minister says that there is no evidence. The evidence is in the fact that we have a huge number of machines on contracts apparently signed before the budget. Some of them will be backdated, that is true. Some will be shonky contracts: with a nod and a wink, so that if he does not really follow through they will rip them up. Both of those are certainly cases of fraud—there is no question about that.But the issue that the minister continues to slip and slide away from is whether or not there was a budget leak. Why is it that he will not allow any investigation into whether or not there was a budget leak? Why didn't he set up a proper inquiry when his department first warned him of the possibility of this leak and of the loophole that had occurred? Why didn't he set one up then?Why didn't he set up one when the Health Insurance Commission recognised that they had to have an inquiry? Why didn't he set up an inquiry when the opposition first started asking questions?Mr Swan interjecting—PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—As my colleague the member for Lilley said, `Because he had something to hide.' That is the only conclusion that anyone can draw from his not having a proper inquiry into this outrageous scandal that has exposed the health budget as a result of his sloppiness. (Time expired)15:41:0011836Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—It is very clear from the start that this lot opposite are doing nothing but applying their own grubby, low and pathetic standards to probity. The member for Lilley, with his interjection, is so typical: the one who would run around the back, trying to do deals. That is not what this government is about. It is about having standards and having them up front. What we do know for sure is that, while the member for Jagajaga was the Director, National Health Strategy in this country from 1990 to 1993, she did nothing about improving the lot of regional and rural Australians or their having access to MRI equipment.As far as she was concerned, it was okay to have 18 of these in the public hospitals and forget about everyone else—unless, of course, you were wealthy. If you could afford to pay then, according to the member for Jagajaga, that was fine. But if you were suffering from a brain tumour, or if you had a child with MS and you wanted to have access to one of these machines, you waited for six months. That is what you lot did. Six months people had to wait, and they had to undertake some sort of surgery in many cases and spend time in hospital, which ended up causing them to have operations which were unnecessary—because the member for Jagajaga, when in the position of referring matters directly to the Deputy Prime Minister and the minister for health, elected to do nothing about it.Forty new machines were put in place by the private sector in that time. Why? Because there was a demand. Who were they able to be accessed by? The wealthy. This is the woman who used to get out there and talk to the Marxist groups in the 1980s about socialism, about the rights of the individual and the rights of the poor. The reality is that, when given the opportunity, she did one of two things. She made sure that the Labor government that she was paid to report to—UU5HORNEMr Horne—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker, and it goes to relevance. This is a censure motion on the minister. It has nothing to do with the member for Jagajaga, and I ask you to draw the member back to the debate.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson is right that it is a censure motion of the minister. On the other hand, the censure motion is a lengthy motion. I call the member for Longman. I remind him of the censure motion and I will follow his statement, but this is a more widely ranging debate than the member for Paterson may have been aware.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—It is clear that the opposition leader brought not one shred of evidence to any of the four points in his motion. He did not speak to the motion, because he has nothing to add to the motion. He says here: `deliberately or carelessly causing a situation some radiologists were able to take advantage of.' Where it is your evidence? Where is there one shred of evidence? There is not one.The member for Jagajaga has gone on for days, in fact months, on this issue, digging and dragging around and not able to come up with a thing. The reason is that there is no evidence. Point 2 says:Enabling, through this inside Budget knowledge . . . Where is your evidence of `inside budget knowledge'? We continue to ask you to bring it out. It is a bit like last week, isn't it, when the member for Dobell came into this place with a supposed cabinet document? When ordered by this parliament to show the document, he disobeyed the Speaker and the orders of this House rather than produce his evidence. I say to the member for Jagajaga: where is your evidence? You simply do not have any. You will not accept that it is possible that those radiologists saw fit to make a profit on the back of this situation, not because the minister, the minister's office or the department have leaked anything at all. Your greatest nightmare is finding out as a result of these investigations that the minister has acted with total probity and that what has occurred is that there are those out there who, with the radiologists, have taken advantage of this.You made light of the fact that there were statutory declarations. Statutory declarations are very important documents—people perjure themselves on the backs of those statements—and without those documents there would have been no reference to the DPP, a reference which hopefully will result in a prosecution. You are saying that we should move away from that. The member for Jagajaga and the Leader of the Opposition are just on a political witch-hunt here for two good rea sons. When they were in government they ensured that these lifesaving devices were not available to the average Australian. They were not available in regional and rural Australia. This government and this minister have ensured they have become available, and not at these exorbitant prices, $800 and $900 a throw; $475 dollars is the average price and they will get back some $424.60. They are now available to the families that have children who are suffering diseases. They could not otherwise ascertain what the problem is. The member over there shrugs and throws her head around. Maybe you do not care about those people, but we on this side do. We also care about probity, and that is why one person has already been prosecuted through the DPP. Maybe there will be others. But the member for Jagajaga is interested in only one scalp, that is, the scalp of the minister for health. Why? Because he has delivered on health outcomes right across the nation.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Hospitals—have a look at hospitals.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—The member for Jagajaga wants to talk about hospitals. Let us go back to your CV. You proudly point out in your CV `key achievements'. I quote from your CV:The smooth closure of the Prince Henry Hospital.That is what you think about hospitals. You are a disgrace. You do not care about the health of individuals, and you do not care about the health of those people in regional and rural Australia.UU5HORNEMr Horne—Mr Speaker, again I raise a point of order and draw your attention to relevance. I have here a copy of the censure motion. The member opposite is entirely without the guidelines of this motion, and I ask you to draw him back to the argument.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson is right—that this is not a censure of the member for Jagajaga—and I ask the member to Longman to come back to the censure motion.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—Mr Speaker, I am simply trying to point out to the House that the spokesperson for health on the other side has absolutely no credibility or credentials in bringing this to the House. She has spoken for 15 minutes, her leader for 20 minutes, and not once did they bring up one shred of evidence on their four points.To go back to the actual motion they put forward here, they say:Since being first challenged on these issues in the House as early as 9 February 1999 . . . They are saying that the minister has given deliberate and misleading answers. When once have you brought a substantive motion in this House since February? If this was such an important issue, if you were able to substantiate these things, why didn't you bring a substantive motion in this House saying he had misled the House? You have no evidence. This is very much like your $100,000 for university fees last week. This is an absolute beat-up, an absolute witch-hunt, in which you attempt to deride a government which is performing and a minister who is performing.The fact is that the necessary processes to determine whether or not these people have acted improperly are in motion, and so they should be. The minister has never once said that it is impossible that somebody has acted inappropriately and in so doing benefited. That is the right and proper position for this government to take to ensure that we find out. But we do not do it at the expense of ensuring that those people in regional and rural Australia do not have access to this lifesaving equipment. Three million dollars is a lot of money for the equipment, but it seems that when it comes to expenditure those opposite did not see fit to provide that equipment to many parts of Australia.The minister, doing what I think is only right and proper, spoke with, dealt with, many parts of the health industry to determine the best way of dealing with this. He did so in good faith. He has no indication that there has been a leak or that there has been some impropriety in his office or anywhere else, and no-one to date has been able to say so. Yet the member for Jagajaga, three times today in different radio interviews, one with Graham Richardson on 2UE, said:But what is even worse is apparently the minister was told by his department in the lead-up to the budget that information had got out. He was never told that by the department. You made an accusation in this place today that he somehow had negotiations or had talks with them alluding to that fact. It is the role of every department, when referring to their ministers, to tell them all the options that should be considered in general terms. You are trying to turn it around and allude that somehow the minister or his department had access to information which led them to the conclusion that this information had got out. That is simply untrue, and yet you continue with this lie throughout media interviews. Today on 3LO you said he was informed by his department in the week of the budget that there had been a budget leak. He was not. It simply is untrue. On 2CN you made the same claim.The fact is that you have no evidence to suggest that the minister, his staff or the department made a leak. What we know, and we know it for a fact, is that there has been a major increase, more than the department anticipated, in these machines being operated. No-one has a qualm with that.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—One hundred per cent more.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—One hundred per cent. No-one has a problem with that, except the member for Jagajaga. The Leader of the Opposition has a real dilemma. When it is finally ascertained beyond a shadow of a doubt—as it has been for most Australians, as it certainly has been for everyone in this House—that this minister has acted with total probity and that there have been those in the marketplace who have sought to make a profit out of good governance and good policy who will be brought to order, you will be shown for what you are: a charlatan and someone who has no other lot in life than to bring cheap political grubby tricks into this place to try and deride a minister who has performed and performed well.The minister has a great and long history in this place of performing for the Australian community, whether in the area of vaccinations for children, caring for the elderly or increasing funding through the Medicare agreement to the states—or whether by doing something that you are not capable of doing and that is bringing more people back into private health insurance and taking the pressure off our public health system. All of these things have been done by the minister, and the MRI was just the next step to improve the health outlook for Australians.People who sit in this gallery did not have access for six months to an MRI machine because those opposite did not feel it was necessary for them to have the luxury of being able to look after their health. This government believed that we should do that, and this minister instigated a policy to ensure that that could be implemented.Mr Danby interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne Ports seems to be a more vitriolic interjector out of his chair than in it.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—The fact that there are some who have sought to go and do the wrong thing in the marketplace does not mean that you can lay the blame at the feet of this minister or this government. You can blame this government for one thing; you can blame this government for bringing in better policies to help those people who are in need. For that, we stand condemned and will continue to be so. As for the interjection about why an inquiry, because there has been a 100 per cent increase—Mr Zahra interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for McMillan.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—There is evidence that has already been put before the DPP that some people may have somehow brought forward or backdated contracts. Do you think this is the only industry that happens in? Do you think these people are somehow an isolated incident and that they dreamt this up all on their own? I do not think so. If they feel that there is an opportunity here, then this inquiry will bring it out. If necessary, after the minister has received the results of that inquiry, obviously the HIC can determine, in dealing with the Attorney-General—5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Auditor-General.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—in dealing with the Government Solicitor, the right and proper action to take. We do not need a witch-hunt by you to try and lay the blame at the government's feet. What you have done in the last six months is ensure that there are Australians who otherwise would have had access to this equipment at the right price—affordable. In three weeks, not six months, they could have had the ability to access the diagnosis they need. But now that will be denied. That is the sort of attitude that you have.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—That's the minister's sloppiness.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—No, it is not the minister's sloppiness. I come back to where we started. There are four points in this motion to censure the minister. On point (1) they have shown no evidence whatsoever. You have not shown one iota of evidence to gain our support for your motion.Mr Zahra interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for McMillan is warned.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—There has been no evidence to support the allegation that he carelessly caused this situation to occur. Reference also is made to `inside budget knowledge'. Nothing has been put before us to show that there has been any inside budget knowledge at all. Then the motion refers to `failing to act appropriately when warned by his department'. We have shown you conclusively that he was not warned by the department prior to the budget. That is nothing but a lie. Finally, the motion refers to his deliberate misleading of the House. You have had your chance every sitting week since February to put up a substantive motion; you have failed to do so. You failed when advising the previous government to help regional and rural Australia by putting in MRIs. You have failed in your censure motion. This minister should be commended not only for this decision but for his whole carriage of the Health portfolio in the Howard government. Question put: That the motion (Mr Beazley's ) be agreed to.16:01:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew)58Mr 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 JenkinsMs KernotMr LathamDr LawrenceMr LeeMs LivermoreMr McClellandMs J. S. McFarlaneMs MacklinMr McMullanMr MartinMr MelhamMr MorrisMr MossfieldMr MurphyMs O'ByrneMs PlibersekMr PriceMr QuickMr RipollMs RoxonMr RuddMr Sawford*Mr SciaccaMr Sercombe*Mr SidebottomMr SmithMr SnowdonMr SwanDr TheophanousMr K. J. ThomsonMr WilkieMr WiltonMr Zahra75Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr K. J. AndrewsMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BarresiMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr BroughMr CadmanMr CameronMr CausleyMr CharlesMr CostelloMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Mrs GallusMs 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 RuddockMr St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperDr StoneMrs SullivanMr C. P. ThompsonMr A. P. ThomsonMr TrussMr TuckeyMr M. A. J. VaileMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs WorthMr McLeayMr DownerMr BurkeMr Prosser* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Documents1184011840Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings .Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following papers:Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee—Annual Report 1998-99Airservices Australia—National Equity and Diversity Program 1998-2001—Progress Report 1998-1999Australian Maritime Safety Authority—Annual Report 1998-99Australian New Zealand Food Authority—Annual Report 1998-99Private Health Insurance Administration Council—Annual Report 1998-99Health Insurance Commission—Annual Report 1998-99Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation—Annual Report 1998-99Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee—Report 1998-99Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Miscellaneous118411184110000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I present the annual report of the Australian National Audit Office for 1998-99.Ordered that the report be printed.Ministerial Statements118411184116:07:0011841Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—by leave—I wish to inform the House of the outcomes of my visit at the beginning of this month to Singapore and then to Japan. Singapore is Australia's eighth largest market, taking around six per cent of our exports. As a group, the 10 countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations, or ASEAN, account for over 12 per cent of Australia's exports. Japan is our largest export market, taking almost 20 per cent of total exports. Both visits allowed me to continue our government's efforts to win greater access to regional markets for Australian exporters and also to advance our agenda on the forthcoming WTO meeting in Seattle.On 1 October, I attended the 4th AFTACER meeting in Singapore between ASEAN ministers and ministers from the Closer Economic Relations countries—Australia and New Zealand. I went there with three key objectives: firstly, to produce a strong, unambiguous statement of support by ASEAN for the launch of a new WTO round; secondly, to expand the useful trade facilitation work that has been done under the AFTA-CER linkage; and, thirdly, to accelerate the removal of tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade within our region.Despite some speculation that events in East Timor might detract from Australia's capacity to pursue our trade interests at the AFTACER meeting, I am pleased to report that the meeting delivered some significant breakthroughs for Australia. Most importantly, ministers agreed that a high level task force will be established to examine the feasibility of an AFTA-CER free trade area by 2010. This process has the potential to achieve substantial improvements in market access for Australian exporters. The task force will report back to ministers in 12 months time on the benefits and costs involved in a possible free trade agreement. Independent studies suggest there will be billions of dollars in additional income to Australia from free trade between ASEAN and the CER countries.The Australian Industry Group has congratulated the government on this groundbreaking announcement, and I look forward to pursuing our agenda when I again meet Minister Yeo from Singapore and Dr Supachai from Thailand later this month. This initiative demonstrates this government's pragmatic approach to free trade agreements where they can deliver substantial benefits to Australia consistent with our APEC and WTO goals.Members should recall that the Labor Party in government always liked to parade their multilateral credentials while criticising any discussion of FTAs. Now, all of a sudden, Senator Cook and the member for Fraser have discovered what they call the `free trade agreement game'. But, in government, Labor totally neglected this policy track despite the fact that—as Senator Cook himself concedes—the Uruguay Round dragged on far too long under Labor. This government is pressing for a short, sharp, three-year WTO round coming out of the Seattle WTO meeting. At the same time, we stand ready to participate in meaningful efforts for freer trade with key bilateral and regional trading partners.There were some other important outcomes from the Singapore meeting. AFTA-CER's practical work on streamlining standards, customs procedures and quarantine cooperation provides direct benefits to Australian business. The Singapore meeting witnessed the amendment of the MOU on standards and conformance to include Burma, Cambodia and Laos. This agreement is already reducing production costs for Australian businesses by encouraging the adoption of international standards.Ministers at the meeting also agreed to trial the Australian developed SANCRT electronic health certificate system for trade in agricultu ral products and to build closer links between the quarantine services of ASEAN and CER. These measures will reduce the costs to exporters through more timely processing of import documentation and more common approaches on standards, practices and procedures. In addition, I highlighted the useful opportunity for regional cooperation in the automotive sector presented by the ASEAN automotive study being undertaken by the Pacific Economic Cooperation Council with Australian support.While in Singapore, I also launched a new promotion to boost the export of chilled Australian pork. The strong demand for Australian chilled pork in Singapore has already seen imports increase from 45 tonnes per day in July to 70 tonnes per day at present. And, wrapping up a busy program, I presented export awards to two outstanding Australian companies at a dinner organised by the Singapore Australia Business Council. These awards to the Cox Group, for its design of stage 1 of the new Singapore Convention and Exhibition Centre, and to Geraldton Boat Builders, for the supply of 20 vessels to the Singapore Police Coast Guard, drew attention to Australia's expertise in high value services and high value manufactures. I want to congratulate both companies on their achievements.Following the visit to Singapore, I went on to visit Japan. My trip to Japan provided the opportunity to extend Australia's dialogue with our largest trading partner in the lead-up to the Seattle WTO meeting and to have productive meetings with key business interests and Japanese importers of Australian products. Despite the fact that my visit coincided with a major cabinet reshuffle by Prime Minister Obuchi, I had the opportunity to meet both the outgoing MITI minister, Mr Yosano, and the incoming MITI minister, Mr Fukaya.These very useful meetings allowed me to highlight Australia's desire to work closely with Japan in areas of common interest in the new WTO round whilst making clear that we support a three-year round focused on core market access issues. While in Japan, I left a strong message that Australia expects Japan to play a proactive role in the WTO negotiations and that further liberalisation of Japanese markets, particularly for agricultural products, is central to achieving credible results. I took the opportunity to brief my Japanese counterparts on the proposed feasibility study on an AFTA-CER free trade area. We agreed to maintain contact on how both countries see developments surrounding free trade agreements in our region and to ensure that any initiatives are fully consistent with a strong rules based system under the WTO.I also met with Japanese business leaders, which allowed me to pursue opportunities for Australian exporters and to obtain a detailed update on Japan's economy and reform measures. The general picture to emerge was one of cautious optimism about economic recovery in Japan. But, at the same time, my meetings with Mr Takashi Imai, the Chairman of Keidanren—the Japan Federation of Economic Organisations—and other business leaders underscored the need for the Japanese government to intensify economic reform to achieve a return to sustainable growth.Along with my colleague the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, I was pleased to address an Austrade sponsored seminar to promote Australian financial services. Whilst in Osaka, I officially launched Business Club Australia for the Kansai region—an Austrade program designed to maximise Australian commercial opportunities in and around the Olympics next year.This visit, which centred on discussions with many of our key trading partners in Asia, reaffirmed the government's determination to work at all levels for Australian exporters—building support for our goals in the WTO, taking our trade ties with our ASEAN partners into a new phase and opening doors bilaterally for Australian firms.I came away with a clear sense that Australia's trade relations in Asia are in very good shape. East Asia accounts for 52 per cent of our export earnings and includes seven of our top 10 trading partners. I encountered widespread appreciation in both Singapore and Japan of the strength of the Australian economy and of how this government's reform measures have made Australia more competitive. There was a recognition that Australia contributes to the prosperity and security of Asia, just as Asia contributes to the prosperity and security of Australia. I present a copy of my ministerial statement:Ministerial Meeting and Visit to Singapore and Japan—Ministerial Statement, 19 October 1999.16:16:0011843McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—by leave—Let me first say that the opposition welcomes the tabling of the statement of the Minister for Trade. As I said the last time he made such a statement, the practice of ministers regularly informing the House of current issues in their portfolios is to be commended. It is important in trade, and we welcome it. The House should scrutinise the statement, and that will be my task today, principally on behalf of my colleague Senator Cook, the shadow minister for trade.The first part of the minister's statement deals with the recent AFTA-CER meeting. The minister set out what his objectives were for the meeting and how he went about meeting them. They were all good objectives, though I note that this is the first time we have heard them. It would have been a little braver if the minister had stated his objectives before he left rather than after he came home.The Labor Party welcomes the minister's work on an AFTA-CER trade agreement, but let us get one thing straight: Minister Vaile's attempt to claim credit for inventing this particular wheel should not go without response. Let us make a few facts clear. The idea of an AFTA-CER trade agreement is not new. It was first raised by the then Prime Minister in April 1994 in a speech in Bangkok—more than five years ago. Yet since the coalition came to power in 1996 it has been assigned to the backburner—so much so that, in a speech the shadow trade minister, Senator Peter Cook, made in July 1997, he criticised the government for neglecting the issue, and he has done so on several occasions since.The government's decision to take it up more than five years after it was first proposed by the Labor Party is due in large part to lobbying by AIG, the Australian Industry Group, which has relentlessly pursued AFTA-CER on a business to business basis and through representations to Asian governments. Minister Vaile is right to thank AIG for its work on it for the same reason a jockey might thank his horse after a race. It is a little galling to find someone claiming credit for initiating something for which you were involved in an extensive number of meetings yourself.Government member interjecting—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—Nor have you. I remember attending AFTA-CER trade meetings. We initiated this matter. The minister has finally—after his predecessor did nothing about it, whatever other virtues he might have had—come to the party and tried to advance this. I hope it is successful. We will see how it proceeds.Labor welcomes the decision to pursue an AFTA-CER agreement. Let us hope it is successful. It can play an important role in further energising APEC and promoting its free trade goals. However, we still wait for the phrase `Pacific 5' to fall from the minister's lips. I am referring, of course, to the mooted free trade agreement involving the United States, Singapore, Chile, New Zealand and Australia. Recent reports suggest that New Zealand has been the driving force behind this agreement, with enthusiasm from the other partners. In contrast, Australia has been dragging its heels all the way. If Minister Vaile is going to castigate me and Senator Cook for our support of free trade agreements, the least he can do is tell us where he stands on this P5 proposal before it goes ahead as a P4.To criticise Labor on this ground at all is hypocritical. Labor initiated the very agreement over which the minister is trying to rewrite history. Last month, my colleague Senator Cook advises me that, during Jiang Zemin's visit, the Leader of the Opposition proposed a China-Australia trade agreement. This would be an important bilateral trade initiative, bringing greater coherence to our already flourishing relationship, pushing the APEC goals further and providing a means for harvesting some business and commercial benefit from our support for China's accession to the WTO. This is an important proposal. On today's performance, perhaps we will hear from the government about it in about five years time when they claim credit for putting it forward—and when the opportunity now available has been largely missed. The chances of being here in five years to do it are very remote, but that is the first time they will think about it.Of course, there is also the overture from the United States, floated in February 1998 in the USTR's report to the President, for an Australia-US trade pact. This was dismissed out of hand by the Minister for Foreign Affairs when Labor advocated exploring the proposal so that its economic effect could be assessed. The pity for Minister Vaile is that the government has neglected possibilities for bilateral trade agreements and has now just discovered them. In this instance, my colleague Senator Cook has been well ahead of the game and well ahead of both this minister and his predecessor.Minister Vaile also informed us of his recent meetings with Singaporean and Japanese government officials. He neglected to say, however, that the latest trade statistics released just a few days before his departure showed that, while Asian economic growth has returned, our exports to Asia remain flat. In fact, we exported less to our 10 most significant Asian trading partners in the first eight months of 1999 than we did over the first eight months of 1998. While Asian economies are going north, our trade balance with Asia is going south.As I said at the outset, I welcome this report and look forward to hearing Minister Vaile's next report to parliament. Perhaps in that report he will not only give us a travelogue but address some of the hard questions in his portfolio. This report is, to some extent, significant for what it does not say. The minister could start with the following. The figures just released show that in 1998 our exports elaborately transformed. Manufactures fell by $868 million, the first fall in 20 years. Does this have anything to do with the fact that total Commonwealth expenditure on education, training and research has fallen from 2.99 per cent of GDP in Labor's last year of office to 2.53 per cent today? Why are our Australian manufacturing exports as a whole also falling for the first time since 1981? Finally, the United States has just released a comprehensive statement on its strategy for the next round of WTO negotiations. When will Australia do the same? Why does Australia now have its highest trade deficit, highest current account deficit and the highest level of foreign liabilities ever?There is one other omission to which I wish to refer. I am very concerned that, after returning from discussions with the ASEAN free trade area trade ministers, including the trade minister from Malaysia, the minister said nothing about barriers to market access for Australian companies. There is a report on the wire today from the motor vehicle industry of Malaysia saying that Malaysia's import duty on cars will stay. They are saying that the Malaysian government has no intention of reducing the import duty, which is currently between 140 per cent and 300 per cent, as a barrier to Australian motor vehicle exports. Instead of hearing the platitudes, it is time we saw some action from the Australian government about this serious barrier to market access for Australia's increasingly efficient exporters and manufacturers. I look forward with keen interest to hearing Minister Vaile's answers to these questions when he next reports to the House.Motion (by Mrs Sullivan) proposed:That the House take note of the paper.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance118441184410000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Jagajaga proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of the government to establish a Royal Commission into the leaking of the decision to extend Medicare rebates to Magnetic Resonance Imaging units under contract on the night of the 1998 budget.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—Motion (by Mrs Sullivan) agreed to:That the business of the day be called on.Committees11845118451184516:26:0011845Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Anzac Hall Extension, Australian War Memorial, Canberra.The Australian War Memorial proposes to build a modern, flexible exhibition hall of 3,000 square metres to showcase its world-class collection of large technology objects. It is planned that Anzac Hall will utilise `object theatre' to interpret and display its iconic relics. An example of these iconic relics includes the Japanese midget submarine which will be suspended as if caught in the anti-submarine nets of Sydney Harbour in 1942. Another example, once its conservation work is completed, is the Lancaster Bomber `G for George' which will appear as if in a bombing raid with a German fighter poised menacingly above.Four years ago the Australian War Memorial began an exciting and challenging major program to revitalise its galleries that had become dated. The galleries were not communicating as well as they might and were not using modern display techniques, particularly multimedia. The first stage of revitalising the galleries and facilities in the main building is now complete. It should be noted that there has been an increase of over 30 per cent in attendance since the reopening of the galleries by the Prime Minister in March of this year.It became strikingly apparent during the renewal program that the public had strong expectations of seeing many of the major large icons of the collection when they visited. Unfortunately, most are stored in a reposi tory in the outer Canberra suburb of Mitchell with limited public access. This stage of the Anzac Memorial Hall development will go a long way to further satisfying the strong public demand for such displays of Australia's proud heritage.The building design of Anzac Hall comprises two major elements: a wall which rests 20 metres behind the main building and acts as a backdrop to the iconic form of the main building and a large, slightly curved metal roof which fans out radically from the centre point of the dome and sits behind the wall. The wall conceals much of the bulk of the building, which is dug into the ground so that it cannot be seen from Anzac Parade. The roof sits lower and into the landscape so that it does not dominate the view from Mount Ainslie. A simple glass link will join the historic and main memorial building to the clean and striking architecture of Anzac Hall.The site for Anzac Hall will replace the current car park facility for staff and visitors. A new car park will be constructed on the western side of the administration building with all associated road, pedestrian access and other external works, which will need to be completed before the existing car park is closed. This new area will provide 251 spaces. Furthermore, an additional 104 spaces can be accommodated in the future on the eastern side of the building. The Anzac Hall project has a budget of $11.9 million funded from the Federation Fund. Subject to parliamentary approval, tenders are expected to be called in early 2000 with work scheduled for completion by 31 March in the year 2001. It is planned that the building will be officially opened on Anzac Day in that year.I commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous11845Motion (by Mr Ronaldson) agreed to:That the following orders of the day for the resumption of debate on motions to take note of committee and delegation reports, be referred to the Main Committee for debate:Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee— Report on a visit to the Northern Defence Bases; and Report on Bougainville Peace Process;Treaties—Joint Standing Committee— Report 26—An Agreement to extend the period of operation of the Joint Defence Facility at Pine Gap; and Report 25—Treaties tabled on 11 August 1999; andMigration—Joint Standing Committee—Report on immigration entry arrangements for the Olympic and Paralympic Games.Committees11846118461184616:31:0011846Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members business on Monday, 22 November 1999. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for the next sitting.The report read as follows—COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTSPresentation and statements1 Procedure—Standing Committee Report on community involvement in the procedures and practices of the House of Representatives and its committees.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 20 minutes.Speech time limits—First Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—10 minutes each.PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNotices1 Mr Albanese to present a bill for an act to remove discrimination against same sex couples in respect of superannuation benefits. (Notice given 14 October 1999. )Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 5 minutes—pursuant to sessional order 104A.2 Mr Cameron Thompson to move—That this House:(1) notes the reported discovery of Cook's ship Endeavour off Newport, Rhode Island; (2) acknowledges that if it is indeed the Endeavour , this wreck is the most important single artefact in Australia's history;(3) notes that the United States and British Governments are preparing for a legal battle over rights to the wreck;(4) calls on the Government as a matter of urgency to immediately notify the world community of the importance of the wreck to Australia and stake our claim to its ownership by virtue of its significance to our nation;(5) calls on the Government to support a fundraising campaign to enable the recovery and eventual return of the wreck to Botany Bay; and(6) ensures that plans for this important venture are in place and that the public fundraising and community awareness campaign is made a centrepiece of Australia's Centenary of Federation celebrations in 2001. (Notice given 12 October 1999.)Time allotted—20 minutes.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.Other Members—10 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.3 Mrs Crosio to move—That the House calls for a parliamentary committee inquiry into the ways and means by which the Commonwealth can advise and assist employees recently made redundant due to the insolvency of their employer, or facing the threat of redundancy, including:(1) how to organise themselves into co-operative organisations to either purchase or lease the company for which they work when it becomes insolvent or nears insolvency, if after a rigorous analysis of the company's finances such action is deemed to be prudent, sensible and standing a genuine chance of success and thereby maintain their employment;(2) how to make the required reforms to the financial structure of the company in question in order to make it economically viable; and(3) what management training programs may be necessary in order for employees to successfully administer their business and avoid insolvency in the future. (Notice given 11 August 1999.)Time allotted—private Members' business time prior to 1.45 p.m. Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Government Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.4 Ms Gambaro to move—That this House:(1) welcomes the Government's commitment to provide $9.2 million to fund education and increase awareness to consumers about asthma;(2) notes the development of best practice in asthma management plans and integrating care for people with asthma;(3) recognises the increased funding to research to improve our understanding of asthma; and(4) welcomes the promotion of improving the understanding of the effects of asthma on 2 million Australians. (Notice given 14 October 1999. )Time allotted—30 minutes.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Opposition Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.5 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. (Notice given 18 October 1999. )Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.118471184710000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Mr Speaker has received advice from the Acting Chief Opposition Whip that he has nominated Mr Kerr to be a member of the Committee of Privileges.Motion (by Mr Entsch)—by leave—agreed to:That Mr Kerr be appointed a member of the Committee of Privileges.Bills11847r854Billsr853Bills11847Debate resumed from 18 October, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr McClelland moved by way of amendment:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading the House:(1) 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".16:33:0011848Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—The Federal Magistrates Bill 1999 and the Federal Magistrates (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 will establish the Federal Magistrates Court, which will also be known as the Federal Magistrates Service, and is a court under chapter III of the Constitution. This is significant reform, I believe, of Australia's Federal Court system and one I am happy to support.There has been significant debate about the need for reform of our legal system for some time. Much of this debate in recent years has focused on what needs to be done to address the backlog of cases waiting to be heard by our courts. Inevitably, there has been the simplistic and impulsive cry of `give us more money and appoint more judges'. Surely we could have expected more from some within our legal system.On so many occasions I have seen the adopted answer to a given problem to be simply to throw the money at it and wait for it to go away. Very rarely though have I actually seen this solution work. Such an answer implies that the system you are pouring more money into is a perfect one that is operating as efficiently and effectively as possible. I dare say there would be very few of us in the parliament and indeed in our wider community who would seriously entertain the thought that our legal system is a perfect one and that it is operating as efficiently and effectively as possible.There are always alternatives to the simplicity of `more money'. I am glad to see that the Attorney-General and the government have not gone down this road and that they have had the courage to look at other alternatives, other solutions to reforming our legal system in Australia. To quote from the Attorney-General's second reading speech to this bill:The Federal Magistrates Service is intended to provide a quicker, cheaper option for litigants and to ease the workload of both the Federal Court and the Family Court. When fully established, it will free up the Federal and Family courts to focus on the more complex matters that require the attention of a superior court judge.These goals are very laudable and will be warmly welcomed by my constituents in Townsville and Thuringowa. Since the Attorney's intentions and the government's intentions were announced, I have had quite significant interest from the legal profession in perhaps being considered to be one of the new federal magistrates.I said just a moment ago that I was glad that the Attorney-General had the fortitude to take reform in this direction because I believe that the simple answer is not necessarily the right answer. Appointing more judges and investing more money into the existing system will not in any way by itself begin to address some of the cultural changes the government believes need to be met. I have certainly heard a lot of debate on this bill in the last day or so relating to and quoting the delays that are currently being experienced in the courts. Appointing more judges in itself will not, I believe, reduce litigation costs for individuals. Appointing more judges in itself will not make our federal legal system more user friendly. And appointing more judges in itself will not make our legal system more efficient and effective.These are some of the points I believe many of the critics of the bill have missed in this whole exercise. Indeed I would go so far as to say that anyone who simply advocates pouring more money into the system without attempting to change that system in any way to meet some of the stated goals of efficiency and effectiveness is embarking on some sort of self-serving exercise. There is a growing sense of frustration out in the community about our legal system and how it functions or rather how people feel it does not function. Unless we as a parliament begin to address some of these cultural concerns then we are not really addressing the core problems at all.The plan that we are laying out in this bill is to establish a Federal Magistrates Service comprising federal magistrates appointed to deal with the less complex cases that are increasingly coming before our Federal Court and Family Court. Gosh, Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, I guess you as well as I see cases coming into our electorate offices almost every day where there is an appeal to try to reduce the cost people face in their litigation or actions before the court. Importantly, it is intended that the Federal Magistrates Service be as informal as possible, with procedures and rules to be developed by the service itself in order to facilitate such a system. That is a great change, I believe.There are some provisions set out in this bill to guide the service in the development of user-friendly rules and procedures—for example, giving the court the power to set time limits for witnesses and to limit the length of both written and oral submissions; if the parties consent, the court can make a decision without an oral hearing; and there will be an increased emphasis on delivering decisions orally in appropriate cases, rather than parties having to wait for reserved decisions. What a refreshing change and it is great to see.From some lawyers I have spoken to recently, the general reaction to such plans has been very positive. In particular, they see the many benefits of a Federal Magistrates Service as existing in the freeing up of federal judges' time in having to deal with interlocutory or interim hearings rather than the final case hearings. If this particular problem can be addressed alone through the introduction of the Federal Magistrates Service, we have gone a long way in addressing problems associated with case backlogs in our Federal Court and Family Court systems.The jurisdiction given to the Federal Magistrates Service will be broad but, as stated earlier, will mainly focus on the less complex Federal Court and Family Court matters. They include: consumer protection provisions under part V of the Trade Practices Act, with the power to award damages up to a maximum of $200,000; matters under the Bankruptcy Act; applications made under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act; some matters under the Workplace Relations Act; applications for the dissolution of marriage; family law property disputes where the property being contested is worth less than $300,000; parenting orders providing for other Family Court matters, such as contact, maintenance and specific issues, whether or not the parties consent to a federal magistrate hearing the matter; and enforcement of orders made by either the Federal Magistrates Service or the Family Court.Notably, the Federal Magistrates Service ought not be seen as simply another avenue of contested hearings for litigants. Existing coalition and mediation processes, including those of the Family Court, will be made available and utilised in order to prevent litigation where possible and practical.The government is concerned that some people in our community are being priced out of the legal system. Don't we see that every day in our electorate offices, with it sometimes costing $80,000 for a Family Court matter. It is no wonder you have constituents coming through your doors, crying their eyes out, trying to get some kind of justice in their family at a time when they are under so much emotional pressure. Therefore, where matters can be resolved through conciliation, all the better.I do concede, however, that some litigants prefer the final decisive decision of a court to settle a matter or a dispute once and for all. Even if a litigant is on the losing side of a decision, it is generally a decision they accept. But where matters go through to litigation in the Federal and Family courts, I believe there is an onus upon us as a government and as a parliament to try to ensure that people are not priced out of the system. Again, the simple act of appointing more judges would not in itself address the problem of minimising the cost of legal representation.I am particularly pleased that the Attorney-General has signalled that a number of the 16 federal magistrates to be appointed will sit in services located in regional parts of Australia. I represent the largest tropical city in Australia, right in the heart of regional Australia. We have a Family Court at this time and have had for some years, and it may well be that out of this bill we will see a federal magistrate appointed to Townsville. Quite rightly, the Attorney-General and the government are looking into the workloads of existing courts in regional Australia.While I know the full details in relation to where magistrates will be located have yet to be determined and will not be determined for some time yet, on behalf of my constituents can I simply say that we would very much welcome the presence of a federal magistrate to address the needs of the Townsville and Thuringowa communities and indeed the surrounding North Queensland region. As Australia's largest tropical city, I think it would be reasonable to expect that a federal magistrate would be appointed to serve in the north.I conclude as I began: in driving forward these bills, the government are seeking to provide a quicker and cheaper option from that of the existing Federal Court system. We are seeking not just to increase funding for our existing Federal Court systems; more importantly, we are seeking to engage in fundamental cultural change in the way in which our courts can operate. These bills represent a significant reform of Australia's Federal Court system and I am certainly pleased to support them today.16:43:0011850Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, I am grateful that you gave me the call on this occasion. I want, firstly, to thank the honourable member for Hunter for his most generous remarks.I want to make a few comments about the Federal Magistrates Bill 1999 , but before I do, I think it is really important that one reminds the House that the Labor Party has a very rich tradition in this area. Regrettably, the divorce rate is quite high these days but, when the original Murphy reforms came in, there was a real stigma attached to divorce and the changes he proposed were quite radical—so radical that the caucus was given a free vote in the parliament, and I want to acknowledge the fact that the now government, then opposition, supported these measures. It was a sea change, taking out guilt as a reason for divorce.Murphy saw the Family Court as having a major responsibility for reconciliation counselling, a function that the Family Court had never spent one dollar on. It is not like the New Zealand Family Court, where the majority of its counselling funding goes to reconciliation counselling. In the Australian Family Court, not one dollar was spent on reconciliation counselling. I think that was a great tragedy.Murphy did not, I believe, envisage great mausoleums of justice. He did not want the judges bewigged and gowned, and he saw an informality in the proceedings of the Family Court. How far have we departed from that original vision? He saw that, hopefully, most matters could be resolved without resorting to litigation.This bill comes about as a result of a report of the Joint Select Committee on Certain Family Law Matters that recommended magistrates as a way of trying to improve the system. I cannot stand here and say that there will be no improvement, but I warn the government members in particular that, when they get so effusive about the impact of this change, they should travel to Western Australia, where they have magistrates. I have travelled to Western Australia, I have seen the magistrates in operation, I have seen the courts in operation and I have spoken to the people who have appeared before them, men and women. I cannot detect a greater degree of satisfaction from those people who have a magistrates court than I can from anyone else in Australia. The complaints are exactly the same. I reiterate that the Labor Party is supporting this bill. I think there will be an improvement, but it will not be dramatic.There are a couple of myths about family law matters. The first myth is that this is such a difficult area and you cannot really make significant change. When that comes from a member of the Labor Party, the reform party, I feel disappointed because, no matter how difficult an area, we should not avoid the opportunity to make improvements. We really have to get back to some fundamental principles when we try to look at reforms. But that is the first argument that is always put up for not doing anything.The second argument—and this is chiefly propounded by the chief justice—is that only five per cent of cases go to litigation. This is some benchmark of success! Anyone who knows the Family Court knows that people get frustrated and they run out of money. As I have said time and time again, they have legal rights as citizens that they are unable to enforce in the Family Court. The situation has got so bad in relation to self-representation that we have the Chief Justice of the High Court pointing out that more than 40 per cent of litigants in the Family Court self-represent. His argument is that, whilst those litigants may be saving legal costs, it is chewing up court costs and it is something that we should take into consideration.Why should we have two systems—one where some citizens can be represented by legal people and one where they cannot afford to be? The reason why only five per cent end up in court is that people are exhausted by the process and they run out of money. They not only spend all their own money but also put legal fees on the bankcard. When they have exhausted that, they then go and borrow from their parents and their parents take mortgages out on their houses to pay for their legal costs. And we talk about better access to justice. How absurd!I note that we are replete with advisers from the Attorney's department, and I welcome them. Tell your minister that we know that the Family Court costs over $100 million a year and that legal aid costs over $125 million a year, but how much are private individuals spending on law? How much are they spending on solicitors and barristers? No-one has any idea. To my knowledge, no figures have been produced, yet people will tell you that they have effectively spent a whole year's salary in pursuing legal cases in the courts. Of course, when they run out of money, they often get very aggressive and frustrated about it.I am not personally frightened, but the level of anger and frustration worries me, and I do not believe we should place people in that particular situation. Would it not be nice to know what the law profession is sucking out of the pockets of ordinary people? Let us have some idea. If you do an industry policy, as the shadow minister would know, first you dimension the industry—its costing and its size. When will the Attorney's department undertake a useful study to provide this House and the people of Australia with that information?It is interesting that these 17 magistrates are coming from nine judicial registrar positions in the Family Court that are being abolished. I got into a lot of trouble when I once questioned judicial productivity in a speech. There is no doubt that some of the Family Court judges work very, very hard, but all do not have a uniform productivity record, let me reassure you. Amongst some of the most hardworking people in the Family Court are the judicial registrars. They are forced to deal with matters sausage like, and we are cutting them out of the Family Court and we are going to make magistrates.We are not making it on the Western Australian model. This will not be a magistracy which is associated with the Family Court, and you might well ask why. I would say that in Western Australia there is a good relationship between the magistracy and the Western Australian Family Court. So what is the reason? If I am wrong about this, I am happy for the Attorney to correct me on the record. I suspect the real reason is that the Attorney has reasonable apprehensions about the way the Family Court empire is growing and, by any measure you would like to use, it is certainly not delivering results. That is so whether we are talking about the delays in hearing matters concerning children—what a disgrace it is that that has an average time of 72 weeks—or delays in hearing property matters, for which the average is 71 weeks. Isn't that a disgrace?We had a number of opportunities in relation to this bill. We could have considered, and I would have thought this was more consistent with coalition policy, delegating the function to state magistrates. They were keen to take it over, not only the magistrates but also the relevant attorneys-general—and some of them at the time were conservative attorneys; I admit that there are very few of them these days. It has been pointed out to me that the United States has a system whereby a court services a family. For instance, if a child of mine is up on a juvenile justice issue, they would see the one judge or magistrate. If there is then a family law matter involving our family, it is the same judge. It is called case management. It is also about dedicating judicial resources so that the judge or magistrate can build up a bit of a history. That is an interesting proposition but, in the way that we are structuring our approach to magistrates, we are limiting that possibility in the short run. It would be interesting to learn from the Attorney why he has rejected that approach. As I have said, I understand why he is reluctant to associate at least the family law magistrates with the Family Court.The other point is that we are offering individuals alternatives to litigation. We are offering them, for example, mediation. I think mediation is a wonderful thing but it will not suit every family and we really need to understand that. In Western Australia we have the ideal opportunity, with a state family court run under a state constitution, of bypassing the High Court's horrendous ruling in Brandy—which said that tribunals must have a chapter 3 judge as the presiding officer—of looking at establishing tribunals. We could even pilot tribunals in Western Australia to see whether they would work. We could have tribunals where you do not have legal representatives. You do not have solicitors or barristers but you do have a process, as the honourable shadow minister would understand only too well, of conciliation and arbitration. You try to bring the parties together on those things that they can agree on. For those matters that are irreconcilable, you arbitrate.If we are talking about the cost benefit of magistrates, we could make the point that, instead of spending this extra $7 million per year, we should appoint three or four judges in lieu of the 17 magistrates. How many tribunals could you establish for that money? And tribunals do not insist on having mausoleums of justice from which to operate. They operate very cheaply and people are used to them. They are used to going to tenancy tribunals to resolve their matters, without solicitors. They are used to going to no-claim tribunals and guardianship boards. These are hardly radical and revolutionary things that I am proposing but, regrettably, we will not be doing that in this bill.I make it clear that I am not trying to dissemble—this is an improvement—I am trying to establish that it will not resolve the tension, the angst and the level of unhappiness that surrounds family law matters at the moment. If I could make one plea to the House it would be that we really do need to take a fresh look at family law. We mouth words. We mouthed the words, `We set up the Child Support Agency in the best interests of children,' but that is absolute rubbish. The primary reason we set up the Child Support Agency was to claw back money into the Department of Social Security. That has clearly been established. Children were never the prime consideration, and I think they should be.When families are separating, I desperately plead for a focus on children. I think there should be a number of focuses but children are the priority. I would also like to see parents able to be engaged to make sensible decisions about their joint responsibility to their children, and able to make sensible decisions that allow them to get on and live their new life. The reality of the current situation in the Family Court is that there is nothing more traumatic, I suspect, than a marriage breakdown. There may be a few things, but it is exceptionally traumatic.The thing that every member of this House can be guaranteed—even if you have listened to not one word—is at least this one truth: what follows a break-up in the Family Court will whip up the emotions rather than settle them down. I do not know why in the trauma of a Family Court we suggest that all people have to fit into this adversarial model—an adversarial model not of a district court but of a superior court, for goodness sake. I think it is absolutely absurd. I am not saying that there is not a need for a Family Court. Of course there is. This is a rolls royce institution with a `one size fits all' approach to family law. And what is the price you pay for that? There are some really difficult and tragic breakdowns that require considerable court resources. I will not say that the resources resolve the breakdowns but they require resources which are tied up in humdrum cases. So the court cannot devote the resources it needs for those unfortunate cases.I would like to make the point that really it is not the rich who are using the Family Court; it is actually Mr and Mrs Average Citizen. I would like to think—and I am sure you would like to think but I can tell you it is correct—that it is your voters and mine that are in there being caught up in the Family Court system. They deserve a better alternative, they deserve a choice. There should be some matters that are fast-tracked into the Family Court. But, as the latest report of the Australian Law Reform Commission showed, there is abysmal case management in the Family Court. And what did the Australian Law Reform Commission get for their report? It was not a politician like me saying these things; it was actually a premier law body in this land. Of course, Justice Nicholson went on the attack and derided the commission. He said they had not done their homework. All I can say is that I invite Chief Justice Nicholson—sorry, you will not convince him—or rather anybody else to actually read the report. They will see that it is most thorough but most damning of this court.It behoves all honourable members not just to speak out on behalf of their constituents but to ensure that real reform is undertaken. I am sure we could have a better system. We should not be intimidated from trying to work one out—a system that places a premium upon several things: children, getting out of the adversarial system and empowering parents to make sensible decisions for themselves without costing either party a fortune. (Time expired)17:03:0011853Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—As is so clearly evident day after day in this chamber, the opposition do not know where they stand on so many things. The opposition want to criticise and say they do not agree with this Federal Magistrates Bill 1999 , but then they say, `We will support it.' They say they will move an amendment; then they say, `We will support the motion.' I would like to congratulate the Attorney-General on at least making an effort to move in this direction to fix a system that was not working, a system that was not working under the previous government and that has not been working terribly well up until now. One of the opposition members yesterday said, `We will watch carefully.' Does that not sum up how the opposition treat any new legislation or any attempt to reform or make this a better place to live? They oppose, oppose and oppose, but they cover their bets by saying, `We will watch carefully.' So if something does not quite go to plan, they can say, `Oh, we told you so.'The member for Chifley and the member for Barton yesterday wrongly suggested that the 16 magistrates who will be appointed to the court will replace the nine current judicial registrars. This is not true. The magistrates will replace a number of band 2 registrars who are appointed pending the establishment of this magistracy. In yesterday's debate the honourable members for Barton and Bass made the claim that the establishment of the federal magistrates service will lead to a decreased level of service from the Family Court and, in particular, a reduced ability to serve regional areas. Nothing could be further from the truth. This bill does not change the number of judges in the Family Court and it does not change the registries of the Family Court in rural areas like the subregistry at Dubbo in my electorate. The member for Banks probably did not even know that the Family Court had a circuit in Broken Hill and Dubbo.The Family Court makes two visits of a week's duration to Broken Hill each year, using judges from the Adelaide registry of the court. For Dubbo, there are two sittings of a fortnight each year. Registrars also visit the town for two days three times a year. There is also a permanent counsellor service at Dubbo that operates throughout the year. What these bills will do is put magistrates on the ground in new circuits within regional areas—and I hope that includes my electorate.The honourable member for Bass has also questioned whether children will be the central focus of the family law jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Service. Of course, the way that service will exercise its family law jurisdiction will be covered by exactly the same legislation and case law as the Family Court. To suggest that the Federal Magistrates Service would follow a different philosophy in resolving family law disputes ignores this fact. The interests of children will be given the same priority by the Federal Magistrates Service in deciding family law cases as they are given by the Family Court at the moment.The federal government's commitment to assisting families is extended by this Federal Magistrates Bill 1999 . This coalition government's reform of the business tax system has captured widespread public interest and media coverage. Our efforts towards creating an unfettered small business sector, for example, have won praise in both industry and taxation circles. But this coalition's commitment to a harmonious family environment for all Australians has not generated nearly as much coverage.This is a terrible oversight, because such an imbalance might leave many people unaware of what this government has done for families, in terms of providing support at vital times. Our last budget provided millions of dollars for families in need—not for the big end of town but for those families where conflict and hardship were interfering with their lives. Millions have been allocated for programs concerning relationship education, men's family skills, dispute resolution services and numerous initiatives to combat violence in the home.To my mind, one of the most far-reaching and beneficial of these initiatives is the allocation of $28 million to the much maligned, overburdened Family Court system. The Federal Magistrates Service is one of the government's top priorities to ease the workload of the Family and Federal courts and to provide for families an alternative that will be quicker and cheaper than the current court processes. Federal magistrates will deal with a range of less complex matters that are currently dealt with in the Family and Federal courts, thus freeing up superior court judges to deal with more complex matters.The court will be established with a minimal administrative structure and will share facilities with existing courts wherever possible. Magistrates will be appointed for their expertise in federal law—including family law specialists. The Federal Magistrates Service will have streamlined procedures and a less formal judicial culture. This will reduce litigants' costs and the length of time involved in resolving disputes. The Federal Magistrates Service will commence with a small number of magistrates in selected locations, targeting centres where there is the biggest demand and taking into account the workloads of the existing federal courts and also regional needs.The government is not seeking to take jurisdiction away from state magistrates courts. It is only proposed that the federal magistracies deal with the lower level workload presently dealt with by the Family and Federal courts. The jurisdiction will be shared with either the Family Court or the Federal Court, so that the parties will have a choice as to where they file proceedings. There will also be provision for a transfer of matters between the Federal Magistrates Service and the other federal courts.Briefly, the family law jurisdiction will include applications for divorce; applications concerning spousal maintenance; family law property disputes where the property in dispute is worth less than $300,000, or property disputes worth more than this, to be heard with the consent of the parties. Where the parties consent to a federal magistrate hearing the matter, they will be able to issue parenting orders providing for the residence of a child. The jurisdiction will also include parenting orders providing for other matters—such as contact, maintenance and specific issues—whether or not the parties consent to a federal magistrate hearing the matter.All location and recovery orders regarding children, as well as warrants for apprehension or detention of a child and determination of parentage and recovery of child-bearing expenses, will also be under the family law jurisdiction. They will also have jurisdiction under various child support acts and therefore have the same jurisdiction, as I said, as the Family Court and states magistrates courts.The reform of the Family Court system, with the introduction of the federal magistracy for these less complex cases, represents an emotional tonic for hundreds of people in my electorate of Parkes. Members of this House would be well aware of the level of discontent, as I have mentioned, among estranged partners concerning the Family Court system. Lengthy delays and the cost of paying legal representatives are usually foremost on a constituent's list of grievances.Major support groups also exist in my electorate and have long sought the solutions that will be offered by the federal magistracies. The Lone Fathers have been extremely active and welcome the outcomes that are provided by this initiative. In short, the federal magistracy will be a quicker, cheaper version of the current Family and Federal courts. Much of the culture of what we associate with court procedure will be done away with, where possible. For example, brief oral submissions will replace lengthy written ones, thereby reducing the litigants' reliance on costly legal representation. The new streamlined procedures would also benefit people representing themselves, as well as minimising delays due to technicalities.Regional areas such as Western New South Wales will be served by a permanent circuit, we hope, whereby visiting magistrates would utilise existing court facilities or the town hall for sittings. Time saving techniques, such as setting time limits for submissions and witness statements, will help alleviate the frustration felt by litigants who waste valuable time away from work or family to attend court. Furthermore, magistrates rulings can be handed down orally on the spot, rather than forcing people to await a reserved judgment in writing, which outlines the entire case—the facts and the application of law to those facts—at the end of proceedings.The new user-friendly system will cover an entire range of less complex matters currently swamping the federal courts, where judges spend too much time on routine and interim matters. The more efficient system will possess twofold benefits in that its creation will ease the workload on the Family Court, thereby reducing delays across-the-board. By midway through next year, eight such magistrates will be operating, with a further eight appointed by year's end.This reform amounts to a committed effort to address one of the greatest sources of heartache and frustration for thousands of adults and children. On top of the emotional strain of a deteriorating relationship, the experience of legally severing ties and making arrangements to care for children can be devastating. Court delays and a perceived absence of avenues for complaints about unfulfilled court orders add frustration to an emotional cauldron which is already simmering. Add to this the financial strain due to legal fees and the valuable time wasted waiting in court foyers, and many people are pushed to the brink—which has regrettably resulted on rare occasions in violence and, in some isolated cases, in death.Along with distraught fathers and struggling mothers, I have also been approached by grandparents who have been caught up in the legal marathon and financial mire that is too often associated with family law courts. But a new system, which is faster, less formal and cheaper, will ease the strain on these individuals and families. While the new magistracy will not have the power to overrule existing Family Court decisions, as the preferable new system becomes more popular the significance of that will decline. I predict that federal magistrates will increasingly handle the vast bulk of less complex matters, leaving the superior court judges to deal with more complicated matters.Provisions have been made in the event of a complicated matter being filed, as I said, with the new magistracy, whereby the matter could be transferred to the Federal or Family Court—whichever is relevant. Similarly, less complex matters will be transferred from the superior courts. In designing this model, it was felt that a new approach meant a new court system, because appointing more magistrates to the Family Court would not reduce delays and inefficiencies in that court. That would not only result in the magistrates being absorbed by the inflexible, formal approach of the existing Family Court, but savings for litigants would also be minimal, without a completely new approach.It is essential that federal magistrates be appointed to a separate court. The Federal Magistrates Service will develop a new culture with an emphasis on user-friendly, streamlined procedures. These procedures will facilitate access by unrepresented litigants and minimise technicalities and delay. A separate court will ensure that the court adopts practices and procedures that are appropriate for the routine matters that will be dealt with by the Federal Magistrates Service. A separate lower level court would assist in setting a lower level of professional fees and costs for work in that court. The Federal Court itself does not want magistrates appointed to that court and has a strong preference for a separate court to be established. A federal magistrates service, independent of the Family and Federal courts, is the only workable solution which will ensure the adoption of streamlined procedures and informal, low cost handling of matters. The opposition recognised this by saying that they will `wait and see'.The Federal Magistrates Service will have only a small core of key staff, and they will use the registry staff of the Family Court and the Federal Court to the greatest extent practicable. Therefore, the concerns of the member for Bass about the creation of a whole new bureaucracy are totally unfounded. The Federal Magistrates Service will also share the premises and infrastructure of the existing courts as far as practical to ensure that running costs are kept to a minimum.I am particularly pleased that the Federal Magistrates Service will provide better services and better access to justice for rural and regional Australia. Some of them will, I understand, be located permanently in regional areas. Whilst the location of the magistrates has not yet been settled, the advice I have received is that the government will be targeting centres where there is the biggest demand in terms of the jurisdiction that the court will exercise. The government will be looking at the workloads of the existing courts in those areas and the needs of the local communities. Federal magistrates will have the ability to sit anywhere in Australia. It does not have to be a formal courthouse; it may be a town hall. For this reason, we expect that all federal magistrates will go out on circuit to country areas.The government intends that the practice and procedure of the Federal Magistrates Service will, as I said, be as streamlined and flexible as possible. This system will not be a miracle cure for the emotional rigours of families parting company—it has never been pretended that it will. It is not a panacea for families who are struggling to come to terms with the break-up, the loss of access to their children and the emotional trauma that is associated with this. But for those thousands of people tearing their hair out in frustration, watching their funds dwindle and seeing no end in sight, this reform will be a long awaited breath of fresh air. As a result, I hope that those who ultimately will benefit will be the children who are caught in the prolonged crossfire of hostile separations. A climate of lingering dispute and a household atmosphere of frustration and financial insecurity can only harm the formative years of our most vulnerable citizens, that is, the next generation of Australians. Not only is the federal magistracy an innovative, progressive example of what can be accomplished; it is a huge move towards a better home environment for the children of estranged couples. This is clear evidence that the coalition has both the capacity to hear what issues concern the people of Australia and the ability to provide the solutions.17:18:0011856Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—The legislation before the parliament, the Federal Magistrates Bill 1999 and the Federal Magistrates (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 , has the support of both sides of the chamber. However, there is one aspect of the legislation which I intend to focus on which does not have the support of this side of the chamber and which the shadow minister has drawn attention to. The shadow minister has made it plain that we will be moving amendments to the legislation in relation to those provisions that seek to confer upon the new Magistrates Court authority over a range of industrial relations matters. In fact, if those amendments do not succeed we will vote against the consequential bill that facilitates those things.It is an aspect of the legislation which has been given very little focus by the govern ment in its presentation here in the parliament and in public and very little coverage as a result generally. It is, however, an extremely important provision in the legislation that has not gone unnoticed by this side of the parliament. As the shadow minister pointed out, the areas of industrial relations law proposed to be included in the authority of the Magistrates Court deal with some of the most complex areas of industrial relations law. They deal with the whole of the freedom of association issues, they deal with the injunctive powers related to industrial disputes. They are complex areas. Those involved in industrial relations law understand that they are complex areas. They are not issues that are appropriately dealt with at magistrate level. I suppose the highest profile case concerning these matters is the waterfront dispute, which dealt precisely with that section of the act that is proposed to be transferred to the Magistrates Court, section 127. That was such an important issue and involved such a range of legal matters that it went through the full range from a judge to a full bench of the Federal Court to a full bench of the High Court. The legal disputes in relation to these matters of industrial law are not infrequently seen in that light, yet the government would have us believe that matters that in the past have required appeals to the full bench of the High Court to be sorted out can now be dealt with by this new Magistrates Court.Unlike the situation with the Family Court and other areas, there is actually no pressing need of business that would cause these matters to be shifted from the Federal Court. This is not about judicial management, this is not about ease of access; this is about driving an ideological political agenda which this government has pursued in all areas of activity. One thing you can be sure of with this government is that when it comes to industrial relations agendas they will pursue those agendas irrespective of what other national interest may be at stake. I have had cause in recent debates to refer to their willingness, in their zeal to attack the processes of industrial relations, to strip away, for example, things such as jury service leave. Why would any government want to deny ordinary Australian workers the opportunity to participate in a jury? Yet this government has put forward legislation that would do just that. They have already enacted legislation that takes away people's rights to have award clauses to provide for leave for blood donors. So we now have the Red Cross appearing before Senate inquiries pointing out that since the government did that there has been a 20 per cent drop in blood donors in certain states that are subject to federal laws alone. In fact, I think the 20 per cent was in the ACT which has federal law alone. In Victoria which, at least at the moment, has no state jurisdiction, the drop there was eight or nine per cent.So we have seen the government willing to sacrifice good public policy. I guess the worst example of that in the current context is stripping out Defence Force leave from awards. Why any government would want to do that defies any analysis, other than the drawing of the conclusion that the government is hell-bent on pursuing its industrial relations agenda, irrespective of the merits and of good public policy—and here we have another example. Today we have the example of the government willing to undermine the judicial process associated with industrial law in order to get its way in industrial relations. Why would the government do such a thing? As has been commented upon by a number of speakers in this debate, the Federal Court has increasingly taken the view that it should apply international standards to domestic law. That has resulted in some decisions that this government has not enjoyed.I would mention the waterfront dispute. That was certainly a case that this government had a very strong stake in. In that case, the government was engaged in plotting the entire Patrick fiasco, including using taxpayers' money to engage consultants to map out its strategy. It was very upset then to discover, when it went before the courts, that the courts took the view that the whole thing was illegal; that the participants in that action had breached the government's own Workplace Relations Act and freedom of association provisions. Having appealed those decisions and lost, those who supported Mr Corrigan and the manoeuvres in which he was associated with this government have decided that the best way to fix that problem is to change the ground rules now: if you cannot win in the Federal Court, set up a new court within which to have those matters dealt with. So we now find that the Magistrates Court is going to deal with industrial relations issues.Some people have argued that we need the Magistrates Court because of the heavy workload that exists in existing jurisdictions; principally, reference has been made there to the Family Court. I do not proclaim to have the detail of that, but I am willing to accept the views expressed by many people on it. However, in relation to matters concerning industrial relations, that is not the case. But you see, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is not the only area in which the government has sought to change the rules of how the court deals with industrial relations laws.The government has already proposed other forum shopping—because that is what this amounts to. If this bill goes through in the way the government wants it to, people will be able to forum shop: with an industrial relations matter, they will be able to decide whether they should go to the Federal Court or, if they think it will better their chances, they should go to this new Magistrates Court—and they might think their chances will be better in the new Magistrates Court because the government is going to appoint a whole team of new magistrates.We have seen what this government has done with judicial appointments. Very prominent members of the government referred very publicly to the need to have a capital `C' Conservative appointed to the High Court. That is exactly what has transpired; a capital `C' Conservative has been appointed to the High Court. I do not think there is any doubt in the mind of anyone involved in industrial relations that, in transferring these powers to the Magistrates Court, the intention is to appoint a lot of little `c' conservatives to a `little' magistrates court—a lot of the little `c' conservatives who might one day grow up to be big `C' Conservatives but, nonetheless, a bunch of conservatives who will give the answer that the government, from its point of view, wants.The government has already encouraged forum shopping. In its workplace relations legislation, it has proposed another place to which you can go. So in this bill we have one choice; that is the Magistrates Court. In its workplace relations bill there is another choice; that is, to impose a selection of state courts. So, if this legislation goes through, we will have three jurisdictions—not one, but three—in which the same industrial relations issues can be dealt with. They can be dealt with as they have traditionally been dealt with—in the Federal Court; or, if the workplace relations legislation goes through, they can be dealt with in a state court; or, if this bill goes through, they can be dealt with in the Magistrates Court. This is the ultimate in forum shopping.I have explained my somewhat cynical, but nonetheless accurate, view about what might happen with the appointments to the Magistrates Court in relation to industrial relations. Let me just make some comment about the state court provisions that are in the workplace relations bill. The government has made no secret of the fact that it thinks it does it hard before the Federal Court; it has a difficult time getting the Federal Court to agree with its political agenda. This goes back to some of the tenets of our system of government.Conservative politicians seem to have some difficulty understanding the separation of powers. Coming from Queensland, I know only too well how the Queensland Nationals laboured for many years in trying to come to grips with what the separation of powers meant. I am still not sure that the Queensland Nationals have come to grips with that issue. But the simple fact of life is that we are now seeing here a sophisticated but nonetheless actual emulation of that. What this bill proposes is that people will be able to forum shop between those three jurisdictions I have mentioned.When the question of forum shopping was raised in the workplace relations bill, no fewer than 80 prominent industrial relations lawyers wrote a letter about it. In fact, the letter they wrote condemned a whole raft of things that were in the government's 1999 workplace relations bill, but specifically they referred to this forum shopping that we are now having expanded by virtue of this bill. What that letter said is quite pertinent to this question of whether or not there should be industrial relations issues before a new Magistrates Court. That letter states:The Minister proposes to require the Federal Court to act promptly in dealing with the enforcement of s 127 orders.Section 127 orders are the same orders that are proposed to go to the Magistrates Court. Continuing with the letter:There is, however, nothing to suggest that the Federal Court has acted in anything other than a prompt and efficient manner in dealing with such enforcement proceedings. The Federal Court has arranged its business so as to hear s 127 proceedings at very short notice and has been willing to hear such proceedings outside of normal sitting hours. Raising a doubt about the Federal Court's willingness to deal expeditiously with the enforcement of s 127 orders would seem to have more to do with providing a justification for providing employers with a right to choose between issuing enforcement proceedings in the Federal Court or State Supreme Courts. It may also have something to do with the Minister's desire to get even with the Federal Court because of the decisions made by the Court during the course of the waterfront dispute.The Federal Court has a long history of, and considerable experience in, dealing with enforcement proceedings under the Act. There is simply no need for extending the powers of enforcing of s 127 orders to State Supreme Courts.The conclusion of 80 of Australia's most prominent industrial relations lawyers is, I repeat, `There is simply no need for extending the powers of enforcing a s 127 order to State Supreme Courts.' It could not be clearer. Those 80 solicitors and barristers include amongst their number three prominent QCs. They are amongst the most eminent industrial relations lawyers in this land. And on the very point that this bill talks about—section 127 orders and the role of the Federal Court—they say that there is absolutely no justification to remove that activity from federal courts, none whatsoever. The government ignored that view in relation to the workplace relations bill. They are going to press ahead and they are going to put these matters before state courts if they have their way.In this bill the government want to add a third forum shopping opportunity. In this bill they are now saying, `If you do not think your state supreme court is going to give you the answer you want, and you don't like the Federal Court because they might give you the wrong answer, come along to our newly created Magistrates Court, because we just dropped a whole lot of little conservative magistrates in there, and they might give you a better answer.' That is undermining the basic principles upon which good judicial management should operate. It ignores the clear, overwhelming view of practitioners in industrial relations law. And it has not been done for any reason other than the most crass, most basic political pursuit of an industrial relations agenda which, unfortunately, has already wreaked enough havoc on the work force.The Labor Party will not be supporting those provisions of the consequential bill that relate to industrial relations. If this government were fair dinkum and they wanted to improve the delivery of judicial services in this land, they would not set up three different courts to which people could shop around. That is exactly what they are proposing to do. I might make the observation, interestingly—although I do not profess to have the legal background that many of my colleagues in this debate have—that they are equating the Federal Court and the state supreme courts with the Magistrates Court. That is, they are going to allow the Magistrates Court to deal with precisely the same issues that the Federal Court or the state supreme courts would be dealing with. That is an interesting little conundrum.The simple fact of life is that the government's planned activity will provide to litigants three choices as to where they want to place their money and have their bet—three goes at where they want to run their argument. I can think of nothing more undermining of the basic principles of our legal system than to invite that sort of forum shopping.If the government are genuine in wanting reform, they should by all means proceed with the changes that have got bipartisan support. But if the government want to pursue their ideologically driven industrial relations debate, and if they want to pervert the processes of the Magistrates Court and the Federal Court to do it, then they will have the strong opposition of the Labor Party. When we move our amendments on that matter, we will test the will of the government to see whether they are genuine about these reforms. If they are not, rest assured that we will oppose them and that we will oppose them fully in the Senate and ensure that the public debate is also informed about this unsavoury aspect of the magistrates bill.Debate (on motion by Mrs De-Anne Kelly) adjourned.Miscellaneous1186017:34:0011860Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—by leave—I wish to make a minor correction to something I said earlier. At the end of the censure debate I said that Dr Best had organised some fundraising dinners for me. I have checked with him and he says that he has never organised a fundraising dinner for me.Bills11860r854Billsr853Bills11860Debate resumed.17:35:0011860Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I rise today to speak on the Federal Magistrates Bill 1999 and cognate bill. The creation of an entire new Federal Court, which this bill proposes, is not a step to be taken lightly. The Family Law Act 1975 created a specialist family court dealing with matters such as divorce, residence and contact in children's matters, property alteration and maintenance. The Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 created a federal court on which jurisdiction is conferred by a number of other Commonwealth statutes, including the Bankruptcy Act 1966 and the Trade Practices Act 1974. Both of these courts are superior courts.This bill proposes the creation of a lower level federal court to be called the Federal Magistrates Court or the Federal Magistrates Service. Serious consideration of a Federal Magistrates Court can be traced back to the early 1990s. In 1992 a parliamentary joint select committee considered the matter in its inquiry into the administration and funding of the Family Court, and published its report in 1995 recommending specialist state magistrates be trained in and appointed to hear family law matters in outer suburban, provincial and particularly rural areas.The Family Law Council published a report which considered ways and means of achieving improved access to family law. At that time, it made the very valid and important point that:There is no point in having a superb system of justice which is fair in every way if it is inaccessible to all but the very rich. Equally there is no point in a readily accessible system of justice which provides justice that is so rough as to constitute no justice at all.When the coalition came to government, the Attorney-General, the Hon. Daryl Williams QC, continued to progress the matter. He spoke of his and the government's concerns and intentions in October 1998 to the Third National Conference of the Family Court of Australia. The Attorney-General expressed particular concerns about delays and costs in Family Court proceedings and about delays in the Federal Court. He said the preference was for `a separate federal magistracy as the best way to ensure maximum flexibility and simplified procedures'.On 8 December, the Attorney-General announced cabinet had given in principle approval to the creation of a federal magistracy to undertake less complex civil and family law matters, and his statement at that time bears repeating. He said:With a less formal judicial culture and more streamlined procedures than those of the existing federal courts, a magistracy would also reduce costs for litigants because solicitors' expenses would be reduced, barristers are less likely to be briefed, reduced waiting times would lessen legal costs and costs incurred by litigants through lost time and wages, the magistracy would have a fixed costs regime which would mean more certainty as to the costs of litigation and would be welcomed by the parties including small business who are not as well resourced as others and access to magistrates in regional areas would reduce litigants' travel and associated expenses.This bill, which was introduced in June, reflects and addresses all of those important concerns. From my perspective, one of the most important features will be the great benefit the new Federal Magistrates Court will provide to regional and rural Australia. While I understand the location of magistrates has not been settled, I am advised that they will go to centres—and, in particular, regional centres—where there is the biggest demand. Obviously, I would like to see the Attorney-General give consideration to areas such as Mackay—which, as he well knows, is the centre of a major regional area.In total, 16 magistrates will be appointed in the first year, with eight due to be appointed in time to commence hearing cases in the first half of next year. I am particularly pleased about the fact that a federal magistrate will be expected to go out on circuit to the bush and to small country towns to give people such as those I represent far better access to cheap and efficient dispute resolution. A federal magistrate will be able to sit down and hear a case anywhere in Australia. He or she does not have to sit in a courthouse and could even convene the court in a community hall.As well as this flexibility and practicality, federal magistrates will have access to videoconferencing and audioconferencing for people in more remote locations. This sort of facility is of particular importance to regional and rural Queensland, where parties to a case can sometimes live in different areas and be separated by considerable distances. These facilities will save many litigants considerable time and travel expenses.I notice that the member for Brisbane talks about forum shopping. He goes on about the three little `c's. Let me tell you about the three big `C's in the current family law court. It is costly, cumbersome and combative. They are the three big `C's as far as my constituency is concerned. This new Federal Magistrates Court will provide a lower cost alternative for the determination of less complex federal disputes. It will be simpler, streamlined and more user friendly. Delays will be shorter and the often intimidating and strictly formal legal culture of the superior courts will be refreshingly absent.It has been suggested that the appointment of magistrates within the Family Court—as opposed to this independent lower court structure—might be preferable. Fortunately, the government has rejected this argument, and I endorse the Attorney-General's approach entirely. The Chief Justice of the Family Court said in July this year that, while his court did not disagree with the need for a summary family law jurisdiction, it was concerned by the government's proposal to establish a separate administrative structure. He advocated—as we would expect—the appointment of magistrates within the framework of the Family Court.I represent about 135,000 citizens and have the opportunity, as you and many other members of parliament do, to hear their concerns on a day-by-day basis. The Family Court does not have a record which could be described as user friendly. It does not have the streamlined procedures that are outlined for the Federal Magistrates Court. The views of the Chief Justice of the Family Court—while, no doubt, sincere—could be seen by the less charitable as empire building. I will have a good deal more to say about dealings with the Family Court and its administration in an address I intend to make later in the week.By stark comparison and significantly, the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, Chief Justice Black, considers that the establishment of a new and separate court is essential to developing the sort of culture and the sorts of practices that will enable smaller and less complex cases to be dealt with in a cheaper and more efficient way. Family Court matters are a source of major complaint in my daily electorate work. It is, therefore, not surprising that the Australian Law Reform Commission is currently looking at issues relating to the civil justice system, including the way the Family Court operates.The commission recently published a fascinating discussion paper in which it devoted some 74 pages to analysing the Family Court and the way in which the Family Court manages the cases that come before it. That discussion paper makes the point that, during the consultations the Law Reform Commission held, practitioners and litigants were very critical of the case management practices of the Family Court. I do not doubt—as many others do—that the judges and staff of the Family Court are dedicated, hardworking and professional men and women of absolute integrity. It is the culture that is cumbersome and outdated, and the procedures are causing problems.The Law Reform Commission has suggested 11 draft recommendations on how these procedures can be modernised. Of particular interest is proposal 11.8, which suggests that the court should introduce `a case management system in which each case is allocated to particular judges and registrars who sequentially take responsibility for the allocated cases from commencement to finalisation'.It is of concern to me that, under the current system of case management in the Family Court, judges do not have any contact with a particular matter until the matter is listed for trial. Prior to that point, a case may have a number of registrars dealing with it. There is a lot to be said for the Law Reform Commission's view. It states:Continuous oversight of a case by one court officer with knowledge of previous appearances should promote consistent decision making and appropriate enforcement of compliance with directions and rules.It is only when you contemplate the existing procedure of the Family Law Court—which the Law Reform Commission has found to be clearly lacking in focus and efficiency—that the comments and criticisms of the Chief Justice of the Family Court are given a real context. When, in July, he made known his views about the government's proposals for a Federal Magistrates Court, he defended his court's lamentable procedures as a `closely integrated system'. I repeat that the Law Reform Commission has come up with 11 draft recommendations to modernise and upgrade procedures in what its chief presiding officer describes as a `closely integrated system'. In May this year, prior to the introduction of this bill, the shadow Attorney-General, on behalf of the opposition, said that, while the ALP would not oppose the establishment of the magistracy, it believed:It can be established in a more efficient and effective manner interconnected with the existing court structures.At that time, the shadow minister seemed more concerned about the adequacy of the resources that would be provided to the new court than almost anything else. I notice now that the concerns of the opposition have shifted. However, at that time, it was a drearily predictable criticism from an opposition which seems to take the view that almost anything can be done if there is an adequate level of funding—meaning the government's allocation multiplied by a random number.Somewhat at odds with this alleged concern about resources, the shadow minister suggested that a better approach might be to give:. . . suitable State and Territory magistrates joint Federal and State Commissions and ensure that they have the training and support necessary to get the job done.It is extraordinary that the opposition can, on the one hand, criticise the resources which might or might not be allocated to the proposed new court before any resources have been announced and, on the other hand, propose that federal magistrates should be only part-time jugglers of their responsibilities and their demanding tasks as state and territory magistrates. Surely, if the government did accept this opposition proposal, it would be guilty of trying to set up an entire new court system on the cheap.Before the opposition becomes too enthusiastic about the views of the Chief Justice of the Family Court, it might consider a submission made by the Attorney-General's Department in April 1995, when Labor was in government, and their thoughts on the magistracy issue. This submission was made to the joint select committee I referred to in my opening remarks. The departmental submission on the Family Court structure and how it might work with magistrates appointed as a direct part of that court framework—the option the Family Court has always wanted— questioned whether a structure consisting of judges and magistrates would work when the senior judge structure had not worked.In fact, when the then Labor Attorney-General asked the Law Reform Commission to review the current adversarial nature of litigation on 29 November 1995, he conceded that this:. . . arose from concerns that legal proceedings in Australia are excessively adversarial and that this produces undue delay, cost and unfairness in litigation.Thus, the Labor Attorney-General at that time had obvious concerns about the entire court system, including the Family Court. It is obvious that the then minister's view of the Family Court structure was a million miles away from the view of that court's chief justice who believed, and presumably still believes, it is—as I have already quoted—a `closely integrated system'.All of this is important when we consider how the new Federal Magistrates Court will operate. This new court will be able to consider the following: applications for divorce; applications concerning spousal maintenance; family property disputes where the property in dispute is worth less than $300,000 or property disputes worth more than this with the consent of the parties; parenting orders providing for the residence of the child or children with the parties' consent; parenting orders providing for other matters such as contact, maintenance and specific issues with or without the parties' consent; enforcement of orders made by either the Family Court or the Federal Magistrates Court; all location and recovery orders regarding children, as well as warrants for the apprehension or detention of a child; and determination of parentage and recovery of child-bearing expenses.Undeniably, these are very wide and significant powers and responsibilities. Given that the Federal Magistrates Court will be far less formal and will be able to go directly or by videoconferencing facilities to people in rural and regional areas, for the very first time there is the real prospect of less anguish as a result of these decisions. Divorce, particularly when children are involved, is a painful and very emotional experience for both parties. I am sure every member of parliament has had the experience of having in their office one or the other parent who is distressed because of the breakdown of a relationship and the hurt and unhappiness caused by matters of child custody. No court system in the world could ever guarantee a perfect outcome for all parties every time—and it would be unfair to expect that they could—but this new system is infinitely better than the existing system.I am also pleased that the fees charged by the new court will be fixed by regulation. While this fee structure is yet to be finalised, I am advised that the fees envisaged will generally be about half those charged in the existing courts. I have heard of some extraordinary payments made by people on very modest means to pursue matters through the Family Court system. To be able to cut those costs in half would be a significant achievement. If the Attorney-General can ensure that that is the outcome of this new court then battlers in rural and regional Australia are going to have access at possibly half the cost. That is very welcome news.I commend the government and particularly the Attorney-General for this bill. As we know, there is considerable mistrust and even fear of the legal process among ordinary Australians, who simply do not understand it in many cases and who often are—or, at least in some cases, believe they are—incapable of seeking redress via the courts because of the cost. With a considerable jurisdiction and with simple and streamlined procedures, I am certain that the Federal Magistrates Court will not just bring affordable justice to many but enhance the reputation of the entire court system in Australia. I am immensely pleased that it is the coalition which is going to bring more affordable justice to those who battle in rural and regional Australia. I thoroughly commend this bill to the House.17:52:0011863Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I have just listened to the member for Dawson referring to this bill, the Federal Magistrates (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 , as a bill for the battlers. I thought that this government was elected to look after the battlers. About the only thing we can be sure of under the Howard government is that they have created more battlers. That being said, the opposition supports the Federal Magistrates Bill 1999 . However, we do not support the cognate bill, the Federal Magistrates (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 , as we hold a number of reservations on this side of the House about some of the provisions contained therein. For this reason, I support the amendment moved in this chamber last night by the member for Barton, which is to the effect:. . . 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—of which I am very happy to be a member—into the need to establish standard procedures and case management techniques for Court administration, relying on best practice models.The government claims that the legislation before this House will be able to solve the unacceptable delays in our court system—delays which have been denying access by ordinary people to fairness, equity and justice. The government seems to think that the proposed legislation will be the panacea for the chaos in our courts at the moment. Whilst we do not intend to stop the government creating a Federal Magistrates Court, a reasonable person after reviewing the bill must surely conclude that the government's attempt to fix our courts is pretty ordinary. Actually, it looks more likely that the legislation proposed would aggravate—that is, make permanently worse—the state of our courts. But you can bet your life that if we try to knock this legislation over we would be held to account by the government for frustrating the will of the government. No doubt the Attorney-General, who has just walked into the chamber, would have more to say about that in some future time prior to an election.The bill includes provisions which the government claims are designed to assist federal magistrates to develop procedures that are supposed to be simple and efficient and which are supposed to reduce both costs and delays to litigants. Some examples of these include the court having power to set time limits for witnesses and to limit the length of both written and oral submissions; discovery and interrogatories will be permitted only if the court considers that they are appropriate in the interests of the administration of justice; if the parties consent, the court can make a decision without an oral hearing; there will also be more emphasis on delivering decisions orally in appropriate cases rather than parties having to wait for reserved judgments; and, finally, there will be the power to make rules to allow federal magistrates to give reasons in shortened form in appropriate cases.It is proposed that the service provided by the Federal Magistrates Service will encourage a number of creative methods to resolve disputes including the employment of counselling, conciliation and mediation. Parties to a dispute will apparently be encouraged to resolve their own disputes themselves. It sounds good, doesn't it? It is noteworthy that a number of important bodies are opposed to the bills. These include the Law Society of New South Wales, the Family Court of Australia, the Family Law Section of the Law Institute of Victoria, the Law Council of Australia and the Victorian Bar. The Victorian Attorney-General, the Queensland Attorney-General and the Tasmanian Attorney-General all oppose the bills, preferring that state magistrates exercise federal jurisdiction.The main criticisms of setting up a separate Federal Magistrates Service are (1) the concurrent jurisdictions of the Federal Magistrates Service and the Family Court and Federal Court will complicate and confuse the delivery of court services for litigants by creating an unnecessary stream and may see the courts compete for work; (2) in the area of family law, rather than reducing the delays, the Federal Magistrates Service may increase demand for litigation by creating unrealistic expectations that it will depart from established precedent; (3) the government has not justified the need for a separate court; (4) the $27.9 million allocated could be more efficiently spent in the existing court structures; and (5) the Federal Magistrates Service will see a further $5 million per year taken from the Family Court to fund its operations, further depleting the ability of that court to respond to the delays it already faces.Other technical and jurisdictional deficiencies in the bill have also been identified. They are the fact that the Federal Magistrates Service may have extensive jurisdiction which will largely supplant the Family Court in matters involving children and family property disputes worth up to $300,000 or with consent, and that it may also supplant the Federal Court in trade practices matters up to $200,000 and in various industrial matters, including freedom of association.It should be highlighted that the bills before us effectively replace the 19 judicial registrars with fewer magistrates—16 federal magistrates to be precise. In addition, magistrates will be empowered to take on an increased number of duties from the Federal Court as well as the Family Court. In the area of trade practices, the magistrates will be required to handle section 52 disputes, disputes concerning deceptive and misleading conduct, disputes about product safety standards and unsafe goods, and disputes about false or misleading representations. Moreover, the magistrates will be slugged with bankruptcy matters.It should also be said that the Law Council has zoomed in on the inefficiencies of the Family Court and has made it quite clear that the creation of a new Federal Magistrates Court will not alleviate the existing problems by introducing another layer of bureaucracy. What the Law Council said in relation to addressing the problems of the Family Court was that the whole culture and the management practices need to be changed. In relation to the consequential amendments bill before the House tonight as it relates to section 127 orders under the Workplace Relations Act, we will totally oppose those provisions. Why? Because they deal with `no strike orders' which are made against unions arising from an industrial dispute. Often these disputes lead to interim orders being sought in a fire brigade environment. Quite obviously, if magistrates acquire this power, it has the potential to massively disrupt the day-to-day work of the court. Quite obviously, the backlog of existing work in the queue will grow and grow as the fire brigade activity arising from the industrial dispute in the court takes precedence over the other priority and routine cases on the court's lists.Another problem in this bill is the power being handed over to the Magistrates Court under part XA of the Workplace Relations Act concerning freedom of association. We all remember the last waterfront dispute. How will we ever forget it on this side of the House? That dispute gave rise to multiple hearings in the Federal Court of Australia and finally in the High Court of Australia—all to do with freedom of association provisions. Imagine the consequences for the efficiency of the Magistrates Court if industrial disputes of this nature were visited on the new court. I would hate to imagine. One thing that is for certain, however, is that the delay to other cases would skyrocket and the backlogs would just get larger and larger.Additional problems with the bill were identified by the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee. These include the option of magistrates to express their reasons for decisions orally or in writing. Because it is unclear how the court's transcription service would operate when reasons were given orally, it is also unclear whether the parties to a dispute would ever get proper access to a record which would reasonably satisfy them as to whether their arguments were accepted or even understood. Further, a magistrate under section 76(4) is allowed to give brief written reasons. Against this background, parties could easily be at a disadvantage when considering whether their chances of winning an appeal are reasonable.Despite our concerns, the opposition will not oppose the establishment of the Federal Magistrates Service, as I have said. On this side of the House, we believe in a Federal Magistrates Service that is at the very least integrated with the Family Court. We also believe that the management problems within the Family Court would be better addressed by moving (1) to a collegiate management structure for the Family Court similar to that which applies in the Federal Court; (2) to introduce team based docket management techniques for cases to ensure greater personal attention by the court to the progress of individual cases and to spread the court's workload more evenly between its judges; (3) to ensure that litigants comply with the procedures of the court in a timely manner; (4) to increase the preparedness of the court to enforce its orders against parties; (5) to make greater use of directed and timely mediation rather than assuming that all cases need to be mediated at predetermined stages of their progress through the court—and, as someone who is an accredited mediator, I understand that all too well; (6) away from the so-called `simplified procedures' which have delayed the identification of information vital to the proper and effective mediation and resolution of disputes; and (7) to improve the data collection procedures of the court so as to identify more accurately the causes of the inefficiencies in the procedures of the court.In concluding, we will allow the government the chance to improve the court system as they claim—and I stress it is the government's claim, not ours, as I have just expressed in my speech to this House tonight. If the government gets it right and things improve, I will be happy to come back into this chamber and give Attorney-General Williams the credit that is due—and I will do that. However, if this legislation does not improve the chaos in the courts, I am confident that the future Labor Attorney-General-in-waiting will. Finally, I support the amendment moved last night in the House by the shadow Attorney-General and member for Barton, Mr Robert McClelland.18:05:0011866Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I thank the members who have contributed to the debate on these bills, the Federal Magistrates Bill 1999 and the Federal Magistrates (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 . There have been quite a number of them and there have been quite a number of interesting contributions. The Federal Magistrates Bill 1999 will estab lish the Federal Magistrates Service as the first lower level court at the federal level. The court will handle less complex federal disputes currently dealt with by the Family and Federal courts. This will be a more efficient use of resources than has been possible to date under our present federal judicial structure. Judges in the Family and Federal courts will be able to devote more time to the complex matters which require the attention of a superior court judge. This will assist in reducing backlogs, particularly in the family law system. Federal magistrates will be able to deal with those federal disputes which are less complex in a more summary fashion while of course remaining consistent with the discharge of judicial functions.The honourable members for Barton, Bass and Chifley have questioned whether the establishment of the Federal Magistrates Service will assist in enhancing access to justice. I want to respond to that particular comment and to a number of others made, particularly by members opposite. The government considers that the establishment of a Federal Magistrates Service will provide a more accessible alternative for the determination of less complex federal disputes. Various factors will contribute to this. Amongst them will be simpler, streamlined and more user-friendly procedures; reduced delays and quicker decision making resulting in fewer interim applications and court appearances being necessary and hence lead to reduced legal costs for litigants; a less formal culture; lower fees for filing documents and other services provided by this service resulting in less out-of-pocket expenses for litigants; and more extensive use of videoconferencing. I am of the view that measures such as these should help to reduce legal costs and expenses and result in litigants saving both time and money. This will clearly enhance access to justice for ordinary Australians, particularly those unfortunate enough to become involved in family law proceedings.The honourable members for Barton, Bass, Denison and Chifley have also queried whether the establishment of a Federal Magistrates Service will help to ease the delays which exist in the family law system. The Federal Magistrates Service will help to ease the workload of the Family Court, since it will be able to deal with many matters which judges currently deal with as well as those matters which can currently be dealt with by registrars. Because federal magistrates will be able to make final orders and hear matters more quickly, there should also be less need for interim applications and, hence, less need for parties to appear so frequently before the court. In addition, any appeal from a decision of a federal magistrate will focus on questions of law and not be a rehearing of the entire case, so appeals from federal magistrates will be able to be dealt with more quickly than appeals from registrars.The honourable member for Barton questioned whether the possibility had been explored of using state magistrates for more federal work. While state magistrates make an important contribution in undertaking federal jurisdiction, including some family law, and this is greatly appreciated—and there is no proposal to take that jurisdiction away—it is recognised that most are not appointed for their expertise in federal matters. In family law, many parties seek to have their cases heard by family law specialists. Federal magistrates will be selected for their federal expertise, including ability and experience in family law. That level of expertise simply does not exist when it comes to existing state magistrates. This is not surprising, since state magistrates generally do not have the range and volume of cases to maintain family law expertise at the level expected for federal magistrates.The honourable members for Barton and Bass suggested that the government should be appointing more judges to the Family Court rather than looking at establishing the Federal Magistrates Service. The appointment of additional judges to the Family Court is not the answer to delays in family law. It is a costly way of alleviating delays and does not address inefficiencies in the way judicial resources are used in the Family Court. Currently, judges of the court deal with many routine and interim matters that could be more speedily and more efficiently handled at a lower level.The establishment of the Federal Magistrates Service to undertake less complex matters will free up judges to hear more complex matters and will be a more efficient use of existing judicial resources. It is important to establish a new culture with the creation of a new court which is less formal and more user-friendly. Appointing more judges would not deal with this issue. The Federal Magistrates Service will provide a cheaper, simpler and faster means of resolving less complex federal matters than would be possible by simply appointing more judges to the existing courts.The honourable member for Bass has once again raised the issue of judicial appointments to northern Tasmania. The government is aware of concerns expressed in the local media and elsewhere about the need for a new judicial appointment to the Family Court in Tasmania. The decision not to make a replacement appointment in Tasmania when Justice Butler retired from the court in June 1997 was based on advice from the chief justice that the replacement appointment should be made on the mainland where the workload justified a judicial appointment. In the chief justice's view, Tasmania continues to enjoy a level of service superior to that available in comparable parts of Australia. However, the alternative of appointing a federal magistrate in Tasmania is being considered by the government. No final decisions have been made on where particular magistrates might be located.The honourable members for Barton, Bass, Denison and Chifley queried how the Federal Magistrates Service would be more efficient than the work carried out in the Family Court at the moment by the registrars. The Family Court recently appointed a number of SES band 2 registrars as an interim measure until the Federal Magistrates Service was established. The government agreed to this on the basis that the funding would be transferred to the Federal Magistrates Service upon its establishment. The Family Court was aware of this when it went ahead with the recruitment of those registrars. Registrars will be dealing with mainly interim matters in the Family Court, with final decisions having to be made by Family Court judges. Federal magistrates on the other hand will not be limited to the powers exercised by Family Court registrars but rather will be able to make final decisions on matters filed in the Federal Magistrates Service. This is a much more efficient use of resources.Any decision of a registrar to which a party objects is subject to review by a judge as a rehearing which can involve witnesses giving evidence again and the matter being fully reargued before a judge. Federal magistrates are judicial officers themselves under the Constitution, and appeals against their decisions will focus on questions of law, which means Family Court judges are not tied up undertaking rehearings.The honourable members for Barton, Bass and Denison queried why the government has not chosen to appoint magistrates to the Federal and Family courts as an alternative to setting up a new court. It is the government's view that it is essential that federal magistrates are appointed to a separate court. The Federal Magistrates Service will develop a new culture with an emphasis on user-friendly, streamlined procedures. These procedures will facilitate access by unrepresented litigants and minimise technicalities and delays. This new culture cannot be achieved by appointing magistrates to the existing federal courts.The Australian Law Reform Commission is looking at the issue of the culture and operations of the courts in its present study of the federal civil justice system, and the government awaits its final report with interest. It is the government's view that the culture that generally develops in superior courts is bound by its nature to be a particular type of more formal judicial culture which is not always desirable for handling a large volume of lower level matters.This view is also supported by the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, who considers that the establishment of a new and separate court is essential to enable a different culture and new practices to be developed which are appropriate for dealing with smaller and less complex matters. A separate court will ensure that the court adopts practices and procedures that are appropriate for the routine matters that will be dealt with by the Federal Magistrates Service. A Federal Magistrates Service independent of the Family and Federal courts is the only workable solution which will ensure the adoption of streamlined procedures and informal, low cost handling of matters.The honourable member for Barton queried why the government is prepared to set lower fees for the Federal Magistrates Service and not the Family Court. This lower fee structure for the Federal Magistrates Service takes into consideration that the service will be dealing with less complex matters than the superior courts. The lower fee structure is also consistent with the recognition that fees imposed in courts vary depending on the level of seniority of the court. It would not be appropriate to lower the fees for the Family Court since the Family Court will, on the whole, be dealing with more complex matters than the Federal Magistrates Service.The honourable members for Barton, Bass and Lowe have questioned whether the establishment of the Federal Magistrates Service is an efficient use of Commonwealth funds. The government considers that the establishment of the Federal Magistrates Service is the most efficient way of handling the increasing volume of less complex matters in the Federal and Family courts. The Federal Magistrates Service will have very close links with the existing federal courts and will share many of those courts' facilities. In this way, duplication should be avoided and the best use should be made of the available resources. This strategy will minimise both the set-up and ongoing costs of the Federal Magistrates Service. Both courts have been cooperating with the department in planning how this will work in practice.My department estimates that only 17 new positions would be required to carry out the core corporate governance functions of the Federal Magistrates Service and envisages that most other administrative functions would be performed by the existing staff of the Family or Federal courts. It is also intended that the Federal Magistrates Service will use the infrastructure of the existing courts to the greatest extent practicable—for example, accommodation, courtrooms, library and video conferencing equipment. This will ensure that resources are used in the most efficient and cost-effective manner and keep the set-up costs of the Federal Magistrates Service to a minimum.The honourable member for Barton queried whether the Federal Magistrates Service would have adequate access to alternative dispute resolution facilities. The dispute resolution resources used by the Family Court and the Federal Court will be used by the Federal Magistrates Service. For example, the Federal Magistrates Service will have an agreement with the existing courts for use of their registrars for conciliation conferences and mediations and will use the Family Court's counselling services. However, the Federal Magistrates Service will also use community based counselling and mediation services to provide as wide as possible a choice for clients.The honourable member for Barton has suggested that there will be confusion about which court parties should be litigating in, and that related proceedings may end up being split over different courts. Having concurrent jurisdiction will allow parties to choose the court which will best suit their needs. If the choice of venue turns out to be incorrect, the Family Court, for example, will be able to transfer the proceeding to the Federal Magistrates Service, or vice versa.In most locations, the registry for the Federal Magistrates Service will be co-located with the Family Court and/or the Federal Court. The registry staff will be able to assist litigants by informing them of the jurisdiction of the various courts. The courts will often be located in the same building and will share some staff and infrastructure resources. If a proceeding is transferred from one court to another, the movement of files and the communication of information, as needed, between one court and another will be able to be handled with minimal disruption to litigants. I have been assured by both the Federal Court and the Family Court that they will work with the Federal Magistrates Service to ensure that the interaction between them is as seamless as possible.The bills have been drafted to minimise the possibility of parallel proceedings being run in separate courts. They prohibit associated proceedings being issued in different courts and give each court the power to transfer proceedings between them. Proceedings are associated if the claims are out of facts substantially the same or closely connected. For example, if a proceeding were filed in the Family Court because the Federal Magistrates Service did not have jurisdiction to deal with it, it is expected that the Federal Magistrates Service would transfer its proceeding to the Family Court to ensure that all associated matters were heard in one forum.The honourable member for Bass raised concerns that federal magistrates will not be specialists in their fields. Federal magistrates will be selected for their expertise in federal law, including expertise in family law. The extent to which federal magistrates concentrate on family law will depend on the nature of the applications filed with the court and the availability of particular federal magistrates. It is likely that federal magistrates, particularly in regional locations, will be required to hear both family law and other federal matters from time to time. It is quite usual for judicial officers not to be experts in every area of law with which their court deals when they are appointed—this would be impossible in most state courts and in the Federal Court, given the breadth of matters dealt with.The honourable member for Bass queried whether the interest of the child will be the paramount consideration in family law proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Service. The Federal Magistrates Service will, of course, be bound by the Family Law Act 1975 in exactly the same way as the Family Court and the state courts currently exercise jurisdiction under that act. It is this act which sets down the principles that all courts must follow in family law, not just the Family Court. The Federal Magistrates Service will, of course, also be bound by the case law already established by the Family Court.The member for Brisbane and the member for Lowe made comments about the court's jurisdiction under the Workplace Relations Act, as did some other members. I will have more to say about that issue when we consider the bill in detail. However, the honourable member for Brisbane misses the point that, for complex and difficult cases, an application can be made to transfer such a matter to the Federal Court. The member for Lowe could also note that response.I take this opportunity to thank, once again, the Law Council and the Federal and Family courts for their assistance during the development of the proposal for the Federal Magistrates Service and for their valuable input into the drafting of the bills. Differing views have been expressed in various fora regarding the proposal to establish the Federal Magistrates Service. In particular, I know that family lawyers have expressed some concerns about the proposal. Despite these differences of opinion, I have received the assurance of the family law section of the Law Council that it will work with the government to ensure that the Federal Magistrates Service is a success. I am sure that I can anticipate the same level of cooperation from other areas of the legal profession.Similarly, I look forward to continued cooperation from both the Family and Federal courts in the development of the Federal Magistrates Service. I am sure that the service will prove to be of great benefit to these courts. I see the establishment of the new Federal Magistrates Service as an important step towards ensuring that there is suitable access to the justice system for all Australians. I thank again the honourable members who have contributed to the debate on these bills. I commend the bills to the House and advise that the government will not be supporting the second reading amendment moved by the member for Barton.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.11870Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.18:23:0011870McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendment No. 1 and amendments Nos 3 to 8:(1) Clause 39, page 23 (lines 6-8), omit subclause (6).(3) Page 3, after clause 41, after Part 5 insert the following heading:Part 5A Removal of proceedings(4) After clause 41, page 25 (after line 16) insert:41A Removal by order of Federal Court or Family Court (1) Where (a) a proceeding is at any time pending in the Federal Magistrates Court; and (b) the Federal Court, apart from section 32AA of the Federal Court Act 1976 , has jurisdiction in the matter the Federal Court may, upon application by a party or upon application by or on behalf of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth, at any stage of the proceedings before final determination, order that the proceeding or a part of the proceeding be removed into the Federal Court, on such terms as the Federal Court thinks fit. (2) Where (a) a proceeding is at any time pending in the Federal Magistrates Court; and (b) the Family Court, apart from section 33A of the Family Law Act 1975 , has jurisdiction in the matter the Family Court may, upon application by a party or upon application by or on behalf of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth, at any stage of the proceedings before final determination, order that the proceeding or a part of the proceeding be removed into the Family Court, on such terms as the Family Court thinks fit. (3) The Federal Court or the Family Court may not make an order under subsection (1) or (2), as the case require, unless: (a) all parties consent to the making of the order; or (b) the Federal Court or the Family Court, as the case requires, is satisfied that it is appropriate to make the order, having regard to all the circumstances, including the interests of the parties and the public interest.(5) After clause 41, page 25 (after line 16) insert:41B Orders may be made If an order is made under section 41A, the Federal Court or the Family Court, as the case requires, may make such orders as it considers necessary pending the disposal of the proceeding by the Federal Court or the Family Court, as the case requires. (6) After clause 41, page 25 (after line 16) insert:41C No appeal lies An appeal does not lie from a decision of the Federal Court or the Family Court under section 41A in relation to the removal of a matter under this Part.(7) After clause 41, page 25 (after line 16) insert:41D Removal valid even if subsection 19(1) contravened A reference in section 41A to a proceeding pending in the Federal Magistrates Court includes a reference to a proceeding that was instituted in contravention of subsection 19(1).(8) After clause 41, page 25 (after line 16) insert:41E Part has effect subject to Constitution This Part has effect subject to the Constitution.These amendments relate to concerns expressed by the Law Council of Australia, in particular, regarding the inadequacy of the transfer provisions between the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court or the Family Court. Amendment No. 1 moved by the opposition relates to proposed section 39, subsection 6 of the bill.That section prevents an appeal being made from a decision of a Federal Magistrates Court in relation to the transfer of proceedings from the Federal Magistrates Court to either the Family Court or the Federal Court. Effectively, it gives the complete discretion on the matter to the magistrate hearing the case. We say that is inappropriate. As superior courts, the Family Court and the Federal Court should have the ultimate say and should determine the principles upon which matters are or should not be transferred to those courts. Accordingly, the Australian Labor Party opposes those provisions.As we debated in the primary debate, there is a distinct possibility that there will frequently be cases where, for instance, a child access or residential application may be made in a magistrates court and there may be circumstances, because the marital property is in excess of $300,000, where the property proceedings have to take place in the Family Court. It is silly, in our view, for the Family Court not to have ultimate say that those proceedings should both be taken together, and the two files at least kept together in the Family Court.Opposition amendments Nos 3 to 8, by contrast, are specific provisions where we have proposed the insertion of a new part 5A dealing with the removal of proceedings. This would give the Family Court and the Federal Court control over the transfer process, including the power to transfer proceedings or any part of the proceedings to a state Supreme Court or other court exercising federal jurisdiction where that is appropriate. Essentially, we are giving much more flexibility and ultimate control to both the Federal Court and the Family Court with the amendments we have proposed.18:27:0011871Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The government opposes these amendments. Dealing first with amendment No. 1; this relates to subclause 39(6), as the member for Barton mentioned, which prevents appeals from decisions of the Federal Magistrates Service regarding the transfer of a decision to the Federal Court or Family Court. The amendment would mean that appeals from such decisions would be possible—although, leave of the Federal Court or the Family Court would be needed, since the decisions would be interlocutory in nature.The reason for opposing this amendment is that the effect of the amendment would be to allow appeals from decisions of the Federal Magistrates Service as to whether a proceeding should be heard in one court or another. The government does not consider the time or resources should be spent on appeals about decisions of this nature. Each court will have similar powers to make the appropriate orders necessary for the proper disposition of the proceedings before it. A right to appeal in these circumstances would just increase costs and delays for litigants.The government also opposes amendments Nos 3 through to 8. These amendments would insert a new part 5A which would allow the Family Court and the Federal Court to order on the application of the party or the Attorney-General that a proceeding be transferred from the Federal Magistrates Service to the superior court. Once again, from the Senate committee report, these amendments appear to be based on the assumption that the superior court should have the ultimate say about which court proceedings should be heard in. We oppose these amendments.They would allow the Family Court and the Federal Court to allow proceedings to be transferred from the Magistrates Service to the superior court. This would lead to the danger of litigants attempting to manipulate the venue in which proceedings are conducted for their own advantage. This could be used as a tactic by litigants to force their underresourced opponents into a more expensive superior court. The government considers that it should be up to each court to decide for itself whether to transfer its proceedings to another court.Sitting suspended from 6.29 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.20:00:0011872McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The opposition opposes clause 41. Amendment No. 2 seeks the deletion of section 44 from the proposed Federal Magistrates Bill 1999 . That section will allow the minister to specify the mandatory transfer of specified proceedings from the Federal Magistrates Court to the Family and Federal courts. We surmise that that is in the event that it is ascertained, for instance, that the Federal Magistrates Court is being flooded by a particular sort of matter—for example, excessive bankruptcy matters—which preclude its disposal of other matters. The bill as drafted proposes to give the Attorney-General power by regulation to transfer all those bankruptcy matters—as the case may be—back into the Federal Court. While there may be a rational basis for taking such action, we strongly oppose the Attorney—not the Attorney but more the office of the Attorney—having that power to so transfer matters between any jurisdiction. We think the jurisdiction of any court or significant tribunal should be set by the parliament rather than by any individual minister—in this case, the Attorney-General.The amendment also relates, I should say, to consequent amendments that we will be moving to the consequential amendments bill, but I will talk about those when we get to them. Essentially, however, the principle upon which we are opposing section 41 is, as I have said, that it will enable the Attorney-General rather than the parliament to determine the jurisdiction of the courts. I should indicate that if and when the government may desire to extend or limit the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court, the Federal Court or the Family Court, we will be prepared to look at that issue on its merits. However, we are not going to give the government power in advance to determine any of those very significant issues. We note that such a regulation would be a disallowable instrument but, nonetheless, we consider as a matter of principle—supported by the Law Council, I should add, on this matter—that it should be parliament rather than any individual minister or the Attorney-General which determines the jurisdiction of any court.20:03:0011872Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The opposition opposes clause 41 by this amendment. The clause allows regulations to be made which mandate the transfer of proceedings from the Federal Magistrates Service to either the Federal Court or the Family Court. I respect the spirit in which the amendment is moved. In principle, there is some merit in what the member for Barton says. I note also that the Senate committee reports—in the minority report—that opposition on this point is on the grounds that the jurisdictions of courts should be determined by statute, not by the government of the day.As I said, clause 41 would allow regulations to be made which would mandate the transfer of proceedings from the Federal Magistrates Service to either the Federal Court or the Family Court. This clause would give flexibility in managing the workload of the courts to ensure that the workload is appropriately balanced between the courts. Given the high volume and the potential for high levels of change in the nature of proceedings before both courts, this is a tool, I think, that is both appropriate and necessary. The member for Barton notes that the regulations would be disallowable. It might be added on that basis that parliament would still therefore retain control over whether any changes were made. I note that the regulations will not come into effect until the period for disallowance by parliament has expired.In the light of experience, after some time—and it may be a considerable time—it may be possible to do what the member for Barton suggests without risking the imbalance of the workload of the courts but, at this stage, projection of that would not be feasible.Amendment negatived.20:05:0011873McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I move opposition amendment No. 9:(9) Clause 44, page 27 (lines 16 and 17), omit paragraph (b).Amendment No. 9 is a simple amendment. It proposes the deletion of clause 44 paragraph (b) of the bill. The proposed section is designed to permit the Attorney-General to determine by regulation that a person other than a barrister or solicitor or otherwise authorised by any other law of the Commonwealth can represent a person in proceedings before the court. Again, it is the view of the Australian Labor Party that that should be determined by legislation and not by regulation. In particular, there is a risk of bestowing the right of representation upon a sectional interest group or lobby group that has a particular axe to grind or principle to pursue, and there is a risk, if members of such an organisation were given a right of appearance, that they would pursue the grievances or the interests of that particular organisation rather than those of the litigant before the court. That potential is of concern to the Labor Party. It may well be that classes of persons—trade unions in the industrial field, for instance—are frequently given the right of representation by statute in breach of award cases and the like but, again, we say it is appropriate for any such initiative to face the review of the parliament rather than the review of any individual minister or Attorney-General. On that basis we have moved our amendment.20:07:0011873Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The government opposes this amendment. It would delete paragraph 44(b) from the bill. This paragraph allows regulations to be made entitling persons to represent litigants in proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Service. From the Senate committee minority report, it appears that the opposition objects to this paragraph on the basis that any rights of representation should be set out in the bill rather than be determined by regulation. That is really exactly what the member for Barton says.Paragraph 44(b) provides flexibility in determining who could represent parties in proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Service. It is too early at this stage, when the court has not even been established, to include in the bill the categories of people whom it may be appropriate to authorise as representatives. It should be borne in mind that it is contemplated that the court will have a wide jurisdiction ranging from matters as diverse as workplace relations on the one hand, to human rights and matters arising in the trade and commerce area. In the family area, there would equally be quite a range from, potentially, abduction cases which may or may not be international to the ordinary contact and residence cases relating to children.The workload of the court will need to be examined once it is in operation, to look at whether there exists any need for representation which could be met by allowing appropriate categories of persons to represent litigants. Of course, regulations would not be made without looking carefully at the ability of the particular categories of persons to adequately represent litigants and to act responsibly and professionally. The government would want to make sure that representatives would be of assistance to their clients and the court, rather than a hindrance.The member for Barton seems to infer that there might be favouritism towards people of a particular class being given power to represent litigants, as against other classes. It is contemplated that the regulations would in fact assist litigants with limited resources, who may not be able to afford to pay for legal representation. Again, any regulations would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny by being disallowable.Amendment negatived.20:10:0011873McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The opposition opposes clauses 45 and 46. These amendments propose the deletion of sections 45 and 46 of the bill. Section 45 deals with permission to administer interrogatories and discovery, and section 46 deals with permission to issue subpoenas in proceedings before the Federal Magistrates Court. Section 45(i) provides that interrogatories and discovery are not allowed in relation to proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court unless the court or a magistrate declares that it is appropriate, in the interests of the administration of justice, to allow the interrogatories or discovery. We say that that clearly casts the onus on the person seeking the leave to administer those interrogatories or discovery to obtain it, and that is inappropriate.Similarly, as a matter of the same principle, in respect to subpoenas, for instance, subsection 46(4) provides that the Federal Magistrates Court or a federal magistrate must not grant leave to issue a subpoena under subsection 3 unless the party seeking the subpoena satisfies the Federal Magistrates Court or the federal magistrate that it is in the interests of justice to issue the subpoena. So in fact it is probably, on that different wording, an even stricter test than that provided for in section 45. But we say that that is inappropriate. While there can be many instances where parties can use these procedures to go on fishing expeditions or to unreasonably bog down the process of litigation, equally, particularly in the Family Court—although I have to say also that this occurs equally in the trade practices area—these can be essential to the conduct of litigation.In respect of family law, for instance, it is often extremely difficult, if one of the parties is involved in a business, for the other party to be aware of the actual income or the totality of assets of that party. It is often the case that meaningful settlement negotiations and mediation cannot occur until all the facts are on the table. So the ability to get that information, if it is being unreasonably withheld, is very important. Quite often, experience suggests that when the information is on the table the parties are more realistic in their approach to appropriate resolution of the matters in dispute. So we say it is counterproductive to impose that rigid test, as provided for in sections 45 and 46. Accordingly, our amendments seek the deletion of those sections.20:13:0011874Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The government opposes amendment No. 10, which seeks to remove clause 45 from the bill. As the member for Barton pointed out, the clause provides that interrogatories and discovery under the clause are not allowable unless the Federal Magistrates Service declares that it is appropriate in the interests of the administration of justice. In reaching this decision, the service must consider whether allowing such steps would be likely to contribute to the fair and expeditious conduct of the proceedings.It is clear that this clause does not prevent discovery and interrogatories being used. It merely provides that the leave of the Federal Magistrates Service is needed before they can be used. The ALRC has in fact found that the interlocutory proceedings, such as discovery and interrogatories, are sometimes used by lawyers as a delaying tactic or to run up legal costs. I am sure the member for Barton has had experience in his former legal practice—as I have had in mine—that interlocutory processes can be oppressive and, really, used for that purpose in litigation. This clause will assist in reducing costs to litigants and preventing litigants imposing unnecessary costs on other parties. It is also to be borne in mind that this relates to proceedings at the magistrates level.If one takes as an example the Federal Court, it is not uncommon for the judge, in supervising a particular piece of litigation under the docket system, to actually limit discovery and interrogatories and deal with subpoenas at directions hearings in the very way that it is intended that clause 45 will operate in relation to interrogatories and discovery. It would be up to the court itself to determine how this clause would operate in practice, and no doubt it would make rules enabling appropriate decisions to be made in individual cases.Amendment No. 11 seeks to eliminate clause 46 from the bill. This relates to subpoenas. The rationale for clause 46 is the same as that limiting discovery and interrogatories. The ALRC has also found that the use of subpoenas can sometimes result in undue cost, delay or unfairness. This clause would assist in reducing unnecessary costs incurred both by parties and more often by non-parties in complying with onerous subpoenas. This is often a real problem in the Federal and Family courts, even at this present time. Clause 46 would allow the Federal Magistrates Service to exercise better control over the use of subpoenas in the same way that clause 45 would enable them to exercise better control over interrogatories and discovery. As I said, the government opposes these amendments.Amendments negatived.20:16:0011875McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The opposition opposes clause 76. Amendment No. 12 relates also to amendment No. 9 of the Federal Magistrates (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 which I will be moving subsequently, but amendment No. 12 seeks the deletion of clause 76 of the bill. Subsection 76(1) will permit the Federal Magistrates Court to give reasons either orally in writing. While giving reasons orally if there are sufficient and adequate transcription services may not be such a problem, the giving of reasons under section 76(4) in short form may well be.We are strongly of the opinion that the giving of reasons is important because it enables the parties to assess whether the arguments and evidence that they have presented have been comprehended and considered by the court. Also, it provides for judicial accountability in terms of the competence of the magistrate in determining issues on the basis of their merits. It also, of course, provides the means of developing precedent—if reasons for decision are given they can be referred to in subsequent cases—and it enables the parties who have been unsuccessful to consider the merits of the tribunal with a view to considering whether an appeal has prospects of success. Section 76(5) indeed goes so far as to exclude the operation of section 25D of the Acts Interpretation Act, which states:Where an Act requires a tribunal, body or person making a decision to give written reasons for the decision, whether the expression "reasons", "grounds" or any other expression is used, the instrument giving the reasons shall also set out the findings on material questions of fact and refer to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based.Section 25D is based on the fundamental principles of natural justice that a decision maker deliberating in respect of the interests of competing parties is obliged to give reasons on that basis. In its submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, the Law Council said of this provision: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.The Law Council went on to say:Depriving litigants of the reasons for a magistrate's decision is an extremely serious course of action.We in the Australian Labor Party do not believe that the interests of expedited justice should erode the quality of justice. Australians coming before the Federal Magistrates Court are entitled to know why decisions are being made either for or against them. Public confidence and indeed the rule of law demands no less, and accordingly we do not support these proposed sections of the bill.20:19:0011875Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—Again the government opposes this amendment. Clause 76 is sought to be removed in its entirety. The reason for this is not altogether clear, either from the minority report of the Labor members of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee or from what the member for Barton has just said. The Senate committee in fact only recommended that provision for short form reasons to be deleted on the basis that parties should know why a decision is being made for or against them. Subclause 76(1) provides that the Federal Magistrates Service may give reasons either orally or in writing. As indicated in the explanatory memorandum, this clause will not alter any common law obligations which exist for courts to give reasons for decisions. Its purpose is to encourage federal magistrates to give oral reasons in appropriate cases rather than reserving their decisions. This will add to the efficient conduct of proceedings and save judicial time, leading to a better use of judicial resources.What is at the bottom of this is a question of culture. We do not want to see the Magistrates Court develop into the sort of court that superior courts are, where virtually all decisions are reserved and formal written reasons are delivered on the basis that the reasons may or may not effect a change in the law. The purpose of subclauses 76(2) and (3) is also to encourage federal magistrates to give oral reasons where appropriate. Subclause 76(4) allows the court to give reasons in short form in accordance with the rules of the court. This clause does not override any common law obligation like 76(1) to give proper reasons for decision. Magistrates will still give reasons but the rules of court could set out when it would be appropriate to give shorter reasons than usual and the form that these reasons must take.It is more appropriate to allow the court to determine through its rules—and, I would add, through its practice—when short form reasons can be used without being too prescriptive about this in the bill. The clause would allow the court the flexibility to ensure that appropriate judicial resources are being devoted to a case dependent upon its complexity. It would be unlikely that magistrates would open themselves to being overturned on appeal by a failure to explain the legal reasoning behind a decision.Clause 76(5) provides that section 25D of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 does not apply to the giving of reasons by the Federal Magistrates Service. This ensures that, if the rules of court allow the court to give short-form reasons, the rules of court, rather than the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, can prescribe what those reasons should contain. I reject the comment referred to by the member for Barton from the Law Council of Australia. By removing the obligation to comply with section 25D of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, there is no intention to prevent or deprive magistrates of the opportunity to provide statements as to the evidence, findings on the evidence and conclusions of law; that magistrates would be able to deal with the issue in any appropriate way, subject to common law obligations, subject to amendments by clause 76 and by any rules of court made relevantly.Amendment negatived.20:23:0011876McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 13 and 14:(13) Schedule 1, item 1, page 78 (lines 20 to 23), omit sub-clause (6).(14) Schedule 1, item 1, page 79 (lines 1 to 6), omit paragraphs (c) and (d).These are our final amendments in respect of the Federal Magistrates Bill 1999 . These amendments will delete clause 1(6) and paragraphs 1(7)(c) and (d) of schedule 1 to the bill. These are the personal provisions relating to federal magistrates and are specific to the appointment of federal magistrates. The relevant subclauses and paragraphs that we are seeking to delete would facilitate the appointment of part-time magistrates. We note the government's argument that it would facilitate, for instance, the appointment of a parent with child-rearing responsibilities. While we are sympathetic to that reasoning, we do not think it is being achieved in an appropriate way.We believe that the holders of judicial office under chapter III of our Constitution should generally be appointed on a full-time basis. To do otherwise creates the potential for conflicts of interest between the persons judicial and other possibly professional duties that are not acceptable considering their judicial role. As I have said, we understand the government's reasoning in terms of assisting magistrates with parental responsibilities. However, the measure is not satisfactory in that it would apply only to those whose child-rearing responsibilities—assuming that is the motive—existed before they became magistrates. It would not apply, for instance, to those who were already magistrates and subsequently had children or their partner had children. The proposal is not sufficiently flexible to enable that to occur. The mechanism proposed by the government would not enable existing magistrates to respond to those complex demands on their time.Further, there is no explanation from the government as to why this particular policy as it would apply to magistrates should be available to magistrates only and not to other judges. A more flexible response would need to be mindful of the requirements of section 72(iii) of the Constitution, which ensures that the remuneration of a chapter III judge may not be diminished during their continuation in office.Essentially, the Labor Party believes that the government, if it is genuine in its desire to facilitate the appointment of those with parental responsibilities to the position of magistrate, has not provided adequate protection against potential conflicts of interest. While we do not support this provision at this point in time, we would encourage the government to consider the issue in more detail to see whether a more satisfactory solution to the problem can be found as it would apply to the judiciary generally.20:27:0011877Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The government again opposes these amendments. Amendment 13 would delete item 1(6) from schedule 1. Subitem (6) allows federal magistrates to be appointed on a part-time basis. Amendment 14 would delete paragraphs 1(7)(c) and (d) from schedule 1, which would be consequential upon amendment 13 in respect of which there would be no part-time magistrates. From the Senate committee report, it appears that the main basis for the opposition proposing this amendment is the view that inadequate protection has been included against the potential for conflicts of interest and that the complexities of the issues involved have not been sufficiently addressed, and the member for Barton has made similar suggestions in his comments.I would like to assure the member for Barton that the government has very carefully considered this and taken considerable advice. In fact, the issue of part-time judicial officers under chapter III of the Constitution is an issue that has been around for quite some time and there is significant advice on the basis for it. The amendments would remove the ability to appoint part-time federal magistrates entirely. The provisions have been drafted to minimise any risk of it being held to be unconstitutional. In particular, the government has been mindful of the decision of the High Court of Australia in Wilson and the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs.Part-time magistrates could be very useful; they would give additional flexibility in the use of judicial resources. An example not mentioned by the member for Barton is that there may be a regional location which did not have the workload to warrant a full-time federal magistrate but it may be useful to be able to appoint someone on a part-time basis. The bill has been drafted to minimise the possibility of conflicts of interest arising with federal magistrates being involved in other activities. For example, federal magistrates are expressly prevented from practising as lawyers. There would be a number of other occupations which it would not be appropriate for a part-time federal magistrate to occupy. It does give flexibility in respect of parents with child-caring responsibilities, as the member for Barton mentions. In here, the government particularly has in mind the opportunity to appoint well-qualified women who have child-care responsibilities.The question of the reduction in the salaries is one that would have to be dealt with administratively. It is not a matter for legislation, because it is already provided for in the Constitution. The government is well aware of that and would take appropriate steps.Amendments negatived.Bill agreed to.11877Bill (on motion by Mr Williams)—by leave—read a third time.Bills11877r85311877Consideration resumed from 24 June (on motion by Mr Williams):That the bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.11878Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.20:31:0011878McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 1, 8 and 10:(1) Schedule 11, item 25, page 40 (line 24)—41 (line 18), omit proposed section 33C.(8) Schedule 11 item 63, page 48 (line 9) to 49 (line 20), omit the item.(10) Schedule 12, item 6, page 59 (line 26) to 60 (line 21), omit proposed section 32AC.These amendments relate to the earlier debate with respect to the Federal Magistrates Bill 1999 and specifically with respect to the determination of the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court. Amendment 1 will delete clause 25 of schedule 11 of the Federal Magistrates (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 , which relates to proposed section 33C. Amendment 8 will delete item 63 of schedule 11 of the consequential amendments bill, which relates to proposed section 69MA. Amendment 10 will delete item 6 of schedule 12 of the consequential amendments bill, which relates to proposed section 32AC.Clause 25 of schedule 11 and clause 6 of schedule 12, together with section 41 of the Federal Magistrates Bill, provide that certain types of proceedings specified by regulation can be mandatorily transferred from any of the federal courts. Section 63 of schedule 11 allows the minister to proclaim at any time during the next four years that the federal magistrates shall have jurisdiction to make final orders regarding the residence of children, whether or not the parties consent. This will enable a minister rather than the parliament to effectively define the jurisdiction of these federal courts.It is the Australian Labor Party's view that the jurisdiction of our courts should always be determined by statute and should not merely be at the whim of the government of the day or an individual minister or the Attorney-General. In so doing, we cast no aspersions or criticism on the current incumbent of that office; merely we think that the office itself is not appropriate to solely determine those issues. We note again that the Law Council of Australia supports this view. Accordingly, we oppose these provisions of the bills. Again, if and when the government wishes to extend or limit the jurisdiction of any court, the Australian Labor Party will consider the issue on its merits. However, we will not give the government the power to determine these issues in advance. Although I note again that the regulations and the proclamation would be subject to limited parliamentary control by way of a disallowance motion, it is not the same thing, in our submission, as the parliament determining the jurisdiction through appropriate provisions in legislation.20:35:0011878Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The government opposes each of these amendments. The issues raised are really issues that have already been debated in relation to the Federal Magistrates Bill. Amendment No. 1 would delete proposed section 33C from item 25. This section would allow regulations to be made which mandate the transfer of proceedings from the Family Court to the Federal Magistrates Service. Once again, this clause is intended to give flexibility in managing the workload of the courts to ensure that the workload is appropriately balanced between the courts. Again, I point out that regulations made under this clause are disallowable and would not come into effect until the period for disallowance by parliament had expired.Amendment No. 8 would delete item 63, which inserts section 69MA. This is the section which would give the Federal Magistrates Service jurisdiction in family law residence matters where the parties seek orders by consent or where the parties consent to the Federal Magistrates Service hearing in determining the proceedings. This section also allows a disallowable proclamation to be made within four years of the commencement of operation of the Federal Magistrates Service, after which the service could have unlimited residence jurisdiction. The Senate committee report indicates, as the member for Barton has just indicated on behalf of the Labor Party, that opposition is on the grounds that the jurisdiction of courts should be determined by statute, not by the government of the day.The amendment would remove entirely the family law residence jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Service. It would even remove the court's ability to deal with family law residence matters where the parties seek orders by consent or where the parties consent to the Federal Magistrates Service hearing and determining the proceeding. It should be pointed out that even state magistrates can deal with residence matters in these circumstances. There is no reason why the Federal Magistrates Service should not be able to do so as well.The jurisdiction would allow families to have access to a final decision about residence of their children more quickly and cheaply than in the Family Court, which would also result in the need for fewer interim applications. This proposed section also allows a proclamation to be made within four years, resulting in the court having unlimited residence jurisdiction. This provision was included so that it was transparent where family law jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Service was headed. The proclamation has been deliberately made disallowable by parliament so that it is subject to parliamentary control. Again, it is intended to give flexibility in managing the workload of the courts in the initial years, and the power would sunset after a period of four years.Amendment No. 10 would delete proposed section 32AC from item 6. This proposed section would allow regulations to be made which mandate the transfer of proceedings from the Federal Court to the Federal Magistrates Service. Once again, the purpose is to give flexibility in managing the workload of the courts to ensure the workload is appropriately balanced between the courts. Again, regulations made under this clause are disallowable and would not come into effect until the period for disallowance by parliament had expired.Amendments negatived.20:38:0011879McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 2 to 7 inclusive:(2) Schedule 11, item 42, page 44 (lines 4-8), omit paragraph 45A(1)(a), substitute: "(a) proceedings are instituted in the Federal Magistrates Court in relation to property of a total value exceeding, at the time the proceedings are commenced (i) $300,000; or (ii) if another amount is specified in the regulations—that other amount; and".(3) Schedule 11, item 42, page 44 (after line 16) after subsection (1) insert: (1A) If, (a) after proceedings have been instituted in the Federal Magistrates Court in relation to property, the total value of the property exceeds (i) $300,000; or (ii) if another amount is specified in the regulations—that other amount; and (b) the respondent in answer to the application by which the proceedings are instituted, is seeking an order different from that sought in the application; the Federal Magistrates Court must, before proceedings further with proceedings, inform the parties that, unless each of them consents to the Federal Magistrates Court continuing to hear and determine the proceedings, the Federal Magistrates Court is required to transfer the proceedings to the Family Court.(4) Schedule 11, item 42, page 44 (line 18), after "hearing" insert "; or continuing to hear".(5) Schedule 11, item 42, page 44 (line 20), after "hearing" insert "; or continuing to hear".(6) Schedule 11, item 42, page 44 (line 24), after "subsection (1)" insert "or (1A)".(7) Schedule 11, item 42, page 44 (line 28), after "subsection (1)" insert "or (1A)".These amendments would require the Federal Magistrates Court to transfer proceedings to the Family Court if it were determined, either at the commencement of or at any time during the proceedings, that the total value of the property in dispute exceeded $300,000 or such other amount as is set by regulation. The amendments provide an exception to this rule where both parties consent to the matter remaining before the Federal Magistrates Service.As the Federal Magistrates (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 is currently drafted, the determination as to whether proceedings should be transferred is made only at the commencement of the proceedings. Frequently, the value of property will not be known or may not be disclosed until midway through the case. This is particularly the case in the family law area in respect of a party who is a proprietor of a business where the value of that business is not fully evident to the other party until midway through the proceedings. Accordingly, neither the Federal Magistrates Court nor the parties will be able to make any informed decision at the commencement of proceedings as to whether the matter should remain with the Federal Magistrates Court. These amendments will allow the court and the parties to make that decision at the time it becomes known that the value of the property exceeds $300,000.Amendment No. 2 amends the proposed section 45A to make it clear that an initial determination of the value of the property should be made at the time proceedings are commenced. Amendment No. 3 provides the mechanism for the matter to be reconsidered if at any time during the proceedings the value of the property exceeds $300,000. Amendments Nos 4 to 7 are consequential to the above changes. We note that, in all probability, it will not be a situation where a hearing date will have to be adjourned as a result of a party ascertaining or believing that the other party's assets—or the combined assets of the marriage—exceed $300,000.If the case is properly prepared before hearing, one or other of the parties will ascertain that information—even if it is not disclosed—so that an appropriate application can be made to the federal magistrate at that point in time for the matter to be transferred into the Federal Court so that the actual hearing of the case can be conducted in the Federal Court. If that is not provided for, the purpose and intention of the legislation can be overridden by inadequate information existing at the commencement of the proceedings and locking the parties into proceedings before the magistrate. It may well result in any award, order or verdict of the Magistrates Court being challengeable as a result of such a verdict exceeding the permissible jurisdiction al limit of the Federal Magistrates Court. The Labor Party's amendments are designed to prevent that occurrence.20:42:0011880Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—As the member for Barton points out, amendments Nos 2 to 7 would effectively allow the transfer of family law property matters during the conduct of the proceeding if it became apparent during the proceeding that the value of the property in dispute was worth more than $300,000. From what he has said and from the Senate committee's report, it appears that these amendments have been included to address a concern from the Labor Party that it may not be clear at the start of the proceedings how much the property is worth.The Federal Magistrates Service would be obliged to transfer family law property proceedings to the Family Court where, when the proceeding was filed, the property in dispute was worth more than $300,000. The government opposes the amendments that would mandate the transfer of family law property matters during the conduct of the proceedings if it became apparent that the property in dispute was valued at more than the sum of $300,000. The government considers the most appropriate time to look at the value of the property to be when the proceeding is filed, otherwise parties could make transfer applications halfway through the proceeding. This could be used as a delaying tactic and could be disruptive.Under the arrangements currently in the Federal Magistrates (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 , if there were a possibility that the value of the property was more than $300,000 at the start of the proceedings, the Federal Magistrates Service could simply transfer the proceedings to the Family Court. This would avoid too much time being spent hearing argument about the value of the property. That is not to say that it might not be an issue addressed later on. If the property did increase significantly in value during the proceedings, the Federal Magistrates Service could use its general transfer power to transfer the proceeding to the Family Court if it considered it appropriate, so the matter is not without remedy.Amendments negatived.20:44:0011881McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I move opposition amendment No. 9:(9) Schedule 12, item 4, page 57 (line 30) to 58 (line 2), omit the item.This amendment relates to amendment No. 12 to the Federal Magistrates Bill 1999 , which we previously moved. Amendment No. 9 will delete clause 76 of the bill. Proposed section 76(1) in the bill will permit the Federal Magistrates Court to give its reasons, either orally or in writing. These issues were debated earlier. I note that the Attorney-General said in respect of that that he would anticipate that federal magistrates would be anxious to ensure that their decisions were not appealed and that, in that context, they would give adequate reasons. If that is the case, we say that it is appropriate that the legislation actually requires them to give adequate reasons, and it could do that by removing the reference in proposed section 76(5) to the exclusion of the operation of section 25D of the Acts Interpretation Act.As I have previously noted, that provides that, where there is a reference to reasons, grounds or any similar expression used in an act of parliament, the reasons shall set out the findings on material questions of fact and refer to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based. Indeed, my recollection of significant cases in the area of natural justice—in particular, in respect of domestic tribunals—is to the effect that those tribunals are required to give reasons for their determinations and that those reasons must refer to material questions of fact and to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based. I think they are determined by the courts to be the fundamental principles of natural justice.It is probably the case that these exclusions would be regarded uncomfortably by the High Court. Indeed, the High Court would probably require there to be an express exclusion of the principles of natural justice if it were to be argued that these provisions of the act enabled the magistrates to give decisions without referring to material questions of fact and to the evidence or other material upon which those findings were based.Given that strong and consistent line of authority, we say it is inappropriate, wrong and contrary to those fundamental principles of natural justice to exclude that requirement and suggest, as the legislation suggests, that federal magistrates will be able to give reasons for a decision in a form which is other than adequate and, in particular, not adequately advise the parties of why they arrived at their conclusion. As I previously said, in particular we need to ensure that the parties appreciate the reasons for a decision. This is vitally important in the family law area, where there can be so much distrust of the court which deliberates in respect of, in particular, child residence and access issues.If a party were not satisfied that the magistrate had adequately comprehended their argument, it would be grounds for discontent, which we see frequently. Indeed, we have seen the manifestation of that in the family law area in the violence perpetrated not only on the court but also on the other party. It is an area where, as much as possible, all parties should be advised of the reasoning in making these very significant decisions, which are extremely close and personal and go to the root of all relationships—namely, decisions about access and other residence of children.20:49:0011881Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The government opposes opposition amendment No. 9. Most of what the member for Barton said in his eloquent appeal actually related to amendment No. 12 of the Federal Magistrates Bill 1999 , which the House has previously rejected. My understanding of amendment No. 9 is that it is a narrow one, seeking to delete item 4 from schedule 12 of the Federal Court of Australia Act. The amendment would therefore delete section 28(6) which it is proposed be added to that act. Under this subsection, the full court of the Federal Court could give reasons in short form in accordance with the rules of court when dismissing an appeal where that appeal does not raise any general question of principle.From what the member for Barton has said and from the Senate committee report, it appears that the opposition opposes this clause, but it considers that the parties should know why decisions are being made for or against them. For my part, I do not accept that what the courts have said about reasons required of domestic tribunals in the exercise of judgment about what the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness require is directly relevant here. In my view, it would be open to the legislature to determine what is appropriate in the context. In any event, rules of procedural fairness are not immutable; they vary in accordance with the circumstances.The clause proposed to be added by the Federal Magistrates (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 would allow the Federal Court to give short form reasons in accordance with the rules of court when dismissing an appeal where that appeal does not raise any general question of principle. Once again, even if the court gives reasons in short form, parties will still know what those reasons are. It is not intended to negate any common law obligation to give proper reasons for a decision. It will apply only where the Federal Court is dismissing an appeal and that appeal does not raise any general question of principle, and it will not apply in all appeals.Having regard to the standard of the membership of the Federal Court, one can imagine that the reasons in most cases will be of a very high standard indeed, even if they are in short form and even if they are delivered orally. The Federal Court suggested this amendment itself to allow it to deal with appeals more efficiently. I recommend the amendment proposed in the bill rather than the amendment proposed by the opposition.Amendment negatived.20:52:0011882McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The opposition opposes schedule 25. Amendment No. 11 is a very significant amendment from the position of the Australian Labor Party. It proposes the deletion of schedule 25 of the bill. Schedule 25 deals with amendments of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and provides for the ability of these federal magistrates to determine certain issues under that act. In particular, it would enable the federal magistrates to exercise injunctive powers to stop or prevent industrial action under section 127 of the Workplace Relations Act. They are included in items 1 to 6 of schedule 25 of the consequential amendments bill. It would also enable federal magistrates to deal with the freedom of association provisions contained in part XA of the Workplace Relations Act. They are contained in items 7 through 11 of schedule 25 of the consequential amendment bill.As I indicated in my speech in the second reading debate, these are notoriously complex areas of law and are inappropriate for determination at a magistrates level. For instance, the determination of section 127 orders applies in respect of some of the most dramatic industrial cases we have seen in recent years such as Rio Tinto and Arco. A whole range of very dramatic industrial disputes have been the subject of section 127 orders. The nature of these applications is that they require urgent relief and quite frequently the applications are made overnight. They would require the federal magistrates to down tools on all other matters and give those issues priority.Notoriously, these issues involve very complex considerations. Increasingly, the Federal Court is having regard to international treaty obligations on the part of Australia in construing legislation and specifically international treaty obligations regarding freedom of association and collective bargaining in construing the application of these provisions, as indeed it is doing in the area of freedom of association provisions. Again, last year we saw a very dramatic case involving freedom of association provisions in the waterfront dispute. We feel that this is more a case of the government trying to bypass the messenger of the Federal Court of Australia in its determination that the government had acted inappropriately in its relationship with the employers in the waterfront dispute rather than a genuine desire to think through a rational allocation of appropriate jurisdiction to the Federal Magistrates Court.If you look at the nature of those very dramatic and very urgent cases as against what would be appropriate to determine at magistrates level, the suspicion is heightened in respect of the government's motives. For instance, it would be more appropriate, and indeed probably very appropriate, for these federal magistrates to be given jurisdiction to determine unfair dismissal cases, but that has not occurred. Indeed, there is precedence of state industrial magistrates dealing with cases under section 178 of the Workplace Relations Act in the enforcement of awards. But, again, the federal magistrates are not being given those jurisdictions. Those claims relate to underpayment of wages and the like.The government is not giving the federal magistrates those relatively simple, straightforward cases. It is giving it power in these very dramatic, very politically charged issues where the Federal Court, I think it is fair to say, has been inclined to decide against the aggressor rather than the party defending their rights. In so arriving at conclusions to that effect, as discontented as the government may well be with the Federal Court applying international principles, it is no reason for the rational allocation of jurisdiction to the Federal Magistrates Court. Quite frankly, this is an issue where the Australian Labor Party will be opposed to the bitter end because we see political undertones rather than rational planning in the government's action.20:57:0011883Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—I will not hold up the operation of the House for long, but I would like to support the remarks of the member for Barton, the shadow Attorney-General, regarding this amendment which seeks to delete schedule 25 of the bill and which, as the member for Barton said, relates to the issue of jurisdiction in relation to the Workplace Relations Act. The member for Barton raised a number of very important issues as to the operation of, in an industrial setting, the Federal Magistrates Court versus the Federal Court. He raised some important examples of concerns that are legitimately held about how that would in fact come into play.When we look at the role of the Federal Court most recently in a significant sense on the waterfront dispute, the Federal Court did play a very important role in seeing a just settlement reached in some of the matters that were raised and certainly in terms of ensuring that access was provided for natural justice to a range of the employees and parties involved. When we look at why this particular matter has been removed from the Federal Court to the Federal Magistrates Court, we have to ask ourselves: why has the government sought to do this?Mr Albanese interjecting—VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFIN—I know that the member for Grayndler has had a great deal of experience over the years when it comes to the question of the magistrate's court, amongst other levels. But, in this particular case, we have to look at some very serious issues. When we look at issues in relation to the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court and in particular, as the member for Barton said, issues in relation to unfair dismissal, there is no doubt that unfair dismissal issues are not as complex as some of the other matters which we believe to be in the bill and which we are seeking to amend with respect to the Federal Court. There are issues there that are much more complex.As a former union official, I often dealt with matters such as unfair dismissal. Quite frankly, the lower the level of court, the lower the level of arbitration, the better it is to sort out the problems, leading to a proper and just resolution. When we look at this particular schedule we see that the government is proposing to give the Federal Magistrates Court injunctive powers to stop or prevent industrial action under section 127 and the power to cancel the registration of an organisation for breach of freedom of association provisions. They are serious matters—matters which should not be considered lightly.When we look at this proposal, we say that it will be okay for these things to be handled at a magistracy court level; but other matters, such as unfair dismissal, as I mentioned, are much less appropriate in the circumstances. This does not make sense. This raises the question of what the government's agenda appears to be in the industrial relations field. The fact is that the government missed out with respect to the maritime dispute in that the Federal Court did not do their bidding. As the Federal Court has considered those issues on their merit and tried to inject some natural justice into the proceedings, the government has sought to say, `Okay, you are not going to handle a lot of that stuff anymore. We are going to take it away. We are going to remove it from you and give it to another level.' That raises questions of who are the magistrates who will be considering such issues? Who are the magistrates who will be involved? What will be their qualifications to handle these sorts of matters which are, as has been said by the member for Barton, particularly complex? There are some real issues there.The government ought to look at those issues and see what they are doing. They ought to consider whether those issues are being moved to another level as a matter of political expediency. They ought to consider whether, in relation to the resolution of a dispute from 12 months ago, they are, in effect, seeking to resolve such issues in the future on the basis of this alteration of jurisdiction. They should get a system in place which makes sense. When they address issues of the operation of the Federal Magistrates Court they should ensure that the Federal Magistrates Court has proper and appropriate areas to consider; they should not try to use it to remove matters from the Federal Court simply because it suits them politically.21:02:0011884Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The government opposes the opposition amendment. The opposition opposes the entire schedule 25 dealing with Workplace Relations Act 1996 matters. The schedule would give the Federal Magistrates Service jurisdiction under section 127 and part XA of the Workplace Relations Act to make various other amendments consequential upon the conferring of that jurisdiction. Section 127 allows orders to be made by the court after orders have been made by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to stop or prevent industrial action, and part XA contains the freedom of association provisions.In the minority report from the Senate committee, the opposition indicates that it opposes the jurisdiction being vested in the service on the basis that such matters involve complex areas of law, and the opposition alleges that there is a government plan to prevent the Federal Court from hearing such matters. There is no plan that I am aware of in that respect.The one thing that we have not had acknowledged it seems to me in either the Senate committee report or the reasons given by the members for Barton and Bruce in relation to the amendment is a recognition and acknowledgment that the Federal Court would have concurrent jurisdiction. So it would be up to the litigants to determine in which court to commence proceedings, and not every case that is going to arise under section 127 or part XA is going to be complex. The reason for setting up the Federal Magistrates Service is for it to deal with simple and less complex cases. The only case we hear mentioned is the waterfront case from last year. I cannot imagine that the applicants to the Federal Court in that case would have ever contemplated commencing their proceedings in a magistrate's court.No jurisdiction is being removed from the Federal Court. The parties would simply be able to choose whether to proceed in the Federal Court or the Federal Magistrates Court. A proceeding would be able to be transferred between the Federal Magistrates Service and the Federal Court on the application of a party or on the initiative of the court. This would ensure that proceedings are dealt with in the most appropriate forum, and in many cases the Federal Magistrates Court would be the most appropriate forum.The object in giving jurisdiction to the Federal Magistrates Service is to provide appropriate access to quick, low cost relief, particularly for ordinary workers in relation to breaches of key aspects of workplace relations law—something that one would have contemplated the Labor Party might have supported. The Federal Magistrates Service is being set up specifically to deal with more routine matters, freeing up the superior courts to deal with complex cases. I have no doubt that more complex cases would continue to be dealt with by the Federal Court.The member for Barton mentioned that unfair dismissals jurisdiction is not conferred on the Federal Magistrates Service under the legislation. My recollection is that the unfair dismissals jurisdiction is now exercised by the commissioner, not by courts. On that basis, there is no reason for amending the arrangements. I indicated that the government opposes the Labor Party amendment. I would invite the Labor Party, in further debate on this particular aspect of the bill, to try to eliminate some of the paranoia that seems to surround its consideration of the issue.Question put:That the amendment (Mr McClelland's ) be agreed to.21:10:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr C. Hollis)59Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr BevisMr BreretonMr CoxMr CreanMr DanbyMr EdwardsDr EmersonMr M. J. EvansMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HorneMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMs KernotMr 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 Zahra73Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr AndrenMr K. J. AndrewsMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BarresiMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr BroughMr CadmanMr CameronMr CausleyMr CharlesMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Mrs GallusMs GambaroMrs GashMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HardgraveMr HawkerMr HockeyMrs HullMr JullMr KatterMrs D. M. KellyJackie KellyDr KempMr LawlerMr LiebermanMr LindsayMr LloydMr McArthur*Mr I. E. MacfarlaneMr McGauranMrs MayMrs MoylanMr NairnMr NehlDr NelsonMr NevilleMr NugentMr PyneMr ReithMr RonaldsonMr RuddockMr St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperDr SouthcottDr StoneMrs SullivanMr C. P. ThompsonMr A. P. ThomsonMr TrussMr TuckeyMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs WorthMr BeazleyMr HowardMr McLeayMr DownerMs BurkeMr Prosser* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Question put:That the bill be agreed to.21:18:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr C. Hollis)71Mr AbbottMr AndersonMr AndrenMr K. J. AndrewsMr AnthonyFran BaileyMr BairdMr BarresiMr BartlettMr BillsonMrs B. K. BishopMs J. I. BishopMr BroughMr CadmanMr CameronMr CharlesMrs DraperMrs ElsonMr EntschMr FaheyMr FischerMr Forrest*Mrs GallusMs GambaroMrs GashMr GeorgiouMr HaaseMr HardgraveMr HawkerMr HockeyMrs HullMr JullMrs D. M. KellyJackie KellyDr KempMr LawlerMr LiebermanMr LindsayMr LloydMr McArthur*Mr I. E. MacfarlaneMr McGauranMrs MayMrs MoylanMr NairnMr NehlDr NelsonMr NevilleMr NugentMr PyneMr ReithMr RonaldsonMr RuddockMr St ClairMr SchultzMr ScottMr SeckerMr SlipperDr SouthcottDr StoneMrs SullivanMr C. P. ThompsonMr A. P. ThomsonMr TrussMr TuckeyMrs D. S. ValeMr WakelinDr WasherMr WilliamsDr WooldridgeMs Worth59Mr AdamsMr AlbaneseMr BevisMr BreretonMr CoxMr CreanMr DanbyMr EdwardsDr EmersonMr M. J. EvansMr L. D. T. FergusonMr M. J. FergusonMr FitzgibbonMs GerickMr GibbonsMs GillardMr GriffinMs HallMr HattonMs HoareMr HorneMrs IrwinMr JenkinsMs KernotMr 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 ZahraMr HowardMr BeazleyMr DownerMr McLeayMr ProsserMs Burke* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.11886Bill (on motion by Mr Williams)—by leave—read a third time.Bills11886r67011886Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration at the next sitting.Bills11886r91311886Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration at the next sitting.Bills11886r82411886Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration at the next sitting.Bills11886r79311886Consideration resumed from 14 October.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 22, page 14 (line 26) to page 15 (line 2), omit subclauses (4) and (5), substitute:(4) A person may be engaged as mentioned in paragraph (2)(b) only in circumstances prescribed by the regulations.(4A) The regulations may limit the circumstances in which persons may be engaged as mentioned in paragraph (2)(c). (5) An engagement for a specified term may be extended in circumstances prescribed by the regulations.(2) Clause 64, page 37 (line 10), omit "Chairman", substitute "Chair".21:28:0011887Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I would like to indicate to the House that the government proposes that amendment No. 2 be agreed to, and that amendment No. 1 be disagreed to. I suggest, therefore, that it may suit the convenience of the House first to consider amendment No. 2 and when that amendment has been disposed of to consider amendment No. 1. I move:That Senate amendment No. 2 be agreed to.21:28:0011887Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—This matter was before the House a little while ago and has been to the Senate. I indicate on behalf of the opposition that we have reached agreement with the government on the one outstanding issue of our negotiations over the Public Service Bill 1999 and the Parliamentary Service Bill 1999 . The issue that gave rise to the amendments made by the Senate relates to the question of temporary employment. The government and the opposition are now in agreement that temporary employment, or specified term employment—in the language used in the bill—will be limited to 18 months with a possible extension of a further 18 months in limited circumstances, which will be specified in the regulations.We regard this as a satisfactory outcome which will provide a safeguard against the misuse or exploitation of temporary employment in the Public Service. In these circumstances, we will be supporting the government in opposing the Senate amendments to the Public Service Bill 1999 and the Parliamentary Service Bill 1999 and we will not be insisting on these amendments when the bill returns to the Senate tomorrow.Question resolved in the affirmative.21:29:0011887Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I move:That Senate amendment No. 1 be disagreed to.The modernisation of the principal legislation regulating the Australian Public Service, the Public Service Act 1922, is a vital element of the government's Public Service reform agenda. The current act is prescriptive and out of date. It has acted like a straitjacket on the Australian Public Service, stifling the creativity and innovation of those who work within the service. The Public Service Bill 1999 aims to modernise the Australian Public Service—APS—legislative framework and transform the APS management culture.The changes necessary to achieve this transformation are effected through this bill. The changes provide a careful balance between devolved responsibility and improved accountability. They provide the means of freeing APS agencies from central controls and they free up APS agencies to adopt employment arrangements that meet their particular needs.In essence, the bill aims to put in place a framework for a high performance Public Service while recognising the distinctive character of public administration in a way that is absent from the current legislation. The bill does not prescribe process but instead ensures that agency heads are held accountable for their actions. It removes prescription and central control and will enable the Public Service to meet market competition, to respond to pressures for change more effectively, and to promote a stronger performance culture. It will bring Public Service employment arrangements into line with community standards and, at the same time, it will promote accountability by making managers responsible for the way they manage employment matters within their own agencies.I am before the House again with this legislation, because the Senate accepted an opposition amendment to clause 22 that goes to the employment in the APS of non-ongoing employees. The amendment allows the employment of such employees only on the basis of regulations over which the Senate has the power of disallowance. The government is unable to accept the amendment, because it effectively outlaws employment in the APS for a specified term or for a specified task unless regulations are made.The government has made changes to the bill in the context of seeking reasonable compromise and bipartisan support. There has been constructive consideration and negotiation on these issues and the government has appreciated the positive approach taken by the opposition. In that context, further discussions have occurred over the amendment passed by the Senate, and I am pleased to advise the House that an acceptable compromise has been reached which will allow the bill to pass both houses of parliament without the amendment to clause 22 passed by the Senate.The compromise involves a commitment by the government to clarify in regulations the grounds on which the engagement of persons for specified terms may be extended by an agency head. The government has negotiated in good faith with the opposition over the last five months in recognition of their position as an alternative government and has sought reasonable compromise and bipartisan support. Agreement has now been reached on a bill which will significantly advance our shared aims for a modern public sector framework. The government therefore rejects the Senate amendment to clause 22 and will be rejecting an identical amendment, Senate amendment No. 2, made to the Parliamentary Service Bill 1999 . The government, however, accepts the other amendments: Senate amendment No. 2 to the Public Service Bill 1999 , amendments Nos 1, 3 and 4 to the Parliamentary Service Bill 1999, and all Senate amendments to the Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Bill 1999.Question resolved in the affirmative.21:33:0011888Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I present the reasons for the House disagreeing to the Senate amendment, and I move:That the reasons be adopted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills11888r79211888Consideration resumed from 14 October.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, page 37 (after line 1), before item 150, insert:150A Section 3Omit "Chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "Chair".150B Section 4 (definition of Chairman )Repeal the definition, substitute: Chair means the Chair of the ACA.150C Section 4 (definition of Deputy Chairman )Repeal the definition, substitute: Deputy Chair means the Deputy Chair of the ACA.150D Section 16Omit "Chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "Chair".150E Subsections 17(2) and (3)Omit "Chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "Chair".150F Subsections 22(3), (4) and (5)Omit "Chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "Chair".150G Section 24Omit "Chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "Chair".150H Subsections 34(1) and (2)Omit "Chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "Chair".(2) Schedule 1, page 37 (after line 4), after item 150, insert:150J Subsections 35(2), (3) and (4)Omit "Chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "Chair".150K Subsections 39(1), (2) and (3)Omit "Chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "Chair".(3) Schedule 1, item 152, page 37 (lines 10 to 13), omit "Chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "Chair". (4) Schedule 1, page 37 (after line 13), after item 152, insert:152A Subsections 48(4) and (5)Omit "Chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "Chair".Motion (by Dr Kemp) agreed to:That the amendments be agreed to.Bills11889r79711889Consideration resumed from 14 October.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 11, page 10 (after line 2), at the end of the clause, add: (2) The Presiding Officers must issue written determinations under section 70 in relation to each of the Parliamentary Service Values, having regard to the advice received from the Commissioner under subsection (1). (3) The Presiding Officers must cause to be laid before each House of the Parliament a copy of the advice received from the Commissioner under subsection (1).(2) Clause 22, page 16 (lines 24 to 27), omit subclauses (4) and (5), substitute: (4) A person may be engaged as mentioned in paragraph (2)(b) only in circumstances prescribed by the determinations. (4A) The determinations may limit the circumstances in which persons may be engaged as mentioned in paragraph (2)(c). (5) An engagement for a specified term may be extended in circumstances prescribed by the determinations.(3) Page 19 (after line 31), after clause 26, insert:26A Compulsory moves between Parliamentary Departments and between the Parliamentary Service and the Australian Public Service (1) The Commissioner may: (a) with the agreement of the Presiding Officers, move an excess Parliamentary Service employee to another Parliamentary Department; or (b) with the agreement of the Public Service Commissioner, move a transitional excess Parliamentary Service employee to an APS Agency. (2) For the purposes of this section: (a) a Parliamentary Service employee is an excess Parliamentary Service employee if, and only if, the Secretary has notified the Commissioner in writing that the employee is excess to the requirements of the Parliamentary Department; and (b) a Parliamentary Service employee is a transitional excess Parliamentary Service employee if, and only if, the employee was covered by the Public Service Act 1922 at the time immediately before this Act commenced and the Secretary has notified the Commissioner in writing that the employee is excess to the requirements of the Parliamentary Service.(4) Clause 70, page 44 (after line 18), after subclause (3), insert: (3A) Determinations made for the purposes of sections 22 and 32 must apply, adopt or incorporate to the maximum extent possible regulations made for the purposes of sections 22 and 33, respectively, of the Public Service Act 1999 . (3B) Subsection (3A) does not, by implication, limit subsection (3).21:36:0011889Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I would like to indicate to the House that the government proposes that amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 4 be agreed to, and that amendment No. 2 be disagreed to. I suggest, therefore, that it may suit the convenience of the House first to consider amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and when those amendments have been disposed of to consider amendment No. 2. I move:That amendments Nos 1, 3 and 4 be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.Motion (by Dr Kemp) agreed to:That amendment No. 2 be disagreed to.21:36:0011889Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I present the reasons for the House disagreeing to the Senate amendment, and I move:That the reasons be adopted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills11890r71711890Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 2, page 1 (line 19) to page 2 (line 2), omit subclauses (2) to (4), substitute:(2) Schedule 1 commences on 1 April 2000.(3) Item 2 and items 8 to 52 of Schedule 2 commence on 20 March 2000.(4) Schedules 4 and 12 commence on the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent or 1 October 1999, whichever is the later.(2) Schedule 2, item 9, page 5 (line 24), omit "20 September 1999", substitute "20 March 2000".(3) Schedule 2, item 53, page 21 (line 22), omit "20 September 1999", substitute "20 March 2000".(4) Schedule 2, item 53, page 30 (lines 10 and 11), heading to section 1188E, omit "19 September 1999 ", substitute "19 March 2000 ".(5) Schedule 2, item 53, page 30 (lines 21 to 32), omit subsection (3), substitute:(3) The requirements of this subsection are: (a) that the person is a CDEP Scheme participant in respect of the relevant payment period or the relevant pension payday; and (b) that a CDEP Scheme payment was payable to the person: (i) in respect of a payment period the whole or a part of which occurred within the 3 payment periods immediately before the relevant payment period; or (ii) in respect of the 3 pension paydays immediately before the relevant pension payday.(6) Schedule 2, item 53, page 33 (line 14), heading to section 1188F, omit "20 September 1999 ", substitute "20 March 2000 ".(7) Schedule 2, item 53, page 33 (lines 16 to 18), omit subsection (1), substitute:(1) This section applies in respect of payment periods beginning on or after 20 March 2000. (8) Schedule 2, item 53, page 33 (lines 32 to 34), omit "or in respect of a pension payday (the relevant pension payday ) if the person is qualified in respect of that period or payday", substitute "if the person is qualified in respect of that period".(9) Schedule 2, item 53, page 34 (line 14), omit "or payday".(10)Schedule 2, item 53, page 34 (line 15) to page 35 (line 15), omit subsections (3) to (7), substitute:(3) This section does not apply to a person in respect of the relevant payment period unless the person meets the requirements of subsections (4), (5), (6) and (7) in respect of the relevant payment period.(4) The requirements of this subsection are: (a) that the person is a CDEP Scheme participant in respect of the relevant payment period; and (b) that a CDEP Scheme payment was payable to the person in respect of a payment period the whole or a part of which occurred within the 3 payment periods immediately before the relevant payment period.(5) The requirement of this subsection is that the person satisfies the CDEP Scheme Participant Supplement income test in respect of the relevant payment period as mentioned in subsection (8) or (9), as the case requires.(6) The requirement of this subsection is that the relevant payment period does not fall within: (a) a waiting period; or (b) a liquid assets test waiting period; or (c) a lump sum preclusion period; or (d) a compensation preclusion period (see Part 3.14).(7) The requirement of this subsection is that the relevant payment period occurs within a period in respect of which the relevant allowance, benefit or payment referred to in paragraph (2)(a) or the relevant pension, payment or allowance referred to in paragraph (2)(b) is not payable to the person because of the operation of a provision of this Act relating to: (a) seasonal or intermittent workers; or (b) the value of the assets of the person or of his or her partner.(11) Schedule 2, item 53, page 37 (lines 8 to 11), omit subsection (10), substitute: (10) If this section applies to the person in respect of the relevant payment period, then, subject to subsections (11) and (12), a CDEP Scheme Participant Supplement of $20 is payable to the person in respect of that period.(12) Schedule 2, item 53, page 37 (lines 28 and 29), omit "20 September 1999", substitute "20 March 2000".(13) Schedule 2, item 53, page 38 (lines 3 to 10), omit section 1188H, substitute:1188H Person receiving CDEP Scheme Participant Supplement to be taken to be in receipt of social security benefit or pensionA person who receives a CDEP Scheme Participant Supplement in respect of a payment period beginning on or after 20 March 2000 is taken, for the purposes of this Act, to be in receipt of the social security benefit or social security pension for which the person is qualified in respect of that period.(14) Schedule 2, item 53, page 38 (lines 12 to 32), omit subsections (1) to (3), substitute:(1) A person who is a CDEP Scheme participant, and is not in receipt of a social security pension, in respect of the whole or a part of a quarter beginning on or after 20 March 2000 may, by written notice given to the Secretary, choose to accumulate the amounts of any supplement that: (a) became or become payable to the person in respect of that quarter, or any later quarter in respect of the whole or a part of which the person is a CDEP Scheme participant and is not in receipt of a social security pension; and (b) have not already been paid.(2) A person who is or was a CDEP Scheme participant in respect of the whole or a part of a quarter ending before 20 March 2000 is taken to have chosen under this subsection to accumulate the amounts of any supplement that became payable to the person in respect of that quarter.(3) If a person makes a choice under subsection (1), the sum of the accumulated amounts payable to the person in respect of a quarter is to be paid on, or as soon as practicable after: (a) unless paragraph (b) applies—the last day of the quarter or 19 March 2000, whichever is the later; or (b) if the person ceases to be a CDEP Scheme participant before the end of the quarter—the day on which the person so ceases or 19 March 2000, whichever is the later.(3A) Any accumulated amounts payable to a person to whom subsection (2) applies are to be paid at such times (not later than 19 March 2000) as the Secretary determines.(15) Schedule 2, item 53, page 39 (line 12), omit "19 September 1999", substitute "19 March 2000".(16) Schedule 2, item 53, page 39 (line 22), omit "19 September 1999", substitute "19 March 2000".(17) Schedule 2, page 40 (after line 6), at the end of the Schedule, add:55 ApplicationThe amendments made by items 48 to 53 (inclusive) do not apply to a person who, on the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent, is receiving parenting payment at the rate applicable for a person who is not a member of a couple. The provisions of the Social Security Act 1991 continue to apply to such persons as if the amendments made to that Act by items 48 to 53 (inclusive) had not been made.(18) Schedule 3, page 47 (after line 4), after item 42, insert:42A At the end of section 665Add:(4) A person is not qualified for an employment entry payment under this Part if the person is qualified for a special employment advance under Part 2.22A and has made a claim under section 1061EP in respect of the same employment.(19) Schedule 3, item 43, page 49 (after line 32), before paragraph 1061EO(1)(a), insert:(aa) the person is qualified for an employment entry payment under Part 2.13 and has made a claim under section 665 in respect of the offered employment; or(20) Schedule 3, Part 2, page 68 (lines 2 to 29), omit the Part.(21) Schedule 4, page 69 (line 3), insert:Part 1—Amendment of Social Security Act(22) Schedule 4, item 13, page 72 (line 10), after "payment", insert "either while the person was in gaol or psychiatric confinement, or".(23) Schedule 4, page 80 (after line 17), after item 13, insert:13A Division 1 of Part 3.13 (heading)Repeal the heading.(24) Schedule 4, page 80 (after line 30), at the end of the Schedule, add:Part 2—Consequential amendments Income Tax Assessment Act 199716 Section 52-10 (after table item 4.4)Insert:5.1 Crisis paymentExemptExemptNot applicableNot applicable17 Section 52-40 (after table item 4)Insert:5 Crisis paymentPart 2.23ANot applicableNot applicable18 ApplicationThe amendments made by this Part apply to assessments for the 1999-2000 income year and later income years.(25) Schedule 4, page 80 (after line 30), at the end of the Schedule, add:Part 3—Application19 Crisis payment not payableIf:(a) on a day that occurs within 14 days before the commencement of this Schedule, an instalment of social security pension is payable to a person who on that day is in gaol or undergoing psychiatric confinement because the person has been charged with an offence; and(b) the person is released from gaol or the psychiatric confinement within 14 days after the commencement of this Schedule; and(c) the person claims crisis payment within 7 days after being released;the crisis payment is not payable to the person.(26) Schedule 9, page 104 (line 2) to page 105 (line 25), omit the Schedule.(27) Page 107 (after line 6), at the end of the bill, add:Schedule 12—Administrative provisions Social Security Act 19911 At the end of Chapter 2Add:Part 2.27—Early payment of first instalment of social security benefit1061ZAAR Early payment of first instalment of social security benefit(1) If, after the commencement of this section: (a) the Secretary determines: (i) that a claim by a person for a social security benefit is to be granted; or (ii) that a social security benefit is payable to a person under a resumption of payment provision; and (b) the Secretary is satisfied that, if the person is required to wait until the end of: (i) the first instalment period in relation to the benefit; or (ii) the first instalment period in relation to the benefit after the resumption of payment of the benefit;for payment of an instalment, the person will suffer severe financial hardship;the Secretary may determine that a specified amount is to be paid to the person in advance.(2) An amount paid to a person under subsection (1) is taken to be an advance payment of part of the first instalment payable to the person after the grant of the claim or the resumption of payment of the social security benefit, as the case may be.(3) In this section: resumption of payment provision means section 408NG, 510G, 565E, 590E, 660J, 660YJP, 728P, 766 or 771NQ.2 At the end of Part 3.13Add:1159A Early claim for social security pension or benefit(1) If: (a) a detained person makes a claim for a social security pension or benefit; and (b) the person is not, on the day on which the claim is made, qualified for the pension or benefit; and (c) the person becomes qualified for the pension or benefit within 21 days after the claim is made;the claim is taken to be made on the first day on which the person is qualified for the pension or benefit.(2) The following subsections and section do not apply to a detained person: (a) 48(2) and 46(3); (b) 106(2) and 100(3); (c) 152(2) and 150(3); (d) 203(2) and 201(3); (e) 322(2) and 318(3); (f) 369(2) and 366(3); (g) 408DA(2) and 408CC(4); (h) 501(2) and 500K(4); (i) 554(2); (j) 579(2); (k) 635(2); (l) 660XCC(3); (m) 660XDA(2); (n) 660YCC(4); (o) 660YDA(2); (p) 699(2); (q) 740(2); (r) 771IA(2) and 771HN(3A); (s) 789(2) and 784(3).(3) In this section: detained person means a person who: (a) is in gaol; or (b) is undergoing psychiatric confinement because he or she has been charged with committing an offence.1159B Grant of social security pension, benefit or crisis payment(1) The Secretary must determine that a claim for a social security pension, social security benefit or crisis payment is to be granted if the Secretary is satisfied that: (a) the claimant: (i) is in gaol; or (ii) is undergoing psychiatric confinement because he or she has been charged with committing an offence; and (b) the claimant is expected: (i) to be in gaol or psychiatric confinement for at least 14 days; and (ii) to be released within 21 days after the day on which the claim is made; and (c) the claimant is expected to be qualified for the pension, benefit or crisis payment immediately after the claimant's release from gaol or confinement, whether or not the claimant is qualified at the time the claim is made; and (d) the pension, benefit or crisis payment is expected to be payable to the claimant immediately after the claimant's release from gaol or confinement.1159C Early payment of social security pension, benefit or crisis payment to person in gaol or confinement(1) If: (a) a claim for a social security pension, social security benefit or crisis payment is granted because of section 1159B; and (b) the Secretary thinks it necessary to pay the pension, benefit or crisis payment before the claimant is released from gaol or confinement in order to ensure that the claimant, on release, will not suffer severe financial hardship;the Secretary may determine that a specified amount is to be paid to the person before the person's release.(2) Subsection (1) has effect in spite of section 41.(3) An amount paid under a determination under subsection (1) in relation to a claim for a pension or benefit is not to exceed the amount that, in the Secretary's opinion, would be the total of the amounts payable to the person for the first 7 days on which the pension or benefit is payable to the person.(4) An amount paid under subsection (1) in relation to a claim for a pension or benefit is taken to be a payment of the instalment or instalments, or of that part of the instalment or instalments, that relate to the days referred to in subsection (3).(5) An amount paid to a person under subsection (1) in relation to a claim for a crisis payment is taken to be a payment of the crisis payment.1159D Early payment of first instalment of social security pension or benefit to person after release from gaol or confinement(1) If, after the commencement of this section, a person is released from gaol or from psychiatric confinement that the person was undergoing because he or she had been charged with committing an offence, and: (a) either while the person was in gaol or psychiatric confinement, or within 7 days after the person's release, the person claims a social security pension or benefit; and (b) the Secretary determines that a claim by the person for a social security pension or benefit is to be granted; and (c) the Secretary is satisfied that, if the person is required to wait until the end of the first instalment period in relation to the pension or benefit for payment of an instalment, the person will suffer severe financial hardship; the Secretary may determine that a specified amount is to be paid to the person in advance.(2) If, after the commencement of this section, a person is released from gaol or from psychiatric confinement that the person was undergoing because he or she had been charged with committing an offence, and: (a) the Secretary determines that a social security pension or benefit is payable to the person under a resumption of payment provision; and (b) the Secretary is satisfied that, if the person is required to wait until the end of the first instalment period in relation to the pension or benefit after the resumption of payment of the pension or benefit for payment of an instalment, the person will suffer severe financial hardship;the Secretary may determine that a specified amount is to be paid to the person in advance. (3) An amount paid under a determination under subsection (1) or (2) in relation to a claim or a resumption of payment determination is not to exceed the amount that, in the Secretary's opinion, would be the total of the amounts payable to the person for the first 7 days on which the pension or benefit is payable to the person. (4) An amount paid under subsection (1) or (2) in relation to a claim for a pension or benefit or a resumption of payment determination is taken to be a payment of the instalment or instalments, or of that part of the instalment or instalments, that relate to the days referred to in subsection (3). (5) In this section: resumption of payment provision means section 79, 146C, 183, 232, 353, 401, 408NG, 510G, 565E, 590E, 660J, 660XJO, 660YJP, 728P, 766, 771NQ or 819.3 After subsection 1223(1)Insert:(1AA) Subject to subsection (1AB), subsection (1) does not apply to a payment made under section 1159C.(1AB) If a person to whom a payment under section 1159C has been made is not released from gaol or psychiatric confinement on the person's expected release day, subsection (1AA) does not apply to the person.(1AC) A day is a person's expected release day for the purposes of subsection (1AB) if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person will be released from gaol or psychiatric confinement on that day.4 After subsection 1223AA(1BA)Insert:(1C) If: (a) a payment of a pension, benefit or crisis payment has been made to a person under section 1159C; and (b) immediately after the release of the person from gaol or psychiatric confinement: (i) the person was not qualified for the pension, benefit or crisis payment; or (ii) although the person was qualified for the pension, benefit or crisis payment, the pension, benefit or crisis payment was not payable to the person;the amount of the payment is a debt due to the Commonwealth.5 Application—claims(1) Section 1159A of the Social Security Act 1991 as in force immediately after the commencement of this Schedule does not apply in relation to a claim made before the commencement of this Schedule.(2) Section 1159B of the Social Security Act 1991 as in force immediately after the commencement of this Schedule applies in relation to a claim whether the claim is made before or after the commencement of this Schedule. 6 Application—section 1161If: (a) before the commencement of this Schedule, a person is released from gaol, or from psychiatric confinement that the person was undergoing because he or she had been charged with committing an offence, after spending at least 7 days in gaol or such confinement; and (b) the person claims widow allowance, youth allowance, austudy payment, newstart allowance, sickness allowance, partner allowance, or mature age allowance under Part 2.12B, within 7 days after being released; and (c) the claim is made after the commencement of this Schedule; and (d) the claim is granted;section 1161 of the Social Security Act 1991 as in force immediately before the commencement of this Schedule applies to the rate of the benefit or allowance claimed by the person. 21:37:0011895Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—I move:That Senate amendments Nos 1 to 16 and Nos 18 to 27 be agreed to.I have moved that these amendments be agreed to, although the government does not necessarily agree with some of the amendments to the recognisable interests of the Senate. The government will accept the amendments put forward by the opposition as well as those put forward by the government in the Senate.The government does not agree to Senate amendment No. 17, because the grandfather clause is not merited in this instance. Firstly, this is a clear case of double dipping, which should not be supported. Secondly, as pointed out to all the Senate parties, the amendment as put by the Democrats is flawed and subsequently cannot be supported. For these reasons, the government is not supportive of this particular Senate amendment.21:40:0011895Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I rise to first of all express some pleasure at the fact that the Labor Party in the Senate has been able to amend the Further 1998 Budget Measures Legislation Amendment (Social Security) Bill 1999 to improve the legislation. Firstly, we thwarted the government's attempts to knock off the employment entry payment. We similarly stopped them from removing the education entry payment from allowance recipients. We also stopped them from imposing a double liquid assets waiting period on students who pay for their own study while supporting themselves. Where we continue to disagree with the government is in their treatment of CDEP and the changes that they propose. We in fact accept the government's advice that the amendment, which was drafted by the Democrats, does not achieve its objective.The Democrats will, we understand, be redrafting their amendment, and we will be supporting that in the Senate and therefore it will come back to the House for further substantive debate. The point also needs to be made that that is not our preferred position. Our preferred position is not to have a grandfathering clause. Our preferred position is simply to knock off this draconian measure in total.This measure is not about double dipping. This measure is about stopping the current circumstances whereby indigenous people are treated the same as other Australians are. We need to examine what exactly this change does. This change is aimed at ripping off $80 a week from indigenous people who participate in CDEP in remote areas. If you think about the most disadvantaged people in our society, it is very hard to think of a more disadvantaged category than single parents who are indigenous and live in remote areas. This is Pythonesque in its draconian nature and is reinforcement of this government's being full of people who have graduated from the Margaret Thatcher school of kicking beggars. That is what they are about. The poorer and more disadvantaged you are, the more pleasure this mob get from taking away your income.What we are talking about here is that sole parents who currently participate in CDEP are currently able to keep $100 a fortnight—just as other single parents who work are able to earn up to $102 a fortnight without losing some of their benefits. What happens currently is that, of the $330 that is paid as a contribution for the CDEP, $100 is kept by the sole parent and $230 of that money is paid into the community. That is the beauty of CDEP. The government gives us all this rhetoric, and we hear the Minister for Employment, Training and Youth Affairs asked the same question day after day about Work for the Dole. He comes up here and says, `We support Work for the Dole. We think it is a terrific scheme.' Well, the first, and model, Work for the Dole program was of course the CDEP. It is a good program, because the money is paid into the community, to the benefit of the community, for schemes which increase the infrastructure of that community.Here we have a government which is saying, `We will take money off indigenous sole parents who are participating in that scheme.' It is mean spirited, it is heartless and we will not have a bar of it. That is why we will support the Democrats' amendment, weak as it is with the grandfathering clause, but it is better than this government's approach. We will continue to raise these issues. This could well have been part of the secret document that Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services, will not release. We do not know what is in that document—2V5SWANMr Swan—It is still in the bottom drawer.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—the great visionary document that is in the bottom drawer. What we do know is that these are the sorts of cuts that this government envisages in the name of reform. It is not reform; it is just about cutting and taking away people's rights and benefits. That is why we put on the record our opposition again today. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.Motion (by Mr Anthony) proposed:That amendment No. 17 be disagreed to.21:47:0011896Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—I think it is worth while getting up to put a few things on the record. I endorse all the comments made by the honourable member for Grayndler, who has had carriage of this matter in this House. The points he makes are valid points. But this minister, the Minister for Community Services, should be ashamed of himself. The CDEP has a bit of history, and he more than anyone should know it because his father was part of the cabinet that sponsored the CDEP. Malcolm Fraser was the Prime Minister who brought CDEP in. It has got a 22-year history. It has been an important and integral part of indigenous communities in helping rebuild those communities. It was the initial Work for the Dole.The trouble is that this government, under this Prime Minister, are going back to the old dark days. There should be incentives for CDEP participants. They are disadvantaged as it is. They are going out there and working. For this minister to be getting up as enthusiastically as he is and supporting what this Prime Minister is doing, shame on you, because the history is that in remote and regional communities the employment is not there. Moving those people into cities where employment occurs will create further disadvantage and dislocation of those communities. That is why we should not apologise if CDEP recipients receive some further benefits. We should be arguing that they are out there working for the dole. Single mothers should not be disadvantaged by this. So I am a bit disappointed that again we will be supporting the second-best option because the Democrats have come up with a halfway house.In this area I think the government have a lot to answer for. We should remember that in the first budget they quarantined an expansion of 2,500 places. It was just madness. In the subsequent budget in 1997 they released another 600 places. This government need to think again in relation to CDEP. There should be those incentives for people who are not going to find employment. It is not the same situation as in the cities where, if you engage in Work for the Dole programs and training, you are going to find employment. You are not going to. That is why the Labor Party has, in a whole range of other areas as well, taken the position on CDEP. A lot of the amendments that the government are now accepting are amendments that we have insisted on and the Democrats came on board. Why? Because we think that is the way forward. The fact is that we did thwart the government's attempts to knock off the employment entry payment, and we stopped them from removing education entry payment from allowance recipients. That is all important stuff. This minister needs to understand that, from the Labor Party's point of view, we are getting sick and tired of the class based attitude of this government—and that is what it is. They are taking from the poor to give to the rich.The Victorians have just despatched Jeff Kennett. He has been Jeffed today. Today is his last day as Premier, and Steven Bracks takes over as Premier tomorrow. As far as this government's attitude of dividing the community and, in effect, continuing to take away from the disadvantaged and the poor to give to their mates is concerned, the electors are waiting for you. In a couple of years time you will see.I commend my colleague and friend the honourable member for Grayndler because he has championed this debate on behalf of the opposition. The fact that a number of these amendments have been accepted by the government in the Senate is a vindication of the championing of these positions by both him and the honourable member for Lilley. It is the Labor Party that has run the line on these amendments and the Democrats, frankly, have followed suit. It is a pity that in relation to amendment No. 17—we are going to reject amendment No. 17—we are again coming up with this halfway house. I intervene in the debate to say that these are substantial amendments from our point of view. We think that they improve the bill, and that is why we have accepted those other amendments. I think this minister needs to be very wary of this Prime Minister. He should take the lead from the Fraser government's approach—an approach that his predecessor, his father, was involved in. A bit of compassion goes a long way. You do not have to go through Thatcher. (Time expired)21:52:0011897Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—I thank the previous speaker, the member for Banks, for his partial interpretation of history. Indeed, I do remember the 1967 referendum. My father was very active in that particular cause as well, as was mentioned before, CDEP having been brought in by the Fraser government.R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—You don't wind it back.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—We are not winding it back, however we do not believe that it is appropriate to have double dipping. In this case, as was pointed out by some members of the opposition—I think they feel a little boxed in because of the Democrats's move—the grandfather clause is inconsistent with the fiscal objectives of the CDEP package contained in the bill which implemented important features of the Spicer report and which were supported by ATSIC. This is the interesting point: that was actually supported by ATSIC.The amendment is incorrectly drafted for the purpose for which it was stated to be intended. If the aim of the amendment was to grandfather lone parents affected by the bill, the amendment does go too far. By negating the entire item 53 in the bill in relation to lone parents, it has the effect of disentitling the group from eligibility for the CDEP participation supplement. The amendments put by the Democrats relating to the CDEP scheme and lone parents receiving `parent payment single' do not make sense. In conclusion, as I have said before in this place, the measure is a strong support of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission.R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—That is not true.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—It is true. The measure, as supported by ATSIC, ends the situation where a small group of people are able to legally claim two income support payments. No-one else in the Australian community is legally able to double-dip from the taxpayer. For these reasons, the government is not supportive of these particular Senate amendments.21:54:0011897Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I am happy to speak again. The member for Richmond makes a couple of interesting claims.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—The minister.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—The Minister for Community Services—the member for Richmond for the moment—firstly says that a grandfather clause is inappropriate and does not fit in with the current methods of the way that the CDEP operates. We would agree in part because that is why we think that this measure, this draconian change by the government, should not be supported at all. But a grandfather clause is better than nothing at all. What a grandfather clause will do is ensure that those single parents who are currently participants in CDEP who earn $330 for their participation in that program, who contribute $230 to their community by that participation, who get a whole $100 a fortnight by their participation in that scheme, will not have their social security cut. The fact is that, unless there is grandfathering, people who currently earn $100 a fortnight will have that cut back to $20 a fortnight. In the name of equity and fairness, I do not think so, Minister.This is the government that promised that no Australian would be worse off. Remember that promise prior to the 1996 election? Yet it wants to take $80 from indigenous sole parents in remote areas. That is what this is about—$80. That might not be much to the spivs with their family trusts who occupy the front bench, but it is a lot to indigenous sole parents. That is what this mob wants to do.The second point that those opposite raise concerns ATSIC and its alleged support for this government measure. Minister, when it comes back to the House, we will be tabling the advice that we have from ATSIC. ATSIC, in fact, has written to senators saying that, having examined it, it no longer supports this government measure. Having examined the fact that it will take $80 per fortnight out of the pockets of indigenous sole parents, ATSIC does not want a bar of it, Minister. This is in spite of the fact of your having stood over it, just as you have done with other community and representative organisations—with the women's groups; with the Pensioners and Superannuants Federation; with AYPAC, the Australian Youth Policy and Action Coalition; just as you have done with every one of those organisations. The fact is that, if you stand up and are truly representative, this mob over here try to intimidate you. They said to ATSIC, `This is a take it or leave it package.' This is a whole package of reforms and, essentially, they put that to ATSIC. The fact is that ATSIC has disagreed with the government's position.The minister is out of date. In this House on 12 October the minister said:But ATSIC is accepting the amendments. The amendments have strong support from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. It seems as though the Labor Party is not listening to that. It is not listening to this peak organisation which we recognise looks after indigenous Australians—who have been disadvantaged for many years . . . Well, Minister, listen to ATSIC because it is not supporting you on this bill. It does not want a bar of you on this bill because it knows that this bill highlights just how unfair this government is. Just as the government will not bring out the secret document from the bottom drawer of the Minister for Family and Community Services, ATSIC will not support the government on this. The fact is that ATSIC is not supporting this, and the Labor Party will not be either. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.22:00:0011898Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—I present the reasons for the House disagreeing to the Senate amendments, and I move:That the reasons be adopted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills11898r91211898Debate resumed from 14 October, on motion by Mr Reith:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Ms Macklin moved by way of amendment:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading the House expresses its concern about the nature of the bill and its contribution to the stripping back of Government support for Australian women and the community organisations that represent them, in particular:(1) the weakening of industrial relations legislation and organisations that aim to improve women's employment prospects and workplace treatment, particularly through the Workplace Relations Act and reductions in the power of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission;(2) the weakening of organisations that exist to provide women with suitable avenues of redress for discrimination, including the Affirmative Action Agency and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission;(3) failure to respond to major reports, particularly the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Report, Pregnant and Productive ;(4) failure to send appropriate representation to international forums discussing women's policy, particularly to the recent International Labour Organisation's conference on maternity leave provisions;(5) the weakening of the role of government organisations that aim to improve the sensitivity of government policies to women, particularly the Office of the Status of Women;(6) the de-funding of community groups which represent women, including the Girl Guides, the Women's Electoral Lobby, the Older Women's Network and the Catholic Women's League;(7) failure to consult with a wide range of women's organisations, particularly through the reduction in the numbers now attending the national round table consultations;(8) cuts to child care, education and health-services which women depend upon to be able to work, to raise a family and to improve their living standards;(9) the development of taxation policies which do not deliver an equal benefit to women and which redistribute more of the burden of taxation onto women through the Goods and Services Tax; and(10) the de-funding of the social safety net by stealth which impacts significantly on women as women are more dependent upon social security and the Government's refusal to release a secret welfare discussion paper containing plans to cut payments to sole parents and people with disabilities."22:00:0011899Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—It is interesting that I should be rising to speak on the bill that has been introduced by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Peter Reith—the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 —at a time following a debate in which we have just heard the member for Grayndler and other members, including the member for Banks, speaking about this government's attack not just on women in general but on Aboriginal women and single mothers.I wish to speak tonight against this bill and in support of the amendment moved by the member for Jagajaga. I say to this House and to others who may be listening that this government has shown absolutely no intention at all of taking seriously the concerns that have been raised in the operation of the Affirmative Action Agency by an independent committee review recommending many changes to the act as it currently exists, without these amendments going through.The minister, Peter Reith, responded in December last year to a report called Unfinished Business, which was a report done by a committee of review of the Affirmative Action Act. That report made serious and numerous recommendations to try to make the operation of the agency more effective. The minister said that the changes that were being proposed in the bill addressed the issues that were raised in that report. In his second reading speech the minister again repeated that this bill reflected the government's response to the concerns raised by the Unfinished Business report. He spent a great deal of time in his response in December 1998 saying that the coalition's workplace reforms had also delivered many benefits to women in the workplace.I highlight to the House tonight that the most significant recommendations made in the report have not been adopted by the government at all. Many other decisions made by this government have had an impact on working women in a way that has meant that women are being pushed backwards in the work force in a large number of areas. The government even had the cheek to say in their response:We have also improved career paths and increased job security for women through simplified awards and wider availability of permanent part time employment.What an absolute joke that is, when the government, now in their second wave of industrial relations changes, are seeking to remove classification structures and career paths from awards not just for women but for everybody. We have also seen them trying to remove the regulation of part-time and casual work, minimum and maximum hours. They are taking away the scant security that exists for casual and part-time workers, who are still largely women, through their changes in the industrial relations system. It seems to be the height of hypocrisy that the minister could come into this place and say that the changes that are being suggested as part of this bill will somehow provide women with more opportunities and will improve their situation in the workplace.There are many people in the women's movement and elsewhere who have already been acutely aware of the limitations of the Affirmative Action Agency over its period of operation. There are concerns that there have never been very effective sanctions. Those sanctions have been largely dependent upon a company that did not comply with the act being named in parliament. In more recent times there has also been an opportunity for the government to require compliance with the act in provision of contracts to certain businesses.What the independent review has said—and one of the very significant changes that has not been picked up by this government—is that we need to look at more effective sanctions in order to encourage companies which are not complying with the act to comply with the act. One of the most fundamental recommendations which could have been easily implemented was a recommendation that there should be the capacity for the agency to be able to make workplace inspections, to actually make an assessment about whether or not the reports that were being filed in compliance with the act were actually being acted upon. It is suspected that in many situations companies were spending a lot of time complying with the act in stating their policy and in filling out their statistics, but were doing absolutely nothing to actually comply with the spirit and intent of this legislation in hoping to improve opportunities for women in the workplace. But does the government pick up this recommendation of the committee? No, it actually does not even look for an excuse. It just says, `No, we decline to pick up this recommendation.' It does not pick up one of the few recommendations that would have actually meant that the agency could have some real teeth in administering its area of responsibilities.Further in this bill, the government have suggested that the reporting requirements be changed from annual reporting to every second year. There seems to be some logic that, `The reporting takes a long time, so it would be better if we just did it every second year rather than every year.' There is, however, no acknowledgment of the concerns expressed by the committee that some companies are just filling out the report as a matter of form, that they are not really trying to deal with the issues that should be addressed when their human resources manager or general manager or whoever sits down and fills out the reports. There is nothing that puts attention on those people to say, `Is your company actually addressing these issues seriously?' The only thing that the government is concerned about is the amount of paperwork that people have to do. They are actually saying, `We do not care if you are just filling in the forms; we do not mind if you are not complying with the intentions of the act or pursuing any of your policies of promoting equal opportunity. All we really want to do is make sure that you do not spend any more time on the paperwork.'It is of great concern to members on this side of the House that the government is prepared to whitewash these issues. It is indicative of the government's way of handling women's issues in a large range of areas. We saw last week the great turnaround by Senator Newman after having defunded a great range of women's organisations. Let us not pretend—and this has been said in the House before—that these organisations have not been punished for the statements they have made that run counter to the government's policies. These organisations are advocates for women's groups in a broad range of areas. Whether they are religious organisations, YWCA or WEL, they are respected organisations that represent a broad range of women within our community.They have had the temerity and the cheek, according to this government, to come along and participate in our parliamentary processes—to express to the Senate committee on the GST their view that maybe the GST was not such a good idea for women. And what do they find happens when the funding comes up? They get cut. We spend all our time as parliamentarians trying to encourage people to participate in the political process. I do not think anybody in this House would be impressed to see that, when an organisation comes along and says, `We think this policy is going to hurt women, and this is why we think it will,' they get their funding cut.We have seen a great turnaround. Senator Newman had to back down on this and provide some funding for these organisations again. She was embarrassed into doing it. After the Labor Party put sustained pressure on the government, they restored funding to a number of those women's organisations. But the message has not gone unnoticed. Women in Australia know the government is trying to silence them. The government has good reason to be trying to do that, because the sorts of changes it is proposing in the bill that we are debating tonight are going to hurt women in an area in which we already know that there is vulnerability and that the system is not working properly.The Affirmative Action Agency is not delivering some of the benefits and changes that were hoped for. Rather than trying to improve the way the agency works, the government is making changes that are going to make it even less effective. No doubt, in another year's time, we will see some suggestion from the government along the lines of, `If it isn't effective, perhaps we should abolish it or do something else that will sound like we care about these issues but which won't require us to take any action.'I have already discussed the fact that workplace inspections are one of the concerns that we on this side of the House have raised. I know the Women's Electoral Lobby specifically called being named in parliament a `derisory penalty'. That this government are prepared to stick with that sends a clear signal from the government that they are not even taking their own legislation seriously. There are a number of other measures that could have some impact on the way in which this legislation works, but it depends almost entirely on the amount of resources that the government is prepared to put into the agency. We have had no indication in the budget of any extra resources being put into this agency.It is a great concern that this agency that should deal with the position of women in the workplace is going to find it very difficult to be effective at all. It is particularly a concern in an environment where industrial relations changes are also going to make women more vulnerable in the workplace. We know women still suffer in a number of areas in the workplace, whether from discrimination in employment, pay equity, access to overtime or the sort of flexibility of hours that some people and not others are granted. We know access, pay, opportunity and training are key issues for all workers but particularly for women in the work force.It is of great concern that these are the very issues this minister is trying to take out of our award system. He is trying to ensure that there is a prohibition on these issues being dealt with in our award system. He has supported and introduced changes—they have been passed in this House and are now before the Senate—to move from an award system which is reasonable, fair and comprehensive, although less comprehensive since this government's changes in 1996, to an award system which is going to be far less comprehensive. In fact, it is going to be a bare minimum.If this workplace relations legislation is passed in its current form, we will be looking at the commission being able to consider only basic minimum conditions in a very restricted area instead of being able to set fair, reasonable and comprehensive conditions for women in awards. The issues that I raised before, such as training and the classification structure, are key issues for women. They are key ways in which women can move from perhaps an entry level, a lower level in the employment structure, in a workplace up through the ranks of that workplace.That is what the Affirmative Action Agency is supposed to be encouraging. We ask companies to report. We need to ask questions like: how many women do you employ? What level are they employed at? Have they moved up the structure? Have you done anything to encourage them to move up the structure? Not only is this government going to make it easier for companies not to have to report—it is not going to impose any sanctions on them if the companies are not doing it—but it is going to take out of awards any way for people to measure or be able to argue that they are working at a higher level.A woman in a workplace cannot say, `I started off on the factory floor, but now I'm supervising 20 people. I should be three levels up in the classification structure.' This minister wants to make sure there is no classification structure. That woman will not be able to argue her position. If the combina tion of these changes through the government's legislative agenda comes into place, that woman will have no claim to pursue. And it will not matter when they fill in the report for the Affirmative Action Agency, because they will be able to say, `We employ 20 women out of 40 employees, and they're all class A, because we have only class A.' There will be no way for us to make an assessment about whether those women are being progressed in the workplace. This is something that is of great concern to us.I am speaking here to the amendments that have been moved by the member for Jagajaga. There are more fundamental changes that come about through the ironically named Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 , and they are the prohibitions on allowing people to negotiate collectively. I call them prohibitions, and I think these need to be specifically addressed. Many criticisms can be made of that bill. I am focusing tonight on just three areas where women will be at a significant disadvantage because they are a particular concern when we are weakening sanctions in other areas and we are making sure there is no way for there to be any workplace inspection to see what is being done.One of those is a change which will allow an employer to not offer the same agreement to a whole workplace or a whole or discrete part of a workplace. That might not be clear for people. Currently, there is a provision which says that a collective agreement must apply to a whole workplace or a discrete part of a workplace. These rules were introduced, ironically enough, to assist employers who wanted to insist that, if there were multiple unions representing people within the workplace, people would still have to be part of one agreement. These rules came into place at the insistence of employers and made it easier for them to be able to have all their workers under one agreement.That provision is being removed for the very reason—and we have to be concerned about the reason for this—that it will allow employers to separate out groups of employees and play them off against each other. It will allow them to say, `We want all the women whom we employ to clean the floors to be paid under a totally different pay structure arrangement from the one under which we want all of the men who are forklift drivers to be paid.' It means that it is easy for employers to be able to separate out people. It invites the sort of gender segregation that we have, for many years, been trying to fight against within particular workplaces and within different industries. It is of great concern to us that these sorts of changes are being suggested.In a similar vein, there is a proposal to remove the obligation for an employer who is going to offer a workplace agreement or an individual contract to one worker to offer the same agreement to all `comparable employees'—I think that is the correct wording at the moment. Again, the removal of such a protection can be seen only as creating an opportunity for employers to choose to discriminate between employees doing the same type of work. The unfortunate reality is that that discrimination has mostly occurred at the expense of women workers. We have already, for many years, been fighting for women to be paid equally for comparable work—and it is a battle that we still have not won in many areas—but at least we now have a system, stripped back as it is, which requires and enables women employees to argue that they are doing the same work and should be paid the same amount. That is going to go if this minister's agenda is pursued.The third and final area that I want to concentrate on is more general. The amendments being proposed to the Workplace Relations Act will put a greater emphasis on individual negotiations over collective negotiations. Even where collective agreements have been reached, individual agreements will be able to undermine those. A significant amount of research indicates that women are at a comparative disadvantage to men if they are required to negotiate individually. Of course these are generalisations. Of course many women can negotiate decent conditions for themselves. However, there are far more women who are reliant on award conditions and collective agreements who will be disad vantaged by an emphasis on individual employment contracts. There is plenty of research that deals with the disparity in economic power and information, the uncertainty of legal entitlements and a discussion of what is called the `credibility gap between men and women' and even the way that many men and women view their own employment.I have a great deal of concern, and I am speaking against the government's bill and in support of the amendments of the member for Jagajaga because the bill currently before the House, in combination with the range of other approaches that the government is taking in industrial relations, means that women are destined to go further backwards in the workplace in an era when we should be looking forward and should be able to say that we have obtained some equality for women in the work force. The changes in this bill will mean that if we lose some of that equality we may not even know. We may not know that we are slipping backwards because the reporting requirements have been weakened, the sanctions are not effective and companies can continue to ignore these provisions if they are prepared to be named in parliament—something which is regarded by many people as an insignificant penalty.Another example of what the government has been doing is in relation to maternity leave. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has handed down a report on pregnancy in the workplace and made a large number of very constructive recommendations about what the government could do. We have had four months of silence from the government on this. I know that the member for Jagajaga has indicated that further amendments will be pursued in the Senate on this issue to make sure that women in the work force are not going to go backwards in this area too. The public service, particularly the Commonwealth Public Service, is the one industry that has had established well-recognised paid maternity leave for a very long time. Even in that area, we are going backwards under this government. As we see more and more of the Public Service being contracted out, the government is trying to introduce changes that will ensure that the conditions of public sector employees are not continued into the private sector. Those women are losing their rights to paid maternity leave.Overall, Mr Deputy Speaker, you can see that we have good reason to be very concerned about the government's agenda in respect of women. We can see why they are trying to defund any advocacy groups that might embarrass them by highlighting their absolutely appalling record in this area. (Time expired)22:20:0011903Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—I rise to speak in opposition to the bill before the House and in support of the amendment moved by the member for Jagajaga. The bill before the House is rather grandly titled the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 . If this bill and the general policies of the government lived up to this title then the women of Australia would be applauding. But, as with so much of this government's legislation, this bill must be the product of an Orwellian ministry of truth. The ministry of truth has already presented the House with the minister's mojo bill—the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 —which is really about fewer jobs and worse pay. Now we have the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 , which, like much of the government's approach to women and the workplace, is really about watering down the institutional protections women have to ensure equal opportunity.Under the provisions of the bill, employers with more than 100 employees are required to develop equal opportunity for women in the workplace programs which address employment matters. The term `employment matters' is defined to include conditions of service for employees. The inclusion of the term `conditions of service' survives from the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act, which this bill amends.The newly introduced objects clause in this bill affirms that there should be no discrimination against women in relation to employment matters such as conditions of service. However, I must confess to finding this apparently earnest approach on the question of employment conditions ironic in view of the government's policy attitude towards the most basic employment condition question for women—namely, equal pay. Taking a few minutes to analyse the current situation of equal pay, I refer members to a recent article in the Age by Tim Colebatch which was an excellent exposition of the continuing problem of equal pay. As the article notes, and as I think we all know in this House, it is 30 years since the Arbitration Commission introduced the principle of equal pay for equal work throughout Australia. Yet, here we are 30 years later and women earn only 66 per cent as much as the average male.In May the Bureau of Statistics reported that male employees on average earn $733 a week whereas female employees earn $483 a week. Some of this gap can be explained; there is no doubt about that. Part of the explanation is the different incidence of full-time and part-time work between men and women. Looking at that, we find that in May this year 44 per cent of female workers worked part time whereas just 13 per cent of male workers did. So you can control for the incidence factor of full-time and part-time work. But, once you have controlled for that factor, you still come up with a gender gap and we still have women workers earning only 80 per cent as much as men. So you are left searching for another explanation.Certainly, part of that explanation is the incidence of overtime. The statistics have historically shown that, on average, full-time men have more access to overtime than full-time women workers. In May this year the difference in overtime earnings between men and women was $55 for men and $14 for women. Once again, you can control for that factor by taking it down to the full-time rate of pay and looking at the hourly incidence of earnings. However, when you get down to the rate of pay per hour worked, you find that women at that stage are earning 89 per cent of the male wage. So we still have this 11 per cent gap. We have to ask ourselves: what explains that?You could be tempted to say that it can be explained by the occupational incidence of men and women in our labour market with men tending to be clustered in the relatively highly paid jobs and women tending to be clustered in the relatively lowly paid jobs. But that cannot be all of the explanation. Even when we go occupation by occupation, we find that men and women in the same occupation earn differently, and women earn less. For example, amongst police officers, the difference is 10 per cent. Amongst hairdressers, the difference is eight per cent. Amongst teachers, the difference is six per cent. Amongst those involved in computing, the difference is 13 per cent. Amongst retail sales, the difference is 16 per cent.That leads you to say, `Maybe I've found the explanation.' Maybe the explanation is that women do not reach the same occupational status throughout their working lives because of the tendency to break from the paid work force for family bearing and family rearing responsibilities. If that were true, then you would tend to say that younger women and younger men would have equal wages and that the difference would grow over time as women perhaps go in and out of the work force in order to raise families. But that is not the explanation either.When we look at the female to male full-time pay rate amongst teenagers, there is a gender gap of five per cent—that is, female teenagers earn 95 per cent of the earnings of their male counterparts. We have to say that it is not full time/part time. It is not overtime. It is not occupational characteristics. It is not lifetime working patterns. Out there somewhere there is direct bias, and that is some of the explanation for the failure in this country to reach equal pay. It is a policy failure, if you like, that this legislation and, indeed, none of this government's policies are doing anything to address.It is a policy failure that would require an approach which said that it is important that we get in there and fix this, that fairness and equity demand that we get in and fix it and that we take out any actual bias that there is driving male and female pay rates to be different. But the government's approach is in fact the reverse of that. As we know from the More Jobs, Better Pay bill, the whole approach is to withdraw from the institutional setting of regulating and ensuring fairness in our workplaces. The approach is to withdraw from that and to allow those things to go into the market and to collective bargaining structures—out there somewhere but away from any form of institutional oversight or any institutional regime which could drive fair outcomes.It is interesting that we now have an academic study, which I think would make good reading for every member of this House, which looks at where we could go with gender wage equity because we have a roll back in our industrial regulation system. This study is called `The future is bleak: enterprise bargaining and gender wage equity'. It comes from Geoffrey Crockett and Alison Preston of the Department of Economics at the Curtin University of Technology. They have looked at the impact that Richard Court's industrial relations system—or perhaps one should say lack of system—has had on the question of gender pay equity. If you like, they have given us a small snapshot of where we could be in the future nationally if the More Jobs, Better Pay bill allows a full roll back of industrial conditions and we get to a national system which is like the system that Richard Court has in operation now. So it is a very useful study.For those not particularly interested in statistics, it can be a difficult study because it relies on what is known as a decomposition procedure. A decomposition procedure in statistics is where you identify known factors and control for them so you can end up with a crystallised analysis of what is not known. When we go through that decomposition analysis for the WA gender wage gap between 1991 and 1996—that is, the period in which the Richard Court reforms came into operation—we find that the gender wage gap has increased during that period. They go through a very sophisticated analysis in that in 1991 they look at the gender wage gap and in 1996 they look at the gender wage gap. They get the raw gender wage gap and they control for all known factors.Debate interrupted.Adjournment1190510000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.1190522:30:0011905Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I have been a member of this place for 19 years, and it is some 16 years since I spoke in an adjournment debate. I apologise to my backbenchers, but on the whole I have not imposed on them very much in that period of time. The reason I do so tonight is that I was enormously moved by a small ceremony I attended in my electorate last Saturday. The Rockingham Sub-Branch of the Returned and Services League has dedicated a small grove of trees outside its headquarters with 22 commemorative plaques in memory of the 20 servicemen from Rockingham who died in World Wars I and II and two servicemen who died subsequently while performing peacetime duties for the defence forces.During World War I, Rockingham was a community of about 200 people, about 20 of whom served in the Defence Force—four of them died. During World War II, the population of Rockingham was around 2,000. According to RSL information, approximately 160 joined the services. Of the 16 men from Rockingham who died during World War II, five were lost when HMAS Sydney was sunk by the Germans off the north-west coast of Western Australia. One also died on HMAS Perth.As we look down the list of the names and the musterings of the 20 from Rockingham who died in World War I and World War II, we see that pretty well the entirety of the history of Australian involvement is covered by the areas in which they served. One was in the 11th Battalion, which distinguished itself at Gallipoli. The others were in battalions that fought on the Western Front. In World War II, as I have already mentioned, five went down with HMAS Sydney and one with HMAS Perth. There are also representatives of battalions which fought in the Middle East and in the islands. On the Air Force side are those who fought with bomber squadrons who operated over Europe.Subsequent to those two world wars, two additional residents of Rockingham have been killed whilst performing tasks of the armed services. One in particular I want to mention was Andrew Spencer, who was killed in June 1976 in an accident on HMAS Vampire. His parents, Lew and Mary, and sister, Laura, were most moved at the dedication ceremony. Their son and brother had been buried previously at sea and there was no point at which they could identify with some memory of their beloved son and brother. They now have, courtesy of the Rockingham RSL, a point of reference for them to visit and for them to cherish the memory of their loved one.There has been an enormous amount of work put into this. The plaques themselves are expensive and beautifully constructed. Their cost is directly a product of the great difficulty of keeping plaques in a serviceable condition near the coastline. So they have been specially prepared to ensure that the salty sea air does not cause them to rust.It is an enormous labour of love by the Rockingham RSL. In particular, I want to congratulate Stan Panting, who is the current President of the Rockingham RSL, and also two others from the Rockingham RSL, Eric Harrod and Robbie Drew, who worked tirelessly for this project. They have been assisted by the Sound Telegraph, Western Australian newspapers, John Holland Constructions, Gary Holland, the Chief Executive Officer of the Rockingham City Council, and Ken Needham, the Property Officer of the Rockingham City Council.We Australians take our memorials seriously. They are part of our soul, part of our nation's soul. It is a great thing when small groups like the Rockingham RSL can put such effort into ensuring that those who may well have been their members had they come home are properly and honourably remembered.1190622:35:0011906Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—I would like to say a few things about the forthcoming referendum chiefly for the benefit of my electors, my branch members, my friends, my family and, one day in the distant future I hope, my daughter. It is best that I record my reasons for voting yes before the vote takes place.I have always believed in tackling reform well in advance. I think that is really what statesmanship, as opposed to partisanship, is all about. It is about looking ahead and seeing what needs to be done however painful it might be sometimes. So I will be casting my yes vote with a lot of good feeling towards our British heritage. I have a profound respect for all British institutions, especially I suppose the common law, plus a great love of Scotland and its culture, which is that of my paternal ancestors. But at the same time I feel a great enthusiasm for Australia's potential, particularly in Asia. To fulfil that potential I think we require something more than economic vibrancy: we have to take a step forward in a more personal, more historical sense. This ought to be a matter not of Anglophobic malice but of good old-fashioned pride.To those who say that the proposed change is a dangerous one, I say that I cannot feel so gloomy. I think the very settlement of Australia was a risky proposition in itself because this is an inherently risky continent, but it is part of the Australian character to overcome risky odds and to achieve a reasonable outcome. As fiery, as tribal and as stubborn as political folk can be around this place, we always do the reasonable and the decent thing in the end. Hence, there is no reason to suppose that an Australian republic would lead to dangerous chaos. Talk of Hitler or Weimar Republics is simply to ignore the essential solidity of Australian people, to say nothing of how silly such talk sounds. We can handle this change safely, and we will one day.Finally, I have to say that my impression is that we already have a republican style of government—with minor parties in control of our legislature and a Prime Minister who has to negotiate almost everything with them, much as an American President does with his or her Congress. We are already very similar to an American style of government, which was an evolution if you like from Britain, as America was originally a British colony. If we are so similar in that sense, it is not so much a revolutionary proposition to me that we move to become a republic. A directly elected President, however, would be in my view revolutionary, but that is not what is now proposed.If the yes case fails in the referendum, the important thing is that we do not lapse into acrimony. We should pause, and thereafter I think the debate will continue because the movement for such change is not going to fade away; it is only gradually going to get stronger as time passes. It is very important that the government provide a sensible and flexible mechanism to allow that debate to continue after the referendum if the yes case fails.That said, with Queen Elizabeth still on the throne, it is frankly hard to see the yes case winning because respect for her runs very deep in this country, and I share that. I respect her and I respect her dignity, but I will vote yes because I think our national pride requires that.1190722:39:0011907Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—I rise to speak briefly this evening on a proposal that a delegation of Australian parliamentarians visit West Timor in the near future. The background of this proposal is fairly straightforward. As members would have seen from the international press coverage of the recent crisis in East Timor, 100,000 or 200,000 refugees from the East have been relocated to the West. When we ask ourselves the simple question, `What conditions are these refugees living in?' the honest answer is that we do not know. We ask if they are being supplied with sufficient food; we do not know. We ask whether the shelter is adequate; we still do not know. In terms of the operation of the repatriation agreement—which was recently signed between the government of Indonesia and the UNHCR—we do not know how that will operate either.The reality we all face is that the crisis in East Timor is slowly slipping from national and international news media attention. A casual viewing of the nightly 6 o'clock news would demonstrate that to us all. That is East Timor. When we look at the continuing humanitarian crisis in West Timor, we see that that is even more the case; it is slipping slowly from international attention.I have received many representations from non-government organisations and various church bodies about the importance of not forgetting the refugees who are located on the West side of that border in a number of camps in that region. On 1 October I wrote to the Indonesian embassy and asked for permission for a delegation of Australian parliamentarians to visit to look at the camps, report on conditions there and see what additionally could be done materially and in a practical way to assist those people who are living in those camps until they can be repatriated back to the other side of the border.On 6 October I received a letter back from the charge d'affaires at the Indonesian embassy informing me that the government of Indonesia would be pleased to accept such a delegation and to provide visas in order to facilitate its visit. I would like to place on record here in the parliament this evening my thanks to the government of Indonesia for allowing that to occur. Australians are a decent people. Our military commitment in East Timor is driven by our sense of decency. Our commitment to humanitarian aid in the Timor crisis is driven by a similar sense of decency. Decency is part of our national character.Earlier this year I visited North Korea and was able to come back and report to the government and the parliament on the conditions of the famine there which had largely escaped international media attention. As a consequence of that report, the government through the foreign minister here allocated an additional amount of some $A4 million to tide the famine effort over the June-July period of this year when there was a particular crisis in the amount of food aid being delivered to some millions of North Korean children. I said at that time and I repeat now that I thank the government for doing that.It was with a similar spirit and similar approach that my initiative to write to the Indonesian government about the situation in West Timor arose. Our objectives are very simple and very practical—to look first hand at the condition of the refugees in the camps; to make an assessment in terms of the adequacy of the delivery of international or multilateral aid; to see what additional can be done which is not now being done; and then, having done so, to report back here to the government and to the parliament and, to the extent that it is relevant, to the international community, given that much of the multilateral aid which is going to West Timor is sourced from abroad.I thank the government for its bipartisan support for this initiative so far. It is our hope and aspiration that this delegation can visit West Timor as soon as possible. This is a very difficult time in Indonesian politics as we all know. It is a doubly difficult time in our bilateral relationship with Indonesia. This is conceived as a very modest initiative. It is not intended to be something grand or history making. It seeks simply to do some practical things which may assist in alleviating humanitarian conditions on the West side of that border. I therefore look forward to the delegation being able to proceed and report back so that we might be able to see some practical steps taken which may assist in saving some thousands of lives.1190822:44:0011908Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—Yesterday, during the grievance debate, I made some comments regarding the ageing demographic of our community and its impact on our older citizens, particularly in my electorate of Macquarie. I was cut off before I had a chance to finish my comments, so I thought I would take this opportunity to add briefly to what I had said.I was making the point that, as our age dependency ratios rise inexorably over the next few decades—in fact, they will double over the next five decades—there will be growing impediments on governments and growing concerns and challenges for us in how we cope with them, particularly in terms of ensuring adequate income support and adequate health care for their needs. I pointed out that, in my own electorate of Macquarie in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury areas, we have significant areas of unmet need in aged care. Just last year, we had the closure of the Queen Victoria Hospital, which had quite a large number of aged care beds. Contrasted with that, last year Morven Gardens Hostel, which has 60 beds, opened, and work is about to start on a 60-bed nursing home at Hawkesbury Village.However, there is still a lot of unmet need. I have a large number of quality residential aged care facilities in my electorate, but nearly all of those have a long waiting list, and that is indicative of the unmet demand. We have a great need for community aged care packages that is not being adequately met, and I would love to see more money going in to providing more community aged care packages for both the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury. We need more facilities for respite care, for day care and even for overnight care for carers of people with dementia and other frail aged people.More attention needs to be given to issues of access and transport facilities. In an electorate such as mine where the communities are fairly spread out, there is a need for transport facilities. I know that the community transport network is doing a lot there, but more facilities are needed for those areas. I was pleased that, just a few months ago, we received extra funding for community options. We received an extra $110,000 a year for a program run by the Uniting Church which helps people stay in their own homes, which reduces their need to access residential care facilities. We are doing a lot, but there is a long way to go, and I would like to see some of those other areas of need in my electorate met.Yesterday, I made some general comments about the need to develop income support programs for discouraging early retirement and to look at other issues that the government could tackle. I was very interested in some comments made by the OECD. The OECD listed seven principles of what developed countries should be doing to prepare for an ageing community, for an ageing demographic. While I do not agree with every point they made, I have already referred to some, and I thought their third point was very interesting. They said:In order to adequately cater for ageing populations, fiscal consolidation should be pursued and public debt burdens should be reduced.In other words, we as a government have very little capacity to assist our aged citizens if we are running a large budget deficit, if too much of our money is going to debt. I remember clearly that, when this government came into office, we had a $97 billion Commonwealth debt left by the former government. That debt required $9 billion a year of taxpayers' money to service it, and that was simply to make the interest payments.I agree completely with what the OECD says on this point—that is, if we are spending $9 billion of taxpayers' money a year to service debt, we have a much more limited capacity to meet the needs of the elderly in our community. One of the best things that we as a government could have done in terms of long-term planning for our aged citizens was to make sure that we have the capacity to meet those needs by making sure that not a large amount is going towards debt servicing but that the maximum amount of taxpayer revenue is going to meeting the needs of our aged residents.It is essential that, as our community ages, we recognise the valuable contribution that our aged citizens can make to our community and we enhance the capacity for them to make that contribution. It is essential that we help support an active, rich and varied retirement for our aged citizens. It is essential that we provide adequate income support for them and that we provide adequately for their health care needs. This requires long-term planning, long-term planning that, I am pleased to say, this government is putting into place.1190922:49:0011909Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources is putting in a feeble effort on behalf of the car makers who are faced with a crisis because of the government's transitional arrangements for the GST. Last week, he said the government was talking to the companies, that it did not want the car industry to suffer and it would act, if necessary. Senator Minchin has admitted there is a problem, but it is easier for him to make sympathetic noises than do anything about it.Demand for new cars has slumped and the inventories of both the local car makers and the importers are building up across Australia. Yesterday, there were reports that inventories had reached three months supply, double the normal level of inventories in Australia. It is also about four times the level of inventories achieved by lean production manufacturers using best practice in Japan. What does that mean? The government expects the local car makers to carry the cost of inventory levels which are totally uncompetitive with the rest of the world. That cannot happen. There will be more stand-downs like the 3½ thousand laid off from Ford earlier this month. Ford has already scheduled several more down days at Broadmeadows and has warned that it might need more close downs if sales continue to fall. General Motors Holden's Chairman and Manager Director, Peter Hannenburger, said last week:We have been very successful during a difficult period of falling sales of passenger vehicles over the past three months, but not even Holden can afford to build cars for the grass.He refused to rule out down days if sales of the Commodore and Vectra, both built at Elizabeth, fail to keep pace with production. He said:There is every indication something ugly is going to happen next year.Why isn't the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources doing more than just making sympathetic noises in the face of this ugly outlook? The government's problem is that it would have to do something to restore car sales to their normal pattern, and that would be expensive. It has to cut the current wholesale sales tax rate for cars from 22 per cent to 13 per cent. That would cost around $1,300 million over the rest of the financial year. On present trends, it is already set to lose about $450 million in revenue this year because of lower demand and changes in the product mix.Certainly, $1,300 million is a great deal of money, but it has become very obvious that the Howard government has made a gigantic miscalculation in terms of the transitional effects on buyers of the introduction of the GST. Instead of the government wearing the cost of the transition, the burden has been left with the car makers and particularly workers in the car industry. The comparison that needs to be made here is with the treatment that the electrical goods industry got. They received a reduction in wholesale sales tax to ensure that there would be no buyers strike for what are mostly imported products.Most of the reduction in car sales has come from fleet buyers who are concerned about the additional cost of purchases, because residual values on cars bought now will fall as a result of the general reductions in car prices of about $2,000, on an average vehicle, resulting from the GST. For business buyers, the disincentive to buy after the GST comes in will be continued by the government's decision to deny access to GST input tax credits in 2000-01 and only 50 per cent access in 2001-02. With 72 per cent of locally produced cars supplying the fleet and business markets, the local car makers have been singled out for especially adverse GST treatment by the government.Are we seeing any sign of the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources standing up for the car industry within the government? No, we are not. Are we seeing him stand up for the most important manufacturing industry in his home state of South Australia? No, we are not. This is a crisis entirely of the government's own making. What has the minister done? Last week, he threatened to withhold $2 billion worth of assistance to the vehicle industry if the opposition insisted on a full review of the car industry before there is a further reduction in tariffs after the year 2000 and before the expiry of the new ACIS assistance arrangements in 2005.A commitment to a review of the vehicle industry by 2003 would have been of material assistance to Mitsubishi in making its case to its parent company for approval to invest in the next model Magna, a decision expected in December or January. Labor has ensured that the Howard government is not given any excuse to hold up the provision of assistance to the car industry. We will now go to the next election with a clearly differentiated policy from that of the coalition. Labor's commitment is to hold a full public review of the car industry before there is a further reduction in tariffs.1191022:54:0011910Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—This week marks the centenary of a little-known organisation called the Queanbeyan Federal City Committee and its resolution to stake a claim for the national capital to be sited in the Queanbeyan region. A petition signed by five constituents of my electorate—Connie Colleen, Julie Hopkins, Simon McLoughlin, Monica Lalor and Rebecca Bullivant—was unfortunately received too late to be included in yesterday's petitions. I want to speak on this tonight because of the significance of the timing of this event.The Federal City Committee, or FCC, was formed at a public meeting called by the Queanbeyan Mayor, Alderman W. Pike, on Tuesday, 17 October 1899 `to take steps to bring under the notice of the Commissioner the claims of the Queanbeyan district . . . in the matter of a suitable site for the Federal Capital'. Although the first speaker at the FCC meeting, Dr Blackhall, advocated the FCC committee be limited to four gentlemen—the Hon. E.W. O'Sullivan MP, Mr Cox and qualified engineers Messrs G. O'Hanlon and Hungerford—the Reverend Father Collender proposed an amendment that all present at the meeting should be members of the FCC. This was seconded by Mr Cadden who objected to `government officials and complete strangers' being entrusted with forwarding the claims of the Queanbeyan district and said that a `good case' could be `presented by a large and representative committee' and that `they should not forget that other districts were on the alert with their claims, and they must be prepared to meet influence with influence, ability with ability'.Mr O'Hanlon supported the amendment and said that `old residents of the district with perfect knowledge were far preferable for the committee to practical engineers without that knowledge'. Democratically, everyone present at that meeting on 17 October 1899 became a FCC member. A subcommittee was then formed with 12 members—Mayor Pike, the chair; Mr Cox, the secretary; Mr Cadden, the Treasurer; the Hon. E.W. O'Sullivan MP; Dr Blackhall; Dr Richardson; Mr Grady; Mr O'Hanlon; Mr F. Campbell; Mr A.J. Cunningham; Mr James Cunningham; and Mr John Gale—to deal with the site selection.The follow-on from that committee was in fact quite a successful journey because the capital for Australia was sited in the area. That particular committee were successful in their lobbying—and very strong lobbying—and other matters that they did over a period of time. I think people would know that at one stage a variety of locations were probably more preferable to the current site. Getting close to the time, Dalgety, which also happens to be in my electorate, and Delegate were possible sites for the national capital. I think Dalgety was seen as the favourite, although Delegate was also quite well-regarded because it was close to the port of Eden. At one stage it was thought that one of the criteria for a national capital was that it should be close to a port, and Eden port was a very good port. But I think the people of Sydney did not want to see another port challenging Port Jackson. At the end of the day and after a lot of hard work by this committee of Queanbeyan the location here in Canberra was selected.That is why John Gale, who was one of the members of the committee—he was also the editor of the paper that those quotes came from, which was the Queanbeyan Observer and Mining Record of 20 October 1899, which reported that meeting—is known as the Father of Canberra. This group in Queanbeyan were successful in getting $35,000 under the Federation Fund to go towards a historic walk through Queanbeyan which will include a statue of John Gale, who really was the driving force to get the national capital where it is today.Question resolved in the affirmative.House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices11911The following notice was given:Mr Price to move—That this House:(1) congratulates Dr Allan Hawke on his appointment as the new Secretary of the Department of Defence;(2) notes his prior service with the Department as Deputy Secretary and his wide public service experience;(3) wishes him well in tackling the severe morale problem in the Department; and(4) trusts he will be able to finalise the Prime Minister's report into the Reserves, clear up rotation issues surrounding the deployment of troops to East Timor and supervise the new strategic review.Answers to Questions in Writing11912The following answers to questions were circulated:11912(Question No. 703)70311912Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 7 June 1999:Has a Department or agency for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility entered a contract with or made a grant or payment to an organisation registered under subparagraph (a) 188(1)(a) or (b)188(1)(b) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996; if so, in each case, (i) which organisation (ii) what sum was received and (iii) in what State or Territory is the organisation located.11912Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:From the list of organisations provided only the ones mentioned below entered into a contract with, or had a payment of grant made to them by my department.OrganisationStateAmountReason for PaymentCPSU, the Community and Public Sector UnionNSW$2,570.00Provision of training coursesNTEU, National Tertiary Education Industry UnionVIC$1,526.37Sitting fees and associated costs for Dr C Allport TCFUA, Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union of AustraliaNSW$35,847.00Payments under the Workplace English Language and Literacy (WELL) ProgramEEASA, Engineering Employers Association, South AustraliaSA$201,250.00Entry Learning Training Support Service (ELTSS) payments. LCAVI, The Licensed Clubs Association of Victoria IncorporatedVIC$2,500.00Entry Learning Training Support Service (ELTSS) payments. MBANSW, The Master Builders' Association of New South WalesNSW$10,000.00Entry Learning Training Support Service (ELTSS) payments.TMAV, The Timber Merchants' Association (Victoria)VIC$2,500.00Entry Learning Training Support Service (ELTSS) payments.VACC, Victorian Automobile Chamber of CommerceVIC$58,000.00Entry Learning Training Support Service (ELTSS) payments.VECCI, Victorian Employers' Chamber of Commerce and IndustryVIC$605,865.0 0Entry Learning Training Support Service (ELTSS) payments.WAFFIA, Western Australian Farmers Federation Industrial AssociationWA$1,250.00Entry Learning Training Support Service (ELTSS) payments.11913(Question No. 786)78611913McFarlane, Jann, MPMs Jann McFarlane83CStirlingALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 30 June 1999:Did the Australian Taxation Office conduct an internal investigation into problems experienced with the 1998 computer processing system; if so, did the investigation identify the length of delays experienced in the processing of individuals' returns and amendments; if so, what were the lengths of the delays.11913Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable question:Yes. Internal investigations did take place. The exact number of returns and amendments that were delayed is difficult to determine. The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) estimate that the maximum numbers delayed at any stage during the year 1 July 1998 to 30 June 1999 would be:. 5% of electronic returns (300,000). 8% of paper returns (190,000). 22% of taxpayer error amendments (70,000) and. 68% of ATO error amendments (165,000)*For about 70% of delayed original assessments the delay experienced would have been no more than 5 working days. The ATO is unable to estimate the delays to amendments.* A favourable change in the tax treatment of self-education expenses generated a large number of requests for amendments.11913(Question No. 787)78711913McFarlane, Jann, MPMs Jann McFarlane83CStirlingALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 30 June 1999:When judging claims regarding compensation for detriment caused by defective administration, does the Australian Taxation Office measure its performance against benchmarks; if so, what is the benchmark for an acceptable time to process an amended assessment after the completion of an audit.11913Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:Claims for compensation for defective administration are tested against an overall test of reasonableness. Whether the failure to process an amended assessment within a set period after the completion of an audit constitutes an unreasonable lapse in complying with existing administrative procedures needs to be determined on a case by case basis.The time taken to process an amended assessment after the completion of an audit depends on the complexity of issues and number of income years involved in the particular case. The more straightforward amendments, often involving one issue and one income year, are generally processed within 14 days. The more complex amendments, often involving multiple issues and multiple income years, can take up to two months to process.As part of its commitment to continuous improvement, the procedures by which the Australian Taxation Office processes income tax amendments are currently being reviewed and best practice is being identified.11913(Question No. 788)78811913McFarlane, Jann, MPMs Jann McFarlane83CStirlingALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 30 June 1999:Does the Australian Taxation Office employ guidelines which set out timeframes for acknowledging correspondence from taxpayers; if so, what are the details of the guidelines.11913Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) sets standards of service in consultation with the community. The service standards that taxpayers can expect from the ATO under the Taxpayers' Charter and the achievements against them are published in the Commissioner of Taxation's Annual Report.With regard to general correspondence, the service standards require a response to letters within 28 days from the date of receipt of all necessary information. If further information is required it will be requested within 14 days of receiving the taxpayer's letter. If the 28 day standard cannot be met, for example because of the complexity of the matter, the service standards require the ATO to discuss another arrangement with the taxpayer within 14 days of the receipt of the information and agree a reply date.Achievement against this standard for 1998/99 is improved over the same period last year with the 28 day standard being met in 91.8% of cases in 1998/99 compared with 89.9% of cases in 1997/98.In addition to publishing achievement against the service standards in the Commissioner of Taxation's Annual Report, the ATO has included details of performance against all 14 Service Standards on its internet site—ATOassist.11914(Question No. 799)79911914Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 August 1999:(1) What performance measures does the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) have to monitor the impact of outsourcing of ATO Information Technology to EDS from 1 July 1999.(2) Do performance measures include monitoring the time taken to fix a problem identified by a staff member.(3) Is there a difference between the performance measures (a) before and (b) after the outsourcing of information technology, including the time taken to fix a problem; if so, what.11914Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) The Services Agreement between the ATO and EDS has a number of service levels and measures (performance measures) that are intended to measure how well EDS is meeting the contracted service levels. EDS is required to report on these service levels on a monthly basis.The ATO reviews and analyses these monthly performance reports to determine whether the contract levels and measures are being met. The Agreement contains provision for credits where measures are not met. EDS also reviews the performance reports with a view to understanding any issues associated with service delivery problems. Additionally, performance trend information is to be used as an input to continuous improvement processes.(2) Yes.(3) The performance measures included in the Services Agreement are equivalent or better than the performance measures in existence prior to outsourcing. In addition a greater range of service levels are required to be measured, monitored and reported on than prior to outsourcing.11914(Question No. 800)80011914Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 August 1999:Is the ATO allowed to provide advice, public education or information to the public concerning the goods and services tax (GST) and other elements of the Government's tax package without having it cleared by either the Treasury or Ministerial Committee on Government Communications; if so, what; if not; does the requirement to clear advice and information compromise the independence of the ATO.11914Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:Any government department or Financial Management and Accountability Act agency that undertakes a communication campaign is required to gain approval of the campaign by the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications (MCGC). Therefore advertising regarding tax reform has and will continue to be cleared by the MCGC. As with other government entities coming under these requirements, this clearance process does not compromise the independence of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). The ATO, in partnership with the relevant communication agencies, develops the communication strategies, concepts and media plans for the advertising campaign independent of the MCGC.The ATO's education information program is not cleared by the Department of Treasury.11914(Question No. 816)81611914Andren, Peter, MPKL6CalareIND00Mr Andren asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 August 1999:(1) Did the Australia Post offices cease from 26 February 1999 to provide a range of common Australian Taxation Office (ATO) forms when the ATO entered into a contract with the Australian Newsagents Federation.(2) How many (a) post offices across Australia provided tax forms prior to the contract and (b) newsagencies now provide tax forms.(3) How many communities have not had a local access point for tax forms since the agreement, due to a lack of an affiliated newsagent.(4) What sum will the ATO save by providing tax forms through newsagents rather than Australia Post offices.(5) Is it appropriate that under the new arrangements, residents of many small regional communities without an affiliated newsagent can only access the tax forms by contacting the ATO; if so, why.11914Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) The contract between the ATO and the Australian Newsagents Federation (ANF) specified the display of the same small number of paper forms that had previously been displayed by Australia Post offices up to 26 February 1999.The five forms available are:Weekly TID ScheduleFortnightly TID SchedulePPS Payee DeclarationPPS Payment SummaryEmployment Declaration.The existence of a contract with the ANF ensures that a better service is provided to taxpayers. A contract did not exist between the ATO and Australia Post.(2) Australia Post had nearly 4000 offices across Australia that had the facility to display the ATO forms, but an ATO review of the display services across a sample of post offices found the service lacking. Australia Post could not offer the capacity to accommodate stand alone display units for ATO forms, provide advertising methods to the public or set up a quality assurance program.The ANF has approximately 3500 outlets which use a dedicated ATO forms display stand, provide on-site or shopfront advertising, adopt a pro-active stance by highlighting abnormal trends in form usage at specific locations and provide access to taxpayers seven days a week with long hours of business.(3) All communities have access to the five forms through a variety of avenues offered by the ATO, which allows for different taxpayer service situations, ie. CBD, suburban, rural and remote. The available avenues are: the ATO's 1300 enquiries telephone line at the cost of a local call for all forms, A Fax from Tax for the cost of a local call, the ATO's Internet site, and ANF affiliated newsagencies for a small selection of forms.(4) A small financial saving was gained through the ATO acceptance of the ANF tender. However, the ANF tender provided significant other benefits including extended business hours and the greater volume of customers attracted by the diversity of services available in newsagencies.(5) As already noted, affiliated newsagents only provide a very limited number of forms (5) out of a total of more than 450 Small Business forms and information products available from the ATO. Residents of all communities, including small regional communities, are provided with a wide range of ATO access points for all products:a 1300 enquiries telephone line for the cost of a local call;A Fax from Tax for the cost of a local call;the ATO's Internet site;all ATO offices; andANF affiliated newsagencies. The ANF newsagencies display the five forms in a visible location and maintain stock levels under the contract. Australia Post offices were unable to provide an equivalent level of service.11915(Question No. 895)89511915Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KernotXW4DicksonALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 31 August 1999:(1) Has the Midwife Team Program at John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, been cut.(2) How many families use the program annually.(3) What annual funding was provided to the program by the Commonwealth.(4) Have Commonwealth funds for the program been withdrawn; if so, why.11915Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) This is an issue for the New South Wales Government.(2) This is an issue for the New South Wales Government.(3) The Commonwealth has provided no funding direct to the program.(4) Not applicable.11915(Question No. 900)90011915Hoare, Kelly, MPMs Hoare83YCharltonALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 2 September 1999:(1) What sum has the Government spent on its "Freedom of Association" advertising campaign.(2) What is the total funding allocation for the campaign(3) For how long will the campaign run.(4) Is the campaign part of a larger advertising campaign to sell the Government's Second Wave industrial relations legislation; if so, (a) what will be the total cost to sell the Government's Second Wave industrial relations legislation, (b) what will be included in the remainder of the campaign and (c) for how long will it run.11915Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Office of Employment Advocate (OEA) has spent around $1 664 184 on the production costs and media budget for the Freedom of Association campaign.Some other costs have been associated with the Freedom of Association campaign and Australian Workplace Agreement (AWA) campaign, for example with the testing of advertising concepts, the establishment of a call centre to support the campaigns and with evaluation of the effectiveness of the advertising. These are shared across the two campaigns. The budget for this work is $160 000.(2) A total of $1.9 million was specifically made available to the OEA during 1998-99 for campaign advertising. This combined with funds allocated in the 1997-98 financial year gave the OEA a budget of $3 million dollars for campaign advertising—for both AWAs and Freedom of Association.(3) The TV and print Freedom of Association campaign began in Victoria on 13 June 1999.The campaign then started in Western Australia on 18 July 1999—just as it finished in Victoria.The campaign then rolled out to the remaining States and Territories on 1 August 1999.The TV and newspaper advertisements finished in the week beginning 30 August 1999. Some print advertisements will continue to appear in some trade journals/specialist publications into October.(4) No.11916(Question No. 901)90111916Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 September 1999:Has his attention been drawn to the reports on page one and page fourteen of the Tuesday, 17 August edition of the Australian Financial Review, entitled "Inside the tax schemes of Australia's rich and famous"; if so, what action is the Australian Taxation Office taking to address the tax schemes described in this report and ensure that those mentioned pay their fair share of tax.11916Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:The Commissioner of Taxation (the Commissioner) has indicated the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has taken the following actions in relation to this matter.The newspaper article mentioned in the honourable member's question referred to a number of tax schemes that will be largely of historical interest only since relevant legal loopholes have been closed. As stated in the article, legislation has been introduced in recent years to prevent trading in franking credits and trust losses, and to remove unintended tax benefits associated with R&D syndication.The only current scheme described in the report was the `small items' tax scheme which was the focal point of the article. This scheme allegedly amounted to a fraud involving forged documentation and leased property that did not exist. As such, it would not deliver any of its purported tax benefits. In cases where there is no fraud, similar arrangements are being scrutinised by the ATO to determine the level of compliance with the tax laws including the application of the general anti-avoidance provision, Part IVA.In general terms, the Commissioner is undertaking a highly visible strategy to address aggressive tax planning schemes and ensure that scheme participants, including high wealth individuals, pay their fair share of tax. The commitment of the ATO to address schemes can be demonstrated by recent action taken by the ATO in respect of a number of arrangements and transactions relating to employee benefits, non-complying superannuation funds, film financing, primary production shelter schemes, and linked bonds.11916(Question No. 928)92811916Albanese, Anthony, MPMr AlbaneseR36GrayndlerALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:Can flights over water be maximised at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport using Mode 2 of the Long Term Operating Plan; if so, why has Mode 2 not been utilised.11916Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:No. Under Mode 2 all arrivals from the south would directly overfly the Kurnell Village and departures would be likely to overfly residential areas, in particular the Sutherland Shire.